The Mike Dirnt Paradox

[Spike]

I came across this article on another site a few days ago and I thought you guys might find it interesting. Or tl;dr, one or the other.

A couple of days ago, I came across a Fender video on YouTube. It was promoting a signature P-Bass, named after Mike Dirnt, the bass player for Green Day.

I did like several of their songs when I was younger, but even back then, there was nothing about Mike's playing that struck any interest in me. He did his job okay and had a steady playing, yet he was just your every punk band's just-picking-nervously-the-roots-and-doing-nothing-else bass player. But hey, what he did was fitting the band's style, and I assumed for a long time that there would be nothing else to expect from the guy except this clichéd simplistic playing.

And he just erased that thought in the first five seconds of the aforesaid video, in which he played some intense and expressive slap sequence.

Later on in the same clip, he played a couple of chords for a short progression - to which he added a few harmonic variations, and even if that bit wasn't as technically impressive as the slap sequence, it was still executed well and had a nice melodic feel going with it, something I just never heard in punk bass playing before.

Even if I enjoyed being this pleasantly surprised by a simple P-Bass video, it kept me wondering. Seriously, if Mike had such capacities as a bass player, if he was indeed a much more versatile musician than what his band's style would need, why did he keep his bass lines that simple and unexpressive for years of career?

Don't get me wrong, guys. I don't know every single Green Day song by heart, far from it. I'm sure you Green Day fans can come up with a couple of songs in which Mike did use one nice turnaround or two, or did something that was more melodic than what he usually does. But seriously, has the guy been doing anything else than just bland and repetitive E string picking for all those years?

Which brings us to what I wanted to debate with this article.

Should we call someone a "good musician" because of what he's able to do as a musician? (to keep it simple, we'll just consider technical abilities, versatility and mastering of scales and modes)

Or should we instead deem someone a "good musician" if that person is able to write actually good and creative musical pieces, regardless of his overall ability as a musician?

If we consider that question stricto-sensus, it's all going to be in your abilities and nothing else. Mr. One is going to be a better musician than Mr. Two because, for example, he can play effortlessly at faster tempos, knows by heart way more scales and chords, is able to give more nuances to the notes he plays, ecc.

Furthermore, just because you are able to use several techniques and melodic variations doesn't mean you have to use them all in every single piece or song that you write. Sometimes, keeping it simple and efficient is better for the listener, especially if you're playing a simplistic style like punk rock for that matter. Some might say a good painter is not a painter that uses every single color he can get his hands on, but a painter that purposedly chooses the best suited colors for the effect intended by the artist.

If you're attempting to write an instrumental on the guitar, trying to cram too many fancy techniques like harmonics, tapping, or tricky finger picking, might make the thing sound too confusing and unfocused. Even if you've got a steady beat or melody going on, what you are trying to write may lose its original spark and be overshadowed by technical prowess - the kind of technical prowess that both general listeners and trained musicians tend to reject.

Thus, it would be fair to admit that what matters is not what you're able to do, but what you're able to tone down according to the style you're playing. In Mike Dirnt's case, even if he downplayed a lot of his bass abilities for Green Day, what he did with that band suited perfectly what was required from a pop-punk bass player, and that way, we could say that it makes Mike a damn fine player - who's also able, thanks to his musicianship, to outplay most punk bass amateurs that just stick with that one style.

Or is it? Just because a particular genre that you need to play - for whatever period, be it just a jam session, or a lifelong career in Mike Dirnt's case - requires you to stay in a certain niche and re-use certain "cliches," does limiting yourself to such standards actually make you a better musician? If you're not able to do your own thing out of it - all the while respecting such fundamentals, is there anything special about you at all, and so, is there anything interesting about your musical abilities?

If I stay in the rock dominion for the purpose of keeping this article short, I can still come up with several examples of musicians who have been able to showcase brilliant elements of their musicianship into songs which are inherently pretty simple and "mainstream-friendly," to say the least.

Let's quote a band. One of my favourite acts of all time, Deep Purple. If you break down most of their well-known songs, you'll notice that they are quite simplistic in terms of melody and diatonic construction - just like most rock songs, actually. Yet this band has been able to let each of its musicians express their own personal thing and perform elements of their own musicianship, thus making the songs and the band unique, and admired by critics, musicians, and casual listeners alike.

