A "Good Musician"

[nlo13]

Out of these two options, which contributes more towards considering someone a good musician?

EDIT: I accidentally made this a multiple choosing poll. Only pick one option.

[apsterling]

Neither. It's a fair balance of both.

I don't care if you're a technique master on the drums, if you're just playing a simple kick on one and three, snare on two and four, hi-hats on 8th notes, you're no good. That said, I don't care if you're Travis Barker, if you play wrong technique you're just not that impressive.

[nlo13]

Neither. It's a fair balance of both.

I don't care if you're a technique master on the drums, if you're just playing a simple kick on one and three, snare on two and four, hi-hats on 8th notes, you're no good. That said, I don't care if you're Travis Barker, if you play wrong technique you're just not that impressive.

I agree you need both, but I dunno if I'd say it's exactly a 50/50 split, hence why I made this poll.

[Tristan Needler]

I picked both anyway, because that's the answer. There's no way around it.

Dragonforce sucks, even thought they're amazing at their instruments. But some kid who can't play or sing could be amazingly creative, but sound like garbage just because they can't do what they want to.

[Broden Terry]

I voted both, but if I was forced to pick between the two, I'd select creativity :shrug:

[nlo13]

Come on, someone take a stand.
I understand that both are essential. You don't need to keep giving examples of that; I get it. But are they exactly 50/50 important? Some would argue no, and I encourage that and want to see what happens.

[briewer]

Neither. It's a fair balance of both.

I don't care if you're a technique master on the drums, if you're just playing a simple kick on one and three, snare on two and four, hi-hats on 8th notes, you're no good. That said, I don't care if you're Travis Barker, if you play wrong technique you're just not that impressive.
Bullshit. The context of the music matters too much to say that you're bad if you're doing something simple or unimpressive. Part of the paunchiness and in-your-face quality of the garage rock revivalism of the early part of the decade was creating music that was formed from overly simple instrumentation rather than the overdone "technical" nonsense like Barker. They're no worse musicians for playing in what is the form of their genre or band than for spraying it down with technicality that ruins their musical goals. I mean, imagine "Dead Leaves And The Dirty Ground" if you replaced Meg White's "no good" drumming with something more, 'Barker', shall we say. That song would be a flaming pile of shit. It would turn a track that was interesting, engaging, and actually quite good into an unnecessarily overwrought, awkward, and ungainly mess. Playing simple music makes you no less a good musician than playing Barker's nonsense makes you a technically-proficient one.

[briewer]

Technicality does not matter one iota. Creativity is the only thing that makes any music engaging or entertaining.

[Tristan Needler]

Technicality does not matter one iota. Creativity is the only thing that makes any music engaging or entertaining.
Technicality does not equal Travis Barker. Meg White's "no good" drumming as you say is technically good. It fits the song, and is proper technically. If she was all off beat constantly and couldn't hit the snare and kick without losing the hats, it would suck. Her drumming is not, however, creative at all.

Technicality matters absolutely, and an equal amount to creativity.

[kazuma_ootaro28]

Nearly everyone here is going to say 50/50, and I can't disagree with them for saying that. However, I would say creativity takes the slight lead.

Yes, there are those who can play their instruments in a lightning-fast speed, and that can also make a good musician. However, if it just sounds like the musician is masturbating on their instrument (i.e. guitar wankery, etc.) and the music doesn't sound that interesting at all, then what's the point? Case in point: Mars Volta.

[reesa]

Technicality does not matter one iota. Creativity is the only thing that makes any music engaging or entertaining.
this :D highly agree.

[briewer]

Technicality does not equal Travis Barker. Meg White's "no good" drumming as you say is technically good. It fits the song, and is proper technically. If she was all off beat constantly and couldn't hit the snare and kick without losing the hats, it would suck. Her drumming is not, however, creative at all.

Technicality matters absolutely, and an equal amount to creativity.
technical: having special and usually practical knowledge especially of a mechanical or scientific subject
proficiency: advancement in knowledge or skill

Meg White's drumming may be technically good, but in no way is it technically proficient, and I'd argue that her drumming is creative because, despite its simplicity, no one was doing what she was doing at the time. They were the band that single-handedly started the garage rock revivalism movement, and creativity is the ability to produce new ideas and concepts, (exactly what the White Stripes have been able to do), so I don't see any way around the conclusion that Meg White is a creative drummer.

