pynchon-l-digest V2 #1917

[Phil Wise]

----- Original Message -----
From: <MalignD at aol.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: Re: pynchon-l-digest V2 #1917


> << Okay, I'll amend that, because the secret of great rock is the rhythm
> section, from which all other things follow, and the drummer and bassist
and
> rhythm guitar must have chops.  But they also have to have something
usually
> called "soul" which can transcend technique (Pynchon understands this
> dynamic: check out the way the Bach he describes toward the end of
Vineland
> is reproduced totally mechanically, and yet is a positive because it has
> soul). >>
>
> From someone who has, apparently, never spent a day in a rock band, whose
> days can usually be described as three guys searching for a workable
drummer.
>  Most "good" rock drummers are competent at best and most rock guitarists
and
> bassists are happy with that.

No problem with that - lack that metaphysical thing they call ability.  My
friends Grub and David have told me something similar (they had trouble
getting singers too, actually).  I'm a listener.  Call it voyeurism if you
like, but it's a fact of life, and players need us.  So I can report from
that point of view that a drummer can
make all the difference: Nirvana from "Bleach" to "Nevermind", even the
Beatles from "Love Me Do" to "Please Please Me".  As the Ringo Star
reference suggests, a good rock drummer doesn't need a Jazz player's chops,
they need to be able to give the band some structure and make it kick hard,
that last bit being what the lesser ones don't seem to be able to do.  Which
requires a technique, for sure, something I clumsily tried to convey by
using the term "redefined the idea of technical accomplishment" or whatever
it was I wrote, instead of "abandoned" or some such.

>
> Also, the much over-used term "soul" is a worthless cliche.  "Soul" is
> technique and talent:  there is no way to incorporate "soul" into one's
> playing without a technique to deliver it.  "Soul" has no meaning
independent
> of technique and talent (and "talent" is a pretty dicey term).
>
>

A cliche, yes, but not really that worthless.  Wouldn't want to use it
without quote marks myself, but it describes something that's difficult to
otherwise define and that "talent" doesn't quite get at.  "Talent" on its
own can merely signify the ability to play the instrument "well" (yes,
another contestible term), so that it may simply conflate with technique in
some people's eyes.  Why is it that some people who are less "good" at
playing their instruments (or singing) are "better" players and singers?
Certainly a flexible view of "technique" and "talent", a dicey term like you
said, would cover the need for a hokey term like "soul", but you can't be
sure you'd get it across.

>
>
>
>
>
>