Let's quote a guitar player - we're on a guitar website, aren't we? Jimi Hendrix. He started up as a blues and rock player, but the man was able to give a great harmonic content to what those genres' niches have been so far. He included jazz chords to pop progressions and gave a tortured yet expressive feel to traditional blues soloing licks. To say that good old Jimi left its mark on both his musician peers and generations of listeners would be an understatement.

Let's quote a bass player - after all, I titled this article and started this reflexion because of a bass player. Allow me to choose my own personal favourite bassist, a legend named T. M. Stevens. He's mostly known as a session man, having worked with international acts such as Miles Davis, Billy Joel, Joe Cocker, Steve Vai, James Brown or Cyndi Lauper, just to name a few. He also recorded several funk metal albums. On these records, most of the songs have typical metal or rock chord progressions, yet he is always using a very distinctive bass playing style over them, mixing distortion to crazy slap beats and keyboard-like harmonic chords. His solos are also impressive too, fast and jazzy - it might be an influence from his early jazz gigs and maybe his unreleased sessions with Miles Davis.

Unfortunately, Stevens never enjoyed the same success as the other two acts I listed above, but still, he created himself a strong identity over a genre that was already established, and he is often quoted as a world class player.

In that regard, I think I would personally stick with the second point of view. Even if I was genuinely impressed by what Mike Dirnt was able to do in a video that wasn't even 3 minutes long, I still consider that he is not that great of a musician to begin with. Sure, he did his job okay, suited the style of his band, and kept the same quality of playing for years of touring and recording. Yet, he kept the thing simple to the point where his bass lines showcase no identity or musicianship, and could have been written by any other punk bass player. Thus, there is nothing memorable about those bass lines and the bass player behind them.

Of course, this is just my opinion on the matter, and I barely brushed the two sides of the question. Please share and comment, guys. Take care of yourselves, and play some more music.

So it got me thinking about the whole band. I think if anyone is going to be criticised for their musicianship it's certainly not Mike. It seems like this writer doesn't know much early Green Day, so I can kind of understand where it comes from given Mike's root-note-heavy work on AI and 21CB. I guess the question is, do you think the guys in the band are good musicians because they can play so well, or bad ones for choosing not to? I mean despite how much they hold back in terms of flashy playing, I don't think I can name a tighter band in the world, with the possible exception of Rush.

[ManseEverard]

Well, (technically) simplest songs are often times hardest to write. Art (in general, not just music necessarily) is not a competition of who can do the most complicated or complex thing. it is far beyond that. Even a few chord ballad can be work of a genius. Hell, some people don't even need a real instrument to do amazing stuff, go to youtube and watch some street musicians play on glasses or something.

Mike and rest of the Green Day are great musicians. Their music is usually not the most complex, but i would consider it a good thing, or even a one of their biggest charms.

And yes, my english sucks.

[Sauli]

I would say, what makes a good musician is an ability to play in the way the song in question requires. You can make great music without playing any complex stuff. Then again, opinions are opinions, but there is, for example, a countless amount of virtuosos on Youtube but yet, how many of them actually contribute anything really listenable and enjoyable when taken as a piece music? Many, of course, do, but as many are just show-offs.

I appreciate virtuosity greatly, but it can't be the main aim of one's music. And Green Day, for example, is extremely tight band, and I appreciate tightness even more than virtuosity.

Whne it comes to Mike, I miss his basslines. On the trilogy, for example, the more stripped down sounds would have required more prominent bass, whilst the more bombastic sound on 21CB, for instance, did not and works fine as it is.

[Todd]

tl;dr

[Anaïs.]

As I've gotten older and more diverse in my music-listening experience, I'll admit that I've felt frustrated with Green Day, and Mike especially as an artist because I know he's capable of a lot cooler things than he does with Green Day. And I think Green Day as a whole is capable of greater things musically. Don't get me wrong, they have power and this ability to write catchy, compelling songs, but what if they pushed to the limits of their potential as artists together?

I would say that *Mike and Tre* have much greater potential, not Green Day as a whole. Billie can't hack anything further than three or four chords.

[Guest]

I feel like I've ranted about this subject time and time again

Mike and Tré are the talented musicians of Green Day, no one can possibly argue that. Billie Joe is a solid pop-punk guitar player, an excellent songwriter, and an average enough singer. Unfortunately, since Billie Joe is completely incapable of writing outside of verse-verse-chorus-verse-chorus-solo-chorus in 4/4 (except in a handful of occasions), Green Day haven't really progressed at all in their 25 years of being a band, musically at least. Mike and Tré were doing more innovative stuff on Green Day's first three records than they've done on their last three.

tl;dr Green Day = The Billie Joe Show = lazy songwriting

[Heather.]

If the consensus above is that Tre and Mike are better musicians (in this case I think we mean "live performers on their instruments") than Billie, then I still want to advocate that I am much more interested in the composition of melodies, of which Billie holds crown. But I agree, he is capable of better than what he produces (and he produces incredible work, too).

To answer the question in the article, although it may not be technically true, I am much more impressed by sloppy musicians who can create something from nothing than by brilliant fingers that can flawlessly execute someone else's work.

[loveblondiebilliejoe]

In my opinion,BJ,Mike,and Tre all have amazing potential and skill. With Billie's unique vocals,and their ability to write anything from catchy,rebellious punk songs to poetic,meaningful punk songs. You can't deny it. Sure,Mikecoul have had branched outside of Green Day and the public could have seen another side of his bass playing,but he stayed loyal to his band and his best friends to later become the most successful punk rock band of all time. I honestly can't believe that the writer felt that they needed to create a full article talking about how Mike could should play beter bass for how famous his band is. No matter what, Mike holds a special place in every true Green Day fan's heart.

[Guest]

In my opinion,BJ,Mike,and Tre all have amazing potential and skill. With Billie's unique vocals,and their ability to write anything from catchy,rebellious punk songs to poetic,meaningful punk songs. You can't deny it. Sure,Mikecoul have had branched outside of Green Day and the public could have seen another side of his bass playing,but he stayed loyal to his band and his best friends to later become the most successful punk rock band of all time. I honestly can't believe that the writer felt that they needed to create a full article talking about how Mike could should play beter bass for how famous his band is. No matter what, Mike holds a special place in every true Green Day fan's heart.

[Nemo.]

I think it really depends on the genre. Billie, Mike and Tré are good (punk) rock musicians. But when I think about some metal composers especially Tuomas Holopainen and compare that kind of (excellent and complex songwriting) with green day (which isn't a good idea) there is a big gap. But it's kinda nonsense to compare punk rock and metal I just want to underline my point.

[Clockwise]

I think it means different things to different people, really.

This writer definitely did not listen to much older Green Day, or the trilogy. Regardless, I think creativity and making do with what you have will always trump technical skill, and I think that's something Green Day has always done extremely well.

[inthehallwaynow]

In the band I was once in the bass player and I (the drummer) were much better at our instruments than the guitarist. Im self taught so I have no idea what people are talking about when they try to explain notes and beats etc for the most part but I can listen to anything and pick it up right away and I can naturally just play with anybody who knows their instrument some people have a hard time adjusting to other peoples styles. The bass player was out of control good he would play bass ..synth ..and Moog Tauras pedals all in one song which made his job pretty hard. Im not braggin when I say that we were both very good its just a fact but what Im trying to say here is the guitarist knew he lacked special playing skills and would always get down on himself cause he could never come up with something as intricate as he wanted. Usually I'd say if it sounds good to us and other people who cares how technical it is.. thats just my thought why get yourself down if what you're creating sounds really great? I guess he just wanted to be better which is also a great thing but it was a bummer to see him down because he thought that everything needed to be crazy complicated.

(sorry if its hard to read)

[bagelfeet]

In the band i was once in the bass player and I (the drummer) were much better at our instruments than the guitarist.. im self taught so i have no idea what people are talking about when they try to explain notes and beats and shit for the most part but i can listen to anything and pick it up right away and i can naturally just play with anybody who knows their instrument some people have a hard time adjusting to other peoples styles..the bass player was out of control good he would play bass ..synth ..and Moog Tauras pedals all in one song which made his job pretty hard im not braggin when i say that we were both very good its just a fact but what im trying to say here is the guitarist knew he lacked special playing skills and would always get down on himself cause he could never come up with something as intricate as he wanted and i would usually say if it sounds good to us and other people who cares how technical it is.. thats just my thought why get yourself down if what you're creating sounds really great? i guess he just wanted to be better which is also a great thing but it was a bummer to see him down because he thought that everything needed to be crazy complicated

rip punctuation

[inthehallwaynow]

rip punctuation

i get this all the time sorry

[JOE THE X-KID]

To be honest I think Billies a lot better than he gets credit for.

