Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 July 23

Language desk
< July 22	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 23

Take no prisoners

I sometimes read about some musician playing a piece in a "take no prisoners" style, and I always wonder what they mean. When I google the phrase, I get a range of related meanings, like 'ruthless', 'merciless', 'determined' and so on. I can understand how these meanings might apply to many human actions, but not to music making.

• To whom is the performer showing no mercy?
• How do the qualities of mercilessness and ruthlessness apply to the complex interplay of nuance, rhythm, harmony and tempo that is at the heart of music?

Leaving jazz and other intentionally improvisatory genres to one side, a musician doesn't just make it up as he goes along. He learns the piece thoroughly, and that includes having well developed ideas about how it all fits together. He then performs the piece according to this interpretive concept. His ideas about the piece may well (or even should) change over time, but on any one occasion, what he plays is how he conceives the piece at that time. And if he played it any other way, he would not be being true to himself. That fits my understanding of 'determined'. In that sense, pretty much all decent performances could be described as "take no prisoners". But relatively few of them are so described. What marks these few for this particular description? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a defintive answer, but I think it has to do with not caring about the audience too. There are pianists who seem to play in a "crowd-pleasing" way (one very famous one comes to mind, but I hesitate to list examples since this is also a matter of taste and opinion, and I don't wish to start that kind of debate). In any event, those crowd-pleasing performances don't fit the "takes no prisoners" label, in my view. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

When I hear the phrase, I think of Megadeth. Particularly the sort of rhythm in "Architecture of Aggression." Feels like advancing machinery, then the riff gets sinister for the chorus. Structure fits the lyrics. A similar thing happens in "Angry Again". All in rumbling and forward-driving steady beats. Tank songs. "Take No Prisoners" itself seems more like an aerial assault to me. Dave Mustaine's snarl helps the feeling in all of them. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Can't forget to mention Kill 'Em All. That album might have invented the style, at least as I hear it. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Might be virtually synonymous with thrash metal. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

"Take no prisoners" to me suggests an aggressive approach - which most forms of metal but also punk and grunge might fit, but you could also imagine, say, a classic pianist playing a piece more aggressively than another pianist might. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Aggressively, yes. But does that necessarily equate to "take no prisoners"? Certain kinds of music (the ones mentioned above, mainly) are inherently aggressive, regardless of how anyone sings/performs them. But normally it's not the music itself that's tarred with this epithet, it's individual performances. Is this just a cliched expression that means little but helps to pad out music reviews? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Could just be a label. I don't get how music can be inherently anything regardless of how it's played, though. Isn't the way it's played what makes it music? Or are you talking about stage presence? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Typically a metaphor for a strong, dynamic performance of some kind - possibly misused in this case, but it's a pretty mainstream metaphor, watered down. Like a real Nazi vs. a "soup Nazi". I'm thinking back to one time a number of years ago, when the Chicago Cubs swept the New York Mets in a four-game mid-season series, including a fistfight in the final game. The Chicago Tribune's headline the next day was "Cubs take no prisoners!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Inedible Hulk, I was thinking of heavy metal and its ilk. My exposure to such music is very limited, by my choice, because what I've heard of it has turned my aural stomach. There may well be a death metal version of a lullaby, but I'm not going looking for it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

There's probably some sort of melodic metal (not to be confused with melodic death metal, for which we actually have an article) for you out there. But yeah, turning some stomachs is part of not taking them prisoner (widening the fanbase). Just more mouths/ears to feed. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

More speculation: to take no prisoners means, by extension, to do things "all the way" and completely dominate the action. I can see those phrases pertaining to any style of music; it means to play without timidity. Don't hesitate or play with reluctance - do your best. I don't have the musical vocabulary to describe it, but I think it's fairly common to hear someone playing a piece technically well, but without a sense of surety, so that it doesn't sound as good as it should given the technical ability. Matt Deres (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

My impression is pretty much the same as Matt's (as well as those that suggest that the expression is a reviewer's easy way out of actually characterizing a performance in detail). In my younger days, such a reviewer might have said that a performer "let it all hang out"—played with passion and enthusiasm, even if perhaps not with technical precision. The opposite of "by the numbers". Deor (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

By Merriam-Webster's take on the phrase, music that feels charitable, compassionate, humane, kindhearted, kindly, merciful, sensitive, softhearted, sympathetic, tender, tenderhearted, warm or warmhearted is the opposite of "take no prisoner". Sarah McLachlan music takes prisoners and adopts dogs, even if she's passionate and sloppy about it. Bugs' Cubs example is more in line, I think. Just "destroyed" the Mets, something like how a stack of amplifiers "destroys" the first few rows at a rock show. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I would assume, though lacking real knowledge in this area, that a "take no prisoners" approach to playing music is putting the emphasis on an "offensive" style, as though the performer is not afraid to be offensive. This would be hyperbole because truly offensive would be simply offensive and consequently without any redeeming qualities, in my opinion. But the description implies "pushing the envelope" of acceptability, or at least I would assume. Bus stop (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

