Chris Squire - Would he have been better as a reader?

[Bassassin]

[quote name='endorka' post='1013015' date='Nov 5 2010, 09:51 AM']On the other hand, if one looks deeply at good pop & rock songs, it is frequently the case that there is at least one member of the band who has a formal knowledge of music and/or who is really clued up. Not so pretty/more mature keyboard player syndrome anyone? :-)

Failing this, there is often a collaborator such as the producer, musical director or arranger who really knows what they are doing.
Jennifer[/quote]
So would you say more often than not there is a formally trained musician behind a successful pop/rock artist or band? And can I ask how you are defining "good" in the above context? FWIW I have no leanings one way or the other, but the varying perspectives of this debate intrigue me. I don't have formal training & can't sight-read but have often wondered what difference it would have made to my playing & composing if I did.

To bung yet another bone of contention on this bonfire of appallingly mixed metaphors, I remember reading that McCartney claimed he made a specific decision not to learn to read & write notation, because he felt knowing the rules would adversely affect the way he wrote.

Jon.

[lowdown]

[quote name='Bassassin' post='1013107' date='Nov 5 2010, 11:29 AM']I remember reading that McCartney claimed he made a specific decision [b]not to learn to read & write notation[/b], because he felt knowing the rules would adversely affect the way he wrote.[/quote]


That might explain why George Martin did a lot of the arrangements and string writing on some of the lavish productions.
I think he was known as the fifth Beatle.
So back to what Endorka said.



Garry

Edited November 5, 2010 by lowdown

[endorka]

[quote name='Bassassin' post='1013107' date='Nov 5 2010, 11:29 AM']So would you say more often than not there is a formally trained musician behind a successful pop/rock artist or band? And can I ask how you are defining "good" in the above context?[/quote]

Not necessarily formally trained (although it often seems to be the case), but someone who really knows about music. "Good" is difficult to define, but in a nutshell I would generally define it as strong & memorable songwriting with an arrangement and production that emphasises the virtues of this.

[quote]To bung yet another bone of contention on this bonfire of appallingly mixed metaphors, I remember reading that McCartney claimed he made a specific decision not to learn to read & write notation, because he felt knowing the rules would adversely affect the way he wrote.[/quote]

Sure... but the Beatles had George Martin:

[indent]
George Henry Martin is an English record producer, arranger, composer and musician. He is sometimes referred to as "the Fifth Beatle"—a title that he owes to his work as producer of all but one ("Let It Be") of The Beatles' original records, as well as playing piano on some of The Beatles tracks—and is considered one of the greatest record producers of all time.[/indent]

Despite being initially more or less self taught, Martin later acquired a formal musical education;

[indent]Martin used his veteran's grant to attend the Guildhall School of Music and Drama from 1947 to 1950, where he studied piano and oboe, and was interested in the music of Rachmaninov and Ravel, as well as Cole Porter and Johnny Dankworth.
[/indent]

[quote]FWIW I have no leanings one way or the other, but the varying perspectives of this debate intrigue me. I don't have formal training & can't sight-read but have often wondered what difference it would have made to my playing & composing if I did.[/quote]

Who can say? One avenue could be to pursue some of these more formal aspects of music and see where it takes you.

Jennifer

[ThomBassmonkey]

You say he couldn't be any worse with formal training, but some people people learn theory and stick rigidly to it, losing some of the feel on the way. Not saying that's the case here, but theory's not good for everyone.

[xilddx]

[quote name='endorka' post='1013015' date='Nov 5 2010, 09:51 AM']For the record, I do not believe one has to be able to read music or have a formal knowledge of music theory to create good basslines.

[color="#FF0000"][b]On the other hand, if one looks deeply at good pop & rock songs, it is frequently the case that there is at least one member of the band who has a formal knowledge of music and/or who is really clued up. Not so pretty/more mature keyboard player syndrome anyone? :-) Failing this, there is often a collaborator such as the producer, musical director or arranger who really knows what they are doing.[/b][/color]

Because of the peculiary British reverse snobbery attitude to "book learning", and consequent protestations of ignorance by many musicians, you sometimes have to dig pretty deep to find this, but it is often there.

Jennifer[/quote]
This is the most compelling, measured and sensible thing I can recall anyone saying on this subject.

However, although I agree reading music can be extremely useful and important, for me it's theory and ear training that provide the most benefit.

[xilddx]

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' post='1013164' date='Nov 5 2010, 12:14 PM']You say he couldn't be any worse with formal training, but some people people learn theory and stick rigidly to it, losing some of the feel on the way. Not saying that's the case here, but theory's not good for everyone.[/quote]
I think it's down to how creative and confident people are. I can imagine there are some people out there would would actually go backwards while going forwards but really is down to their own lack of confidence to break out of established thinking. These people were rigid anyway and probably didn't have much to give to the general public anyway.

I can't really see how learning theory and notation can hold anyone back. I can see how it can have little point in some circumstances though.

[Doddy]

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' post='1013164' date='Nov 5 2010, 12:14 PM']You say he couldn't be any worse with formal training, but some people people learn theory and stick rigidly to it, losing some of the feel on the way. Not saying that's the case here, but theory's not good for everyone.[/quote]

If you have a good feel,learning theory won't take it away. If you have bad feel,learning theory won't help it. They work side by side.

[ThomBassmonkey]

[quote name='silddx' post='1013174' date='Nov 5 2010, 12:22 PM']I think it's down to how creative and confident people are. I can imagine there are some people out there would would actually go backwards while going forwards but really is down to their own lack of confidence to break out of established thinking. These people were rigid anyway and probably didn't have much to give to the general public anyway.

I can't really see how learning theory and notation can hold anyone back. I can see how it can have little point in some circumstances though.[/quote]

Agreed, but with all the patterns in theory it's easy to fall into using them. I'm in that trap at the moment (and well aware of it, it's something I need to sort out), that's not to say that theory's holding me back or that I'd be better off without it, but getting past that point is my next obstacle that I need to over-come to improve my playing. I still generally hear basslines in my head and work them out when I'm writing, it's more jams where I can get stuck doing the same things.

If someone wrote songs by playing and testing things, sticking to the same few patterns would hold them back so in that sense it would be better to be without the theory (or progress past that stage). Some people aren't as naturally musically inclined as others and for them, having a framework of patterns to work off would be like using a crutch instead of learning to walk on their own.

[xilddx]

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' post='1013285' date='Nov 5 2010, 01:35 PM']Agreed, but with all the patterns in theory it's easy to fall into using them. I'm in that trap at the moment (and well aware of it, it's something I need to sort out), that's not to say that theory's holding me back or that I'd be better off without it, but getting past that point is my next obstacle that I need to over-come to improve my playing. I still generally hear basslines in my head and work them out when I'm writing, it's more jams where I can get stuck doing the same things.

If someone wrote songs by playing and testing things, sticking to the same few patterns would hold them back so in that sense it would be better to be without the theory (or progress past that stage). [b]Some people aren't as naturally musically inclined as others and for them, having a framework of patterns to work off would be like using a crutch instead of learning to walk on their own.[/b][/quote]
Mmm, it's an interesting point.

[JTUK]

[quote name='risingson' post='1012741' date='Nov 4 2010, 11:25 PM']Hypothetical questions. Who'll ever know?[/quote]


or cares..

I think this is the 4 page argument thread isn't it..?

[xilddx]

[quote name='JTUK' post='1013333' date='Nov 5 2010, 02:09 PM']or cares..

I think this is the 4 page argument thread isn't it..?[/quote]
Who's arguing?

Go to the Wolstonholme thread if you want to start an argument.

[Marvin]

You can't ignore edorka's posts, both are incredibly valid. With regard to George Martin I personally think his role has always been underplayed in relation to The Beatles. I'd go as far to say The Beatles probably wouldn't have got where they did without him.

As far as Chris Squire goes....well I don't really like Yes so I'm not particularly worried

EDIT: I did like the video clip posted by ET though, Mr Squire seems a fairly nice bloke .

Edited November 5, 2010 by Marvin

[JTUK]

[quote name='silddx' post='1013379' date='Nov 5 2010, 03:01 PM']Who's arguing?

Go to the Wolstonholme thread if you want to start an argument. [/quote]


Why would I want to do that....?

I think you are well aware how contentious this can get and you might be in the mood today to rattle a few feathers as is your want, sometimes.

IMO..of course.

[xilddx]

[quote name='JTUK' post='1013401' date='Nov 5 2010, 03:20 PM']Why would I want to do that....?

I think you are well aware how contentious this can get and you might be in the mood today to rattle a few feathers as is your want, sometimes.

IMO..of course.[/quote]
I think it's you rattling feathers, as is YOUR want also, on a thread that has been very civil and much more valid than the usual polarised and angry discussions about theory and reading.

It's all in the title mate.

[Wil]

Ruffle. It's ruffle.

Sorry, I had to say it.

[Marvin]

[quote name='Wil' post='1013411' date='Nov 5 2010, 03:28 PM']Ruffle. It's ruffle.

Sorry, I had to say it. [/quote]

Well spotted that man.

You rattle a cage Nige

[tauzero]

You don't know about the rattlebird, that shakes its tail feathers making a rattling noise to warn off possible threats?

Oh, hang on. Snake. Rattle[b]snake[/b].

As for Chris Squire (who presumably dreams of being promoted to Chris Knight), he had Rick Wakeman (ex Royal College of Music) to help him with the theory if he needed it.

Among Yes's contemporaries were Focus, and a lot of musical theory didn't stop Thijs van Leer and Jan Akkerman from, er, rocking it out, baby. Akkerman is IMO one of the greatest guitarists who have ever lived, and certainly the best one that never gets into lists of "50 greatest guitarists".

[ThomBassmonkey]

I don't feel that it's an argument, it's all open to interpretation. There's no way we could ever find out a definitive answer since people all have different levels of natural musical ability so there's no way to have a control with one person not learning theory and another one doing it. So there's really no point trying to assert your opinion or experience as fact (not that it stops some people trying).

[oldslapper]

[quote name='Marvin' post='1013416' date='Nov 5 2010, 03:32 PM']Well spotted that man.

You rattle a cage Nige [/quote]


I am trying to visualize "ruffling a cage" though...you'd probably do it with a feather duster when you clean the cage?

I have to say this has been a very civilised thread to date.

I have nothing to contribute, but have enjoyed the debate................ha that rhymes....song writing....piece of cake..............no theory applied, or required.

Chris Squire....nice beard, his ricky in that Yes clip sounds like a cage being rattled to my ears.

[xilddx]

[quote name='Wil' post='1013411' date='Nov 5 2010, 03:28 PM']Ruffle. It's ruffle.

Sorry, I had to say it. [/quote]
You're quite right, I was using JTUK's term.

Attempting to rattle feathers is a complete waste of one's time

[stingrayPete1977]

This thread is pointless,File it with all the others! I have actually started changing if I can or cant read in different threads just for shits and giggles! The top and bottom is people have different tastes in music. Beethoven does nothing for me I would rather hear Sid viscous thrashing it out and we all know readers who are to us "better" than non readers and visa versa anyone who has decided all readers are better than none at all levels is an arse!

Edited November 5, 2010 by stingrayPete1977

[Spoombung]

[quote name='silddx' post='1012385' date='Nov 4 2010, 06:18 PM']He has very little knowledge of music theory[/quote]

Yeah but he has big thigh boots.

[Bilbo]

[quote name='silddx' post='1012385' date='Nov 4 2010, 06:18 PM']My question is, would his bass lines have been any more interesting, thrilling, suitable for the songs, or more accomplished, if he had been able to read music and had a good grasp of music theory?[/quote]

Yes, they would.

[Spoombung]

I honestly cannot think of a better bassist in Rock. I still experience the same wonder, surprise and awe as I did when I was 14 when I hear his bass come in on the second part of 'And you and I'. His gigantic, vibrating sound is quite astonishing. Nobody else sounds like him.

Seems ridiculous (and a big wind-up) to have to reduce it all down to dots

Edited November 5, 2010 by Spoombung

[xilddx]

[quote name='Spoombung' post='1013697' date='Nov 5 2010, 07:58 PM']Yeah but he has big thigh boots.[/quote]
I know, and I want some!