Meg White's "no good" drumming as you say
No, it is as he said:
if you're just playing a simple kick on one and three, snare on two and four, hi-hats on 8th notes, you're no good.

[Tristan Needler]

technical: having special and usually practical knowledge especially of a mechanical or scientific subject
proficiency: advancement in knowledge or skill

Meg White's drumming may be technically good, but in no way is it technically proficient, and I'd argue that her drumming is creative because, despite its simplicity, no one was doing what she was doing at the time. They were the band that single-handedly started the garage rock revivalism movement, and creativity is the ability to produce new ideas and concepts, (exactly what the White Stripes have been able to do), so I don't see any way around the conclusion that Meg White is a creative drummer.


No, it is as he said:
How about The Strokes, The Hives, The Vines? I associate them more with bringing that to the mainstream again more than The White Stripes, but that may be just me. They are all right there in the revitalizing of that sound however, The Hives and The Strokes especially. I don't think doing something that someone hasn't done in a long time is creative. I think of creativity something as creating something new. It could be on a genre level, which I don't believe Meg White really created anything new, she just happened to be a part of something that has existed since the early 70's and goes in and out of style, or it could be in creating new interesting music, even if it does fall inside of a tired old genre, which The White Stripes definitely do, but (correct me if I'm wrong) I believe that Jack does the vast majority of the songwriting and that aspect of the creativity.

[nlo13]

Technicality does not matter one iota. Creativity is the only thing that makes any music engaging or entertaining.

Pure opinion. Many musicians, such as myself, love to listen to technical music solely based on the fact that I can relate to how hard it is to have composed and played it, and that itself engages and excites me. It may be a creative piece at the same time, but I focus on the technical aspects of it, so creativity is not the only thing that makes music engaging.

[stereokiller]

Creativity.

Proof: The Matches.

though I do believe that this isn't the only thing that music revolves around. sometimes, even I would want to hear amazing guitar riffs from Strung Out(fair example).

[Tristan Needler]

Nearly everyone here is going to say 50/50, and I can't disagree with them for saying that. However, I would say creativity takes the slight lead.

Yes, there are those who can play their instruments in a lightning-fast speed, and that can also make a good musician. However, if it just sounds like the musician is masturbating on their instrument (i.e. guitar wankery, etc.) and the music doesn't sound that interesting at all, then what's the point? Case in point: Mars Volta.
The Mars Volta are probably the most innovative band out there now. Omar creates an insane amount of music, almost all of it interesting and different. Understandable if you think it's not good, but to say it's not creative is just plain wrong. Everyone knows that technically proficient doens't necessarily mean good music, but creative doesn't necessarily mean good music either. I think people forget this a lot.

[Tristan Needler]

Creativity.

Proof: The Matches.

though I do believe that this isn't the only thing that music revolves around. sometimes, even I would want to hear amazing guitar riffs from Strung Out(fair example).
I've never listened to The Matches, but I'm willing to be they're technically proficient.

[nlo13]

creative doesn't necessarily mean good music either. I think people forget this a lot.
Agreed. Just because you've done something that no one else has done, thinking outside the box, doesn't make it "good" by default. Some people are ignorant enough to believe the converse.

[stereokiller]

I've never listened to The Matches, but I'm willing to be they're technically proficient.

hm. maybe. haha. i'm not really good at classifying things.
ERv4XZpfWE0

[Tristan Needler]

hm. maybe. haha. i'm not really good at classifying things.
ERv4XZpfWE0
Their drummer does some pretty interesting stuff during the verses, the bassist does some cool stuff in the pre-chorus sort of thing, they sound like they've got their shit together.

[stereokiller]

Their drummer does some pretty interesting stuff during the verses, the bassist does some cool stuff in the pre-chorus sort of thing, they sound like they've got their shit together.

hm. yeah, what you said. haha. you pretty much summarized the whole song.

and http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=171239&page=1

[briewer]

Pure opinion. Many musicians, such as myself, love to listen to technical music solely based on the fact that I can relate to how hard it is to have composed and played it, and that itself engages and excites me. It may be a creative piece at the same time, but I focus on the technical aspects of it, so creativity is not the only thing that makes music engaging.
Point conceded, but that still does not make them "good musicians", just "good instrumentalists".

