hey guys, why are a lot of blues players idiots?


PDA

View Full Version : hey guys, why are a lot of blues players idiots?


Blind In 1 Ear
10-01-2009, 11:06 PM
now that ive got your attention, i have a serious question. why i do i keep finding blues players that seem to look down on technical playing ability? time and time again i see people talk down great players because they dont play blues. usually they bring up vai and satch. now, i actually am not a fan of either of them, but they are obviously great players and musicians.

now, i just had an argument with someone because he thought john mayer was a better player than vai and satch because he "plays with more feel and musicality than them". which is just stupid to say the least. im not a mayer fan either so i feel i can look at this situation without any biased opinions.

john is a great player, but he is no where near vai and satch in terms of technical abilities. im not sure how much musical knowledge he has though. i know vai and satch have quite a bit. anyways, that doesnt really matter anyways. im really wondering where people, esspecially blues players, get the idea that they can somehow guage "soul" or "feeling" in someones playing. where does anyone get off telling anyone that so and so plays with more emotion that so and so? really what they are saying is that they personally dont feel a connection to that persons playing. but why dont people get this? why the arrogence? and since when does speed or technical ability have anything to do with emotion? you either feel what you play, or you dont. i doubt vai and satch would even make music if they didnt put any emotion into their playing. why would they do something they have no connection with?

i just really hope this way of thinking goes away soon. im getting tired of ignorance.

Bluesy...
10-01-2009, 11:13 PM
Everyone's playing has emotion. A measure of the feeling put into it is the feeling that you get out of it, which is completely subjective to everyone, not just blues musicians. Technical ability has little to do with composition and performance. Otherwise, the music as an art-form would be dead.

And if you cannot connect with the feeling of someone's music, don't listen to it.

fiend89
10-01-2009, 11:14 PM
some people feel that less is more. i personally enjoy both john mayer and steve vai but at different times and for different reasons. and i believe Vai's for the love of god has much more feeling and emotion than a lot of John Mayer's stuff.

the.eliminator
10-01-2009, 11:14 PM
john mayer has extensive musical background as do the other two. tell him comparing good guitar players is stupid because its opinion. Im mostly blues hard rock and metal...but i lack the technicality of employing exotic skills and complicated chord variations, does that make me worse than Steve Vai...I'd say 99% would say yes...but isn't that all opinion???

RyanMetalMatthe
10-01-2009, 11:15 PM
God, I hate John Mayer. He has a HORRIBLE voice, but women still have to get out the panty liners when they see him. Show's how stupid people are. I'm not familiar with Mayer's guitar abilities, but I don't need to hear him to know that he can't touch Steve Vai. I still can't get over his guitar playing on Slip of the Tongue.

Guitarfailwin
10-01-2009, 11:15 PM
Guess I'm an idiot.

People find value in different aspects of musical ability, whether it be technical skill, emotional improv abilities or compositional skills. The fact that you refer to someone as an idiot because you don't see eye to eye with them about what makes a good guitar player great is ridiculous.

I like both guitarists, and they're amazing to watch. With that said, I prefer John Mayer myself. :shrug:

Darkkon
10-01-2009, 11:16 PM
im getting tired of ignorance.
Too bad. It's never going to go away, so the best thing to do is deal with it.

jfreyvogel
10-01-2009, 11:18 PM
People that listen to relatively uncomplicated music don't hear the playing of virtuosos in the same way as someone that does listen frequently to that style, or can play in that way. It sounds like uncoordinated noise because they just can't handle all of the input.

And before someone bites my head off with some 'you just don't get blues' or whatever; I love Jazz and Blues.

Stuff Smith, Oscar Peterson, Miles Davis, Grant Green, django reinhardt, Dizzy Gillespie, etc...

There's a whole lot of good music out there in every genre. Try not to get pidgeon-holed everybody.

- Justin

pwrmax
10-01-2009, 11:18 PM
Well phrased soloing that sings always sounds better than insane speed.

Which one of these sounds more amazing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4ZQrtLNNOw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDC3ade3JxU

Petrucciowns
10-01-2009, 11:21 PM
I get angry on this subject just as much as you, but I myself am guilty of this. I recently listened to ENDGAME by Megadeth, and caught myself saying that I didn't like Chris Brodericks playing, because he had no melody. Everyone has their favorite players, and thinks of them as Gods among the others. Even though I don't like Chris Broedericks playing I can admit that he is miles beyond other guitarists in the technique department.


As for the comment about Satch having no soul that's nuts, and he does have many blues/rock type licks in many of his songs.

Guitarfailwin
10-01-2009, 11:22 PM
Well phrased soloing that sings always sounds better than insane speed.

Which one of these sounds more amazing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4ZQrtLNNOw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDC3ade3JxU

Check this out, dunno if you've heard it: Blew me away. It's because of stuff like this that Gilmour's my favorite guitarist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3W6hBI1SAL4

Vitor_vdp
10-01-2009, 11:27 PM
why didn't that comfortably numb impress me at all? In terms of solos with great melodies, that was a bit lacking IMO. Very repetitive licks as well.

Petrucciowns
10-01-2009, 11:27 PM
Yeah gilmour is amazing. He was my fav, but now has been topped by Petrucci. He will always be # 2

jfreyvogel
10-01-2009, 11:30 PM
Because something is fast doesn't mean that it isn't good or "well phrased" in the same way that playing slower doesn't guarantee that you have phrased it well. Either can be good, and when they are they are for the same reason. And then this is of course augmented by either prodigious technical skill or by exceptional emotional expression.

Agree/Disagree?

Guitarfailwin
10-01-2009, 11:32 PM
Because something is fast doesn't mean that it isn't good or "well phrased" in the same way that playing slower doesn't guarantee that you have phrased it well. Either can be good, and when they are they are for the same reason. And then this is of course augmented by either prodigious technical skill or by exceptional emotional expression.

Agree/Disagree?

I prefer the slower, more emotional side of things, but you're absolutely right. And I really do think Vai and Satch play with a ton of emotion as well. :)

Blind In 1 Ear
10-01-2009, 11:47 PM
Guess I'm an idiot.

People find value in different aspects of musical ability, whether it be technical skill, emotional improv abilities or compositional skills. The fact that you refer to someone as an idiot because you don't see eye to eye with them about what makes a good guitar player great is ridiculous.

I like both guitarists, and they're amazing to watch. With that said, I prefer John Mayer myself. :shrug:
i refer to them as an idiot because they either cannot or refuse to actually think for a second. what makes a good guitar player? the ability to play guitar well. its not hard. all the other stuff is just opinion. who has more soul, or feeling, or musicallity is all opinion.

someone said something about a well phrased solo over insane speed. and i agree. but people tend to think in terms of one or the other for some reason. you can have a well phrased, fast solo too. some people say "say more with less". i say, "say what you mean". if you hear more notes, play them. if not, dont. when i play a solo, sometimes i play fast eric johnson-esque solos. sometimes it will be very few notes. i play what is right for the song and where its going.

i personally dont understand playing very fast all the time. to me, thats as boring as playing slow all the time. but see thats an opinion and i know that. i would never say someone who plays fast all the time plays with any less emotion because of that. he obviously plays that way because he gets something out of it....some sort of feeling, some sort of release. personally, i dont get it but some people do and they feel a conncetion. i just think its absurd to try and measure something you cannot measure. and the reason im talking about blues players is because 99% of the time when i have this argument with someone, they are blues based players.

anyways, trying to actually compare musicians at that level is stupid. all three have different styles. we could measure their abilities but their music is their own and has their own soul to it. one isnt better than the other. its all about what the listener gets from it. i just wish more people could get that.

Bluesy...
10-01-2009, 11:52 PM
For the record John Mayer's music does not reflect his musical ability, with the exception of Gravity.

You can't say that any musician had more emotion into a song than another unless you know a the composers. You can put more emotion into beating on a chair with a stick, than in writing a song, that doesn't make it better. Emotional interpretation is completely subjective and cannot be defined.

carmour
10-01-2009, 11:54 PM
now that ive got your attention, i have a serious question. why i do i keep finding blues players that seem to look down on technical playing ability? time and time again i see people talk down great players because they dont play blues. usually they bring up vai and satch. now, i actually am not a fan of either of them, but they are obviously great players and musicians.

I'd class myself as a blues player, and I can only speak for myself when I say that I don't look down on technical playing, I just don't value it as highly because it's not the type of playing that I like to listen to/play. That doesn't make it any better or worse, it's just an opinion. I've never seen blues players talk down to technical players or anything like that, except in exceptional circumstances like when said technical players try to play roots blues and butcher it.


now, i just had an argument with someone because he thought john mayer was a better player than vai and satch because he "plays with more feel and musicality than them". which is just stupid to say the least. im not a mayer fan either so i feel i can look at this situation without any biased opinions.


john is a great player, but he is no where near vai and satch in terms of technical abilities. im not sure how much musical knowledge he has though. i know vai and satch have quite a bit. anyways, that doesnt really matter anyways. im really wondering where people, esspecially blues players, get the idea that they can somehow guage "soul" or "feeling" in someones playing. where does anyone get off telling anyone that so and so plays with more emotion that so and so? really what they are saying is that they personally dont feel a connection to that persons playing. but why dont people get this? why the arrogence? and since when does speed or technical ability have anything to do with emotion? you either feel what you play, or you dont. i doubt vai and satch would even make music if they didnt put any emotion into their playing. why would they do something they have no connection with?




It all depends on what you think makes someone a good player. It varies between people obviously. Some think its purely based on virtuoso skills such as music theory, technical ability, vast musical knowledge, while others value indefinable things like 'soul' or 'feel'. In the first definition, you can pit musicians against each other because there's a clear criteria that you can judge by, but using the second definition, it's useless to pit musicians against each other because things like soul or feel aren't quantifiable like playing at 220 bpm or being a master of music theory.

Different strokes for different folks, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and all those cliches etc etc etc

Guitarfailwin
10-01-2009, 11:58 PM
i refer to them as an idiot because they either cannot or refuse to actually think for a second. what makes a good guitar player? the ability to play guitar well. its not hard. all the other stuff is just opinion. who has more soul, or feeling, or musicallity is all opinion.

someone said something about a well phrased solo over insane speed. and i agree. but people tend to think in terms of one or the other for some reason. you can have a well phrased, fast solo too. some people say "say more with less". i say, "say what you mean". if you hear more notes, play them. if not, dont. when i play a solo, sometimes i play fast eric johnson-esque solos. sometimes it will be very few notes. i play what is right for the song and where its going.

i personally dont understand playing very fast all the time. to me, thats as boring as playing slow all the time. but see thats an opinion and i know that. i would never say someone who plays fast all the time plays with any less emotion because of that. he obviously plays that way because he gets something out of it....some sort of feeling, some sort of release. personally, i dont get it but some people do and they feel a conncetion. i just think its absurd to try and measure something you cannot measure. and the reason im talking about blues players is because 99% of the time when i have this argument with someone, they are blues based players.

anyways, trying to actually compare musicians at that level is stupid. all three have different styles. we could measure their abilities but their music is their own and has their own soul to it. one isnt better than the other. its all about what the listener gets from it. i just wish more people could get that.

:golfclap:

Now I see where you're coming from. I thought you were being a little more hostile.

Music is subjective, and it's up to the guitarist to come up with what he thinks sounds best. I think among a lot of blues guys there's a certain level of resentment towards guys like Satch (I'm just being honest here), so they have that attitude. I had it for a while. With that said, I kind of agree with them too: I actually find both players kind of generic, which I know may shock some people here, but I've also seen my first guitarist who didn't like Comfortably Numb, so... :shrug:

Every player and listener has their preferences. It's good that there are so many differences in us guitar players because listeners have a good, diverse selection to choose from nowadays. :)

carmour
10-02-2009, 12:04 AM
People that listen to relatively uncomplicated music don't hear the playing of virtuosos in the same way as someone that does listen frequently to that style, or can play in that way. It sounds like uncoordinated noise because they just can't handle all of the input.

