Yeah, you're misreading me, at least.  Don't sweat it, though...you aren't alone, and I understand.

Years of schooling has nothing to do with it, for what it's worth.  Where is the line drawn between an artist and a poser?  Is there a line?  Should there be?

If there is no line, then let's discuss it away from the area I am biased about - just to attempt objectivity.  Let's look at painting.  I might come up with a method for using paint - for example shooting it out of a rifle at a canvas - and after several shots with several colors, I pronounce my work complete.  A group of people find the work very appealing.  Is it enough that they find it appealing to say my name in the same sentence as Rembrandt?  Van Gogh?  If they were to approach me and say I was on par with those guys, I'd be embarrassed.  Anyone can load a rifle with paint and splooge it onto a canvas.  But what Rembrandt and Van Gogh did took a higher skill level.  Should I marginalize that skill level just because there are a group of people that think my painting is good? 

The musical "arrangers" you speak of - what exactly is it they are arranging?  Somewhere at the bottom of the pile is a guy playing the notes and rhythms.  He's choosing the notes and the chords and the rhythms based on musical knowledge.  Even in a program like Fruity Loops that generates musical bits from an algorithm, someone had to program the criteria by which that algorithm chooses what it chooses to make a groove.  And that's cool.  But at the bottom of even that software is a real musician somewhere who actually knows what he's doing and why.  Without him, there is no "arranger."

That's why I appreciate musicians that can play over ones who cannot.  Musicians like Billy Joel who can play AND arrange are even better.  People that can arrange, play, AND write compelling lyrics are RARE.  People that are solely arrangers are nothing without musicians that can play.  What would they arrange?  Silence?

Note that if an arranger can take a computer and have it produce sounds and then arrange the sounds in a rhythm and an order that's appealing, well...that is playing an instrument.  That still requires musical knowledge.  Most arrangers have a lot of musical knowledge whether they actually play anything or not, and I'm fine with that.

So I do draw a line between artists and posers.  The line is, artists understand the medium they are working with and posers do not, but the posers are really careful to not let on that they don't know what they're doing.  That's what I meant by "integrity."  When was the last time you heard anyone say "Yeah, I don't know shit about music...buy my new album."  Haha...I'd be more likely to buy that one just because they were honest with me.

I guess as long as it doesn't matter to the audience whether a guy laid on his back for years meticulously painting the roof of a chapel or whether he just loaded up a bazooka with paint and blew it unceremoniously all over a canvas, then there's no harm in it.  Not in the short run, anyway.  Seems to me though that 100 years from now, no one will be left that knows the difference between Mona Lisa and a guy that took an artistic shit on a piece of canvas.  I find that saddening.  Maybe others don't care. /shrug

Pardon the ramble, it's very late here.  To bed with me.

And who was it that laid down Samba #16 and generic bass pattern #1 so that someone else could just choose them?  If you answered "a musician with musical knowledge," you are correct

The musical scene is driven by the audiences.  More specifically, the musical scene is driven by what audiences will pay for.  That means the musical scene is currently driven by money.  This is the very reason why what you state is true - "There are very few new tunes. Most are variations, subtle at best, on ancient riffs and melodies or transpositions to new keys and new instruments."

And all of this conversation is dealing with recorded music, so far.  What about the live experience?  Will people pay to watch some guy fire up his computer and hit play on Sonar?  Probably not.  Or I *should* say - only if they don't know about it.  So there are now two choices.  Either hire musicians that can reproduce what was created using a computer, or just play the recording and put some guys up there with instruments in their hands and have them Milli-Vanilli it.  Sad thing is, many people would be fooled by this last idea.  The ones that weren't fooled would probably want their money back.  Is your opinion the same here?  What difference does it make if they're actually playing as long as people are having fun?  It doesn't matter if the product is what it presents itself as, does it?

I'm late to this discussion I know.  I read this a couple of days ago and have been thinking about it ever since. 

First of all, I too would like to say Happy Birthday, Mr. Joel.  Count me as one of those who appreciate your talent, both lyrically, musically and as an arranger. 

The snobbery Cacto speaks of is something I completely understand.  As a musician (writer, arranger and producer) I am at a level where I find it difficult to accept that people can build careers without really knowing their instruments or having even a basic understanding of music theory.  Sure, raw talent can be helpful but I believe this coupled with a good understanding of music and technical ability are the things that will sustain a career.

Having said this, I disagree that modern music no longer has musicians with technical ability.  Pardon me if I'm making an incorrect assumption, Ock, but I think what you're referring to when you say "These days to be a musician, musical ability and knowledge is the LAST thing that's important.  Image is far more important." is the MTV generated idea of what a musician is.  I don't believe you're so cynical as to believe there are no 'real' musicians making music these days.

But I do understand what you're saying.  It appears as though there is a dumbing-down of music but this is the pop market.  While you and I, musicians who appreciate good musicianship, are increasingly aware of it, the market is not geared for us.  The market is geared for disposable pop with hooks aplenty.  You and I are the few, not the many.  Hopefully, we will continue to carry on and prove to others technical ability and musicianship are still important.

Good article, Ock.  I would like to say more but I think I need to write it as a seperate article instead of hijacking yours.

Yeah...cheeky girl.  She used her Grammy acceptance speech to say what she thought of the music industry.  David Copperfield has never made anything vanish so fast.

Ock - So . . . Hiromi.





And once more -

Expect an article on it soon. I just have to write it in my journal first.

Can't wait

Ditto for me too!  I remember a diagreement, make that difference of opinion we had once...can't remember what blog, but I used to think of you as a musical snob...and still do but now with more kindness and affection because I see where you're coming from!

I agree with you a lot about the dumbing down of music and that it is mostly about image and how much money the big wigs make now and it's sad. But it's also the way of the world now.  I hae it when I reflect and go back in the past, making a comment or referring to someone who my kids should know about or have heard about and they look at me with blank stares asking me "who...?"  I"m aghast at how many times I've experienced this with them and their friends! It's very frustrating!  I wonder what the heck the kids of today are learning.  The three Rs are important, but what about the basics? 

So yes...I feel your nostalgia and dare I say pain..?  I love, LOVE Billy Joel too...absolutely enjoy his music and I was watching him recently on television and it was a pleasure!  Now let me shut up...sorry I rambled!