[nlo13]

Point conceded, but that still does not make them "good musicians", just "good instrumentalists".

I would call a musician a person who organizes sound, rhythm, and pitches via an instrument, with the word "instrument" being used very broadly (Ex: the human voice is an instrument). If I wanted to be very blunt, I could say a "musician" = playing an instrument/composing music, therefore a "good musician" = playing an instrument/composing music on a proficient level. Obviously creativity comes into play when one talks about the quality of the music, but those are just my two cents.

[briewer]

How about The Strokes, The Hives, The Vines? I associate them more with bringing that to the mainstream again more than The White Stripes, but that may be just me. They are all right there in the revitalizing of that sound however, The Hives and The Strokes especially.
Meh. I think it's like how MC5, The Stooges, and The Velvet Underground are all considered protopunk, but Iggy is still called "the godfather of punk." The Strokes, Hives, Vines, and White Stripes were all part of the movement, but The White Stripes were definitely at the forefront.

I don't think doing something that someone hasn't done in a long time is creative. I think of creativity something as creating something new.
That's debatable, especially on an instrument as limited as drums are. I mean, how many different fills can you possibly come up with while only using the same 10 or 12 components of a drum kit? If that's the standard being set, then there hasn't been a creative drummer since Drums of Passion and Drumming were released.

It could be on a genre level, which I don't believe Meg White really created anything new, she just happened to be a part of something that has existed since the early 70's and goes in and out of style, or it could be in creating new interesting music, even if it does fall inside of a tired old genre, which The White Stripes definitely do,
I think there's some value in reengineering a genre that is dead and forgotten, given how cyclical music trends are and how little true innovation there is to be had. I mean, who is truly making creative music nowadays? The Mars Volta, as you said earlier, is revisiting the sounds and styles of King Crimson, Yes, and Electric Light Orchestra with a slightly more metal 'edge' to it. Radiohead is revisiting the Kraut rock, Glam rock, and ambience of the mid-70's. No one's truly 'blazing a new trail", because there really isn't much musical frontier to conquest outside of the purely discordant and noisy outskirts of what can barely be considered 'music'. So does that mean taking an old concept and sprucing it up a bit and making it your own is uncreative? I don't think so.

but (correct me if I'm wrong) I believe that Jack does the vast majority of the songwriting and that aspect of the creativity.
Sure, but to completely factor her contribution out on a two piece seems a bit drastic, don't you think?

[briewer]

I would call a musician a person who organizes sound, rhythm, and pitches via an instrument, with the word "instrument" being used very broadly (Ex: the human voice is an instrument). If I wanted to be very blunt, I could say a "musician" = playing an instrument/composing music, therefore a "good musician" = playing an instrument/composing music on a proficient level. Obviously creativity comes into play when one talks about the quality of the music, but those are just my two cents.
I would say:

good instrumentalist= someone who plays an instrument well
good musician= someone who creates good music

I mean, you could learn all of the guitar parts on Marquee Moon and you would be an undeniably good guitar player, but that in no way influences how good of a musician you are.

[briewer]

I was a little confused for a second when the two poll choices added up to 121.05%.

[nlo13]

I would say:

good instrumentalist= someone who plays an instrument well
good musician= someone who creates good music

How exactly do you "create good music", then?

And yeah I fucked up with the poll and some people chose both options.

[apsterling]

Bullshit. The context of the music matters too much to say that you're bad if you're doing something simple or unimpressive. Part of the paunchiness and in-your-face quality of the garage rock revivalism of the early part of the decade was creating music that was formed from overly simple instrumentation rather than the overdone "technical" nonsense like Barker. They're no worse musicians for playing in what is the form of their genre or band than for spraying it down with technicality that ruins their musical goals. I mean, imagine "Dead Leaves And The Dirty Ground" if you replaced Meg White's "no good" drumming with something more, 'Barker', shall we say. That song would be a flaming pile of shit. It would turn a track that was interesting, engaging, and actually quite good into an unnecessarily overwrought, awkward, and ungainly mess. Playing simple music makes you no less a good musician than playing Barker's nonsense makes you a technically-proficient one.

Well, I meant that example in the sense of not relative to the music- of course different stuff works well in different music. I'm with you. I guess I should've worded it differently.

