Specifically thinking about instrumentalist.

Like Thundercat is super dope to me, but how does he compare to 70s funk bass guitarist like Marvin Isley from the Isley Brothers?

The Roots are probably the only live band I've seen in person in a long time, but how do they compare as a band to, say, the Ohio Players, the Bar-Kays and the Gap Band.

I dig how Tyler the Creator and Donald Glover are using live bands, but I wonder if their bands compare to 60s and 70s studio musicians.

I am not a big music head when it comes to instrumentalist, so I really have no idea.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

There is no way to compare... different eras and social/political climates. Most music speaks to the time that they’re in. Just enjoy whatever you listen to now in the moment that you’re in. You can’t even compare what Tyler or Glover does to The Roots, let alone the 60’s or the 70’s.

And the easiest way to do it would be to compare them playing the same song.

Music hasn't changed that much that you can't compare artists from different time periods ability to play the same instruments.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Playing the same song wouldn’t prove anything, because the artist would more than likely do their own rendition.

I disagree because music is always changing and evolving. Rap doesn’t sound like it did during the 80’s, 90’s, and early 2000’s.

When I listen to jazz today (UK artists in particular), they are doing different stuff. Soul/R&B is definitely now than it did 10-20 years ago, which sounds different from the earlier stuff.

You can’t compare Wu, Pac, Guru, Digable, Scarface, Cube, Chuck, Fugess, etc. to anyone today because the music has changed that much. Same with trying to compare Moses Boyd or Makaya McCraven to Tony Williams, or Yazz Ahmed to Lee Morgan, etc.

While I wouldn't argue that J Cole is a better rapper (considering the total package of what constitutes a rapper) than Tupac, J Cole is easily a more technically proficient rapper than Tupac based on flow and lyrical complexity of his rhymes.

Like-wise Method Man is more technically proficient than, IDK, offset.

GOAT list are generally hard because GOAT status has to consider the totality of an artist and it's hard to compare artist on the same scale when they have different strengths and weakness and the music of an artist era had different sensibilities, but that doesn't mean you can't compare artist in specific qualities that make a good rapper.

Biggie has a better voice then Kendrick, though they are from two different eras.

And so on.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>J Cole is easily a more technically proficient
>rapper than Tupac based on flow and lyrical complexity of his
>rhymes.
>

False

>Like-wise Method Man is more technically proficient than, IDK,
>offset.
>
>GOAT list are generally hard because GOAT status has to
>consider the totality of an artist and it's hard to compare
>artist on the same scale when they have different strengths
>and weakness and the music of an artist era had different
>sensibilities, but that doesn't mean you can't compare artist
>in specific qualities that make a good rapper.
>
>Biggie has a better voice then Kendrick, though they are from
>two different eras.
>
>And so on.

I believe you’re missing my point. When I speak about comparison in conjunction to the artists that I mentioned I am speaking to influence, originating, groundbreaking material. There are a few other, but my point was that each era brings something different to the table (whether for the good or the bad). It has nothing to do with being technical or voices sounding the same or different.

So you only spoke to the rap issue, but not jazz or soul huh?

>>J Cole is easily a more technically proficient
>>rapper than Tupac based on flow and lyrical complexity of
>his
>>rhymes.
>>
>
>False

Well maybe we disagree on this one.
>
>>Like-wise Method Man is more technically proficient than,
>IDK,
>>offset.
>>
>>GOAT list are generally hard because GOAT status has to
>>consider the totality of an artist and it's hard to compare
>>artist on the same scale when they have different strengths
>>and weakness and the music of an artist era had different
>>sensibilities, but that doesn't mean you can't compare
>artist
>>in specific qualities that make a good rapper.
>>
>>Biggie has a better voice then Kendrick, though they are
>from
>>two different eras.
>>
>>And so on.
>
>I believe you’re missing my point. When I speak about
>comparison in conjunction to the artists that I mentioned I am
>speaking to influence, originating, groundbreaking material.
>There are a few other, but my point was that each era brings
>something different to the table (whether for the good or the
>bad). It has nothing to do with being technical or voices
>sounding the same or different.



I got this point. And that's why I say you really can't compare the totality of artist (GOAT convos) of artist from different eras. For example, I think DaBaby is more technically proficient than say Run from Run DMC, but we all know Run is a more important and has a higher GOAT status than DaBaby because of influence, originating, groundbreaking material.

I mean I can't think of an artist more technically proficient than Eminem, but he isn't anywhere near my top 10 favorite rappers.

>
>So you only spoke to the rap issue, but not jazz or soul huh?

Don't know Jazz enough to speak on it. Soul-wise I would say Chaka Kahn is a better singer than any woman singing today. I think Marvin Gaye can out sing anyone today. Regardless of what a person's soul music preferences are, I think if you judged based on the technical proficiency of singing, people would have to agree.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>I got this point. And that's why I say you really can't
>compare the totality of artist (GOAT convos) of artist from
>different eras. For example, I think DaBaby is more
>technically proficient than say Run from Run DMC, but we all
>know Run is a more important and has a higher GOAT status than
>DaBaby because of influence, originating, groundbreaking
>material.
>
>I mean I can't think of an artist more technically proficient
>than Eminem, but he isn't anywhere near my top 10 favorite
>rappers.
>

Different eras usually brings about a change in music in most genres, but you can have a GOAT based off of impact, originality, and longevity. My thought on who was the best lyricist could differ from who I think the best overall artist was.


>>So you only spoke to the rap issue, but not jazz or soul
>huh?
>
> Don't know Jazz enough to speak on it. Soul-wise I would say
>Chaka Kahn is a better singer than any woman singing today. I
>think Marvin Gaye can out sing anyone today. Regardless of
>what a person's soul music preferences are, I think if you
>judged based on the technical proficiency of singing, people
>would have to agree.
>

Singers bring in a lot more factors than rappers when making that determination. You can actually not be the best sounding singer, but still end up being the best singer.

