But what do you think of the sound of the track I posted?, he asks again.
Gordon said: Many, myself included, perhaps are looking beyond the “technical” and listening less judgmentally.
I can appreciate others may draw the line differently than I. I am however not thinking classically technical.
Rather, the issue is he has little to say. His music is repetitious, predictable and easy harmonies, staid and safe. Additionally, his chops are sufficiently limited that I suspect they are why his interpretations are so static and uninteresting. He must rely on tremolo, easy block chords, etc. as he simply does not have more to offer. His limited technique also explains the uneven touch, unintended louder and softer notes, etc.
The number of fans is not an indication of quality. As the Asian proverb states, If a thousand men say a foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing. That, or millions of Justin Bieber fans can’t be wrong.
It is rare I find technique gets in the way of enjoying a performance. For example, Miles Davis had intonation issues, control issues and the like. I have not heard of anyone finding his technique inadequate to express what he wanted to say.
Most jazz pianists have wonderful technique, and are fluid, able players. For example, Chick Corea’s touch, harmonic sophistication and creativity are all spectacular. Think of the lilting, airy runs of Oscar Peterson. The exquisite timing of Booker T. Jones. The dozens of others.
On the flip side, an eight year old violin student often plays with great enthusiasm, spirit and transmits great emotion. Yet, unless you are her parents, the lack of technique can make the experience pretty painful.
Where does one draw the line? For me, when the lack of technique is itself distracting, and when the inability to play limits what one can say.
