...I  generally see alot of reviews or whatever that seem to review the Musicians and their musicality...but then i have to ask..what makes a good musician? I think there are three skills needed to call yourself a decent musician and that is:

Composing skills: Does the muscian contribute acitvely to the bands sound? Does he write songs completly on his own? Or it is just some mere riffs here and there?

Technical skills: Is he able to play fluently and on time? Does he use strange chords, scales and does he have an original sound.

Groove skills: Can he concentrate on making song more alive instead of just concentrating on not f**kin up? Does he improvise his solos? Can he play something new when he feels like it, it does not have to make a huge diffrence but alteast be a little different from the studio version.

Anyways i would say that a good musician is 50% composing skills 30% groove skills and 20% technical skills. Anybody else got their opinions on how a good musician should be?

What? why did this get moved here...atleast it could have been in the non prog music discussion.

maidenrulez wrote: ...I  generally see alot of reviews or whatever that seem to review the Musicians and their musicality...but then i have to ask..what makes a good musician? I think there are three skills needed to call yourself a decent musician and that is: Composing skills: Does the muscian contribute acitvely to the bands sound? Does he write songs completly on his own? Or it is just some mere riffs here and there? Technical skills: Is he able to play fluently and on time? Does he use strange chords, scales and does he have an original sound. Groove skills: Can he concentrate on making song more alive instead of just concentrating on not f**kin up? Does he improvise his solos? Can he play something new when he feels like it, it does not have to make a huge diffrence but alteast be a little different from the studio version. Anyways i would say that a good musician is 50% composing skills 30% groove skills and 20% technical skills. Anybody else got their opinions on how a good musician should be?

According to these rules classical musicians (in an orchestra) don't stand much of a chance because they are not allowed to groove ... they have to play as exactly as possible.

Anways ... for me it is 0% composing skills, 60% technical skills, and 40% groove skills (in rock oriented music). The compositional aspects don't have much to do with the performing musician ...  

MikeEnRegalia wrote: maidenrulez wrote: ...I  generally see alot of reviews or whatever that seem to review the Musicians and their musicality...but then i have to ask..what makes a good musician? I think there are three skills needed to call yourself a decent musician and that is: Composing skills: Does the muscian contribute acitvely to the bands sound? Does he write songs completly on his own? Or it is just some mere riffs here and there? Technical skills: Is he able to play fluently and on time? Does he use strange chords, scales and does he have an original sound. Groove skills: Can he concentrate on making song more alive instead of just concentrating on not f**kin up? Does he improvise his solos? Can he play something new when he feels like it, it does not have to make a huge diffrence but alteast be a little different from the studio version. Anyways i would say that a good musician is 50% composing skills 30% groove skills and 20% technical skills. Anybody else got their opinions on how a good musician should be? According to these rules classical musicians (in an orchestra) don't stand much of a chance because they are not allowed to groove ... they have to play as exactly as possible. Anways ... for me it is 0% composing skills, 60% technical skills, and 40% groove skills (in rock oriented music). The compositional aspects don't have much to do with the performing musician ...

Well there seem to be many that rate musicians wich are good composers over technical viritoso...I mean just look at Steve vai compared to yngwie malmsteen...both are tecnically gifted but not both are good composers

maidenrulez wrote: Well there seem to be many that rate musicians wich are good composers over technical viritoso...I mean just look at Steve vai compared to yngwie malmsteen...both are tecnically gifted but not both are good composers

I would say that they're both very good musicians. Steve Vai is technically advanced and more diverse, so he wins that contest for me.

I still don't want to mix composition and performance ... another area that I'm interested in is improvisational skill though.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Anways ... for me it is 0% composing skills, 60% technical skills, and 40% groove skills (in rock oriented music). The compositional aspects don't have much to do with the performing musician ...

I must admit I find that confusing (although I may cheekily add that it answers several questions in one hit...):

If a musician cannot compose, surely that musician can then only play stuff. That seems to have little value, unless you're in a cover band.

