Vision & Blues (slight return)

This is the time of year where the editors at the AP Skyscrapers are diligently making preparations for the end of year issue. One of the many things we editors agonize over is the concept of what constitutes "The Best." Best disc, best live show, best use of self-deprecation in a blog (It was this dude, hands down), best malicious use of a crappy band's CDR demo, etc.

But this got me wondering about all those musician polls that proclaim who is the best guitarist/drummer/bassist/singer/synthesizer operator/Aeolian nose-flautist/zither strummer, whatever. I find these polls annoying because it usually means that somebody can merely play faster than someone else. Hey, dexterity and speed are great attributes. But I'm also reminded of when Truman Capote read Jack Kerouac's On The Road and made the pithy comment, "That's not writing; that's typing."

So instead of me telling you what makes a great musician or you telling me what you think, I decided to ask people on both sides of the fence: Professional musicians. Hey, they were so into music, they dedicated their lives to playing: They should know what they're talking about, right? Most of the people who responded to my query are well-known to AP readers and are well-versed in both rock history and the ability to, ahem, "shred." Everybody had different opinions about approaches, but they all shared the same over arching sentiment.

So, what makes any musician or singer good, great or "the best?"
"For me, it's originality. Certain musicians, be they guitarists, songwriters, bass players or what-have-you bring an approach to their instrument that's so unique that it changes the way we look at the instrument--something that's unmistakably 'them.' Two of my guitar heroes are Chuck Berry and Johnny Ramone. Neither are playing anything that your average teenage shredder haunting Guitar Center couldn't handle with ease, but no one played like that before them and no one's played the same since. Peter Hook of Joy Division/New Order is another example. He played the electric bass as a lead instrument rather than the background instrument it was "meant" to be. Virtuosity without soul or originality never meant a thing to me. It's just jerking off. It's what a machine would do if you built it to play guitar. Some people who draw or paint are illustrators, and damn good at it, but that doesn't make them artists."

"I can tell you that I have played with guys who people think are amazing musicians and they do nothing for me. I wonder why people think they are so good and then I realize it's because the people in their band are really good, so they assume cause the guy keeps up, he's good, too. So technically he may be okay, but the difference between someone who can play an instrument and someone who is truly a great musician and artist is that you can tell that music is in them. When they play it is not only effortless but you can tell that they live for music and that they are enjoying every bit of it. Everything that they play, no matter how simple or dense, is full of passion. I can tell immediately if they are great by just hearing them play one note or hit one drum."

"Make music without a purpose other than to make music; my mentor used to call it 'solving musical problems.' As you kinda said, people listen with an agenda or with the need to compare what they're hearing with something they are familiar with. This must make the experience of listening to music very very unsatisfying. One should never pander to or play down to an audience. Those that are not great, never have been and never will be great because they play music to maintain a lifestyle and boost their pathetic ego, rather than free them from it."

"Greatness, I'm afraid, is an arbitrary recipe. A guy that works at a car dealership in Knoxville thinks that the guitarist of Creed is the second coming. But a graphic arts student in Portland who's a fan of Conor Oberst thinks that dude is a jive turkey, and cannot for the life of him/her see through their veil of aesthetic prejudice, right or wrong. However, under this heading of subjective reality, I place attributes such as charisma, looks, attitude, the musician's 'sound, ' stuff like that. What is talent? Perhaps I'd describe it as one's ability to render thought, via an instrument, into communication. What is communication, in this case? I dunno, perhaps you could call it a wavelength. The ephemeral, unquantifiable result of one's playing reaching over to and inspiring the soul of a listener/viewer. Is it learned or innate? Not sure. Can it be enhanced to a higher level, by time or otherwise? Probably: We're talking about the way one feels listening to the Edge play guitar, the undeniable soul and pathos of Jeff Buckley's voice. The Keith Moon drum fill re-intro in 'Won't Get Fooled Again.' Pour out mixture and spread evenly into shallow baking pan. Top with 2 oz. of shredded physical skill. Bake for 25 minutes at 325. So lastly, we're talking about the nuts and bolts of talent, the actual level of dexterity one has on their axe. People debate this incessantly, but that's because it's mostly ingredient #1 that they are talking about."

"For a vocalist to be truly great, he/she must first deeply feel what they are singing. What voice that ethos takes, what perspective the singer has, and of course, the melodies they write further dictates their greatness. I feel that vocal skill is important, but not imperative. Certainly I point to Freddy, Perry, Moz and the Wolf Child as some of rock's greats. Cedric and Maynard take the place of modern-day greats. At the same time Curtis, Crash and MacKaye, I would argue, do stand aside these more technically talented few. What ties these singers together is their basic ethos. Their 'heart,' if you will. This is unfortunately an intangible and unquantifiable characteristic, though it's almost always paired with well-written, well-thought, honest, touching lyrics. Simply reading MOZ lyrics for the first time could inform the passion of his voice, though not necessarily outrageous vocal skill. The converse, however, can also be true. Lyrics are extremely important and good lyrics are virtually imperative but I am not about to argue the poignance of Queen's 'Don't Stop Me Now' and can't say they're always everything. I think Bowie lands himself well in the middle of the vocal skill category but is lyrically, vocally and historically an obvious great.
"I will be the first to point to the nails-down-the-chalkboard of the modern-day Myspace music scene and revel at the record deals given to many top-selling talentless vocalists these days. But I'd be more understanding if, while they were challenging us with their lack of skill, they also paired it with an honest point of view or even a hint of drive that was inspired by something beyond a need for more 'friends' and hollow celebrity. On the other hand, hit every note powerfully with insincerity and ill-intent and it's still worthless."

I promised everyone who commented that their identities would be kept hidden because a) it's a small world and the net makes it so much smaller, b) I didn't want any of their professional liaisons to think I was exploiting their celebrity and c) I wanted to avoid any that-guy-has-room-to-talk flame wars to ignite. Feel free to comment on what was said, who you thought was doing the talking or where your feelings lie on the validity of "World's Greatest Whatever."