[Beerjeezus]

I think Green Day should try writing more complex stuff. Despite being a melody oriented band they're by no means lousy musicians and it's high time they showed it. I don't remember being actually impressed by any instrumental part of their music and it's a pity. Music is simply better when there are more interesting motives then just the main melody and it doesn't make the piece too complicated or less radio friendly. For example the guitars are too simple. It's almost difficult to recognise one song from the other and it really gets repetitive. The main problem is that it must be very limiting for every attempt to create something more creative.

[Z J]

I came across this article on another site a few days ago and I thought you guys might find it interesting. Or tl;dr, one or the other.

So it got me thinking about the whole band. I think if anyone is going to be criticised for their musicianship it's certainly not Mike. It seems like this writer doesn't know much early Green Day, so I can kind of understand where it comes from given Mike's root-note-heavy work on AI and 21CB. I guess the question is, do you think the guys in the band are good musicians because they can play so well, or bad ones for choosing not to? I mean despite how much they hold back in terms of flashy playing, I don't think I can name a tighter band in the world, with the possible exception of Rush.

To me, it's crazy to think that someone is a bad musician just because they don't show off every chance they get. Green Day plays tight. All 3 have musical abilities beyond what they showcase in Green Day, that much is obvious. I disagree with the notion that you can call someone a bad musician for sticking to their bands' style

Also, this is not to say I don't think GD should go more complex. I think it'd be interesting to hear. But for what they've done to this point in their career, none of the 3 have anything to prove

[Certified Nimrod]

I mean despite how much they hold back in terms of flashy playing, I don't think I can name a tighter band in the world, with the possible exception of Rush.

It makes sense that a non-flashy band plays tightly. The songs are easier to play!

[Jaded in Chicago]

Mike's bass is often subtle but brilliant, especially in the early years.

Love the little snippets of bass in 'Road to Acceptance'

Love his baseline for Longview (who doesn't?)

Love his little intro to 'Stuart and the Ave'

There's many more examples from 1039-Insomniac that I can't think of now.

Unfortunately he gets drowned out a bit too much in AI onwards but that was bound to happen with the direction GD took.

[bagelfeet]

I think that it's more the case that they are good musicians, but if they go outside what is expected of their band it might seem strange. I mean, fans pretty much know what they expect from the band, so getting some big crazy drum solo, or some really complicated guitar riff, it might not sound like "Green Day".

[Beerjeezus]

I think that it's more the case that they are good musicians, but if they go outside what is expected of their band it might seem strange. I mean, fans pretty much know what they expect from the band, so getting some big crazy drum solo, or some really complicated guitar riff, it might not sound like "Green Day".

You are right, but fans' expectations should not be a limit.

[Libertine Angel]

I judge what makes a good musician with the same criteria I use to judge good music - if it sounds good, it's good. Technical details don't matter as long as it sounds good, and if it sounds good, it's good.

[Spike]

I judge what makes a good musician with the same criteria I use to judge good music - if it sounds good, it's good. Technical details don't matter as long as it sounds good, and if it sounds good, it's good.

I think that's a very important point and a good attitude to have. It's also something that two years of A level music and three years at degree level totally beat out of me. I can't help but analyse everything from a technical standpoint and it's kind of killed my enjoyment of a lot of music, including some of my former favourite bands.

[Libertine Angel]

I think that's a very important point and a good attitude to have. It's also something that two years of A level music and three years at degree level totally beat out of me. I can't help but analyse everything from a technical standpoint and it's kind of killed my enjoyment of a lot of music, including some of my former favourite bands.

I've managed to hold onto that thought pattern mainly due to the differing views of my parents - my dad's a blues/ragtime guitar player, so analyses everything and throws his own spin on everything he plays, whereas my mum's tastes are more like my own. I still like my dad's stuff, just not as much.

[Hermione]

I think that's a very important point and a good attitude to have. It's also something that two years of A level music and three years at degree level totally beat out of me. I can't help but analyse everything from a technical standpoint and it's kind of killed my enjoyment of a lot of music, including some of my former favourite bands.

I totally agree with the point, but it can be fun to look at the more technical side as well, to pinpoint some of the reasons why it's good/why you like it. I guess if (unlike me) you're able to look at it that closely and knowledgeably it can sometimes spoil it, but it can sometimes be a positive, maybe there needs to be a balance between the two ways of looking at it.