[Theseventhson]

Their drummer does some pretty interesting stuff during the verses, the bassist does some cool stuff in the pre-chorus sort of thing, they sound like they've got their shit together.
We seem to have different opinions on what it takes to be technically good.

[MyNameIsRoss]

a good songwriter needs both.

[Tristan Needler]

We seem to have different opinions on what it takes to be technically good.
I guess you have to do blazingly fast solos to by technically proficient, huh?

[briewer]

How exactly do you "create good music", then?
Well therein the problem lies. Music is objective and universal, in that some things are "good" or "bad" to an exact "number" or what have you to rate it or quantify it. We just have no way of accessing that knowledge, and thusly speculate subjectively on what music is "good" and what music is "bad". I'd rather not get into that any deeper or this will go on forever without actually achieving anything, but if you want to go down that rabbit hole you can go here: http://absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=1267922. Point is, creativity is the same way. How can you correctly define what is creative and what is not? How can you point to two things and say, "this one is more creative than the other"? You can't. Creativity undeniably exists, but like music quality, it is unknown to us. Coincidence? No. They go hand in hand, and though they are not one in the same they are very nearly coincide, in that "this is creative, ergo it is probably good music." Meanwhile, technical proficiency is a black and white, knowable quality of music. We know about technical proficiency unlike quality or creativity. We can say with the utmost confidence Tom Verlaine was a better guitarist than Brokencyde's (do they have guitarists? I'm kind of proud to be ignorant of that), Ron Asheton was a better guitarist than the guy from A Day To Remember, etc. You can qualifiably say "he hit more notes, he hit a greater number of notes, he was better on time, etc., ergo he is a more technically proficient guitarist." So if we are to say that someone needs to be technically proficient to be a good musician, i.e., someone who makes good music, we would be saying that something that we know about = something we don't know about, which is impossible. We would be able to tell what music is good and what music is bad by how technically proficient the artist is, and we can't.

I don't know how much sense that made, I just got home from an hour long bike ride home from work, give me a break.

[nlo13]

Well therein the problem lies. Music is objective and universal, in that some things are "good" or "bad" to an exact "number" or what have you to rate it or quantify it. We just have no way of accessing that knowledge, and thusly speculate subjectively on what music is "good" and what music is "bad". I'd rather not get into that any deeper or this will go on forever without actually achieving anything, but if you want to go down that rabbit hole you can go here: http://absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=1267922. Point is, creativity is the same way. How can you correctly define what is creative and what is not? How can you point to two things and say, "this one is more creative than the other"? You can't. Creativity undeniably exists, but like music quality, it is unknown to us. Coincidence? No. They go hand in hand, and though they are not one in the same they are very nearly coincide, in that "this is creative, ergo it is probably good music." Meanwhile, technical proficiency is a black and white, knowable quality of music. We know about technical proficiency unlike quality or creativity. We can say with the utmost confidence Tom Verlaine was a better guitarist than Brokencyde's (do they have guitarists? I'm kind of proud to be ignorant of that), Ron Asheton was a better guitarist than the guy from A Day To Remember, etc. You can qualifiably say "he hit more notes, he hit a greater number of notes, he was better on time, etc., ergo he is a more technically proficient guitarist." So if we are to say that someone needs to be technically proficient to be a good musician, i.e., someone who makes good music, we would be saying that something that we know about = something we don't know about, which is impossible. We would be able to tell what music is good and what music is bad by how technically proficient the artist is, and we can't.

I don't know how much sense that made, I just got home from an hour long bike ride home from work, give me a break.

I'm glad you answered in depth, it was a broad question but it needed to be asked. I am also tired so forgive me if I missed your points that would refute this reply of mine. I think it is a question of how our brain works in terms of deciphering what are the more important aspects of what makes music "good". My arguement is that, as you said, technical proficiency is the objectifiable aspect of music; it can be proven through quantifiable standards. As you also said, creativity is more of the "unknown" aspect. "Creativity" itself doesn't exist without the human aspect of comparison; something is creative if, as compared to the "norm", it is deemed different. Since "how different something is" is subjective and complete comparison with bands all over the world is virtually impossible, I really do find "creative" as term with no value in music. On the other hand, as said before, technical proficiency is objective and quantifiable; the concept of numbers and math still exist without human intervention, so it is safe to say that it exists witth or without human conception. Basically, since I view "creative" as a word with no true proven meaning and technical proficiency as the only provable objective aspect of music, I can only conclude that it is what makes the musician "good"or not.