Even then, I would think that if the musician does not have a handle on the compositional process, then no matter how proficient the technical skills or ability to follow a groove (literally "ape", one would surmise), then that musician cannot understand the process that led to the creation of the piece of music, and cannot get a good handle on where the music is coming from - unless the musician only ever plays garage jam type rock - in which case, you quickly pick up aspects of composition or die of boredom.

Likewise, if the musician does not have the skill (as opposed to the understanding), then how can that musician create anything to go with the groove (e.g. a solo), or get any kind of feeling out of or into the music? Again, this is something you necessarily pick up, and is essential (ie you simply can't function as a musician unless you learn to compose at some level).

Composition is, in my opinion, a vital skilset for any musician.

maidenrulez wrote: ...I  generally see alot of reviews or whatever that seem to review the Musicians and their musicality...but then i have to ask..what makes a good musician? I think there are three skills needed to call yourself a decent musician and that is: Composing skills: Does the muscian contribute acitvely to the bands sound? Does he write songs completly on his own? Or it is just some mere riffs here and there? Technical skills: Is he able to play fluently and on time? Does he use strange chords, scales and does he have an original sound. Groove skills: Can he concentrate on making song more alive instead of just concentrating on not f**kin up? Does he improvise his solos? Can he play something new when he feels like it, it does not have to make a huge diffrence but alteast be a little different from the studio version. Anyways i would say that a good musician is 50% composing skills 30% groove skills and 20% technical skills. Anybody else got their opinions on how a good musician should be?

(Another) Good topic

"Musician" is quite a broad term, so I'm working under the assumption that you mean any given member of a prog rock band (rather than including members of symphony orchestras, Punk bands or groups like Boyzone that technically don't contain any musicians) - to give my subsequent answers a little definition;

Composing Skills: Composing within a band structure doesn't have to mean writing entire songs - but that helps. It's better to write most or even just part of a song and let the other musicians fill in the blanks, so they play their parts like they wrote them (which hopefully they will do!). This implies compositional skills on their parts, so it's an important part of being a musician. 25%

Technical Skills: If you ain't got 'em, why are you in a prog band! These mean different things to different people, so let's be a bit clear on what they are; Technique is a specific and well defined way to achieve a task. It doesn't mean virtuosic, or the ability to think completely off the wall - unless that is what is specified by the band in question. It could mean the ability to play a single note and make it shine like the brightest star in the sky - it's all dependent on the artistic approach. The technical skills need to be the most appropriate ones, and that is defined by the music itself. 15%

Groove Skills: In prog rock, I think it's more important to be able to break into and out of the groove, and, in fact, not end up stuck in said groove. Psychedelic jam bands and funk bands get into the groove, and jolly good too - but for prog rock, thinking outside of the groove is more important - so basic grooving skills are a given. 15%

A Real Interest In, Nay, Passion For Music: Now this is massively important IMHO. The wider read you are, musically speaking, the more variety and greater chance of achieving progdom you are going to bring to the band. Narrow-minded geeks who just want to noodle all night long or play in wierisome nonsensical time signatures need not apply. The "Classic" prog band members didn't listen to prog rock 24/7 - there wasn't enough of it around to do that. The best prog tends to come from bands who show a wide range of influences. 50%

goose wrote: I agree insofar as anything you play that someone else hasn't written note perfect involves composition. Or mistakes

Ye-es, but there's more than notes to music, if I get your meaning 

Pastasauce wrote: Actually I only agree with the first one, I believe the only truly musical capabilty is composing that's the part where the musical centrae of the brain are needed. Playing an instrument or Perfectly mastering a synthing technique isn't what I'd call a musical skill, it's more technical skill, comparable with assembling a car or painting a house. And for the third, I don't like groovy music. 'A man who works with his hands is a labourer, a man who works with his hands and his mind is a craftsman, a man who works with his hands, his mind and his heart is an artist.'

Great summary quote

However, it kind of contradicts what you started out saying, as it pulls all three together, rather than putting "mind" on a pedestal.

