DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads - Forums: The General Forum: Emotion or Technical Brilliance.

Forums > The General Forum

Emotion or Technical Brilliance.

BedroomSessions	Date: May 5, 2004 @ 6:40 AM I just wanted to find out how people on here stood in their view on the argument between technical ability and the emotion of music. Undoubtedly rubbish playing with lots of emotion is not going to win many hearts, but how much emphasis do you think is important on each....on a scale of emotion technical ability
smartazz	Date: May 5, 2004 @ 5:51 PM i think your technical ability and quality of recording production are tools you need to better present your music that is a representation of your emotion. no emotion and lot's of tools = a well presented peice of crap. no tools and lots of emotion = a poorly presented work of art.
BedroomSessions	Date: May 5, 2004 @ 6:21 PM interesting...it kind of makes you sick thinking of all the music which could have been made with better songwriting, more sickeningly better production! I totally wrote this in the wrong forum thing didnt i!
AxedNeil	Date: May 5, 2004 @ 6:30 PM i dont see the cake?
johnnygnote	Date: May 6, 2004 @ 2:23 AM Wrong topic BS
smartazz	Date: May 6, 2004 @ 9:10 AM yup
sween	Date: May 14, 2004 @ 5:45 AM I think that you cant been a really well recorded song, even if the emotion is not there it will beat a crappy recording of a song someone has put alot of emotion into. People want to hear quality, unless youre like us at DM and give eveyone a chance and see deeper because not everyone has the equipment to produce a good sounding track. Look at bands like 'Busted', I rest my case.
Gmonk	Date: May 15, 2004 @ 8:55 AM sorry.. but thats just crap. Music is all about emotion. G
sqrlcub	Date: May 19, 2004 @ 12:36 PM Music sounds the way emotions feel. If one doesn't have the technique to portray that emotion one limits oneself. You really have to get a good balance of technique and emotion to pull off a good song. If you go to either extreme you lose the music in between. If you go to the total extreme of emotion with no or very little technical ability you get a weird performance art type of piece where people listen to you to relate to your mood. Performance artists often completely exhaust themselves after shows (especially the darker performance artists) and need to allow the purge of those emotions to recycle. Oftentimes, Performance Art sounds like a bunch of kids throwing a fit or some such with little thematic ideas for an average musical listener to grab onto. The other extreme is all technical ability with very little to no emotional connection. Michael Angelo, an 80's speed metal guitarist, hit this end of the spectrum. Sure he could play faster than pretty much everyone but they all basically sounded like scales with no interpretation or emotional connection. The only thing that he had was a bunch of techniques that he could show off with while playing scales. The scales were fast but they basically sound like a bunch of speed etudes. To make an analogy, all technique and no emotion is like a computer composing music for itself. It may have some thematic things going on but really nothing of interest to go back and listen to later. The only real difference between this and the performance art bit from above is that all technique players tend to have actual notes or themes that an average listener can grab onto. It may be boring and everything but it is usually a bit better received. My point is basically that most performers have to find a healthy dichotomy between technical ability and emotion to make the connection. Production doesn't cover up technical nor emotional deficiencies. It is best to have a bit of both. Wherever the individual takes the mix of the two is up to them. I believe that it should lie somewhere in the middle. Because if you can't put the story of the emotions into a musical thought you are misunderstanding either the emotional aspect of the song or the technical aspect.
Gmonk	Date: May 20, 2004 @ 4:26 AM yeah mostly I agree, but emotion is way more important than technical ability.. A good song will always shine through. Though it will loose a little impact because of bad technique. G
bastardo23	Date: May 20, 2004 @ 11:42 AM i disagree g how do you know it's a good song if you can't hear it. it might shine through, but let's face it, would you use a telephone or a megaphone to send a sensitive message. sometimes, where communication is concerned we have to get over these clarity issues. there is no guarantee that a bad recording will translate a good song.
smartazz	Date: May 21, 2004 @ 1:39 PM sqrlcub... excelently said i, couldn't agree more
sween	Date: May 23, 2004 @ 3:15 PM I also agree with sqrlcub. Gmonk, youre missing the point.