[Nick Hull]

Bullshit. The context of the music matters too much to say that you're bad if you're doing something simple or unimpressive. Part of the paunchiness and in-your-face quality of the garage rock revivalism of the early part of the decade was creating music that was formed from overly simple instrumentation rather than the overdone "technical" nonsense like Barker. They're no worse musicians for playing in what is the form of their genre or band than for spraying it down with technicality that ruins their musical goals. I mean, imagine "Dead Leaves And The Dirty Ground" if you replaced Meg White's "no good" drumming with something more, 'Barker', shall we say. That song would be a flaming pile of shit. It would turn a track that was interesting, engaging, and actually quite good into an unnecessarily overwrought, awkward, and ungainly mess. Playing simple music makes you no less a good musician than playing Barker's nonsense makes you a technically-proficient one.
win.

[Tristan Needler]

I'm glad you answered in depth, it was a broad question but it needed to be asked. I am also tired so forgive me if I missed your points that would refute this reply of mine. I think it is a question of how our brain works in terms of deciphering what are the more important aspects of what makes music "good". My arguement is that, as you said, technical proficiency is the objectifiable aspect of music; it can be proven through quantifiable standards. As you also said, creativity is more of the "unknown" aspect. "Creativity" itself doesn't exist without the human aspect of comparison; something is creative if, as compared to the "norm", it is deemed different. Since "how different something is" is subjective and complete comparison with bands all over the world is virtually impossible, I really do find "creative" as term with no value in music. On the other hand, as said before, technical proficiency is objective and quantifiable; the concept of numbers and math still exist without human intervention, so it is safe to say that it exists witth or without human conception. Basically, since I view "creative" as a word with no true proven meaning and technical proficiency as the only provable objective aspect of music, I can only conclude that it is what makes the musician "good"or not.
Rebuttal: Dragonforce.

[muchoawesomeo]

both. more so the latter

[nlo13]

Rebuttal: Dragonforce.

How are they a rebuttal?

[Tristan Needler]

How are they a rebuttal?
You said you can only conclude that technical proficiency is what make the musician "good" or not, but Dragonforce sucks ass.

[nlo13]

You said you can only conclude that technical proficiency is what make the musician "good" or not, but Dragonforce sucks ass.

Yep I did, and the comment you just made about them "sucking ass" has to do with your subjective opinion about their MUSIC; you didn't mention musicianship, that's what the poll is about.

[Tristan Needler]

Yep I did, and the comment you just made about them "sucking ass" has to do with your subjective opinion about their MUSIC; you didn't mention musicianship, that's what the poll is about.
Nah, they just suck ass. No subjectivity.

[nlo13]

Nah, they just suck ass. No subjectivity.

That's just a dumb statement and you know it, plus you're abondoning discussion on the original topic: musicianship, not music. There's a difference.

[apsterling]

Dragonforce is one of the worst examples of musicianship, at least as far as they play in the context of Dragonforce as a band. They play with nearly zero variation in song structure, dynamics, performance, or anything that makes music that's objectively viewed (historically and in modern days, though not perhaps by pop culture) to be "good music", especially from a musical standpoint. That said, clearly they're one of the most technical metal bands out there, (no doubt aided by studio magic), but that doesn't make them musical past the point that they play music.

Music to different people is about different things, because it's such a subjective art form- I personally love Fall Out Boy and All Time Low and these other bands that many people on this site hate for various reasons, that all come down to an opinion. A ton of people love Radiohead here too, and I find them to be difficult to listen to (though undoubtedly good musicians).

All that said, we're also judging musicians' ability an awful lot on what they play and not what they're capable of. I've met guitarists who are extraordinarily talented and quite technically and musically advanced who'd much rather be playing pop-punk than classical guitar- despite their capability. If more music were more musically diverse (which is again coming down to opinion and the industry) we'd see more talent from each musician coming forward.

[Tristan Needler]

That's just a dumb statement and you know it, plus you're abondoning discussion on the original topic: musicianship, not music. There's a difference.
Haha if you took "Rebuttal: Dragonforce" as a serious comment, you're over doing it. It was meant as a joke to illustrate that there's more to musicianship than being technically proficient, regardless whether the other aspects are quantifiable or not. The fact that "good musician" is made up in part of subjective aspects isn't a problem at all, because "good musician" is a subjective term as well. And there's no problem with that.

I don't believe the members of Dragonforce are good musicians, even though they're pretty intense at playing notes on the guitar. There's more to musicianship than the sheer number of notes you can play on beat per minute.

For this reason I would say that Ringo Starr is a better drummer than Chris Pennie, or myriad blast-beat drummers than play ten times faster than Ringo ever would have imagined.

[apsterling]

For this reason I would say that Ringo Starr is a better drummer than Chris Pennie, or myriad blast-beat drummers than play ten times faster than Ringo ever would have imagined.

At the same time, that's because the context of these blast-beat drummers is blast-beating, not dynamically varying drumming with subtle intricacies. I wouldn't put it past them to be capable of that kind of drumming, per se. If you take it in the context of their playing with those bands, then yes, I'd agree. But a blanket statement seems potentially ignorant.

[Tristan Needler]

At the same time, that's because the context of these blast-beat drummers is blast-beating, not dynamically varying drumming with subtle intricacies. I wouldn't put it past them to be capable of that kind of drumming, per se. If you take it in the context of their playing with those bands, then yes, I'd agree. But a blanket statement seems potentially ignorant.
True, but that's not what they do, and we can only ascertain our opinion based on what we can hear.

[nlo13]

Haha if you took "Rebuttal: Dragonforce" as a serious comment, you're over doing it. It was meant as a joke to illustrate that there's more to musicianship than being technically proficient, regardless whether the other aspects are quantifiable or not. The fact that "good musician" is made up in part of subjective aspects isn't a problem at all, because "good musician" is a subjective term as well. And there's no problem with that.

I don't believe the members of Dragonforce are good musicians, even though they're pretty intense at playing notes on the guitar. There's more to musicianship than the sheer number of notes you can play on beat per minute.

For this reason I would say that Ringo Starr is a better drummer than Chris Pennie, or myriad blast-beat drummers than play ten times faster than Ringo ever would have imagined.

I would say that technical proficiency= good musician more often than creativity=good musician. Sure, you can go out and make something wacky, and far from the norm. Does that that alone make you a good musican? No. You can also go out and compose something extremely musically technical. Does that alone mean you're a good musician? More often than not, yes.

[apsterling]

I would say that technical proficiency= good musician more often than creativity=good musician. Sure, you can go out and make something wacky, and far from the norm. Does that that alone make you a good musican? No. You can also go out and compose something extremely musically technical. Does that alone mean you're a good musician? More often than not, yes.

That's like saying that I, never having laid hand on a violin, can go compose a violin solo and be an incredible musician? I'd say technical proficiency, the capability to play dynamically on a Marimba, makes me a better musician than composing for an instrument I can't play. Like I said, it's got to be 50/50 or a subjective opinion, because technical proficiency and creativity together is what makes great music. Any of either and you can have either a poorly made but interesting piece, or an incredibly technical boring song you've heard before, albeit with fewer notes.

[Tristan Needler]

I would say that technical proficiency= good musician more often than creativity=good musician. Sure, you can go out and make something wacky, and far from the norm. Does that that alone make you a good musican? No. You can also go out and compose something extremely musically technical. Does that alone mean you're a good musician? More often than not, yes.
If you're composing (creating) something extremely technical, then you are a good composer (creator) of music. Thusly, creative. Creativity and innovation are not the same thing.

Bob Dylan wrote a bajillion folk songs. He neither invented folk, nor greatly progressed the genre in terms of how it is written and performed from the start of his career through the present, yet he's universally lauded as one of the most creative songwriters of any generation.

[nlo13]

If you're composing (creating) something extremely technical, then you are a good composer (creator) of music. Thusly, creative. Creativity and innovation are not the same thing.

Bob Dylan wrote a bajillion folk songs. He neither invented folk, nor greatly progressed the genre in terms of how it is written and performed from the start of his career through the present, yet he's universally lauded as one of the most creative songwriters of any generation.

Dictionary definition: Creativity - The experience of thinking, reacting, and working in an imaginative and idiosyncratic way which is characterized by a high degree of innovation and originality.