And before someone bites my head off with some 'you just don't get blues' or whatever; I love Jazz and Blues.

Stuff Smith, Oscar Peterson, Miles Davis, Grant Green, django reinhardt, Dizzy Gillespie, etc...

There's a whole lot of good music out there in every genre. Try not to get pidgeon-holed everybody.

- Justin

I pre-dominantly listen to blues/folk/rock, relatively uncomplicated music, but all through highschool i listened to jazz on a daily basis. It's not that I don't hear the virtuoso playing, the ear bending phrasing, the lightning fast licks.. It just doesn't do as much for me as it once did. Not trying to be demeaning or hurtful to anyone, it's just my opinion, but after spending a decent amount of time in the jazz scene, I got tired of the self-gratifying, musical masturbation that occurs within jazz or other technically/theoretically demanding forms of music. If you get too deep in that musical masturbation, it starts becoming to academic and niche for my liking. After I while of being immersed in that, something clicked, and I went to the blues. I came back to the simple idea of just making music that is pleasing to the ear. It doesn't matter what genre, what scale, what techniques you're using, just make music that you like. No scale is superior to another scale, playing faster doesn't make you sound more musically pleasing (although used sparingly it can be awesome). I'm more of a minimalist player now.. If i can leave space I will.

That being said, I do still listen to a bit of Gypsy jazz/jazz..

Blind In 1 Ear
10-02-2009, 12:20 AM
:golfclap:

Now I see where you're coming from. I thought you were being a little more hostile.

Music is subjective, and it's up to the guitarist to come up with what he thinks sounds best. I think among a lot of blues guys there's a certain level of resentment towards guys like Satch (I'm just being honest here), so they have that attitude. I had it for a while. With that said, I kind of agree with them too: I actually find both players kind of generic, which I know may shock some people here, but I've also seen my first guitarist who didn't like Comfortably Numb, so... :shrug:

Every player and listener has their preferences. It's good that there are so many differences in us guitar players because listeners have a good, diverse selection to choose from nowadays. :)
actually, i dont like comfortably numb either lol.

Blind In 1 Ear
10-02-2009, 12:29 AM
I'd class myself as a blues player, and I can only speak for myself when I say that I don't look down on technical playing, I just don't value it as highly because it's not the type of playing that I like to listen to/play. That doesn't make it any better or worse, it's just an opinion. I've never seen blues players talk down to technical players or anything like that, except in exceptional circumstances like when said technical players try to play roots blues and butcher it.
well granted, i think its usually amature players that talk down virtuosos. but ive heard some people like albert king say things like this. he said it on the album with him and SRV. he told stevie that a lot of players these days play fast and all but they lack soul, but stevie had both. i cringe when i hear that. although i think SRV was great for knowing when to play fast and when not too. that makes his playing less boring....well to me anyway.
It all depends on what you think makes someone a good player. It varies between people obviously. Some think its purely based on virtuoso skills such as music theory, technical ability, vast musical knowledge, while others value indefinable things like 'soul' or 'feel'. In the first definition, you can pit musicians against each other because there's a clear criteria that you can judge by, but using the second definition, it's useless to pit musicians against each other because things like soul or feel aren't quantifiable like playing at 220 bpm or being a master of music theory.

Different strokes for different folks, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and all those cliches etc etc etc
well see, thats what i mean. what you are talking about is not what it takes to be a good player, but a good musician. people often confuse the two. you can be a great musician without being a good player. robert johnson made great music but he was obviously not as good a player as vai or satch. they can play guitar better for sure. but whos better musically? well thats just opinion. it just comes down to what you like.

carmour
10-02-2009, 12:56 AM
well granted, i think its usually amature players that talk down virtuosos. but ive heard some people like albert king say things like this. he said it on the album with him and SRV. he told stevie that a lot of players these days play fast and all but they lack soul, but stevie had both. i cringe when i hear that. although i think SRV was great for knowing when to play fast and when not too. that makes his playing less boring....well to me anyway.

well see, thats what i mean. what you are talking about is not what it takes to be a good player, but a good musician. people often confuse the two. you can be a great musician without being a good player. robert johnson made great music but he was obviously not as good a player as vai or satch. they can play guitar better for sure. but whos better musically? well thats just opinion. it just comes down to what you like.

See, this is what I mean.. people have different definitions/understandings for the same word/phrase, neither is right or wrong. Personally I think that in order to be considered a good guitar player you have to be a good musician as well. A Guitar player IS a musician.

Also, I don't see whats cringeworthy about albert king saying a lot of players these days plat fast but lack the soul.. pretty valid statement tbh

Robert Johnson was certainly a better blues guitar player than vai or satch..

strawforest007
10-02-2009, 06:09 AM
TS: The fact this thread attempted to provoke your said claim of blues players looking down on technical ability and you've had constructive replies proves your point as ignorant in itself, mainly for its generalisation and opinionated statements. You may very well encounter those who agree with you, but you'll also find those who don't. Who wins? No-one. Life goes on.

JilaX^
10-02-2009, 07:29 AM
People that listen to relatively uncomplicated music don't hear the playing of virtuosos in the same way as someone that does listen frequently to that style, or can play in that way. It sounds like uncoordinated noise because they just can't handle all of the input.

And before someone bites my head off with some 'you just don't get blues' or whatever; I love Jazz and Blues.

Stuff Smith, Oscar Peterson, Miles Davis, Grant Green, django reinhardt, Dizzy Gillespie, etc...

There's a whole lot of good music out there in every genre. Try not to get pidgeon-holed everybody.

- Justin

Now you're just being an arrogant ****.
I've listened to just as much, if not more, virtuoso guitarists (Paul Gilbert, Vai, Satriani, Malmsteen, Petrucci etc etc etv) and yet I'm a blues lover who'd say just the same thing. (Also, you say you love blues, yet fail to mention a single blues player :p: )

well granted, i think its usually amature players that talk down virtuosos. but ive heard some people like albert king say things like this. he said it on the album with him and SRV. he told stevie that a lot of players these days play fast and all but they lack soul, but stevie had both. i cringe when i hear that. although i think SRV was great for knowing when to play fast and when not too. that makes his playing less boring....well to me anyway.


To be fair, think back to the eighties.
How many players were just wanking scales as fast as they could? :haha:
That's the definition of playing without soul.



well see, thats what i mean. what you are talking about is not what it takes to be a good player, but a good musician. people often confuse the two. you can be a great musician without being a good player. robert johnson made great music but he was obviously not as good a player as vai or satch. they can play guitar better for sure. but whos better musically? well thats just opinion. it just comes down to what you like.

:facepalm:

The fact is that neither of them are better guitar players.
Let's see Vai attempt to play slide like Robert Johnson, with or without singing. They'd never be able to pull it of, and likewise Robert wouldn't be able to play what they are playing.

stratoclap
10-02-2009, 08:56 AM
people seem to forget that the entire purpose of playing guitar is to make beautiful music. It's all just personal opinion, and for me when I hear a lot of the fast, technical guitar playing the only thing I get out of it is thinking "wow this guy can really play". That's not enough in my opinion.

Of course there is the odd technically complex song that I hear where it will have that sort of "x factor" where I don't really know why it is but I'll really like the song.

Axegrinder#9
10-02-2009, 12:54 PM
I dunno if people realize this, but it is only with guitar players this argument repeatedly occurs - technical ability v.s. "emotional jizz".

Well firstly it's bullshit.

Your technique will be only as good as your mental thought processes that go behind your music. The whole 80s shred phenomenon was a case study of the DICK=GUITAR thesis. And thankfully that died, because it was quite dreadful.

Having the ability to play sweeped arpeggios at insane speeds, or legato your way to hell mean nothing if you're NOT making a real musical statement. That's why I can't stand Michael Angelo Batio. Because he doesn't even CARE about making a musical statement - besides saying, "despite what my ex-girlfriend says, I do have a huge penis."

Now consider the flip side, you need to have the necessary skills to express what you hear in your head. There were days when Hendrix admitted that he'd just space out on acid, thinking of crazy music in his head which he just couldn't physically play. Hendrix man!

Furthermore, the concept of technique doesn't merely equate to speed or guitar acrobatics. Tone, control, vibrato, dynamics, all of those are equally important components of your overall technique.

Finally the most accurate measure of one's technical ability is in retrospect, is how effective it is in translating the sounds and ideas inside one's head into a real and tangible medium.

And lastly, the real cats don't really give a **** about technique. It's the music that supercedes everything else.

ethan_hanus
10-02-2009, 01:09 PM
Why are ya'll using John Mayer and Via as examples. Stevie Ray Vaughan was a great technical blues player, Jimi Hendrix was a great blues rock technical player, BB King was a pinoeer in blues music. Alot of advances in guitar music in general has come from blues music. Pertty much Metal and techinical shreading came from blues, cause before blues there was country, jazz, classical and folk. Then from blues came rock, then from rock came metal.

People appreciiate blues more because of its background in music and its just fun to play and listen too, even if it does all sound the same. But as to feeling, blues does have the upperhand, most blues is written off feeling, expressing themselves through the guitar, technical players who just shread the hell out of their guitar are using predesignded scales and riffs. To me its just more sastifying to hear every note be expressed clearly and with skill then be blasted with 90 million notes in one second.

Technical ability does not make you a great guitar player. Making good music does.

meh!
10-02-2009, 01:14 PM
My opinion is this:

I generally would not opine that a blues player like Mayer is better than joe satriani. Mayer is certainly good guitarist with a style that people like, but satriani is clearly techincally better. However, i really find those kind of guitarists (Vai etc) to only really be better in a fairly shallow fashion that in the end I don't care about.

Like, if you listen to a wes montgomery solo it's very musical. All of the notes are thought about and he knows why he's playing them and, if you listen, you can hear why too. Everything adds to the musicality of the song he's playing in. I don't find that with these 'shredders' they're just quite boring technical exercises.

That is my opinion regarding shredders, generally.

Blind In 1 Ear
10-02-2009, 10:53 PM
See, this is what I mean.. people have different definitions/understandings for the same word/phrase, neither is right or wrong. Personally I think that in order to be considered a good guitar player you have to be a good musician as well. A Guitar player IS a musician.

Also, I don't see whats cringeworthy about albert king saying a lot of players these days plat fast but lack the soul.. pretty valid statement tbh

Robert Johnson was certainly a better blues guitar player than vai or satch..
well like i said, you can still be a great musician without being a great guitar player. i think it would be pretty hard though to be a great player and not a decent musician at least. my point really was that "feel" or "soul" is not a way to guage a players skill level, only technical aspects of the playing can be guaged. everyone is different and what one feels may not be what another feels. so while you might think someone doesnt play with enough feel, someone else might think they do. who's right?

and as for albert king, see what i just said. you cant guage soul. sure, it was the 80s but again, i doubt any player puts no feeling in their playing. maybe to them playing really fast is an emotional release for them. all we can guage is how we feel from their playing.

and well, i didnt say he wasnt. i just said that vai and satch are obviously a lot more skilled at guitar than robert. but that doesnt mean he isnt a skilled musician and made great songs. he was also quite good at singing and playing in almost two different times.

