Mediocrity

[marczellm]

What makes musicians mediocre? What makes us immediately recognize mediocrity?

 

See for example the difference between Toto's Rosanna live:

[video:youtube]

and the same song by Bobby Kimball and his band (from 1 minute onwards):

[video:youtube]

 

No one would say the guys in Kimball's band can't play the song, only they play it a little... different. Even if we generously ignore the keyboard solo.

 

Why can we clearly see and hear after a few measures that this band is mediocre? Is their playing that bad? Or is their playing bad only when compared to Toto's playing which we are accustomed to?

 

Is it the lack of a stylist? Tommy Denander (the main guitarist) being ridiculously fat for a frontman? Amplified by his clothing that makes him look almost like a hobo? Is it the facial expressions - or lack thereof - of the supporting musicians, clearly suggesting a gig for money with no soul? Is it the background curtain creating a wedding gig atmosphere?

 

BTW Tommy Denander's Wikipedia article is so obviously self-written, you don't even have to look at the edit history. (Which assures you that it was.)

 

[OB Dave]

Only listened to the first 30 seconds or so of each. First thing I notice is the drummer in the first video is killing it. He's right on top of the beat but not rushing it. Nice pocket. The second drummer's snare hits are lagging a tad and it's dragging everything down down. Would be curious if anyone else is hearing that too.

[CEB]

It isn't style. The band just isn't as good. The guitar is ham handed and too loud and doesn't drop out like Lukather does. The keys mix isn't as good. The keys patches and chops don't compare. The singer doesn't have the range for that tune. The drummer is better. The FOH is better. They just aint as good as Toto. Toto wrote the song the cover band may only have one rehearsal on that tune. WHo knows.

 

I play some Rachmannioff but put put me side by side with Horowitz at his prime it would be embarassing utterly and absolutley humiliating. Life just aint fair. Some people are just better than others.

[marczellm]

The singer doesn't have the range for that tune.

Which is funny given that he recorded it originally.

[CEB]

It sure doesn't sound like Toto IV. ( I think that was Toto IV )

[marczellm]

Other examples of can't-quite-put-my-finger-on-why mediocrity are the recent bunch of endorser videos on the Nord website. I intended to post this in a separate thread with the title "Mediocre musicians play Nord".

 

Keyboardist playing a pad (and lead that is not discernible in the sequenced mix) but making a heavily concentrating face, while the camera is carefully positioned so that the drummer is not visible behind the singer:

[video:youtube]

 

And another band that doesn't know how to look (clothes, faces etc.), with the bassist hiding behind the horns:

[video:youtube]

 

 

 

[DulceLabs.com]

The singer doesn't have the range for that tune.

Which is funny given that he recorded it originally.

Not really. 30 years had passed since the original recording and the video you posted. Have you heard the vocal range change in Billy Joel, Paul McCartney, or just about any other singer with a long career?

[BbAltered]

1) The sound quality of the audio in the two videos is very different (as is the overall mix). The Toto video has vastly better sound quality.

 

2) I always say the tape don't lie, but it also doesn't tell the whole story. Seeing, hearing live music in person is an entirely different experience than hearing a recording or watching a video. Typically, a live show in person is MUCH louder than the home viewing/listening experience. You FEEL the kick, and low frequency rumble your balls - this doesn't happen listening to a recording. It may be that the cover band is a much more enjoyable experience in person - especially if you have not just seen Toto two minutes previously.

 

3) Nowadays, big shows (perhaps even Toto) commonly use a variety of backing tracks to enhance the performance of the live music. It may be that the difference in the two video performances has to do with the use of backing tracks.

[Dr 5ives]

As a viewer, I can only speak about the performances.

 

It just looks like the band in the second video has a feeling of

"whatever" a gig's a gig, so what. They come across as basically playing the notes, and not much more. Phoning it in.

Overall, just a lack of passion.

 

That being said, we have no idea what was going on offstage with

the two bands, (rehearsals, lack of, management, day-jobs, family,etc) also pro-shot vs. home video does impact the viewer differently.

 

D

[kelp]

What makes mediocrity? Lack of poise and TIMING.

[ElmerJFudd]

Timing is also very loose in the second recording. The band doesn't sync up which is always a problem with Rock performances where there's a fight between controlling stage volume vs. FOH and giving everyone what they need from monitoring to play in time. In this venue they've got the Drummer behind glass which means he's relying on monitor and everyone else is relying on monitor to hear him. The impact of his drums is totally lost if the monitoring is inadequate. If you can't feel the kick drum may as well pack up and go home.

 

Also, you need dual mixes to do a decent live recording. One for the FOH and one for the recording. They'll be seriously different.

[Sven Golly]

Okay, so I posted a from-the-hip post, but given the tender sensibilities of some forum members, I deleted it, and will instead offer up this for your consideration.

 

The first post in this thread offers up for our comparison a fully-produced, released-to-DVD, nicely polished (with all that implies) performance which may, or may not, have been all captured live, performed under perfectly controlled concert conditions, over what may or may not have been more than 1 day of shooting... oh, and played by motherf*#king TOTO... with a single-camera, board-mix capture of a festival performance... by NOT motherf*#king TOTO.

 

...and people are piling on? Seriously?

 

Wow. Common sense and critical thinking is dead. Long live the TMZ generation. Kanye is a genius.