G.G. Allin was that sort of purely and simply offensive type. But even he had fans. Fans he literally beat and pissed on, but still. They saw something in him. But no, I doubt he's cool in your opinion. Mine neither. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"music that feels charitable, compassionate, humane, kindhearted, kindly, merciful, sensitive, softhearted, sympathetic, tender, tenderhearted, warm or warmhearted" - it's not really possible to play or sing such music in a "take no prisoners" style, is it? This is why I feel that certain genres of music are themselves inherently of the TNP style. You can't play death metal in a softhearted or tender way (and expect to be taken seriously), and you can't sing a soft, slow romantic ballad in a TNP style (and expect to be taken seriously). Comments? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't each genre have its own spectrum? Within that spectrum (and for those who enjoy that particular genre), I do think death metal contains moments performed in a softhearted or tender way while being taken seriously. Though I'm not a native speaker, I will re-iterate what I wrote above about crowd-pleasing. I guess what I meant was compromising (the composers intentions, one's own artistic or aesthetic judgment, etc.) in order to give the audience what they want to hear (or what the performers/conductors who do take prisoners think the audience wants, or what they're being told it wants). Various definitions of "to take no prisoners" include "uncompromising". Googling for "takes no prisoners" in reviews of classical music performances and recordings gave several examples where I think "uncompromising" is also the intended meaning, applicable to non-aggressive, non-driven music as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I hear you now. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Well said. That's what the last bit of that Chicago Tribune article on Slayer got at. They don't care if they're on the radio, or stay "relevant". They just want to keep making Slayer-style music. Could work for an unflinching, stoic flautist or marimba player, too, but the connotations apply better to music that somewhat feels like war and testosterone and slaughter. I'd call the gentler musicians simply "uncompromising".

As for the inherency, the same song can be adapted in many ways, depending on the performer. Richard Cheese has made a career out of pussifying and ridiculing aggressive music, while retaining the general tune and lyrics. It's actually quite nice. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Take no prisoners" is an obvious metaphor for "to go all out". Is there some further question? μηδείς (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I have one. Do you really think it takes maximum effort and enthusiasm to literally take no prisoners? I think "going all out" means taking the extra time to captivate and enthrall (like "winning hearts and minds"). Much easier to just crank it up to eleven and blow everyone away. Become the loudest band in the world. You don't even have to make eye contact. Just a vulgar display of power. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

This article on Slayer paints a decent picture. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that all that we can say is that the writer is using the metaphor of the “take no prisoners” style of music to make the reader interested in hearing the music. Bus stop (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

My impression is that "taking no prisoners" is the polar opposite of "keeping/playing it safe", "bland (or inoffensive) music" and "middle of the road". While the distinction certainly smacks of rockism and its worship of "authenticity", I agree that it is not necessarily specific to any specific genre and just describes a performance that conveys passion, enthusiasm or conviction to the audience (sometimes described by musicians in terms of an exchange of energy). That does not necessarily mean that a "boring" performer who appears to be "going through the motions" is not truly passionate and does not truly "feel" the music personally (though one may be forgiven for the impression that the musician lacks "soul", "the spirit" or "groove", etc.), and vice versa, that a compelling musician is completely honest, mind you, these are not necessarily connected; it's probably more a question of acting: putting on an act so well (if necessary) that people don't realise that you are doing so. "Stage presence", "selling a song", "rocking an audience", "taking the world by storm", etc., is apparently a distinct skill (or talent) from the mere technical skills involved in playing an instrument. To which extent this elusive ability of engaging and exciting an audience is conducive to training and experience (like, for example, rhetorical training), and how much of it is natural (acting?) talent, is a question better asked of a practicing musician on the road.

No doubt this is a, if not the, key part of the secret of any successful musician (or performing artist in general). There is, in any case, definitely the phenomenon of "studio bands" as, after all, a studio recording offers much more occasion to "polish" the performance and many aspects and cues of the live performance are completely missing. Still, listeners not infrequently claim to be able to pick up on a "bloodlessness" or "plastic-ness" of a recording, although only when there is broad agreement about this failure to engage the audience even through a studio recording is there reason to think there is probably something objectively perceptible involved.

A case in point that this issue is as important for classical as for popular music – I recall reading an opinion piece (I think) complaining about the flood of classical musicians (especially instrumentalists) from East Asia looking for jobs in Europe who are on a high technical level but perceived to be lacking in interest for the audience; the "human robot musician" phenomenon. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I do not think it truly has anything to do with any sort of innovativity and perception of being cutting-edge, while the quality of being "edgy" is certainly often connected with it. Certainly you could play the most cookie-cutter 50's rock'n'roll or 80's thrash metal and be praised by critics who simply happen to enjoy that kind of music as long as it's done well – after all, what is more uncompromising than sticking to a style that has not been in fashion for a long time? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your interesting thoughts, Florian. And to everyone else who helped me with this important matter. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Resolved