Why are ya'll using John Mayer and Via as examples. Stevie Ray Vaughan was a great technical blues player, Jimi Hendrix was a great blues rock technical player, BB King was a pinoeer in blues music. Alot of advances in guitar music in general has come from blues music. Pertty much Metal and techinical shreading came from blues, cause before blues there was country, jazz, classical and folk. Then from blues came rock, then from rock came metal.
well mayer satch and vai were brought up because i was having an argument with someone about them and it inspired this thread.
People appreciiate blues more because of its background in music and its just fun to play and listen too, even if it does all sound the same. But as to feeling, blues does have the upperhand, most blues is written off feeling, expressing themselves through the guitar, technical players who just shread the hell out of their guitar are using predesignded scales and riffs. To me its just more sastifying to hear every note be expressed clearly and with skill then be blasted with 90 million notes in one second.
so you dont think the blues has predesigned scales and riffs? im pretty sure i could name a few common scales and a lot of well known/used blues licks. i dont see how thats any different other than one is played fast most of the time. but you can play fast in blues too. speed doesnt mean no feeling or a lack of it. its just a tool. again, to the shredders that is actually probably an emotional release for them. we as blues players just dont get it i guess.
Technical ability does not make you a great guitar player. Making good music does.
actually technical ability does make you a good guitar player. making good music makes you a good musician. and besides, "good" music is subjective. the two should obviously go hand in hand however.

imo, i like speed. its useful for building and even releasing tension. but i find it boring if its dont all the time. i think music should have variations. when you vary the speed, the tone, the volume, the intensity, etc... everything seems to mean more to me. if you play everything the same, to me it doesnt sound like there is any conflict and resolution in the music. it doesnt grab my attention. but again, thats just how i like my music. some people like the stuff i dont like.

food1010
10-02-2009, 11:04 PM
God, I hate John Mayer. He has a HORRIBLE voice, but women still have to get out the panty liners when they see him. Show's how stupid people are. I'm not familiar with Mayer's guitar abilities, but I don't need to hear him to know that he can't touch Steve Vai. I still can't get over his guitar playing on Slip of the Tongue.:facepalm: You really haven't heard much of his music, have you?

ethan_hanus
10-02-2009, 11:18 PM
^ I disagree with your statement on techincal ability, it doesnt nessicarly make you a good player, I've heard tones of shreadders who just sound like a cat being bashed up against a trashcan filled with electric eels.

Some of the best guitar players I know of dont play extremly fast, they play modertly fast in solos and stuff, but mostly play at a normal speed, like 100 to 140bpm. But theres a point when shreadding gets annoying, even if it is a good shread.

Yeah there may be scales and designed riffs in blues, but thats in any kind of music, it the base for any riff in anything. Its just how you play it and how you change it to make it your own.

I'm not saying I dislike shreadders, I like it every now and then, just all the time it gets old, just like blues gets old to you because they dont play fast enough. Its not about how many notes you play, its how there played, and what your trying to translate with them. With shreadding its like trying to listen to a person who drank 5 gallons of coffee and 10 monsters talk about something. At least thats how it sounds to me.

Bluesy...
10-02-2009, 11:40 PM
I dunno if people realize this, but it is only with guitar players this argument repeatedly occurs - technical ability v.s. "emotional jizz".

Well firstly it's bullshit.

Your technique will be only as good as your mental thought processes that go behind your music. The whole 80s shred phenomenon was a case study of the DICK=GUITAR thesis. And thankfully that died, because it was quite dreadful.

Having the ability to play sweeped arpeggios at insane speeds, or legato your way to hell mean nothing if you're NOT making a real musical statement. That's why I can't stand Michael Angelo Batio. Because he doesn't even CARE about making a musical statement - besides saying, "despite what my ex-girlfriend says, I do have a huge penis."

Now consider the flip side, you need to have the necessary skills to express what you hear in your head. There were days when Hendrix admitted that he'd just space out on acid, thinking of crazy music in his head which he just couldn't physically play. Hendrix man!

Furthermore, the concept of technique doesn't merely equate to speed or guitar acrobatics. Tone, control, vibrato, dynamics, all of those are equally important components of your overall technique.

Finally the most accurate measure of one's technical ability is in retrospect, is how effective it is in translating the sounds and ideas inside one's head into a real and tangible medium.

And lastly, the real cats don't really give a **** about technique. It's the music that supercedes everything else.

:golfclap:

Bluesy...
10-02-2009, 11:42 PM
It is a lot harder to play at a snails pace than a cheetahs. Try playing some stoner metal and see how often you get off beat. That requires more skill imo, and makes a clearer statement of your musical point than a whole bunch of wank.

Zoot Allures
10-03-2009, 04:30 AM
.

well see, thats what i mean. what you are talking about is not what it takes to be a good player, but a good musician. people often confuse the two. you can be a great musician without being a good player. robert johnson made great music but he was obviously not as good a player as vai or satch. they can play guitar better for sure. but whos better musically? well thats just opinion. it just comes down to what you like.

'technically' not as good a player. Being technically better at guitar dosn't put them automatically above Robert Johnson because we don't listen to music just for the technical aspect. If that were the case everyone would listen to the most complicated music ever for no reason except 'it's complicated music'. I like players like John Lee Hooker. He could say a lot with just one chord, he didn't need more. Some players like Vai are obviously good for all their stuff but then you hear Keith Richards playing and that can be just as good too except it's not as technical but who the hell cares about being technical, we're making music here!

edit: you know the saying 'sometimes you need to know the notes not to play' sums it up well.

ze monsta
10-03-2009, 06:34 AM
I like this thread, I'm an idiot. I can't ****ing stand Vai. He is ****ing boring. This thread is stupid.

acoustielectric
10-03-2009, 09:47 AM
vai definitely plays with a lot of feel.

ze monsta
10-03-2009, 12:50 PM
vai definitely plays with a lot of feel.
Was that an attempt at humour?

Necrophrenic
10-03-2009, 05:50 PM
Steve Vai should only be brought up as an example of what not to do when you're obviously a guitar virtuoso. Not brought up to defend technicality and talent. His talent as a guitarist in terms of skill is not matched by many, and his music does have moments of just being awesome. In my mind, he ruins it by his lack of restraint by showing what he is physically capable of doing constantly. He's little more than an overgrown child to me. What is and what isn't music, is all subjective, it's just personal opinion. I'll add that Steve Vai is probably the only musician I just absolutely detest, no respect for him for what he represents, or his music.

With that being said, I like Satriani pretty well, a little Paul Gilbert, Buckethead too, .. if you want to consider him a virtuoso.. some do, some don't.

Blind In 1 Ear
10-03-2009, 06:04 PM
It is a lot harder to play at a snails pace than a cheetahs. Try playing some stoner metal and see how often you get off beat. That requires more skill imo, and makes a clearer statement of your musical point than a whole bunch of wank.
um no. try holding a clear note for 5 seconds. then try and play 30 clear notes in 5 seconds. you tell me which is harder and takes more time and practice.

that being said, if you cant make one note sing, i dont see the point.

'technically' not as good a player. Being technically better at guitar dosn't put them automatically above Robert Johnson because we don't listen to music just for the technical aspect. If that were the case everyone would listen to the most complicated music ever for no reason except 'it's complicated music'. I like players like John Lee Hooker. He could say a lot with just one chord, he didn't need more. Some players like Vai are obviously good for all their stuff but then you hear Keith Richards playing and that can be just as good too except it's not as technical but who the hell cares about being technical, we're making music here!

edit: you know the saying 'sometimes you need to know the notes not to play' sums it up well.
you are mixing good player and good musician together again. usually yes, they go hand in hand, and they should. but at some point you have to be able to step back and say say, "yes, this guy is better than him at playing guitar". whether or not you like their music has nothing to do with it. and often there are amazing players whos music just doesnt speak to you. that doesnt mean the person whos music speaks to you is better than the guy who doesnt. that just means you dont like the other guy. someone else may feel the opposite of you.

Steve Vai should only be brought up as an example of what not to do when you're obviously a guitar virtuoso. Not brought up to defend technicality and talent. His talent as a guitarist in terms of skill is not matched by many, and his music does have moments of just being awesome. In my mind, he ruins it by his lack of restraint by showing what he is physically capable of doing constantly. He's little more than an overgrown child to me. What is and what isn't music, is all subjective, it's just personal opinion. I'll add that Steve Vai is probably the only musician I just absolutely detest, no respect for him for what he represents, or his music.

With that being said, I like Satriani pretty well, a little Paul Gilbert, Buckethead too, .. if you want to consider him a virtuoso.. some do, some don't.
i used to think that too but now i just look at it as hes just having fun really. i dont listen to vai a lot but he still sounds very musical. hes just not really my taste in music.

Was that an attempt at humour?
why? can you some how guage feeling in someones playing?

carmour
10-03-2009, 08:03 PM
Look man, your whole argument is based on the assumption that when someone talks about guitar playing, they're referring to technical ability. For you this may be true, but other people.. SHOCK HORROR... have different opinions to you. :haha:

Also, YES you can quantify a players feel, but this also.. SHOCK HORROR.. is opinion. Obviously when you start claiming that these things are facts, then it's a totally different matter, but no one heres trying to do that apart from you.. so I guess you're the idiot.

/THREAD :haha:

JilaX^
10-03-2009, 08:30 PM
well like i said, you can still be a great musician without being a great guitar player. i think it would be pretty hard though to be a great player and not a decent musician at least. my point really was that "feel" or "soul" is not a way to guage a players skill level, only technical aspects of the playing can be guaged. everyone is different and what one feels may not be what another feels. so while you might think someone doesnt play with enough feel, someone else might think they do. who's right?

and as for albert king, see what i just said. you cant guage soul. sure, it was the 80s but again, i doubt any player puts no feeling in their playing. maybe to them playing really fast is an emotional release for them. all we can guage is how we feel from their playing.


If you don't get it, you don't. And, do you know what?
That's okay. No problem, but just because you can't tell which guitarist is playing with soul doesn't mean others can't.


and well, i didnt say he wasnt. i just said that vai and satch are obviously a lot more skilled at guitar than robert. but that doesnt mean he isnt a skilled musician and made great songs. he was also quite good at singing and playing in almost two different times.

He was a far better guitar player then Vai and Satch could ever aspire to be, in one manner. Give either of them a slide and tell to play like he did whilst doing clawhammer-style bass and rythm, while keeping in time and playing with restraint, passion and feel.
The same goes both ways. Know why? Because are all virtuosos in their own style, and neither is better.

well mayer satch and vai were brought up because i was having an argument with someone about them and it inspired this thread.

Bringing up Mayer as an example of a good blues guitarist shows that you, quite frankly, don't know anything about the blues.

so you dont think the blues has predesigned scales and riffs? im pretty sure i could name a few common scales and a lot of well known/used blues licks. i dont see how thats any different other than one is played fast most of the time. but you can play fast in blues too. speed doesnt mean no feeling or a lack of it. its just a tool. again, to the shredders that is actually probably an emotional release for them. we as blues players just dont get it i guess.
Speed doesn't mean no feeling, no.
Wanking a scale as fast as you can?
Yes.


actually technical ability does make you a good guitar player. making good music makes you a good musician. and besides, "good" music is subjective. the two should obviously go hand in hand however.

Nope, not really. If a guy has perfect technique and still sounds like ****, I'm going to call him a **** player.

[QUOTE=Blind In 1 Ear]um no. try holding a clear note for 5 seconds. then try and play 30 clear notes in 5 seconds. you tell me which is harder and takes more time and practice.

that being said, if you cant make one note sing, i dont see the point.

Have you ever played in a (good) band? As intensity builds up and dynamics rise, it's extremely hard to be able to restrain yourself from playing fast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNpUmlTc_mI
Jimmie Vaughan is a perfect example, his timing and the way he holds back, is excellent and the sign of a mature, virtuoso player. Being capable of playing fast and not doing it most of the time, is harder than just pouring on.

you are mixing good player and good musician together again. usually yes, they go hand in hand, and they should. but at some point you have to be able to step back and say say, "yes, this guy is better than him at playing guitar". whether or not you like their music has nothing to do with it. and often there are amazing players whos music just doesnt speak to you. that doesnt mean the person whos music speaks to you is better than the guy who doesnt. that just means you dont like the other guy. someone else may feel the opposite of you.