 

Peace, out.

 

Edit to add: Yes, the Kimball performance is weak tea, and he's lost a lot of his ability, but he had already lost it over a decade ago. See if you can hear the overdubs and autotune in this video:

 

[video:youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyw04E-Zujc

[hardware]

Maybe because Rosanna was an old X who once had admirable qualities, but now just collects his royalties.

I would want to actually rush the tempo and get though it w/o wanting to smash the Guitar.

[DulceLabs.com]

HAHAH! Glad you toned it down from your original post, Sven!

[HammondDave]

From a truly mediocre musician, I can tell you guys that you are being unreasonably critical of these musicians. Age takes a toll, and some handle it better than others.

 

Last night I saw The Moody Blues... Justin Haywood and John Lodge are 68. They still sound great! Whereas Graeme Edge is 74 and can hardly play anymore (they have a second drummer). But he still puts on a good show.

 

The cats playing the Toto cover do a decent job. No, they are not Toto, but not bad. I saw Toto butcher some of their tunes on the Grammy show a few years ago. Everyone has good and bad nights.

[midinut]

I can't recall what happened that caused Kimball to leave Toto (or vice-versa). I've got the 25th Anniversary DVD and he was with them on it. Somebody refresh my memory if you please.

[summers]

It's simple. When you send King Kong in against Tarzan's chimp, somebody's gonna get a break-away A whipping. Many cover bands just don't have the equipment, knowledge, skills and abilities that the major well heeled bands do, so the same applies. Still, with that knowledge in mind, I enjoy them in settings where you know you're not getting the real thing. Of course, some just bomb.

[JeffLearman]

The singer doesn't have the range for that tune.

Which is funny given that he recorded it originally.

Not really. 30 years had passed since the original recording and the video you posted. Have you heard the vocal range change in Billy Joel, Paul McCartney, or just about any other singer with a long career?

When I heard McCartney at age 60 I was amazed at his ability to sing a LONG show with hardly a break (actually, NO break other than a quiet section in the middle), singing songs in the same keys he'd recorded them in his 20's.

 

Bad example, in that case. Maybe now that he's 70 (or close) he's lost some range.

[DulceLabs.com]

When I heard McCartney at age 60 I was amazed at his ability to sing a LONG show with hardly a break (actually, NO break other than a quiet section in the middle), singing songs in the same keys he'd recorded them in his 20's.

 

Bad example, in that case. Maybe now that he's 70 (or close) he's lost some range.

 

Saw him a year or so ago and his energy was through the roof, but he was really struggling to hit some of the higher notes. Not talking anything away from him -- was an awesome show and he's still an amazing performer... Only making the point that it's not strange at all for singers to lose range as they age.

[Tonysounds]

Thank God Sven. I was beginning to think I'd taken crazy pills.

 

Like every band has a Simon Phillips, and a Luke, and a Nathan East and I cant believe I'm even responding.

[ksoper]

1. Comparing those two particular videos is, as has been pointed out, unfair.

 

2. Let's hear your shit!

 

Let's Hear It!!!

 

 

[MathOfInsects]

I think that this thread was meant to be some kind of side-door gloat regarding Bobby Kimball vs his old band. Like, hah-ha, they're great and you're playing with solfege-guy. But...why?

[Sven Golly]

HAHAH! Glad you toned it down from your original post, Sven!

 

Dude, even *I* was shocked at how badly I went off... so just imagine!

 

and I cant believe I'm even responding.

 

I know, right?

 

 

[Paul Harrison]

What makes us immediately recognize mediocrity?

 

No comment on specific clips, but generally speaking, mediocrity can be the result of a lack of technique ("chops") or tightness ("groove") or, tone ("guts"), or all of the above.

 

There is a difference between performance and presentation, though ... a mediocre recording of a good performance diminishes the experience but not the artistry.

[J. Dan]

If you don't know, you'll forever be damned to mediocrity. You get it, or you don't.

[timwat]

"We gain nothing by being with such as ourselves. We encourage one another in mediocrity. I am always longing to be with men more excellent than myself." - Charles Lamb

[marczellm]

1. Comparing those two particular videos is, as has been pointed out, unfair.

 

2. Let's hear your shit!

 

Let's Hear It!!!

1. The setting in which the videos were recorded is indeed very different. But I've seen Toto live on the same tour and it wasn't any worse than the DVD, their playing and energy is brilliant, and the FOH mix was better than anything I've heard.

 

2. I'm considering escaping mediocrity, that's why I started the thread

[marczellm]

I think that this thread was meant to be some kind of side-door gloat regarding Bobby Kimball vs his old band. Like, hah-ha, they're great and you're playing with solfege-guy. But...why?

Thread's supposed to be about mediocrity, what makes it and how to escape. Toto and Kimball only an example.

[mate stubb]

What makes mediocrity?

 

1. lack of talent

2. lack of time spent practicing

3. lack of desire

4. cluelessness

 

How to escape? There's no cure for #1, but the others can be overcome by dedication.

[Outkaster]

I think its just people learning to play instruments or not learning correctly. Then they go out and gig and try to play stuff they were too lazy to learn correctly in the first place. Its so rampant, I see it all over the US. It always amazes me how many musicians are out there that just kind of dont get it.