|
rletson -> RE: Kema (Aug. 1 2013 16:41:50)
|
The original question--"What do you think of his playing?"--did not explicitly limit itself to technique or musicality or taste or degree-of-traditionalism or desirability-as-a-role-model, so one might reasonably expect a range of responses to the entire presentation. That was certainly my take on the question.
Why is it so hard to accept that a performer might exhibit considerable technical skill but not make music that everyone enjoys? Technique is amenable to some degree of objective evaluation: notes are produced at X speed with Y cleanness and Z precision; the compas is or isn't competently executed; and so on. But technical proficiency is an independent variable in matters of aesthetic response. There are plenty of ferociously competent guitarists in, say, the metal genres, but I don't like metal and no amount of respect for technique is going to make me enjoy that music. And I find that technique can actually get in the way of musicality (a subjective judgment--see next paragraph) even in genres that I do enjoy, like gypsy jazz, which is often seems to be played fast for its own sake; or some kinds of Hedges-inspired guitar-tapping/slapping that emphasize gymnastics and stunt playing.
Now, these are my aesthetic responses, which means that there is no basis for them other than my particular, subjective set of tastes--plenty of people enjoy, say, speed metal precisely for its speed, or enjoy stunt guitar work the way they might enjoy an acrobatic act, for the sheer physical mastery on display. They're not "wrong" any more than I'm "right," and people who enjoy Kema's music enjoy Kema's music, period. As it happens, I don't, at least the samples I encountered. (In fact, I quite dislike that kind of music, as my snarky description of it shows, and I'll cop to being capable of snark when asked an opinion of something I dys-enjoy. That's probably a character flaw.)
|
|
|
|