woodhead	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 12:48 AM My point is basically that most performers have to find a healthy dichotomy between technical ability and emotion to make the connection This is so true, to creat an emotion or a mood as I call it is the first thing I look for always in a good tune, if the lyrics are dark, then the music should be, and if it is hapy then the music should be. I always try to get a fell for the tunes I write by thinking about colors, and lights. I precieve a dark sound to green lights with hints of red but power on the green my 2 cents is all
Gmonk	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 2:39 AM wel it depends how you mean technical ability.... if you mean physically playing an instrment then ofcourse its vital.. If you take it (as I did) meaning engineering etc then its not all that important atall. G
Intergalacti...	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 1:05 PM You have to be able to play an instrument, how you play it is a differnt matter. Being able to play is the technical bit, how you want to play it is the emoitional bit. The same goes with lyrics and singing. If you're just a songwriter (lyrically) then that has a lot to do with emotion. Some songs are written completely about non-emoitional things but 99.999999999999999999999(i could go on forever)% of the time itrs emotional lyrics. its if you have the voice or the ability to play what you want is the technical bit.
ChaosSurfer	Date: June 3, 2004 @ 8:08 AM My take on this would be no amount of technical ability will win over emotion. As an analogy, take a beautiful woman with no personality (sounds like a Fast Show reference). The initial attraction might be there, but eventually the novelty of the looks wears off and you get bored (ok so it might take a while, but you'll get bored, trust me). So with music, slick production can create an inital attraction but if the emotion and truth behind the music isn't there then it won't last. That's why we're all still listening to the Beatles. They might 'sound' crap by modern standards (actually many modern producers are trying to recapture that sound), but they wrote simple songs about life and that's why every new generation identifies with their music. So I'd rather hear some kid singing into a tape recorder accompanied by a tennis racket if they were singing from the heart, than some slick, over produced pile of crap with no feeling. BTW don't forget the voice is an instrument too. And probably the most powerful one because there's no barrier between you and the instrument.
BedroomSessions	Date: June 3, 2004 @ 1:53 PM what if you cant talk because your tongue got cut off in a lawnmower accident. not very powerful then, is it
bastardo23	Date: June 3, 2004 @ 2:14 PM if it's a contest, i would choose emotion first, bu it would seem like to present your work, a certain technical ability, or at least an ear for what your trying to acheive as a final product is very important. i'm not trying to say you have to sound like someone else thouhg, i am suggesting that if you are not in control of all facets of the final product, you can count on murphy's law to lead your project away from where you intended. you take it (as I did) meaning engineering etc then its not all that important atall. on this point have have to disagree. as an artist and an engineer, i know that many people with incredible ideas, lose track of those ideas when it comes to determining how to acheive the final sound they are striving for. we are past the point where a musician is just a musician, and can let the engineers take care of the rest. if you wait and trust you wil likely end up feeling ripped off, and will not have a product your happy with. learn how to do it yourself, it ain't rocket science most of the time, and there is someone out there who'll help you if you have questions.. it's really not that hard to get fairly close to pro results with some patience and effort. remember, the beatles did alot of their first records on a four-track. it's not the technology, but how you utilize it in recording that counts.
mytakamineg240	Date: June 4, 2004 @ 12:28 AM Emotion first. Most definitly. If you've ever heard some of Jaff Mangum's (Neutral Milk Hotel) finest work, It's produced very simply and played roughly, but it's raw emotion is so powerful, it connects anyway. Just listen to "Oh, Comely" and tell me that emotion can't overcome recording\techno expertise.
mytakamineg240	Date: June 4, 2004 @ 12:29 AM I meant Jeff, Not Jaff ^up there. Sorry.
DR34M3R2004	Date: June 4, 2004 @ 11:51 PM The quality of the recording definitely makes the music sound better but you can have a good song with bad recording, having good recording would make it better
ChaosSurfer	Date: June 5, 2004 @ 7:39 AM OK, so maybe the point is that music is a form of communication. Mr BedroomSessions made a valid point - even if he didn't intend to - that if you lose the power of speech you can't communicate by talking. But that doesn't mean you don't have something to say. With music, you might have the greatest song ever written bouncing around inside your head, but if you can't communicate it to the rest of the world, no one will ever hear it. That's where the technique (both musicianship and engineering) will come into play. But you HAVE to start by having something to say, something worth hearing.
