I'm going to throw a few names at you - see if you can conjure up in your mind the face that matches each name:
Jojo Mayer; Michel Camilo; Danny Gatton; Vinnie Colaiuta; Kenny Kirkland; Roy Buchanan; Glenn Gould; Dennis Brain
I'm guessing most readers scored a zero or one on the above names, but if you didn't, say so in the comment section below and give yourself a round of applause!
Here are some slightly easier ones:
Jaco Pastorius; Steve Gadd; Steve Morse; Yo-yo Ma; Michael Bloomfield; Steve Marriot; Jeff Beck; Jennifer Batten
I'm guessing that if you're a rock or jazz musician, you got most of those; a classical musician, at least one. If you're not a musician, I'm guessing you might have heard of a few of the above but are probably hard-pressed to match a face to the name.
Finally, how 'bout these: Angus Young; Tommy Lee; Jimmy Page; Ringo Starr; Krist Nosevelic; Michael Anthony; Melissa Auf der Maur
I'd hazard a guess that most of you readers got most or all of the names directly above (again, let me know if I'm wrong here).
So - is there a point to all this?
The first grouping of names is made up of musicians who are acknowledged as technical (if not also artistic) monsters on their instruments.
The second group is known for technical skill on their chosen instrument, but perhaps more so for their distinctive artistic statements.
The final group is not known (at least among serious musicians) for any remarkable technical skill (in some cases, they may be known for a distinct lack of such skill) yet are household names as musicians - or nearly household names, at least.
The age-old fiction is that if you build skill on your instrument, you may attain fame; therefore if you build/have massive skill on your instrument, you're more likely to attain massive fame.
This is actually somewhat backward to how things really work.
On a related note, I attended Cheap Trick's performance at the Commodore Ballroom in Vancouver last week. I thoroughly enjoyed the performance, as did the CT-neophyte company I brought along. Was there huge technical skill on display? Generally, no. Vocalist Robin Zander still has a beautifully versatile, inhumanly-strong set of pipes - but guitarist Rick Neilsen has been quoted thus:"do you think it's been easy remaining so bad on the guitar for so many years?" Bassist Petersson and drummer Daxx Neilsen (son of Rick) certainly served their purpose admirably, but did they show off extraordinary technique? Absolutely not. Yet it was still the music I loved most that night, not the visual element (although that was definitely fun too). They played new, old, familiar, and obscure tunes from their catalogue, and they played it all with tons of conviction, flair, feel and cohesiveness. In short, they served their purpose well. Mission accomplished.
Does this mean that the folks in the first group of names do not play with all the conviction, flair, feel and cohesiveness as the good folks in Cheap Trick? Quite the opposite - but they're usually trying to get across a more complex, demanding message. Here's the funny phenomenon about the human brain: simplicity resonates. This is not an absolute, but a reliable rule of thumb. For an average listener in the short term, at least, a simple message trumps a message of greater accuracy, nuance, substance, innovation, quality, ambiguity and/or variation. Political strategists and headline writers have made use of this phenomenon for a century. My favourite artists have tended to be those who could give the illusion of simplicity, yet who still manage to write with all those qualities that simplicity normally trumps. One probably isn't consciously aware that Sting has modulated tonal centres and time signatures twice in the first verse and once more in his transition to the chorus of a particular song, because the melody is very tuneful and gives the impression of simplicity. The actual complexities just leave the listener with the impression that this piece has a very unique yet accessible flavour. One could even say the same for the 'other long-haired composers'. Who can't whistle the opening of 'Eine Kleine Nachtmusik or the Finale melody to Beethoven's 9th Symphony? Most grade-school kids can play either melody easily on recorder, ukelele, violin or what have you...but are these pieces actually simple in their fully-orchestrated forms? Absolutely not. They're works of genius.
The correlate to the idea that simplicity resonates is that any messages, whether simple or complex, can become more accessible to a listener when repeated. This is why radio airplay over the last 70 years or so has been so important to advancing an artist's career. A tune that might be slightly over (or even under) your head upon first listening might be comfortably accessible by the third or fourth listening.
Now, of course, radio holds far less sway than it did a decade or two ago. I'll be very interested to see if the public gradually develops a taste for more varied, perhaps even more demanding music now that the lowest-common-denominator pop tunes are not quite as ubiquitous as they once were. In the meantime, I'll keep trying to follow in the footsteps of my heroes, slipping a few out-there ideas into my tunes - spiking the punch, as it were. Here's hoping it has the same effect - the guests don't notice the spirits in the punch, but they start to feel pleasantly intoxicated. As it's safe to say I'm still much more obscure than even Danny Gatton or Dennis Brain, I certainly have nothing to lose.