You're saying that the only thing that makes a good player, is technical ability, which is rather wacky. The ability to sound good, is another factor. Which is why Vai and Satch, are great players. They both sound brilliant, Malmsteen?
Not so much.

carmour
10-03-2009, 09:00 PM
awesome clip of jimmie man, sick playing. Love the way he does that really precise attack with all down strokes, sounds like really early B.B King, and his vibrato is so Otis Rush perfected

JilaX^
10-03-2009, 09:25 PM
awesome clip of jimmie man, sick playing. Love the way he does that really precise attack with all down strokes, sounds like really early B.B King, and his vibrato is so Otis Rush perfected

Jimmie is the man.
His timing is just. Out of this world. No other way to describe it. He's so god damn subtle.
Also one of the few modern day blues players with a fairly original sound.

Jimmy94
10-03-2009, 10:30 PM
here's a good video of a local cleveland guy who can play the blues both held back and fast. He's got a good feel. If you get bored skip ahead to about 3 minutes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZGDqpTY-6U

willwelsh816
10-03-2009, 10:52 PM
if you think these blues players are stubborn, you should hear a seasoned Jazz or Classical musician rant about today's music. It really wakes you up.

Jimmy94
10-03-2009, 10:57 PM
The way I look at it is there can be fast playing that is only there for the sake of fast playing, but there is also fast playing that is still very interesting musically and melodically. Guys like John Coltrane, Eric Dolphy, Joe Pass, Jim Rosenberg they play as fast as anybody that has ever lived on their respective instruments, but they never play fast only because they can.
Example:
Joe Pass playing a slow but stunningly beautiful arrangement of Autumn Leaves (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=795sG19cPmU)
Joe Pass and NHOP playing an inhumanly fast but stunningly beautiful arrangement of Donna Lee (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yI-1sq5dFD4)

Guys like Malmsteem can't play something interesting slow, why would they be able to keep my interest when they're playing fast? Satriani falls under the same category for me as his playing is so boring and predictable. On the other hand there are plenty of metal players that do keep my interest and I love, like John Petrucci, Tony Iommi, Kim Thayil, Adrian Belew to name a few. On the other hand I'm going to name a few blues players that can play fast and are undeniably technically great but can't play something original or interesting to save their lives to my ears (this is going to be brutally honest): stevie ray vaughan, John Scofield (I know he's supposed to be great but I've seen him in concert and listened to dozens of cd's and haven't heard anything special), Eric Clapton... I could go on

Jimmy94
10-03-2009, 11:02 PM
Clearly these are just my opinions, but that's the point isn't it?

OPINIONS

JilaX^
10-04-2009, 12:10 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTNsC6pGGbA

An example of a player with great technical mastery and speed who still restrains himself, and plays very soulfully.
Ronnie Earl!

Blind In 1 Ear
10-04-2009, 02:45 AM
ugh...you guys are starting to prove my title....im not sure how you cant get it yet but ill try an example.

i love eric johnson. to me, his guitar playing sings like no other. his playing reaches me on an emotional level. i feel what he is playing.

now someone comes along (this is real btw) and says he finds his playing while technically proficient was cold and lacked any emotion.

now here we have two people on the opposite side of the argument who have opposite feelings toward eric. who is right here? he says he plays without feeling, but i feel his playing. he thinks he doesnt sound good, but i think he sounds amazing.

obviously "feeling" cannot be guaged. you CANNOT tell how much feeling someone is playing with. all you can tell is how much it affects yourself.

now i could go on about technical abilities, but its kind of besides the point. i guess the real point here is why do blues players seem to think they can guage feeling? you can't. its all musical taste. it has nothing to do with feeling or technical abilities. they either sound good to you, or they dont. they either touch your heart or they dont. its not that hard. frankly, im getting very tired of this whole "he plays fast, but i play with feeling" bull.

want more proof? have you ever heard a player piano? well i have. and honestly, i get the same feelings from hearing it play a song and hearing a recording of a person playing the same thing (i say recording because live people tend to change things). so is the piano playing with emotion? of course not. things like volume dynamics, slurs, legato, stecatto, tempo, all techniques btw, affect the listeners emotions. each person interprets the mucis in a different way. if thats true, then again, you can't guage how much feeling a person is putting into something. all you can guage is how much you feel it or dont feel it.

so which brings us to technical playing. now that ive shown "feeling" and "sounding good" dont apply because its subjective, the only objective way to judge a player is on abilities. a player who can play faster, smoother, clean and clear, has good control, plays in time, can play a varity of techniques is clearly a better player than someone who cant do these things.
the example of robert johnson and vai and satch: vai and satch clearly are capable of a lot more musically on the guitar. they are not bound by speed or techniques like RJ was. RJ played blues and thats pretty much it. vai and satch play many styles of music and have a vast knowledge of music. could vai and satch do what RJ did? maybe maybe not. but taking into account how much more they can do than RJ, its not really a good argument for RJ being better.

and just so we are clear, i love blues music. honestly, i find satch's and vai's music to be boring with the exception of a couple of songs. it just doesnt reach me the way blues does. but that doesnt mean they dont play with feeling and arent great musicians/players. there are tons of people who like metal and shred and dont like blues. it just doesnt reach them on their own emotional level the same way their music doesnt reach mine.

Blind In 1 Ear
10-04-2009, 02:48 AM
Look man, your whole argument is based on the assumption that when someone talks about guitar playing, they're referring to technical ability. For you this may be true, but other people.. SHOCK HORROR... have different opinions to you. :haha:

Also, YES you can quantify a players feel, but this also.. SHOCK HORROR.. is opinion. Obviously when you start claiming that these things are facts, then it's a totally different matter, but no one heres trying to do that apart from you.. so I guess you're the idiot.

/THREAD :haha:
and im sorry for duoble posting but i had to address this.

that makes zero sense. you cant quantify something and have it be an opinion at the same time. if i measure out a cup of water are you going to say "well its a cup in your opinion but in mine its two"? it either is or it isnt. if you can quantify something, its not an opinion...

Bringing up Mayer as an example of a good blues guitarist shows that you, quite frankly, don't know anything about the blues.
maybe you should go back and read the first post i made before making absurd comments like this.

Bluesy...
10-04-2009, 03:02 AM
um no. try holding a clear note for 5 seconds. then try and play 30 clear notes in 5 seconds. you tell me which is harder and takes more time and practice.
Try playing dopesmoker by sleep. See how often you get off beat. and uhhhhhh......Tremolo picking..... not that hard. It takes a lot longer to develop a good sense of rhythm than it does to play fast. They are not learned the same way. If you can't give proper context to your playing and don't have a clear point in your music when you are playing fast, then there is no point of playing fast. Context is the most important thing in music.



why? can you some how guage feeling in someones playing?

By interpretation. If you can make your musical point clear, then you the emotional detection an "empathy" for lack of a better term is clearly reached.

Bluesy...
10-04-2009, 03:04 AM
Steve vai sucks.

JOE PASS IS AWESOME.

carmour
10-04-2009, 03:50 AM
now here we have two people on the opposite side of the argument who have opposite feelings toward eric. who is right here? he says he plays without feeling, but i feel his playing. he thinks he doesnt sound good, but i think he sounds amazing.

obviously "feeling" cannot be guaged. you CANNOT tell how much feeling someone is playing with. all you can tell is how much it affects yourself.


Why does someone have to be right? They're opinions.

A person can gauge how much they feel something. The problem occurs when you have to express or quantify this feeling to someone else. Just because it can't be quantified easily doesn't mean that it is null and void in a discussion about what constitutes a great guitar player.


a player who can play faster, smoother, clean and clear, has good control, plays in time, can play a varity of techniques is clearly a better player than someone who cant do these things.
the example of robert johnson and vai and satch: vai and satch clearly are capable of a lot more musically on the guitar. they are not bound by speed or techniques like RJ was. RJ played blues and thats pretty much it.


Sure, Vai and Satch are better technical players, capable of doing more, that's because Vai and Satch are Jack of All and Robert Johnson is the master of one. I'd much rather listen to a master of his genre than a jack of all.


you cant quantify something and have it be an opinion at the same time. if i measure out a cup of water are you going to say "well its a cup in your opinion but in mine its two"? it either is or it isnt. if you can quantify something, its not an opinion...



Right, let me try explain further since you seem incapable of opening your mind to different ways of thinking. I'll use your example of the cup.

Before the a cup of water was defined/quantified and universally known as a specific quantity, there would have been differing definitions of what constitutes a cup of water. Some could argue it is a set, exact amount of water in a cup, quantifying it. Others could argue it is just a cup with water in it. Neither is wrong, they're opinions.

There is no universally known or agreed on definition of what defines a good guitar player. So, you have a different opinion to mine, and others also have differing opinions. Neither is wrong, they're opinions. Sure, you can quantify whether or not someone can do certain techniques or play at certain speeds, but that does nothing to address the argument of what the definition of a good guitar player is.

"each person interprets the music in a different way" - take this same sentiment and apply it to our discussion on what defines a good guitar player. Each person interprets it in a different way..

Music is not sport. It's not supposed to be quantified by a set of skills and musicians arent supposed to be graded on some bull**** check list that some guy on the internet made. Music IS subjective.

Jimmy94
10-04-2009, 11:40 AM
It is very possible to gauge what you keep calling "emotion" in playing. It is what separates good musicians from great musicians. I was at a piano competition a friend was a part of and two contestants played Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 by Franz Liszt, one effortlessly and the other with "lead fingers," as they say. They both played it perfectly in a 100% technical sense but the difference between feel was night and day.

The judges (who gave criticisms after each performance) heard the same thing I did.

This was not an opinion, it was a unanimous conclusion reached by every single judge and it was clear to everyone in the audience as well.

Blind In 1 Ear
10-04-2009, 10:47 PM
It is very possible to gauge what you keep calling "emotion" in playing. It is what separates good musicians from great musicians. I was at a piano competition a friend was a part of and two contestants played Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 by Franz Liszt, one effortlessly and the other with "lead fingers," as they say. They both played it perfectly in a 100% technical sense but the difference between feel was night and day.

The judges (who gave criticisms after each performance) heard the same thing I did.

This was not an opinion, it was a unanimous conclusion reached by every single judge and it was clear to everyone in the audience as well.
that is not "feeling" you described, that was a flaw in their technique. thats the problem here. people dont know how to tell the difference. the point is, you cant tell how much emotion that persone was putting into his playing. you just cant. for example, you could be playing your heart out one day and someone comes up to you and says "not bad, but you dont play with much feeling". honestly, if you played with all your heart, wouldnt you think its absurd for anyone to say that?

Blind In 1 Ear
10-04-2009, 11:11 PM
Why does someone have to be right? They're opinions.

A person can gauge how much they feel something. The problem occurs when you have to express or quantify this feeling to someone else. Just because it can't be quantified easily doesn't mean that it is null and void in a discussion about what constitutes a great guitar player.
someone has to be right because if one person feels they play with a lot of emotion and one feels he doesnt at all, obviously one of them is wrong. taking that into account, it IS null and void to use emotion in a discussion about good players. why? because if you use emotion as a reason why they are good, someone could come around and say they dont play with any and then you are just going back and forth about something that isnt even guagable.
Sure, Vai and Satch are better technical players, capable of doing more, that's because Vai and Satch are Jack of All and Robert Johnson is the master of one. I'd much rather listen to a master of his genre than a jack of all.
so what? not sure what you are trying to prove here.
Before the a cup of water was defined/quantified and universally known as a specific quantity, there would have been differing definitions of what constitutes a cup of water. Some could argue it is a set, exact amount of water in a cup, quantifying it. Others could argue it is just a cup with water in it. Neither is wrong, they're opinions.
but you could still measure how much water was in that "cup". its still able to be quantified. emotion isnt however. show me emotion. can you grab it? can you measure it? the only thing you can do is feel it. you cant feel other peoples emotions. even if you see someone and "feel their pain", thats still YOUR emotions, not theirs.

There is no universally known or agreed on definition of what defines a good guitar player. So, you have a different opinion to mine, and others also have differing opinions. Neither is wrong, they're opinions. Sure, you can quantify whether or not someone can do certain techniques or play at certain speeds, but that does nothing to address the argument of what the definition of a good guitar player is.
actually, it does and im not sure how you cant see that. maybe im a little more analytical than most. to me though you may be surprized that it doesnt take much for me to consider someone a good guitar player. really all i look for is note clarity, smoothness in playing (not choppy or messy), plays in time, and can play a variety of techniques. improv skills are good too but not essential. everything else is personal taste like tone, phrasing, style, etc... none of those are valid to what makes a good player because that really just makes them good to YOU.

"each person interprets the music in a different way" - take this same sentiment and apply it to our discussion on what defines a good guitar player. Each person interprets it in a different way..
but that doesnt make them a good guitar player. it just means the listener likes what they do. like at the end of "if 6 was 9" by jimi hendrix, jimi plays the flute. now, he cant actually play the flute, but i like what he did with it. i wouldnt call him a good flute player though. he just made music that i like.

Music is not sport. It's not supposed to be quantified by a set of skills and musicians arent supposed to be graded on some bull**** check list that some guy on the internet made. Music IS subjective.
lol the fact that you say this means you dont understand what im saying AT ALL. maybe its my fault. im against all that crap. thats why i made this thread. im sick of seeing people think certain players are better than others based on something that doesnt even apply- emotion. you cant guage it and if you could, its not a contest.

ive come to realize when it comes to music, there arent really any bad musicians, only different ones. you either like them or not. but when it comes to playing the guitar, you can however quantify techniques and judge them. but the music they make with whatever technique they have, bad or good, as nothing to do with it. thats just personal taste. emotion has nothing to do with it either because it too is personal. if you dont feel anything from ones music, it doesnt mean they are playing without emotion or even that they are a bad player, it just means you personally cannot connect with them. and thats fine. i personally feel 10 times more emotion when i hear eric clapton play robert johnsons songs than when he does them. does that mean eric plays with 10 times more emotion? you cant ever know.

carmour
10-05-2009, 01:06 AM
someone has to be right because if one person feels they play with a lot of emotion and one feels he doesnt at all, obviously one of them is wrong.

That's not a compelling argument for someone having to be right in an argument based on opinions and not facts..

People might think they're right or wrong, but really, there is no right or wrong or true or false unless proven indefinitely..

There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so - Shakespeare


lol the fact that you say this means you dont understand what im saying AT ALL. maybe its my fault. im against all that crap. thats why i made this thread. im sick of seeing people think certain players are better than others based on something that doesnt even apply- emotion. you cant guage it and if you could, its not a contest.

I understand your argument perfectly. I just don't get why you would get all worked up if someone was saying that a player is better than another based on feeling, that person is obviously only stating his opinion and if he even tries to justify it as fact, it's obvious that it is in fact opinion and he's just trying to wind you up.

for example, you could be playing your heart out one day and someone comes up to you and says "not bad, but you dont play with much feeling". honestly, if you played with all your heart, wouldnt you think its absurd for anyone to say that?

If it was me, I'd respect their opinion and not be bothered by it...

Which is what i'll do now by leaving this thread, it's giving me too much time to procrastinate when I should be writing my essay :haha:

Axegrinder#9
10-05-2009, 04:14 AM
ok let's just close this thread.

dicks on the left, shut up and play yer guitar.

penises on the right, repeat above step.

peace ya'll.

Jimmy94
10-05-2009, 12:56 PM
that is not "feeling" you described, that was a flaw in their technique. thats the problem here. people dont know how to tell the difference. the point is, you cant tell how much emotion that persone was putting into his playing. you just cant. for example, you could be playing your heart out one day and someone comes up to you and says "not bad, but you dont play with much feeling". honestly, if you played with all your heart, wouldnt you think its absurd for anyone to say that?

You see where I said:

They both played it perfectly in a 100% technical sense but the difference between feel was night and day.

I meant it. They both played it perfectly technically. The difference was feel. The judges said "While you played it perfectly in a technical sense, it was lacking the majesty, the fire, the emotion."

You seem to think there is 0 emotional investment in a musician's playing, which is absurd. Musicians are not machines that go through practiced motions with their instruments. When a musician plays they should be putting their heart and soul, their very self into their playing and if they are doing that it is unmistakable.

This is well known and commented upon frequently in classical music. Critics will often criticize a pianist by saying "Amazing technicality, lacking in soul, playing rigid."

I can't believe you're trying to say it is impossible to detect any kind of feeling or emotion in music. Would you say the same about writing (which is an art in many respects remarkably similar to music)? In your opinion is there more feeling in Dostoevsky or in a calculus text book? Or is it impossible to tell?

Jimmy94
10-05-2009, 01:08 PM
The whole point of the arts, including music, is to elicit some kind of emotional response from the audience. How could that be possible if the audience is unable to see/hear/feel/understand the emotions the artist is conveying?

If your argument is that it is impossible to detect and evaluate emotion in music, you are saying music is not art.

rob1993
10-05-2009, 03:10 PM
TS, I can honestly say I have no idea what your talking about. However, the original post was tl;dr, so I might have missed some important things you might have said, along with every other post, haha.

I did read the 'Blues players are idiots' part, and I really have not met any who are. In fact, most of the idiots I've ever met don't even play blues, and look down on people who do. Actually, the only intelligent musicians I know either play blues or classical.

I personally think it's because people who have little to no knowledge of the blues see the genre as unskillful, due to the "lack" of notes or seemingly little technical ability, and these are usually people who swear by Vai or Satch, I would think.

However, many people don't know is that in most blues (I'm referring to delta and older blues in this whole post btw, sorry if it's not what you're talking about), less is actually more. What makes blues excellent and respectable is its dependency on emotion and feeling. That, and mabey a memorable lick that's thrown in.

You have to think of blues as an expression, unlike the sweeping tremolo picking that is Vai and Satriani. Blues can't really be compared to other genres, imho.


You know, I think I just proved your point with my incredible bias for the blues haha.


tl;dr: I might be said idiot, but I didn't read the whole post :confus:

Blind In 1 Ear
10-06-2009, 05:10 PM
That's not a compelling argument for someone having to be right in an argument based on opinions and not facts..

People might think they're right or wrong, but really, there is no right or wrong or true or false unless proven indefinitely..

There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so - Shakespeare
*sigh* you are missing my point completely. my point is that music is not a compitition and even if it were, emotion and how much someone plays with is not a way to judge someone. you cant tell how much emotion someone plays with so its not valid. my point in my example proves this. one person thinks he plays with no soul, one thinks he plays with a lot. the only person who knows is the person playing, not us. therfor its not a valid way to evaluate a player.
I understand your argument perfectly. I just don't get why you would get all worked up if someone was saying that a player is better than another based on feeling, that person is obviously only stating his opinion and if he even tries to justify it as fact, it's obvious that it is in fact opinion and he's just trying to wind you up.
its just stupid and people do treat it as a fact. its just absurd end of story. if you like a player more than another because you get more of an emotional response from them, fine. but say that. dont claim you can somehow guage how much feeling someone plays with. again, what one person feels is different from another. so if you really want to argue over whos a better guitar player, only focus on techniques, not emotion. notes dont have emotion. the listener interprets the notes to create an emotional response. the listener includes the player as they hear the notes as well. what they feel from their playing and what you feel are not always going to be the same. what is an emotional release to some may seem like mindless wanking. you cant know what the player is feeling.
If it was me, I'd respect their opinion and not be bothered by it...

Which is what i'll do now by leaving this thread, it's giving me too much time to procrastinate when I should be writing my essay :haha:
i do respect opinions. the problem is a lot of players seem to think opinions are facts. plus, them confuse what they feel with what the player is feeling. thats the problem.

Blind In 1 Ear
10-06-2009, 05:17 PM
I meant it. They both played it perfectly technically. The difference was feel. The judges said "While you played it perfectly in a technical sense, it was lacking the majesty, the fire, the emotion."
thats just absurd to say. judges should just say they enjoyed the other guy better. they have no idea how much or little emotion the player put into it.

You seem to think there is 0 emotional investment in a musician's playing, which is absurd. Musicians are not machines that go through practiced motions with their instruments. When a musician plays they should be putting their heart and soul, their very self into their playing and if they are doing that it is unmistakable.
thats not even almost close to what im saying.

This is well known and commented upon frequently in classical music. Critics will often criticize a pianist by saying "Amazing technicality, lacking in soul, playing rigid."
thats just dumb. playing rigid is not "soul", thats technique that needs to be improved.

I can't believe you're trying to say it is impossible to detect any kind of feeling or emotion in music. Would you say the same about writing (which is an art in many respects remarkably similar to music)? In your opinion is there more feeling in Dostoevsky or in a calculus text book? Or is it impossible to tell?
the emotion is interpreted by the listener/reader, not the composer/performer/writer. notes and words do not contain emotions. they are just sounds and symbols. but people create emotional responses to them and thats a personal thing. it has nothing to do with how much or little feeling a player puts into it. once the notes leave the instrument they are in the air ready for the listener to interpret them. if they feel nothing from it, thats them. but others will.

its really simple actually. if you hear something and one person feels overwhelmed with emotion and the other feels nothing, obviously the players emotional input has nothing to do with it. its really not that hard to understand.

The whole point of the arts, including music, is to elicit some kind of emotional response from the audience. How could that be possible if the audience is unable to see/hear/feel/understand the emotions the artist is conveying?

If your argument is that it is impossible to detect and evaluate emotion in music, you are saying music is not art.
im not saying its impossible. humans are capable of feeling empathy for other people. but its not always going to be exactly the same. what may seem like a sad song to one, may seem happy to another. this actually happened to me. i forget the song, but my friend put it on and said "this is the saddest song ive heard". she put it on and i actually felt like it was a happy song.

everyones response whether its a painting, poetry, music, dance, whatever, is going to be a little different. that being said, as humans we all have similar likes and dislikes. there are certain techniques you can use in order to try and convey what emotions you want. its like, minor chords and keys for sad or mysterious and major chords and keys for happy type songs. but thats really just culture. its whats been ingrained in our minds. but again, going back to that song i mentioned, not everyone will see it as you want it. was it supposed to be a sad song or a happy song? what emotions was the artist feeling when they made that song? i dont know, but i know it makes me feel good and my friend feel sad.

so lets say we asked the artist and he said it was a sad song. what does that mean now? does that mean im wrong? no. it just means that notes are interpreted by the listener. emotional input from the artist means nothing. they can try to make you feel a certain way, but thats still your emotions, not theirs. and they cant force you to feel a certain way. they can try, and thats the whole point of art. to try, not to force emotions. you cant force emotions. they are either there, or they arent. what amuses one, may disgust another. what saddens someone may brighten another ones day.

Jimmy94
10-06-2009, 06:20 PM
notes and words do not contain emotions. they are just sounds and symbols.

If this is how you feel about music I feel sorry for you.

You are completely wrong. Like I said the point of art and music is to communicate emotion. I said elicit before, which is also correct but not as encompassing as I would have liked.

If you and a friend were confused about whether a song was happy or not it may have been intentionally ambiguous, as I am sure you have felt happy and sad at the same time before, seeing as it is a human emotion. The point is that this song communicated emotion to both you and your friend, justifying my point.

There is no doubt that emotion can be communicated through music.

Where the subjectivity comes in to play is what the listener prefers. There are many listeners that value the purely technically impressive. There are many listeners that value the emotion communicated in music more. There are listeners that value both and look for music that both communicates emotion and technicality. There are also different types of emotion conveyed, such as sadness/heartbreak (e.g. the blues) or angre/aggression (e.g. metal), and different people will prefer different things. (All of this can be broken down into the arguments that art is realist, objectivist and relativist, which all at the very least acknowledge the existence of aesthetics in art, essentially our concept of "emotion" in music in our argumentation).

There is no denying that emotion is communicated in music and it can be detected and evaluated. It seems like in your last post you even admit this, going on to say that it is different from person to person (a relativist argument), I accept this even though I do not agree with it. However before you were trying to say that everything is 100% technical, and the only way to evaluate musicians is to throw emotion out the window, which is ludicrous. Try reading about art and you'll find that many, many people are realist and objectivist and you have no business telling them they are wrong, unless you think you can prove what no one else has in the past 2000 years. Clearly, your opinion is relativist and the people you so intelligently refer to as "idiots" are objectivist and realist, an opposing opinion. What you're saying now is you are intolerant of other people's opinions on the essence of art and music.

Blind In 1 Ear
10-06-2009, 07:18 PM
If this is how you feel about music I feel sorry for you.
no, thats not how i feel about music. its almost like you are misinterpreting my posts on purpose. notes ARE sound. if you think otherwise, sorry you are wrong. music is organized sound. what you feel from it is up to you. john cage would feel things from just hearing nothing or everyday sounds the same way we would with music. normally, we dont feel anything from everyday sounds, but he does. this proves my point. its up to the listener to determine the emotion. it can be different from what the artist was feeling.

You are completely wrong. Like I said the point of art and music is to communicate emotion. I said elicit before, which is also correct but not as encompassing as I would have liked.
you can communicate it it all you want but that doesnt mean the listener will feel anything. this is the point you cant seem to grasp.
If you and a friend were confused about whether a song was happy or not it may have been intentionally ambiguous, as I am sure you have felt happy and sad at the same time before, seeing as it is a human emotion. The point is that this song communicated emotion to both you and your friend, justifying my point.
we werent confused about anything lol. one felt one way, and the other felt another. later she said she felt that way because it was used in a movie a a point where the character died so she always had that sadness when she heard the song. it was the first time i heard it and i thought it sounded happy or romantic. it doesnt justify your point at all. you have now flip flopped from being able to guage how little or how much emotion has to just being able to make someone feel emotion in general. which is it? obviously you want people to feel something from your art. but it doesnt mean they can tell exactly what you are feeling or how intense your emotional input is. it doesnt mean they can say "he plays with more soul than that guy". if they feel more, fine. but others wont feel anything. by your logic, if you feel nothing, the player has no emotion.

There is no doubt that emotion can be communicated through music.again, i never said it couldnt. im just saying you cant guage how much a player plays with or how a listener will respond to it. you can communicate all you want but that doesnt mean someone will feel exactly how you want them to. you cant control that. but you can try. some people may get exactly how you feel. other wont. it has nothing to do with how much or little emotion you play with.

There is no denying that emotion is communicated in music and it can be detected and evaluated. It seems like in your last post you even admit this, going on to say that it is different from person to person (a relativist argument), I accept this even though I do not agree with it.
actually, my last post does nothing of the sort. you just refuse to or cannot seem to understand what im saying sorry for being so blunt. having emotion communicated doesnt mean it can be evaluated. you cant say one person plays with more emotion than another. its not something you can guage. when someone says that, really its their own emotional resposne they are guaging, not the player. you can only ever know what you feel and how much something makes you feel. again, ive listened to a player piano and have gotten an emotional response. same with music created completely by computers. these things dont have emotional input, and yet, i feel something. obviously this means its ONLY the listener that determines the emotion and how much of it exists in a piece.
However before you were trying to say that everything is 100% technical, and the only way to evaluate musicians is to throw emotion out the window, which is ludicrous.
again, you dont seem to understand my posts which actually arent that hard to read. im saying you can only evaluate players on technical ability because emotion is subjective to the listener. just because you feel more from one player, it doesnt mean hes a better player than the other guy. it just means you like him more. i feel more when listening to clapton than vai or satch but that doesnt mean clapton is a better guitar player. his music just speaks to me more and i enjoy his style more. thats it. technically speaking, hes a pretty average player. plus, ive talked to a number of people who think hes completely souless. and yet i feel tons of emotion with his playing.

seriously. stop and think for a second. if one person feels he is souless, and i get chills everytime i hear him, do you really think "soul" or "feeling" means anything when evaluating a player? heres how it would go:

guy- well i think clapton is the best. he plays with so much more feeling than anyone i heard.
guy2- no hes not. hes completely souless. he plays with no feeling. just plays stolen licks from the greats.

by YOUR LOGIC, they are both right. if emotion can be detected and guaged, AS YOU CLAIM, then guy2 is just as right in stating that as guy1 is. but logically, it doesnt make sense. you cant play with emotion and NOT play with emotion at the same time. logically, there are two answers ; one is wrong, or emotion cannot be guaged. seeing as the only person who knows how much or little emotion they play with is the player, its pretty clear that emotion cannot be guaged and therfor isnt a valid argument for evaluating a player.
What you're saying now is you are intolerant of other people's opinions on the essence of art and music.
i dont think you actually know what an opinion is. your posts clearly state this. you keep flip flopping around and you dont even know it. an opinion is me thinking that song was happy and my friend thinking it was sad. saying someone plays with little or more emotion than someone else is NOT an opinion. telling someone they lack "soul" is NOT an opinion. when you say things like that, its said as a factual statement (even if its not, you are stating it as factual). unfortunatly, in this post i have shown its not logically possible to be able to guage feeling. people need to get rid of this thinking. its arrogant, and ignorant. anyone who thinks they can judge an artists emotions is and idiot plain and simple. you either feel something from it, or you dont. if you want to judge something, judge their technique.

Jimmy94
10-06-2009, 07:55 PM
we werent confused about anything lol. one felt one way, and the other felt another. later she said she felt that way because it was used in a movie a a point where the character died so she always had that sadness when she heard the song.

Hmm, now this is interesting. A happy song... during a sad part of a movie... almost sounds like the ambiguity I mentioned, doesn't it? You do realize that she is associating the sadness from the movie to the song and is not a consequence of the song itself, don't you? Funny how you failed to mention that before, that was a very poor example to use and your deception causes me to doubt many other things you have said.

Anyway moving on to your continued claims that music is just written notes and words and doesn't contain emotion. By your argument, it would also be impossible to definitively judge a sentence (even disregarding the words) someone says as being sad, happy, angry etc. You hear their inflection, their tone, their cadence and judge whether they are upset or happy. The same is true for music. Any musician worth anything can take any musical line and play it in a way that conveys happiness, sadness, anger etc. Hell, most guitarists can play a single NOTE differently to convey emotion.

Now moving on to your delightfully amusing "logical arguments" that prove once and for all that emotion in music can not be gauged or evaluated. The fact that people respond to it or interpret it differently does not logically equate to it not being there, or that it should be disregarded from evaluation.

Your same "logic" applies to technique also. Guy 1 can think that Jimmy Page has great technique and Guy 2 can think that Jimmy Page (or Steve Vai or whoever, it really doesn't matter) has horrible technique. I'm sure you can find people arguing about this very topic in the electric guitar forum. This is a valid difference of opinion (unless you are arrogant enough to believe that you have some authority on what constitutes good technique), and therefore both of them correct. Therefore, in your words: "logically, it doesnt (sic) make sense. you cant (sic) play with [good technique] and NOT play with [good technique] at the same time. logically, there are two answers ; one is wrong, or [technique] cannot be guaged (sic). seeing as [technique] is subjective, its (sic) pretty clear that [technique] cannot (sic) be guaged (sic) and therfor (sic) isnt (sic) a valid argument for evaluating a player.

So you see your "logic" doesn't hold up. I don't know if you've ever heard of, much less read about art theory but your self proclaimed logic is laughable at best.

Really it's clear here that you don't know what you're talking about and it's telling that you didn't respond to any of my previous post concerning your relativist views on music compared to objectivist and realist. Just because you believe aesthetics (emotion) can not come in to play evaluating music does not mean it is not valid for anyone else to. Please educate yourself, here are a few starting points:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universality_%28philosophy%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsicism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28philosophy%29

Jimmy94
10-06-2009, 08:12 PM
If all you can do is plug your ears to the different philosophies about evaluating art, stubbornly and blindly claiming that yours is the only correct way then we have nothing left to discuss. I have no problem with people having differing opinions about the importance of emotion in music, or the amount of emotion inherent in a song. I also have no issue with people believing technique is more important. However your calling people stupid for evaluating music based on emotion is contemptible.

Personally, I will never understand the appeal of relativism. If your beliefs about music mean that a person can have a valid opinion that "Ode to Joy" is a sad song, then you will have to live with the implications of your belief.

Zoot Allures
10-07-2009, 02:03 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BtUQbblCWo&feature=related

It's quite clear what's going on here. Before he even starts singing the lyrics that first note on the A string followed by that little slide down says it all. I dont think anyone could misinterpret this as a happy song..

Blind In 1 Ear
10-08-2009, 12:37 AM
Hmm, now this is interesting. A happy song... during a sad part of a movie... almost sounds like the ambiguity I mentioned, doesn't it? You do realize that she is associating the sadness from the movie to the song and is not a consequence of the song itself, don't you? Funny how you failed to mention that before, that was a very poor example to use and your deception causes me to doubt many other things you have said.
you're just being silly now. i didnt try to trick you or anything. im sure they used that song because they felt it tied in with the mood of the movie. honestly, i can see how she thought it was sad. but to me, i just didnt feel sadness when i heard it. its like them using the piano ending of layla at the end of goodfellas. sure, i suppose it fits there but i dont really get the feelings the movie is suggesting. i always saw that part of the song as a happy part of the song.

this is actually a PERFECT example. why? because it shows that its the person that is making the emotion of the song, not the song or anyone behind it. havent you ever heard a song in a movie and thought it didnt suit the scene? i know i have. why though? because what you feel from the song and what you feel from the scene dont add go together. but obviously someone felt otherwise. therefor, emotion in art is subjective to the listener/viewer.

Anyway moving on to your continued claims that music is just written notes and words and doesn't contain emotion. By your argument, it would also be impossible to definitively judge a sentence (even disregarding the words) someone says as being sad, happy, angry etc. You hear their inflection, their tone, their cadence and judge whether they are upset or happy. The same is true for music. Any musician worth anything can take any musical line and play it in a way that conveys happiness, sadness, anger etc. Hell, most guitarists can play a single NOTE differently to convey emotion.
again, you are this is so besides the point of this thread. you are arguing that i dont think you can try and convey emotions through art. i never said that once. i said you cant guage how much or little emotion someone puts into it. just the fact that one some people think that clapton is souless and i get chill proves you cant guage it. again, you cant not have emotion and have tons of it at the same time. simple logic.

obviously there are things in language that imply anger, sadness, happiness, etc... but music isnt the same thing as that. its more up for interpretation than talking or writing. although, there are some things you can do to try and imply certain things in music as well. but that doesnt mean the listener will feel exactly as you want.

Now moving on to your delightfully amusing "logical arguments" that prove once and for all that emotion in music can not be gauged or evaluated. The fact that people respond to it or interpret it differently does not logically equate to it not being there, or that it should be disregarded from evaluation.
do you understand how logic works? by your thinking, we can detect how much emotion someone puts into something. but clearly seeing as situations arise where people dont agree on the emotional input all the time, this isnt true. if we could guage soul, there would be no arguments because we would all be able to tell who plays with the most soul. but we cant.

Your same "logic" applies to technique also. Guy 1 can think that Jimmy Page has great technique and Guy 2 can think that Jimmy Page (or Steve Vai or whoever, it really doesn't matter) has horrible technique. I'm sure you can find people arguing about this very topic in the electric guitar forum. This is a valid difference of opinion (unless you are arrogant enough to believe that you have some authority on what constitutes good technique), and therefore both of them correct.
no. they are not both correct. first you would have to find a definition of "good technique". then you would have to be more specific as to what techniques you are arguing other than just general technique which could mean anything. these arguments usually resort back to "soul" which means none of them know how to really evauate technique in the first place. arguements in art are stupid anyways.

Therefore, in your words: "logically, it doesnt (sic) make sense. you cant (sic) play with [good technique] and NOT play with [good technique] at the same time. logically, there are two answers ; one is wrong, or [technique] cannot be guaged (sic). seeing as [technique] is subjective, its (sic) pretty clear that [technique] cannot (sic) be guaged (sic) and therfor (sic) isnt (sic) a valid argument for evaluating a player.
well not to nit pick, but you can sort of. you can be good at one technique and bad at another. again, you need to specify. are we talking picking, legato, sweeping, bending, etc....?

besides, people rarely look at things objectivly unfortunatly. its usually up to opinions when it comes to these things because people take them as facts (that they made for themselves). people hear a player with bad technique and like their music so they mistake that has having good technique when really one doesnt have anything to do with the other. and then they bring in "feel" which really has nothing to do with it.

Really it's clear here that you don't know what you're talking about and it's telling that you didn't respond to any of my previous post concerning your relativist views on music compared to objectivist and realist. Just because you believe aesthetics (emotion) can not come in to play evaluating music does not mean it is not valid for anyone else to. Please educate yourself, here are a few starting points:
i dont care about stupid "isms" in art. seriously, they mean nothing. i mean, i could throw paint all over a canvas over my shoulder without any real emotional connection to what im doing. people will still feel something from this. again, ive listened to player pianos and felt emotions. do you REALLY think a player piano has emotions? do you think a music created by computers only has emotions?

seriously, think about that. if you claim we are able to detect the level of emotion put into a piece, why do i feel something when i hear music played by machines like player pianos or a music box? surely if what you say is true, i should feel nothing. and yet i do. i like how you avoided this part of my post. dont reply unless you answer it.

again, im not suggesting you cant imply emotion in art. im not saying there arent ways you can try to convey sadness or happiness. im not saying you can try and make people feel a certain way. what im saying is that you cant listen to someone, or read their book, or see their painting and say "this person has more soul than this one". its just absurd. the fact that no one seems to agree in these things PROVES that you cant. again, do you know how logic works? if one person feels they have no emotion, and the other feels they do, obviously humans are not able to tell the level of emotion in something or they would all agree. besides, it has nothing to do with whether or not they are good at what they do. i can put all the emotion i want into the oboe. but at the end of the day, i still probably cant make a sound out of it. this is the point of the thread that you keep missing.

Blind In 1 Ear
10-08-2009, 12:52 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BtUQbblCWo&feature=related

It's quite clear what's going on here. Before he even starts singing the lyrics that first note on the A string followed by that little slide down says it all. I dont think anyone could misinterpret this as a happy song..
and yet, i didnt really feel anything from listening to that. i guess that means hook plays with no soul right?


of course not. i just dont like john lee hooker and his music doesnt really do anything for me.

example: robert johnson, stones in my passway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmkkTGYyn5o

eric clapton, same song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBaP135Ha-M

now to me, i get chills listening to claptons version while roberts doesnt really do the same. now, to those who think you can guage how much emotion people play with, i guess clapton plays with more feeling that RJ. honestly, when i hear clapton, he makes me believe what hes singing. when i hear RJ, i just hear him singing a song. but i know tons of people who feel the opposite. its pretty clear that emotion in music is interpreted by the listener. you can put all the emotion you want, you can do what you might in order to let them know how you feel, be it sad, happy, or angry, but you CANT make the listener feel anything when they listen.

Personally, I will never understand the appeal of relativism. If your beliefs about music mean that a person can have a valid opinion that "Ode to Joy" is a sad song, then you will have to live with the implications of your belief.
funny enough, that song always made me feel a little sad. but because of personal reasons. im pretty sure its a happy song though as its called ode to joy. again, i think you are missing what im arguing. im not saying you cant have a sad or happy song, but im saying you cant force the listener to feel that way. everyone is different. im sure most people see it as a happy song as intended, but im sure there are a bunch of people like me for whatever reason feel a little sad when they hear it. so obviously, the player's/writer's emotions that went into the song didnt transfer to me....proving my point.

carmour
10-08-2009, 01:12 AM
example: robert johnson, stones in my passway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmkkTGYyn5o

eric clapton, same song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBaP135Ha-M

now to me, i get chills listening to claptons version while roberts doesnt really do the same. now, to those who think you can guage how much emotion people play with, i guess clapton plays with more feeling that RJ. honestly, when i hear clapton, he makes me believe what hes singing. when i hear RJ, i just hear him singing a song.


It's now pretty clear this thread is a waste of time and you're a vapid, egotistical clapton fan boi.

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/1102/1254896359532.gif

Carswell98
10-08-2009, 02:44 AM
I don't buy into any of this, knowing music makes you better at conveying the emotional content of music, obviously it's necessary to be responsible to the music, and know what it means if you hope to convey the emotion, but technical ability doesn't negate emotion.

in fact I consider the whole stupid debate around "emotion" to be the stupidest argument in teh music world. music is an art, art is created to convey emotion, regardless of the genre or the bpm of the music.

I don't think I need to fear saying blues is easier, because it is. It's not something to be ashamed of either, because I happen to hear great beauty in simplicity, it's the same reason I like folk, or why I like the black keys.

Jimmy94
10-08-2009, 03:33 AM
At this point it's clear blind in 1 ear has his ears plugged and is going to stay in his own little fantasy world. I've got nothing else to say, except that with your views you go against the thinking of countless musicians, including Beethoven, Mozart, Bartok, Bach, Strauss, Rachmaninoff, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Eric Dolphy, Ornette Coleman, Jimi Hendrix, Paul McCartney, Jimmy Page, Steve Vai, John Petrucci and your beloved Eric Clapton. All of these musicians have evaluated and compared the emotion in the music of other musicians.

But hey, they all probably don't know what the **** they're talking about.

Jimmy94
10-08-2009, 03:38 AM
funny enough, that song [the ode to joy] always made me feel a little sad. but because of personal reasons. im pretty sure its a happy song though as its called ode to joy. again, i think you are missing what im arguing. im not saying you cant have a sad or happy song, but im saying you cant force the listener to feel that way. everyone is different. im sure most people see it as a happy song as intended, but im sure there are a bunch of people like me for whatever reason feel a little sad when they hear it. so obviously, the player's/writer's emotions that went into the song didnt transfer to me....proving my point.

hahahaha, are you serious you can not be serious! This has got to be a joke! The mighty Beethoven failed in his endeavor to strike joy, triumph and jubliation into the heart of blind in 1 ear! It backfired and made him SAD!

"I'm pretty sure its a happy song though as its called ode to joy"
That's the funniest thing I have read in years, you are unbelievable.

Jimmy94
10-08-2009, 03:39 AM
right, I'm not wasting my time talking to this kid anymore, it's like talking to a brick.

carmour
10-08-2009, 03:41 AM
hahahaha, are you serious you can not be serious! This has got to be a joke! The mighty Beethoven failed in his endeavor to strike joy, triumph and jubliation into the heart of blind in 1 ear!

"I'm pretty sure its a happy song though as its called ode to joy"
That's the funniest thing I have read in years, you are unbelievable.


:haha: I love how he continuously says stuff like "arguements in art are stupid anyways." and "arts subjective" and then continues to argue about it as if he has an authoritative opinion :haha: :peace:

Carswell98
10-08-2009, 04:46 AM
the rage in this thread is quite fantastic btw...

Axegrinder#9
10-08-2009, 07:44 AM
just remember everyone's entitled to Yngwie's opinion.

Jimmy94
10-08-2009, 01:15 PM
remember guys:

anyone who evaluates food based on taste is stupid. food can only be evaluated on how correctly the silverware is set.
anyone who evaluates books on anything but sentence structure and grammar is an idiot.
anyone who evaluates actors on anything but how well they memorized the lines is a tit.
Don't get me started on evaluating painters.

pak1351
10-08-2009, 01:35 PM
Probably been brought up, but pauses say just as much as notes. If you're playing sixteenth notes at 180 bpm for a minute, I'm not taking away anything from that. You're just rambling in one long run-on sentence. Phrasing is an integral part of conveying emotion and getting people to listen to what you're saying, while giving the impression that what you're saying is meaningful. Playing fast is fine as long as you spread it out and have a meaning/destination you're getting to. Tapping scales all day is visually impressive, but if you're not saying anything or going anywhere, it's not going to elicit an emotional response from me.

Carswell98
10-08-2009, 02:54 PM
remember guys:

anyone who evaluates food based on taste is stupid. food can only be evaluated on how correctly the silverware is set.
anyone who evaluates books on anything but sentence structure and grammar is an idiot.
anyone who evaluates actors on anything but how well they memorized the lines is a tit.
Don't get me started on evaluating painters.

:haha:

Blind In 1 Ear
10-09-2009, 12:14 AM
hahahaha, are you serious you can not be serious! This has got to be a joke! The mighty Beethoven failed in his endeavor to strike joy, triumph and jubliation into the heart of blind in 1 ear! It backfired and made him SAD!

"I'm pretty sure its a happy song though as its called ode to joy"
That's the funniest thing I have read in years, you are unbelievable.
HAHAHhHhHhAAAHerfhgfbdC

OH BTW, in case you cant read, i said for personal reasons. that song was on my moms keyboard and as a kid i used to listen to it a lot, and i listened to it around the time my parents split up. so yea, it makes me feel a little sad....for PERSONAL reasons.....

i mean seriously, why am i even arguing with you if you dont even read what im saying?

and im glad you found that line funny because it actually was supposed to be.
At this point it's clear blind in 1 ear has his ears plugged...... compared the emotion in the music of other musicians.

But hey, they all probably don't know what the **** they're talking about.
im sure all those people just tried to find the people that struck up the most emotional response within themselves. theres nothing wrong with looking for that. the mistake is saying that the people that dont do this for you are somehow bad musicians or they dont play with soul. another example, i heard your blues duel. found it boring (not just trying to make a point here. i actually listened to it and found out later it was you). it didnt do anything for me. actually, niether did the guy you were up against.

so i guess you dont play with emotion then right? which i guess also means you are a terrible player. well that sucks. guess you better go work on that huh?

if you disagree with what i just said, then you actually agree with this threads point.