Creativity = innovation to most people, and as it's my poll, that's what I intended it to mean

Bob Dylan is praised, for the most part, for creativity of lyrics, not so much for composing or performing music.

[Tristan Needler]

Creativity - The experience of thinking, reacting, and working in an imaginative and idiosyncratic way which is characterized by a high degree of innovation and originality.
99% of the time, in relation to music, that's not the definition people are talking about. E.g., the Bob Dylan example.

[nlo13]

99% of the time, in relation to music, that's not the definition people are talking about. E.g., the Bob Dylan example.

I strongly disagree.

[Tristan Needler]

I strongly disagree.
Then in what way do you believe people claim Bob Dylan's creativity?

[Mochem]

I said technical proficiency because when I was thinking musician I was thinking strictly the instruments. If you're super creative but can't play for shit, you're not a good musician. If you're amazing and can play all of the greatest guitar solos out there but can't come up with anything yourself, I'd say you're a better musician than the first hypothetical guy.

Take an orchestra for example. Even if they only play classical pieces, Vivaldi and Bach and whatnot, I'd call them good musicians.

[nlo13]

Then in what way do you believe people claim Bob Dylan's creativity?

Lyrically.

[Tristan Needler]

Lyrically.
So he's the first guy to make subtly veiled political commentaries? To write protest songs? Folk songs? No, that's not what people mean when they refer to his creativity.

[SeanEBoy2686]

creativity for sure... It is much more engaging when a band is doing some new different, and entertaining. Their technical skills on their instruments just act as the icing on the cake.

[billyboatkid]

Both.

[flks511]

I picked creativity, but after thinking about it, I realize that between the two, technical proficiency is more important.

Because you could be creative and not know how to sing or play an instrument, and you would be a terrible musician (or not a musician at all). But if you were great at playing but wasn't creative, you're still a better musician than the creative guy who's never played an instrument.

[NateGolubiewski]

Gotta' go with creativity. While technical proficiency is necessary, no one wants to listen to the same crap a million times. (Some bands should start taking notes.)

[nlo13]

I picked creativity, but after thinking about it, I realize that between the two, technical proficiency is more important.

Because you could be creative and not know how to sing or play an instrument well, and you would be a terrible musician (or not a musician at all). But if you were great at playing but wasn't creative, you're still a better musician than the creative guy who's never played an instrument.

This is exactly my arguement.

[Tristan Needler]

What about all the composers out there who are great at writing music but can barely play an instrument? I know plenty.

[jawstheme]

Creativity for sure.

[seraph1214]

Good poll. I'd choose creativity over proficiency any day.

[codex avellum31]

what makes someone a good musician=technical proficiency
what makes someone a good artist=creativity

[nlo13]

What about all the composers out there who are great at writing music but can barely play an instrument? I know plenty.

I could argue that composers are not musicians. Composers create the language and dialogue of the music, directing how it should be played; very much like writing a script to a play. By your logic, I could call script-writers actors.

[Tristan Needler]

I could argue that composers are not musicians. Composers create the language and dialogue of the music, directing how it should be played; very much like writing a script to a play. By your logic, I could call script-writers actors.
I profoundly disagree, sir.

[joeag1985]

How about The Strokes, The Hives, The Vines? I associate them more with bringing that to the mainstream again more than The White Stripes, but that may be just me. They are all right there in the revitalizing of that sound however, The Hives and The Strokes especially. I don't think doing something that someone hasn't done in a long time is creative. I think of creativity something as creating something new. It could be on a genre level, which I don't believe Meg White really created anything new, she just happened to be a part of something that has existed since the early 70's and goes in and out of style, or it could be in creating new interesting music, even if it does fall inside of a tired old genre, which The White Stripes definitely do, but (correct me if I'm wrong) I believe that Jack does the vast majority of the songwriting and that aspect of the creativity.

Hah you just reminded me of this...

y7W3Ahx05vg

edit: People that disable embedding really grind my gears.

[kdefrisc]

I agree with everyone saying that a combination of both is important, but if I had to choose one to be slightly more important, I would say creativity. You could have all the technical proficiency in the world but if you're not creating new and exciting music, I'm not really going to sit up and listen. Although this also brings up the difference between a musician and a musical artist