Keyboards and Jean Michel Jarre

Ok..we have Dream Theater's Kevin Moore, Derek Sherinian and Jordan Rudess. We also have Jens Johansson, Jon Lord, Mat Olausson, Rick Wakeman and Bon Jovi etc. These are just some of the popular names that comes out when we talk about keyboardists. If you realise the trend, we tend to be over narrowing ourselves to a specific genre or group. "So what's wrong with that?" you may ask. There's nothing wrong, only that we are just overly ignorant and most prob over rated some of those above. If you really look into the list above, most are either rock or progressive rock/metal and jazz players. There're so much more talented, more expressive players in the keyboard field.

Let's start with the definition of keyboards in the musical world before discussing further.

" A "keyboard instrument" is a musical instrument played with a musical keyboard. Keyboard instruments can generally be classified as wind instruments, string instruments, percussion instruments, or electronic instruments. The most common ones are probably the piano and the synthesizer." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyboard_instrument

So in the wake of the above definition, we can see that those above should be known as electronic instrumentalist because classifying them as keyboardist will be too general. From the definition, we can see that we are also missing out a lot when talking about keyboardist. We have totally forgotten great legends such as Chopin, Beethoven, Bach, Richard Clayderman, Kitaro, Brad Fidel, Depeche Mode, Pet Shop Boys, Yanni, Human League, Prodigy, Little Richard, Elton John, Duran Duran, Era, Enigma and Mike Oldfield etc. Did you know that the keyboard solo in Van Halen'd Jump was played by Edward Van Halen himself? What about those people playing the pubs, hotels and sessionist? Did we even bother to take note? Doesn't mean somone who is your favourite is definitely the best. Every musician is great in his or her own rights.

To all those Dream Theater fans out there, I have to say this, "They are great in their genre and their own style, but they also lack what other musicians have."

I would like to bring your attention who is I think by far a living legend and a musician who is actually ahead of his time of at least three decades. That's Jean Michel Jarre, he is a French new age composer. He is one of those who dabbers deeply into electronic keyboards, sampling , frequency modulation, sound effects etc. He is one of the first musicians to play in China back in 1981 and also recently in 2005. His stages included the streets of Paris, where he played to a record breaking 1 million audience. From the 70s till now, some of the music and style he created, are only beginning to be realised by musicians of those in dance, loungue, pop and metal. His shows are great visual spectacular also. During his concert in China, he was able to integrate Chinse style into his music. His efforts today are still unmatched, they don't even come close. The only band, in my opinion, who can match to his showmanship is likely Pink Floyd with Roger Waters.

Check out his albums such as Equinox, Chrolonolgies, Live In China 2005 and also DVDS such as Live in Moscow, Live In L.A. etc.

Check him out at www.jeanmicheljarre.com

He is one of the musicians that we so carelessly miss out when we discuss music and I would like the say this again..."Keep an open mind."

Been a while....NKF saga and music in general...

Well well...it's been some time since my last entry. Many things has happened since my last entry. One of such is the one about the misuse of charity funds in National Kidney Foundation. However, to me, most of the smoke has been cleared but not all. This is however not of my major concern. In summary, do not forsake or punish the needy patients for the mistakes the management of NKF did. With that said, NKF do need to have a certain degree of transparency that is acceptable to the public. Afterall, it's the money of the public that is been used. Make it clear are you a charitable or a profitable organisation. Period.

Now, back to what this blog is all about...music and its relative.

In recent months, my band has been scouting for a drummer and currently still in progress. During this process, a few age old grey questions had been raised again. The question are as follows:

1. Technicality vs feel, which is more important?
2. Potential result or investment first?
3. What is technicality?
4. Technical band and progressive band, what're the difference?

I shall attemp to answer these questions as best as I could.

1. This is a question that I think has to be seen from two perspectives. One from the point of the musician, one from the point of the listener.

From the point of the musician, it will be challenging to learn or able to do technically challenging pieces. It would be more fun and also a chance to exhibit your playability as far as timing(odd beats and such), speed and in all, skills are concern. That is been technical. Please note that that does not include creativity. Technicality is a tool to enhance creativity and is not creativity itself. It is as if a painter is trained with all the various techniques of painting, but if you only see strokes and slashes but no picture...then what's the point? That brings us to the perspective of the listeners. It depends on what the listeners is listening for. Some of course, would appreciate the skills that the musicians showcase, some would want to listen out for emotions, messages etc. of what the musician is trying to express, i.e. feel. It is similar to genres of music, jazz, rock, classical, new age etc.. There are certain traits that the listeners are looking out for when listening to the different genre. I would also like to stress that a good jazz player may not be a good rock player both in 'feel' and 'technicality'.

2. When I talked about investment, it basically means three things: time, effort and money. As a musician or artist, one has to realize if he wants to do it for the money, or for the passion. Certain musicians had time and again came up to me and told me some of the following:

"I do not want to waste my time and money doing a demo or joining a band if I can't see any money coming in."

"I do not want to play in a gig unless I am been paid."

"We can make money if we start writing and selling."

"We should play what people want to hear then we can get the dough coming in."

One has to be clear, whether you're playing or making music because you love doing it or you play music because it is going to bring you money, fame, fortune and woman?

If you share any of those sentiments quoted above, then I would think that you may belong to a cover band, and there's nothing wrong with it but your objective has got to be clear. Again, you have to be good at what you set out to achieve. The reason is simple, being a musician, I believe you have to be good in the public's eye before you can demand to be paid, cover band or not, dosen't matter. No reward drops on your lap without effort, time, money and uncompromising sacrifices. One more point to add, is it the desire to play music or is it
the glamour and material rewards that drives you? Will you still play if there's no material reward?

3. I wrote something about this a some time back. However, that article was more guitarist oriented. Now, I think I would like to perhaps bring this view to that of a drummer. Recently, some drummer claiming technically inclined came up to me and told me, double peddling on the drums is not being technical. I was at a loss for a while. Isn't it a wonderful if a drummer could be technically good at double bass i.e. good control of rhythm and stamina if required. I gave it a good thought, the world technical, in the drumming world is now too widely used in that of odd time signature and intended inconsistent rhythm. These are mainly jazz influenced. But if you are talking about technically, then in my point of view, other techniques, rhythm pattern such as that of Tribal beat etc. Would have to be good too. Then a drummer is considered technically competent. Again, if you are technically good in jazz, that does not necessary means you are technically good in other form or style as well, especially when your technical expertise cannot bring out the impact of what the music intended.

4. Basically I would like to keep this question short and simple. A progressive band basically composes or plays music that may have different movements or progression which may or may not have a common theme. This has got nothing to do with technicality or odd timing signatures in the music. Earlier bands such as Rush, Pink Floyd and Yes are well known for being the pioneer of progressive music. That is only in the Rock/Metal genre. Don't forget this is quite common in New Age, Classical and dance music too. Of course, in modern days, when we discuss about progressive bands, we can't help but to mention the band Dream Theater. That's only 1/10 right.