If a man works only with his mind, he does not work, he thinks.

If a man works only with his heart, he does not work, he fantasises.

Just to add some thoughts.... i know several musical school geeks wich has studied guitars for 3 years  and so on and can play several Dream Theater songs by note perfect although they cant compose a single original idea of their own...

They have just learned to compose songs and how to improvise and everything and have gotten into being this mindless guitarist which in reality knows nothing about music...

It's a fact that no matter how good you are at stuff, there's always someone better. And if there isn't, there soon will be.

I've never seen composing as something to learn, just something to acquire more tools for: I've always had millions of ideas running through my head, or I'll pick on a tune I like and vary it a bit until I like it even more, then play with it some more - I might even go and find an instrument to doodle away on.

Tunes are great places to start - but learning basic harmony allows you to flesh the tunes out into pieces of music. Learning advanced harmony gives you more ways to do the same thing, and studying other composers' methods is the ultimate - when you see the kinds of things that Messiaen used as foundations for composition, you wonder how people coped with the old creaky diatonic system that composers used for centuries - not to mention stuffy old Sonata form.

It's sometimes painfully easy to spot those who harmonise with no actual grounding in the art (because harmonisation and counterpoint are art forms in themselves) - it's always where sets of learned rules are applied that it works best. My favourite method is Barbershop quartet harmony, but there you go.

A professor at a college I went to said to me as his parting words; "If you are a composer, then compose".

That is the key - composition isn't something you can be taught, it is something you study, in order to improve the composition that you already do (more or less what you just said, Pastasauce).

maidenrulez wrote: Just to add some thoughts.... i know several musical school geeks wich has studied guitars for 3 years  and so on and can play several Dream Theater songs by note perfect although they cant compose a single original idea of their own... They have just learned to compose songs and how to improvise and everything and have gotten into being this mindless guitarist which in reality knows nothing about music...

Sounds just like Dream Theater...

(Ducks and runs from all the angry Dream Theater fans)

^^^That's true to an extent.

However, there are two main forms of music; Art music and Folk music.

Folk music relies almost entirely on "feeling", and one of the whole points of it is that anyone can play or write it. The only way to measure the quality of folk music is through the subjective ear - although it is possible to apply principles from Art Music.

Art music is a different ball game - it's rooted in folk music, of course, but is crafted, with attention to detail and skill. The techinques can be identified and quantified, and the result can be used to make an objective measurement of how good the music or musician is - does the musician fumble whilst playing scales? Does the musician play scales at an impressive speed, and so on. 

Just as Folk music can be measured using Art music criteria, Art music can be appreciated entirely from a Folk music perspective - that's one of the great things about music - you don't have to know anything to appreciate it.

As to whether music is crap or not, the most convincing argument is that no music can be crap. If someone created it, then almost always, there will be someone else that likes it.

You can apply measuring criteria to it if you like - and when discussing music, such criteria are very helpful, as they help to provide a path into the music for someone who might not have appreciated it before.

If you just say "Genesis are great", then that's not really helpful to someone who doesn't think they are. If you're describing an album, and you just say "I like it", then that's not helpful - why do you like it? If you say "Peter Gabriel is a great singer", similarly, why is he a great singer? Why not, if that's your take?

The whole "X is crap, Y is fab" line of contradictions and bickering belongs on pop music forums, IMO. On ProgArchives, we have a whole new level of bickering

By having technical skill alone, you will NOT write good music. I believe this is a clear fact. However, one can conceivably be a good musician without being able to write music, although I find it hard to believe that with the practice it takes to be a good musician, one will not learn a thing or two about good songwriting.

An orchestra player...or any "musician" that reads music is a good example. A good musician can play a piece of music nearly exactly how it is supposed be played based on the notes, accents and other markings on sheet music. Going ith this idea, one can make a full career as a musician while having never composed a single piece of music.

But I believe the drive to compose would be too strong for a good musician to let alone, and the desire to compose one's own music rather than recreating someone else's.