Intergalacti...	Date: June 6, 2004 @ 3:50 PM 'Mr BedroomSessions' hehe I agree with you chaos that it is a communication. But without lyrics in my opinion that adds to the music. The listener then thinks; 'what was he thinking about when he wrote this' It makes the audience think about the song more instead of just listenin to the lyrics. To make someone think you have to communicate with them, therefore you have succeded in the communcation process.
furiousBall	Date: June 11, 2004 @ 8:46 AM It's truly up to the listener obviously, but for me there's this three way balance between emotion, technical ability, and integrity. Usually the last one is the problem, especially with pop music. For instance, if you asked me if I'd rather listen to The Sex Pistols or The Ataris - I'm taking old school punk every time! Although the Ataris could probably play circles around any of the Sex Pistols (Sid Vicious could barely stand on stage he was so wasted let alone play his bass), no damn punk band should be covering Don Henley(in my opinion).
Intergalacti...	Date: June 11, 2004 @ 12:58 PM Lol yeah but they didn't ruin it you can't say that. When I saw them live they said 'This is the best song we play and its not even ours' so at least they have respect for the guy.
ebarbarella	Date: September 9, 2004 @ 5:54 PM choose emotion with some technical ability ... technical ability with no emotion
GTLive	Date: October 10, 2004 @ 9:38 AM Bravo ebarbarella! Check out the demo on your Casio for technical stuff. Ability is the brain of the tune. Emotion is the heart.
moam	Date: October 10, 2004 @ 11:48 AM Man everyone is gonna say the same thing on here "Music NEEDS emotional but also technical ability to make it sound good." So really, we should just say BOTH and leave it at that If there is no emotional, there is no feeling, therefore there is nothing MOVING you. There...I said exactly what everyone else said (For example, that Washburn Beginner kid...he puts his soul into his music but there are SO many things still wrong with it that make it unlistenable... )
hueseph	Date: October 10, 2004 @ 7:10 PM Going back to the analogy of language, a technical piece that has no emotion is like a man who has a vas vocabulary but has no Idea what he's saying. The words alone have meaning but he's speaking jibberish. On the other hand an emotional piece lacking in technical ability is like a person who can tell you what he's trying to say but with few words. "Me like hockey" is hardly eloquent. Although I agree that balance is good, I prefer to hear an artist who "speaks" with the best of his/her ability. The Beatles are a good example. They weren't the greatest of musicians but who knew you could come up with so much variety from 3 chords? (I know they were more than three chord rockers but you get my drift). Steve Miller, is a good example too. There's a guy who can really squeeze three chords for variety. As long as the artist puts every effort to make the song what it can be to his limit of ability, I think it will be a good song. Not without purpose but with an Ideal in mind. I still feel however that technical ability is the means to communicate. The more technical ability you have, the more likely it will be that you can communicate effectively.
GTLive	Date: October 12, 2004 @ 8:19 AM A five year old can speak the same language as a professor. The professor can get his meaning across more astutely. The child can squeeze emotional responses out of a listener without a lot of verbiage. So it is with music.
dicktruth	Date: October 16, 2004 @ 10:19 AM Music is art, art is expression. I've never heard of anyone expressing themselves through the way they can fix up a car or how good they can bake a cake. Emotion, everytime.
Intergalacti...	Date: October 24, 2004 @ 3:17 PM Hehe this has gone from what people think to people tryint to come up with the best original line that sounds like a quote. Its cool though its all good.
LChen	Date: December 23, 2005 @ 2:22 AM sween, what about Bright Eyes? I rest my case. To a certain extent, I would prize emotion over technical brilliance - assuming we're using the same definition of technical brilliance. Providing the piece wasn't complete and utter "emotional rubbish", I would rather experience music that is moving and inspiring than that which is well-played or difficult. As it's a matter of taste, my opinion is that simplicity is often the best formula for a good song. Artists such as Dream Theater are undoubtedly talented, but do nothing for me, despite their "technical brilliance". On the other hand, someone with no technical ability will not be able to present emotion in their works. Thus, to a certain degree, I would say emotion is more important, but that does not mean that technical ability can be disregarded altogether.
MindSculpture	Date: December 23, 2005 @ 3:45 AM I would say cheese and biscuits are more important than both.
DeadraveN	Date: December 29, 2005 @ 3:30 PM I think the technique and production, and yes, technical ability can easily make up for the lack of emotion in a song. Emotion isn't necessary at all. nah, I'm just kidding. i just wanted to be different. Of course we're all gonna say the same thing, because it's an obvious truth, both are necessary in some measure, but emotion is probably the more important of the two...

Post A Reply
From:	Guest	(Icons - Linking)
Post: