Judging musicality

Status
Not open for further replies.
@Average, on the side topic of medicine, everything you mentioned is actually a tangible skill. One couldn't say, "I found the way the he moved his wrist to be very unattractive. The way he handled those delicate tissues, however, was very appealing." Well, I suppose you could, but what I'm saying is you can quantify that said doctor is very efficient in his movements, and quite able in handling delicate tissues.

In music or visual arts one might say that a certain piece may instill or convey an emotion or mood in the audience. Can such a quality be quantified? Is it an important quality? Is the specific emotion or mood important? If it instills anger in some, but sadness in others, is that good or bad? While a surgery may have an emotional outcome, the act itself is merely technical. The technical aspects of drumming can definitely be quantified, but for the truly artistic ones opinion is required. Maybe we could restate the question as, "Who is technically better, A or B?"

Finally, your final comment is in line with my point. Yes, there is better, but it depends on the context, does it not?

@Matt, all your points from the one post prove is that Beethoven had some lasting appeal. I know people who still like Ice Ice Baby. I know other people who don't like classical music at all. And they're musicians. Your response likening high level musical talent to alien technology just dumbs down music to magic. Yes, we're all amazed that he pulled a rabbit out of his hat, but there are distinct steps of motions the magician made to accomplish that goal. He can write those steps down, break down the process, so that a child could do it. What he can't break down is the charisma, the part that draws the viewer in. That's not quantifiable. Much like musicians, there's more than technical measurements to being a good magician. And that is judged by opinion. Again, no one is saying opinion is the end all, be all of rating systems. It's just a part of the whole.

EDIT: @Average, re-read something you wrote and I'm going to adjust my stance a bit to agree with you. To paraphrase, you said the intangibles probably can be measured, but we lack the tools and/or language to do so. I fully agree with you, but therein lies the paradox. If we (as humans) lack the tools to measure certain aspects, is a judgment based on partial knowledge a valid judgment? Matt, in his stance that us lowly hacks are not qualified to judge the greats, must say no. I would have to agree. So, in the limited context of human understanding, we have two answers: 1) In the context of measurable criteria, good, better, or best can be had. 2) In Matt's "absolute truth" context, while good, better, and best may exist, it is impossible to determine.
 
Last edited:
People do it on forums all the time Mike. That's where the phrase It's all just somebody's opinion comes from. That certainly does not celebrate the qualified assesment. It is an attempt to level the playing field. In fact the entire point of this thread is to determine this very issue.
The point of this thread concerns how to go about judging musicality. I, for one, don't think you can (at least not in any universally accepted way) because different players have different personalities that come out in their playing - it's what makes one player different from the next - and that every listener has their own set of criteria on which they base such things.

I don't see anyone trying to level the playing field - that sound like paranoia. I'm not worried about someone trying to demote Buddy down to the Ringo level on technique (I've never seen anyone try it, but I do know musos and drummers who prefer Ringo). The fact that Buddy's band ended up doing Beatles covers ought to tell you something, though (that style, independent of technique, counts for something).

I'm well qualified to judge and assess other drummers - according to my own taste. It doesn't mean I can do everything they can do. Rather, it just ends up being whatever resonates with me for whatever inexplicable reason. There are lots of drummers who can do things that I can't whose styles annoy me, while there are other drummers where I can do anything they can, but I still marvel at what they choose to do.

It ends up being less about technique in the end, and more about aesthetics.
 
...1) In the context of measurable criteria, good, better, or best can be had.
I would argue that you're still going to run into trouble because, even in theory, I don't think it's possible to account for all the variables that go into the mix. It's all those damn intangibles!
 
I would argue that you're still going to run into trouble because, even in theory, I don't think it's possible to account for all the variables that go into the mix. It's all those damn intangibles!
You're comment would actually be referring to my option #2. In #1, the one you quoted, I'm just talking about actual, technically measurable things like strokes per minute, accuracy, versatility, etc. For example, Joe Morello has insanely fast rolls and he is competent in at least a couple genres, but his swing and style can't be evaluated in option #1. So the wording would have to be something like, "Technically speaking, Joe Morello is a better drummer than Meg White." (shameless plug for the Official Drummerworld Megometer Rating System™)
 
So the wording would have to be something like, "Technically speaking, Joe Morello is a better drummer than Meg White." (shameless plug for the Official Drummerworld Megometer Rating System™)
You're right, I screwed that up... and the intangibles might look like, "You know, there's just something in Meg's mojo (beat placement, playing for the song, staying out of the way, etc...) that trumps Joe's obvious and formidible skills for me. Besides, even when Joe was young, he looked like he was about to fall asleep - at least Meg looks like she's trying..."
 
Christ, I hope not. Though he could do some serious lovin' with those one handed rolls...
 
It's funny- now that I think of it, Ringo's playing is actually more important to me than Buddy's. If I was going to try to decide who was "better", here are some of the things I'd be thinking about:

- Career - Ringo is known for his playing with the Beatles over a roughly <10 year period, and basically nothing else. Buddy's had something like a 60+ year career playing with many of the biggest names in the business, and with his own bands.
- Technical mastery - Buddy is one of the great virtuosos of the instrument, and Ringo clearly isn't.
- Depth of musicianship - Buddy could and did play masterfully in a wide variety of styles, and knew a vast body of music; I'm not aware of how much musical knowledge he had beyond what he needed to be a drummer and bandleader. Ringo is a pop drummer who sang and also wrote I think one pop hit and more mediocre songs.
- Creativity - Ringo created more memorable parts- I suspect that he was heavily influenced by McCartney, Lennon, and George Martin, but what's important to me is the result, not the person. Buddy was a jazz musician and was therefore always improvising, but is not necessarily remembered as an innovator.
- Recorded output - Buddy is on a lot of great records with a wide variety of artists, but it's hard to compete with the scale of those Beatles albums. In general I think to be considered a great musician you have to play on great records, though there are exceptions to this.
- Influence - both were hugely influential- both inspired a lot of people to take up the drums. I think of Ringo might've had a better influence musically- to me he was one of the early guys bringing drumming forward in the music, out of that light, early 60's, back-in-the mix thing. Buddy unfortunately seemed to inspire a lot of people to display their chops.

Back to Larry's original question: I don't think you can ignore these issues in evaluating the stature of an artist. Since most people do just that, I don't think their opinions are worth anything.
 
Why is it so hard to understand that human beings can develope the cluster effect type of measurement system I mentioned in the other thread. Think of it this way, if you know the game Go it's the best example, but I guess chess will do too. A great player, can see very fast which is the best move in the time frame he has on his hand. Some times he has infinite amounts of time and he can really dig in to the analysis with books etc and really look closely and measure the details. This 'better artist' thing is more like judging the best move in Go in a very short amount of time. Good player just sees shapes, uses some intuitions he has _developed_ and knows what stuff to use the little time he has for thinking on his turn for.

Sometimes there are couple of almost as good moves to make, but it rarely matters in the big scope of things which you choose then. Just like it is with drummers, I would hate to start thinking about "vinnie vs gadd". But my _developed_ cluster tells me immediately that vinnie is better than meg.

But not all games are the same. Sometimes we use handicap, sometimes you are playing against such an opponent that even the move "meg" can do just fine, and might even be interesting for this one time that you aren't in the danger of losing because of such a move.

Add Averages diamond analogy and surgeon analogy and I think we are a bit closer to the truth.
 
@JPW, I fully understand your cluster theory, but there are two problems.

1) Your Go (and chess) analogy doesn't work at all because at the end of the game there's one winner and one loser (or a stalemate). The only possible outcomes are defined by a set of concrete rules. You can back-trace and analyze every move and factually say, "This would have been a better move as it would have led to a better outcome." With music the end result is a collection of noise that some may call a song. A subset of those may like the song. No concrete definitions there.
2) Your explanation of the cluster theory is a bit sparse, but from what my understanding of it, it's just another name for consensus.

Also, the jury is still out on the surgeon analogy and the diamond one doesn't work because there is a set of rules and color, transparency, and refraction scales for judging diamonds. It's not just some old dude's opinion of whether or not it's pretty.

I'm telling, we're totally blowing it here. We should just be hashing out the details of the Megometer&#8482;!
 
Last edited:
Well, truthfully, isn't is always a popularity contest? It's always about consensus. Beethoven is a great composer because all the great conductors told us that. Vinnie is a great drummer because all the great drummers tell us that. There does need to be some substance there. As far as Meg, I use her for my beginning students, you know, something they can play on the first day. Sorry Polly . .:p
 
Vinnie is a great drummer because all the great drummers tell us that.
Maybe that's how it works for you, but for me, Vinnie is a great drummer because I love the way he plays - not because some dogmatic force told me to like him.

Actually, now that I think about it, there have been situations where I didn't like his drumming, like with Megadeth and the Buddy Rich Big Band (where Gadd and Weckl blew him outta the water, IMO). There's something very staccato in his playing that doesn't always work if you ask me.
 
Moron, my post was somewhat satirical.

I'll ask your opinion when I need to be reminded why people don't want to post here.

and BTW. I studied with Morello.
 
Aw, why don't you two just kiss and make up? No hanky panky though, 'kay? This is a family place. ;)
 
You know, JT. there's is only so much any one can take from certain people. Maybe he should just learn to stay out of my way.
 
I really don't think he meant anything by it. We're just kinda having a food fight right now. While it does sound a lot more fun, we don't need to upgrade to rocks just yet. ;)

In a pathetic attempt to lighten the mood, I think it's cool as shit that you studied with Joe Morello. I always thought he seemed like a really cool, down to earth, dude-type dude. I got his two videos and the thing that resonated most with me was his advice to have fun with it and not take it all too seriously. I've never made a fuss about any other human, and I'd never be bothered to ask for an autograph or kiss some celebrity's ass. That said, Joe Morello is the only celebrity type person I've ever bent that rule for. I sent him an email a while back just to tell him that his playing, and eventually his videos forever changed the way I looked at the drums and wished him well. The funny thing is that up to then I didn't even know who he was. I just knew that his work on Take Five was and still is one of my two favorite drum tracks of all time (the other being Eric Kretz's work on Big Empty by Stone Temple Pilots. Yes, I know, I'm weird). By the way, I'll bet you $5 he'd get a kick out of the sex tape comment. hahahaha
 
Last edited:
The point of this thread concerns how to go about judging musicality.

Then it immediately goes into reasoning for why everyone's judgements are equal based on universal assesments/ If more people take Travis over Buddy, then boss's opinion counts for something etc. That is absolutely the leveling of the playing field based on universal consensus///in other words making all opinions equal as long as there are enough of them. Larry's not coming into this discussion with any kind of agenda. I think he really wants to know. But it did then immediately go down this road.

I, for one, don't think you can (at least not in any universally accepted way) because different players have different personalities that come out in their playing - it's what makes one player different from the next - and that every listener has their own set of criteria on which they base such things..

But again, most listeners have their own set of criteria based on limits in their understandings, while over the course of history personality has had little to do with aesthetic enrichment.

The fact that Buddy's band ended up doing Beatles covers ought to tell you something, though (that style, independent of technique, counts for something). .

My old man played those tunes in Buddy's band. He says Buddy just liked the way Beatles tunes sounded, I doubt few are going to disagree about the high quality of those tunes. I don't think he really took it any farther than that.

I'm well qualified to judge and assess other drummers - according to my own taste. It doesn't mean I can do everything they can do. Rather, it just ends up being whatever resonates with me for whatever inexplicable reason. There are lots of drummers who can do things that I can't whose styles annoy me, while there are other drummers where I can do anything they can, but I still marvel at what they choose to do. .
Exactly, we agree. The fact that you are an experienced drummer gives you uniquely weighted perspectives, that are superior to those without this skillset. And like all of us here, you cannot necessarily do everything some of the special drummers can do, but because you are closer to the music you are able to make certain qualified judgements better than others who don't play at all.

It ends up being less about technique in the end, and more about aesthetics.
Technique is but one component in the aesthetic package, but with aesthetics being more of a soup as opposed to an individual course it would be hard to differentiate one from the other.

BTW, thanks for your thoughts regarding that other thread.
 
It's funny- now that I think of it, Ringo's playing is actually more important to me than Buddy's. If I was going to try to decide who was "better", here are some of the things I'd be thinking about:

- Career - Ringo is known for his playing with the Beatles over a roughly <10 year period, and basically nothing else. Buddy's had something like a 60+ year career playing with many of the biggest names in the business, and with his own bands.
- Technical mastery - Buddy is one of the great virtuosos of the instrument, and Ringo clearly isn't.
- Depth of musicianship - Buddy could and did play masterfully in a wide variety of styles, and knew a vast body of music; I'm not aware of how much musical knowledge he had beyond what he needed to be a drummer and bandleader. Ringo is a pop drummer who sang and also wrote I think one pop hit and more mediocre songs.
- Creativity - Ringo created more memorable parts- I suspect that he was heavily influenced by McCartney, Lennon, and George Martin, but what's important to me is the result, not the person. Buddy was a jazz musician and was therefore always improvising, but is not necessarily remembered as an innovator.
- Recorded output - Buddy is on a lot of great records with a wide variety of artists, but it's hard to compete with the scale of those Beatles albums. In general I think to be considered a great musician you have to play on great records, though there are exceptions to this.
- Influence - both were hugely influential- both inspired a lot of people to take up the drums. I think of Ringo might've had a better influence musically- to me he was one of the early guys bringing drumming forward in the music, out of that light, early 60's, back-in-the mix thing. Buddy unfortunately seemed to inspire a lot of people to display their chops.

Back to Larry's original question: I don't think you can ignore these issues in evaluating the stature of an artist. Since most people do just that, I don't think their opinions are worth anything.
This is a nice attempt of objectively comparing two drummers.

I think to compare two musicians (assuming one wants to do so anyway) the most important thing is to find as many parameters as possible.
To make the link to Larry's simple question
(If 75% of people in the world think drummer A is better than drummer B, then is drummer A better?)
If drummer A got 75% of the votes - there is at least one parameter that makes him superior to drummer B: His playing reached and somehow touched more listeners. I'm not sure if that makes him better over all, but at least from this point of view.

This would be the "measurable" part of one's skillset.
 
@JPW, I fully understand your cluster theory, but there are two problems.

1) Your Go (and chess) analogy doesn't work at all because at the end of the game there's one winner and one loser (or a stalemate). The only possible outcomes are defined by a set of concrete rules. You can back-trace and analyze every move and factually say, "This would have been a better move as it would have led to a better outcome." With music the end result is a collection of noise that some may call a song. A subset of those may like the song. No concrete definitions there.
2) Your explanation of the cluster theory is a bit sparse, but from what my understanding of it, it's just another name for consensus.

Also, the jury is still out on the surgeon analogy and the diamond one doesn't work because there is a set of rules and color, transparency, and refraction scales for judging diamonds. It's not just some old dude's opinion of whether or not it's pretty.

I'm telling, we're totally blowing it here. We should just be hashing out the details of the Megometer&#8482;!

Fisrt of all, you clearly have no idea what I was talking about if you think my 'cluster theory' is just a synonym for consensus. So no, you don't "understand it fully".

You failed to understand my go analogy too. In the analogy the end result of the game had nothing to do with this discussion here. The right move in the current situation in the game was being analogical to the choice of a better drummer for the situation, see me drawing a parallel between Meg and the worse move to make in the game for an interesting twist.

Consensus is formed between people. What I'm talking about with the cluster is sort of consensus with your own criteria that you have been gathered about the subject over the years. A Go player doesn't need to know every possible outcome (and in the case of limited time which I think is more analogous with this drummer subject, it's obviously impossible anyways). We just call it intuition, but I hate to use that word because it misleads to think that some is just born with it or that it's something supernatural. It's just like the surgeon, he has limited time to make the decisions, some have developed their intuition (or cluster of ideas) further than others and are therefore better surgeons. And THIS IS IMPORTANT, it's the value of opinions we are talking about here, not the betterness of a drummer. The surgeon is analogous for the guy that has the opinion about the better drummer. I get that you won't be satisfied with the diamond expert analogy, but it's just a simpler analogy.

But judging from your last few paragraphs I think you just don't understand this theory on a very fundamental level. Because you are the sort of person who just refuses to get analogies if there's a single thing that isn't the same as the subject of the analogy. But that's just how the analogies work, they aren't the same, they never are. So just tell us if we just won't be able to use them with you and we stop. There's always something wrong with them: "A != B if B != A".

Also you always shoot down only one or two points and think you won the discussion. But in the end you just weakened 'the cluster' but it still prevails. It's like real life trials. You have a set of evidence, some are proven not to be true but the accused may still be guilty. He also might be guilty even if we aren't able to prove it but everyone still knows it's obvious. Those things happen and it's exactly the same.

PS. if everything about music is subjective, then explain me the pentatonic scale and why is it so widely used. =P All human beings have much more in common than what we would like to have. Music is such a fundamental thing for this thinking ape that it pierces through cultures. Even gorillas communicate via drumming. They have different rhythms for different 'words' like 'hello' or 'go away'.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top