I don't even think the studio bands compare. Like are there modern day Funk Brothers? MFSB? The Corporation? Session players that play on EVERYTHING. Or are there people who just learn the music and move on?

since when has it declined? were 70s as good as 60s, 50s, 40s etc?

And my theory is that it is peak musicianship/instrumentalist because everyone was playing instruments and everyone had a band. Sheit everyone was in a band in the 70s. Every town in America had a band that was playing in the night spot and for weddings and what have you.

More musicians means more great musicians rise to the top.





**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

But maybe one of the reasons Buddy feels that musicianship is down is because the songs are in fact much simpler. I can't remember where I came across this factoid (NPR, Vox on YouTube, or somewhere else) but a study was done on the complexity of musical composition and they found that music is much more simple in terms of musical variation than at any other time.

Part of that could be musicianship. I would doubt that tho.

Yes, more kids are learning to sample and making beats electronically which doesn't necessarily require virtuosity. But there are also kids who pick up live instruments who have better training and access to resources than at any other time than before.

My guess is that with the corporatization of the music industry, the songs are A&R'd to death and as a result, a lot of music is crafted to go cater to the largest demo possible. Even it comes at the expense of artistry. :(

Maybe the reasons some eras include great displays of artistry is that the public is actually ready to accept artists who weave in more complex motifs in their music. Like the 70's. The music industry catered more to artists (at least the stars) who would indulge their creative impulses, even if those impulses were anti-commerical. But the audiences were open to artists noodling and coming up with music which was unconventional. Prog and fusion jazz wouldn't have existed without the audience being open to the innovation.

And also, we're looking at the past through the eyes of nostalgia where we cherry-pick the best of the best from the oceans of average music. Like, take the Golden Age of Hip-Hop. We revere Tribe, De La, NWA, Dre, Snoop, and Wu-Tang but we forget the thousands of derivative, uninspired acts who either were studio gangsters or couldn't rap their way out of a paper bag.

I guess I all of this to say that to say that music sucks and has always sucked, but there are some memorable exceptions to the rule who cause us to keep revering art.

I am guessing he played other instruments but he primarily played the trumpet. So being the musical genius he was he did all sorts of genius stuff to create music focused on his one instrument. And then all sorts of students of miles wanted to play the trumpet like Miles and do all the stuff he did and we got a lot of Trumpet focused music out of it.

And we have that for guitar players, drummers, sax, bass guitars what have you.

Now days we have the Kanye or Dr. Dre Model. Producers who don't really have a background playing instruments. Now these guys are composers like a Beethoven or Mozart and they have the ear to say, "you it would be great to get some trumpets on this track". But they can't create Miles Davis type of trumpeting on a synthesizer. Even when they get big enough to be like Daft Punk to be like, let's get Niles Rogers on this track, is Get Lucky really a Niles Rodgers GUITAR song? IDK. Am I making any sense?

Look, I bet it wouldn't be that hard to find a Julliard Student who is as technically proficient on the guitar as Jimi Hendrix. Heck I bet you can find an Asian kid on youtube who is approaching technically proficient as Hendrix, but that doesn't make them a great musician for the reasons Bopper describes (influence, originating, groundbreaking material, etc). So I don't think technical proficiency is the end all or be all of great artist OR great music for that matter.

So this post really isn't a knock on modern music (and saying things were better back in the day). In fact, I think Prince became less interesting when he seemed to become focused on becoming the best live musician with the best live band as compared to when he was experimenting mostly by himself in the studio with synthesized sounds.

However, someone like Thundercat is an anomaly because his thing is, "Yo I play the bass guitar, and that's the focus of my music" and I wonder how he compares to say, Larry Graham.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

You're talking more about 'musical genius' than musicianship. At least that's how I'm taking your comment.

I would have to agree. Like who are the modern geniuses in the 21st Century. Kanye, Beyonce, I guess you could say Pharrell, Kendrick?, Lauryn?, Jack White?, Danger Mouse?, Lady Gaga?. It seems to be a shorter and less impactful list than in the later half of the 20th Century for sure.

I'm not sure why that is tho. One reason could be that those geniuses (Beatles, Miles, Jimi, Stevie, Prince, MJ, Aretha, George Clinton I guess you could say as well, Radiohead) became what they were is because they came across during times where there were big shifts in the overall culture and the technology of music making.

But there just haven't been any recent developments in technology or culture which generate those conditions which make that kind of genius possible.

Also, there isn't traditional artist development like there was so musicians like Stevie or MJ don't spend years around the music industry and educate themselves informally. So, they don't have the years to spend crafting their voice to go along with their high level of musicianship. Like, even Jimi spent some time in the Chitlin Circuit just playing random gigs and learning his craft, which wouldn't really be possible today.

I think in the past the artist's sound was what was marketable as opposed to relatability. So, artists aren't rewarded for innovating like the artists in the 20th century were.

Some of that is because the amount of money coming into the industry is less than it was in the days when people still bought albums in big numbers. Like how often do you hear about really big budget albums anymore? I feel like My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy was the last one, which turned out to be legendary and also very expensive. Without those large budgets, I don't think artists have the time to obsess over their music to create great work.

I'm not sure if I'm answering your question but this is just what came to mind.

being asked. age will play a huge factor because not as many folks over the last couple of decades use traditional instruments. sure we have folks that can and do, but most folks are using different tools to make their tunes.

then the mastery of those instruments will decline.

So I am wondering how someone we consider a great bass guitarist today, stacks up against someone who was a great guitarist in the 70s.

ANd you are right, my leaning towards the 70s is definitely a function of my age.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"