Why does /mu/ hate "wank" in music so much?
Is the issue when it feels like their forcing it into the music to show off or do you hate it in general?
Is technical songwriting and inherently bad thing?
If it feels like it's forced it's bad in my books. There's a very fine line between tasteful soloing and wank
>>60939705
It's like someone thinking a book with many pages is a good book.
wank in music - quite literally like masturbation
take the guitar solo for instance
if you're very good at it, some people might like to watch you
but in the end, it's self-indulgent and self-interested - you get more out of it than most people when in reality you should be creating something which stands on its own as a work of art, not a testament to your own ego
>>60939735
You may not agree with this, but I have an analogy for whenever this comes up.
In my books, early Dream Theater was absolutely brilliant. They were technical, but it never felt overbearing. Sure they still showed off but overall it was very tasteful.
I think the problem is, while when done right a technical aspect can add to music in wonderful, magical ways, it's very easy to fall into the trap of being technical for the sake of being technical, instead of for the sake of good song writing. Dream Theater fell into that trap and now their a shell of their former selves.
Again, you may not agree with me and thing Dream Theater was always self-indulgent tasteless wank, and that's very much understandable. I just find most people understand the difference between "good" and "bad" wank after this comparison.
Then there are bands like Protest The Hero and The Fall of Troy that are 95% wank, but since they have ultra chaotic writing styles it works for them.
It really is a case by case basis I guess.
>>60939796
Or the song writer could of added an ultra technical riff because it worked perfectly with the song
>>60939809
If you're using a phrase like "ultra technical" instead of "melody" you're "trying too hard"
Technical song writing is for plebs
Reserved song writing is for patritions
>>60939823
My bad, truth be told I'm not super familiar with musical theory. I basically come here for recs.
Who /TEXAS/ here?
>>60939705
There is nothing wrong with having super crazy ridiculous technical parts in songs. Something that however is very wrong is just trying to impress people with your technical ability.
Having good technique is not a bad thing at all, in fact it is recommended. It's pretty funny how having good technique is looked down upon so much in the guitar community. Among classical musicians having immaculate technique is just a given. It says a lot about guitarists that most of them are so afraid of someone who worked on his technique. It's especially funny when 12 year olds name someone like SRV as "someone without any technique who sounded great and had lots of feel man" even though SRV is among the most technically gifted musicians of all time. It's all about doing what someone else did before you; the guitar community is extremely conservative. There is this great Shawn Lane bit from his "instructional" videos (I think, I seem to always miss them on rewatches. the Shawn Lane instructionals are a bit weird; they're not really instructionals despite being referred to as such and more live performances with insights into the nearly incomprehensible and incomparable mind of possibly the greatest instrumentalist of all time) from the early 90s where he talks about how he thinks people shouldn't really pay attention to the technicality of musicians, but he also asks himself why people refer to Yngwie as a technical player and they refer to Hendrix as a non-technical player.
1/2
>>60940015
He makes a really good point when he says that Hendrix had an extremely complicated technique. The way he bended (and all the microbends that came with this) and his picking dynamics are ridiculously intricate, and in many ways far more "technical" than Yngwie. Hendrix was someone who practiced day and night and always tried to get better.
2/2
>>60939804 I don't really listen to metal anymore, and I think DT is often too cheesy, but I actually just happened to be listening to the song Metropolis 1 and it reminded me of how good Images and Words is. Not to knock the guy, but the average John Frusciante (live) solo that people talk about being amazing and having tons of feel contains much more wank than that entire DT album and usually has no regard for storytelling or any musicality. It's like focussing on Hendrix' showmanship and ignoring his musicianship. (I know Frusciante has done much better stuff in his solo material)
Most of what I described above is based on the electric guitar and its community, but it applies to all instrumentalists.
technicality usually takes away from the emotional expression of music which is what art is supposed to be about
most people on /mu/ suck at playing music, so they get mad when an artist they are listening to is actually good at playing.
I think that there are actually two lines between good and wank, with a decent midsection in the middle. That's where spawn of possession sit.
>>60940046
you're incredibly stupid if you think "shredding" or "epic solos" or anything of that variety makes you "good at playing"
>>60940088
shit musician detected
>>60940015
>Something that however is very wrong is just trying to impress people with your technical ability.
Yeah, I'd say that's where the line is. Although I'll defend to the death the artists right to show off every once and a while (a prog. metal album doesn't feel like a prog. metal album without at least one really crazy solo).
It used to confuse me why /mu/ would speak so fondly of bands like PTH and TfoT when they're just as bad, if not worse for wank than bands like DT and Symphony X where /mu/ actively pans them. The answer pretty much is the early don't wank to show off, they wank because it fits well with their overall goals for their songwriting and it leads to excellent musicianship and the more I listen to them the more it shows.
>>60940100
you wouldn't know fammo, quite clearly clueless
You can be incredibly skilled and still make expressive music. Once the music starts being solely about your skill though is when it becomes wank.
>>60940100
I think what's he's trying to say is that, while yes "shredding" takes a certain amount of skill there's more to good musicianship than that.
Again, it's a case by case basis, music could be 100% shred and still be good if it's done well. But in general there needs to be more to a song/album than that
>>60940193
lol, maybe try practicing your instrument for once instead of listening to shitty indie rock and shitposting on /mu/. Dumbass.
>>60940237
OP here, your acting like a faggot.
He's literally trying to say that there's more to good musicianship than wank.
Take Colors by BTBAM for example. Yes, there's lots of technicality within the album, but they also include great melodies, well timed breakdowns and lots of experimentation with different moods and atmospheres.
>>60940046
hahahah you've just fucking proven our point about wankery. You have to be baiting.
"wank" as in someone who plays technical stuff while the other members watch and play boring ass stuff is shit. Take a look at Yngwie Malmsteen and you'll see what I'm talking about, the bass lines and drum parts in his work are so primitive you might as well call it ambiant.
If by wank you mean just straight up technical stuff, then I don't get why people hate it. When the whole group is cohesive while playing multiple melodies or in different time signatures/rythms, that's musicianship.
>>60939705
Is that a fucking septum piercing? I thought chinks knew better.
>>60939804
this
same with ELP, there early stuff was great but they kind of started being technical for the sake of it in the end and their martial suffered as a result
>>60939841
what a surprise
>>60939705
/mu/ doesn't like 'wank' because in reality they are all terrible musicians, and people being good at their instruments scares them and makes them feel inferior. /mu/sicians need to feel superior and elitist so they treat technical and complex playing with a sour grapes complex.
