Pribek

Dr J had a post the other day entitled, “Eulogy for the Instrumental?“, about the lack of instrumental hit songs. Why is that? J’s post covers a lot of possible reasons. I made a comment there which he asked me to expound on and, looking at what I wrote in reply, I don’t think I made a very concise point. This may not come as a surprise to many of you. So, I will now, make an attempt to clarify.

The last period that instrumental music had a big impact on pop culture was the late 50’s and early 60’s. There were a lot of them being released and some huge hit records came out of it.

What’s different now? You can say the industry is different, sure. You can say that the listener’s, the consumer’s, tastes have changed, sure. In the post, Dr. J sites a Slate article that delves in to these factors. The Dr. addresses another factor that must be brought to the equation, the composers.

Many of the composers that are really good at crafting music are lured into the film scoring field. The trouble is, their work is often so watered down by cuts and producer changes, it becomes a “work for hire” composition rather than truly a part of the composer’s voice. Or maybe we’re just waiting for the next Beethoven to be born…

I think he’s got a good point there. The movie business tips more than the music business makes. It is natural that talented and competent composers would drift to where the money is.

I think there is still another side to this. On an instrumental song/record, the main instrumentalist is playing the melody. Another way to look at it is, the main instrument is doing the part that the lead singer would be doing on a vocal record. So, the main instrument is the voice. Just like on a vocal record, you have to have a good composition and the artist has to interpret the composition well. In the history of pop music, the artist is often the composer but, in that case, the same rule applies.

I think that musicians are thinking differently than they did when instrumental records were popular. They think differently and therefore, play differently. Not worse or better, differently.

If you are discussing instrumental hit songs in the rock era, Duane Eddy is part of the discussion-has to be because, he sold millions of instrumental records. Here is a clip of Duane playing “Rebel Rouser” on the Letterman show. There is an interesting bit of dialog, after the performance, when Duane is over on the couch. Dave points out that Eddy made the first rock & roll album that was recorded in stereo. When Dave hears that the title was, “Have Twangy Guitar, Will Travel”, he reacts with a little sarcasm and Duane states that the record sold “about 3 million”. If a guy with a guitar sold 3 million records today, he would be everywhere. He would be the huge thing in the music world.

This next clip is Duane discussing some of his influences. Near the end of the clip, he mentions Billy Byrd who was best know for his work with Ernest Tubb.

Billy Byrd was a master of simplicity. In this video, while discussing Byrd, Duane gets to the heart of the issue; “If you are going to do an instrumental it’s gotta be something you can remember-that people can remember. It’s got to pierce their brains you know.”

See, I just don’t see a lot of players today that are thinking that way. When was the last time you heard a country record where the instrumental solo, between vocals, just repeated the melody ala Billy Byrd? You don’t hear it because players aren’t thinking that way. Here’s the logic; The listener is already familiar with the melody because the singer has been singing it. They are comfortable with it. If the soloist plays that same melody, the listener then picks up on the tonal nuances particular to that instrument. The instrument becomes a “voice”, a personality. Because the listener is already comfortable with the choice of notes, it frees them up to concentrate on those nuances. Duane Eddy used the Billy Byrd aesthetic to sell millions of rock & roll records without ever singing a note.

Not only that, he made a conscious decision to it. That is a highly evolved space for a musician. Don’t think for a minute that Duane Eddy couldn’t play flashy. Instead, he made the very wise and thoughtful decision to play for the listener. Take a look at this clip of Duane playing the Merle Travis tune, “Cannonball Rag”.

That is something that most cats walking around with a gig bag can not do. That kind of playing takes a lot of dexterity, technique and musicality. Duane does it flawlessly and effortlessly. Here’s another thing, I guarantee you that he has more in the trick bag than that. I guarantee you he can “shred”. But, he isn’t ever going to show all his cards and he’s always going to put the listener, the average person, first.

That is the kind of approach that I don’t see a lot of with musicians these days. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist. It’s still there but, I see less of it than I used to.

That’s not a complaint either. I love to hear a great musician just going for it. I like to hear that kind of playing but, I’m a musician. Hell, I’m excited that Return To Forever is getting back together and going to tour. I’d pay to see those guys. What percentage of the audience at those shows will be musicians?

That is a true “niche” market. Music made for and sold to musicians. That’s what most instrumental records are these days. It’s not bad work if you can get it. The audience is one that truly appreciates what the artist is doing.

But, for an instrumentalist to tap in to the “mainstream”, that requires a completely different mindset. And, it’s a stacked deck because, the mainstream isn’t accustomed to consuming instrumental music at this point. The industry, the whole industry is scrambling to keep their livelihood so, they aren’t going to be all in on an instrumental record-no way. So, for an instrumental record to be a hit record right now, it would be coming out of nowhere. It would have to be something that would, “pierce their brains you know”.