Probably been brought up, but pauses say just as much as notes. If you're playing sixteenth notes at 180 bpm for a minute, I'm not taking away anything from that.....Tapping scales all day is visually impressive, but if you're not saying anything or going anywhere, it's not going to elicit an emotional response from me.
see, thats personal. "it's not going to elicit an emotional response from me". personally, i agree with you. but thats not the point. the point is that people take this lack of emotion felt and take it as the players arent playing with emotion, or as much of it as someone else who happens to elicit an emotional response.

so think about that. how is that different from hearing a rigid piano player and thinking hes not playing with emotion? isnt it just the same as the shredder? all it is is that he happens to be playing in a way that doesnt do anything for you....it doesnt elicit emotion for you. but it might for someone else. just the same as people feel emotion from a clunky sounding delta blues player.

so think about it, if you can detect how much "soul" one puts into a song, then why is it that everyone seems to have a different opinion on how much that player puts into it? if it were true that you could do this, then you wouldnt have people saying "he plays with no soul" and "he plays with more soul than anyone" at the same time. its sooooooo obviously just the listeners own personal emotions that they are feeling. they take that and mistake it as the players emotion.

Blind In 1 Ear
10-09-2009, 12:27 AM
I don't buy into any of this, knowing music makes you better at conveying the emotional content of music, obviously it's necessary to be responsible to the music, and know what it means if you hope to convey the emotion, but technical ability doesn't negate emotion.
i know it doesnt. thats actually one of my points. i made this thread because someone was saying john mayer was better than satch and vai because he played with more emotion than them and they sounded like robots. technical ability doesnt mean no emotion. thats just dumb. not playing as fast or as technical doesnt mean you are playing with any more emotion either. you either feel what you play or you dont. im just tired of people hearing great players like vai and satch and thinking they have no soul just because they dont get anything out of hearing them. just say you dont like them. dont try and claim you can gauge emotion.

in fact I consider the whole stupid debate around "emotion" to be the stupidest argument in teh music world. music is an art, art is created to convey emotion, regardless of the genre or the bpm of the music.
exactly. one could also argue that more technically gifted players are able to do more with music and therefor are more able to convey the emotions they want. BUT, obviously people still dont get it because some people think they sound like souless robots while others feel what they are trying to convey. obviously, its just personal emotions. the sounds you hear either strike up emotions or they dont. it doesnt make anyone a bad player if they dont. it just means you are you. i think the whole point in art is to TRY. someone is bound to get it. but you cant force it.

I don't think I need to fear saying blues is easier, because it is. It's not something to be ashamed of either, because I happen to hear great beauty in simplicity, it's the same reason I like folk, or why I like the black keys.
i agree. ive learned to like more complex stuff over the years too however. i cant really listen to fusion though. i just cant follow it lol. i listen to holdsworth sometimes and i just dont get it. you'll see people say he plays with so much soul and passion, and im sure he does, but i just dont pick up on it. it doesnt give me chills like blues does.

now really i think what im saying here is pretty reasonable. if you dont like someone, that just means you dont like them. if you dont feel emotion, it just means you dont feel emotion. it doesnt mean they play with no emotion or that they are bad players even. again like i said, ive come to realize there arent really good or bad musicians (or artists in general), just different ones. you either like them or you dont. i mean think about it, if you just played the solo of your life, you put everything into it that you had, and then someone said "meh....sounded like you didnt put any real feeling into it"....dont you think thats a little absurd? do you REALLY think people can detect the amount of emotion people play with? or is it all just personal feelings?

Jimmy94
10-09-2009, 01:08 AM
again like i said, ive come to realize there arent really good or bad musicians (or artists in general), just different ones. you either like them or you dont.

We get it, you believe in relativism and dismiss anything else as "stupid." You can go on making threads, calling people who disagree with you idiots if you want, but you're only making yourself look bad.

Teens and young adults frequently flock to relativism, not just with music but with morality (there is nor moral right or wrong, only personal/cultural perspectives) because they are attracted to the idea that they can not be wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if 10 or 15 years later you look back on this thread and are astounded you believed any of this.

In any case, go away. You came here asking a question with no intention of listening to what anyone had to say. You're not going to convince anyone and no one is going to convince you so give it up.

carmour
10-09-2009, 01:31 AM
Teens and young adults frequently flock to relativism, not just with music but with morality (there is nor moral right or wrong, only personal/cultural perspectives) because they are attracted to the idea that they can not be wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if 10 or 15 years later you look back on this thread and are astounded you believed any of this.


This was me a while ago. I'm not sure how much I really believed it though, it was just interesting at the time because in theory it makes perfect sense, but when you start trying to apply it to real life it never works. It's just post-modern wankery and is only good for having endless arguments, i'm glad i've seen through this :haha:

Carswell98
10-09-2009, 03:03 AM
now really i think what im saying here is pretty reasonable. if you dont like someone, that just means you dont like them. if you dont feel emotion, it just means you dont feel emotion. it doesnt mean they play with no emotion or that they are bad players even. again like i said, ive come to realize there arent really good or bad musicians (or artists in general), just different ones. you either like them or you dont. i mean think about it, if you just played the solo of your life, you put everything into it that you had, and then someone said "meh....sounded like you didnt put any real feeling into it"....dont you think thats a little absurd? do you REALLY think people can detect the amount of emotion people play with? or is it all just personal feelings?


music isn't above reproach, Rite of Spring is better than the Hampster Dance

I never said that people could detect the emotion people play with, did I? because thats not what I believe

the music itself is more important than the person playing it, and the person's perception, while important, is highly influenced by the music


you can't tell me that moonlight sonata is happy, it wasn't written to be happy, and even if you percieve it as happy, that doesn't make it a happy song, am I right?

if this hypothetical guitarist of yours felt what he was playing, but played like **** and the audience felt nothing I will explain what happened: he tried to convey his emotions, and failed, the audience felt nothing because the music failed to live up to it's aim, this is the exact reason that music can be evaluated, because all music attempts to bring the listener to the writer's perspective, and the more effect it has, the better it is.

itsnotGreenDay
10-09-2009, 02:10 PM
my point really was that "feel" or "soul" is not a way to guage a players skill level

People, like you, often forget that music is art. It shouldn't be judged by technical skills. Once you get to a certain level, all artists contain those skills, but how they use them to convey ideas or emotions is what matters. Do you judge a painting as good because it accurately depicts life? No, it's good if it makes you feel a warm sense of familiarity, or bitternes if it was intended to cause such.

Conveying emotion is the essence of art, not finger skills.

Blind In 1 Ear
10-09-2009, 03:33 PM
We get it, you believe in relativism and dismiss anything else as "stupid." You can go on making threads, calling people who disagree with you idiots if you want, but you're only making yourself look bad.
art is the most relative thing there is. im not sure how yo get around that. no one chooses what they like or dislike. they just do.

Teens and young adults frequently flock to relativism, not just with music but with morality (there is nor moral right or wrong, only personal/cultural perspectives) because they are attracted to the idea that they can not be wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if 10 or 15 years later you look back on this thread and are astounded you believed any of this.
actually, i dont believe in that stance or morality. music isnt morals. you are side stepping again. you are talking about things that have nothing to do with music.

In any case, go away. You came here asking a question with no intention of listening to what anyone had to say. You're not going to convince anyone and no one is going to convince you so give it up.
actually, i came here asking questions, and know one seems to answer them. ive asked you very simple questions in my posts, in some cases the same questions and you still refuse to answer them.

its very simple: if you can detect how much emotion someone plays with, why does everyone have a different opinion on how much they play with? shouldnt we all be able to tell? if some people can tell, and others cant, how do we know which one of us can?

Blind In 1 Ear
10-09-2009, 03:47 PM
music isn't above reproach, Rite of Spring is better than the Hampster Dance
in what way? is it because its more complex? because you said you find simple music to be better. (i dont actually think the hamster dance is better im just asking for arguments sake)

I never said that people could detect the emotion people play with, did I? because thats not what I believe
well then answer me this: why does everyone have a different opinion when it comes to how much emotion someone plays with? imo, clapton plays with more emotion than robert johnson. but i know tons of people who disagree with that. so does he really play with more emotion, or is it just that what and how he plays/sings strikes a chord with me more than robert?

the music itself is more important than the person playing it, and the person's perception, while important, is highly influenced by the music
well sure. but for example i dont really choose to like a piece. you can make music and make me have an emotional connection with it. i either do or i dont.


you can't tell me that moonlight sonata is happy, it wasn't written to be happy, and even if you percieve it as happy, that doesn't make it a happy song, am I right?
yes you are. and i think the other people in this thread kind of missed that point with what i said before. listening to a sad song can make you happy depending on the context. maybe it will cheer you up over a break up or something.

but my point is that its these personal situations and feelings which determine how the music makes you feel sure, the song could be sad. but for personal reasons it may remind you of happier times. so whatever sadness the composer "put into" the song doesnt really affect you in that way.

if this hypothetical guitarist of yours felt what he was playing, but played like **** and the audience felt nothing I will explain what happened: he tried to convey his emotions, and failed, the audience felt nothing because the music failed to live up to it's aim, this is the exact reason that music can be evaluated, because all music attempts to bring the listener to the writer's perspective, and the more effect it has, the better it is.
but at what point do you call it a fail? what if just one person didnt get it? is that a fail? he failed to convey the emotions in the eyes of that one person. to that one person, he failed. does that make him a bad player? i dont really see it that way. hes just a different player that just didnt appeal to that one person. havent you ever tried to explain something to someone and they just didnt get it no matter how you explain it? sometimes, its your fault. but other times it doesnt matter what you say. its like if a german person was pouring out their soul for you. you wouldnt understand what they are saying. thats kind of how i see it. its not that the person failed to express himself, he did in fact, but you just didnt understand it. and for me anyway, im fine with that. jsut the emotional release alone for me means a lot. i dont care if people dont get it as long as i get to have that release.

Blind In 1 Ear
10-09-2009, 03:54 PM
People, like you, often forget that music is ART!! It should NOT be judged by technical skills. Once you get to a certain level, all artists contain those skills, but how they use them to convey ideas or emotions is what matters. Do you judge a painting as good because it accurately depicts life? No, it's good if it makes you feel a warm sense of familiarity, or bitternes if it was intended to cause such.

Conveying emotion is the ESSENCE of art, not finger skills!!
you have missed the point completely im sorry to say. you are taking personal opinons and feelings and saying that is skill. if i see a painting that makes me feel good, yeah, i think its a good painting. but if i look at say an impressionist painting, and then a very realistic painting, id say the realistic painter is better at doing what he does. but maybe he cant do what the impressionist does. thats why i say there are only different artists, not better or worse ones.

im talking about when you are judging a guitarists skills on guitar. a lot of people take emotion and their music and put that towards their skill on guitar. but really, emotion and music is personal opinions and doesnt really have anything to do with whether or not they can play guitar well. for example, i made this thread because someone thought john mayer was a better player than satch or vai because he thought john was more musical and had more emotion. but obviously, if we look from a technical stand point, vai and satch are able to do a lot more on guitar than john. whether or not their music does anything for you doesnt really matter because thats personal. personally, i dont like vai or satch. but i know they are better players than some of the musicians i prefer.

strawforest007
10-09-2009, 03:58 PM
its very simple: if you can detect how much emotion someone plays with, why does everyone have a different opinion on how much they play with? shouldnt we all be able to tell? if some people can tell, and others cant, how do we know which one of us can?

What sort of answer are you looking for if you're not happy with the answers so far? Do you want a detailed scientific answer or something (that will proove everything and yet nothing)?

Do you want to know the meaning of life? (yes, this question is flippant)

Why do you insist on asking such naive questions?

Try asking the same questions in other forums and let me know how you get on...

itsnotGreenDay
10-09-2009, 04:11 PM
So are you saying that you only want to judge guitar players by their actual physical skill then? Because that's not music. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who could blaze through scales faster than BB King, but does that make them better? You're oversimplifying the act of being a "guitar player". Just because there isn't a scale that can measure how much feeling is in a person's playing doesn't mean that the element should be completely ignored.

A musicians purpose is to make the listener understand their perspective, so if a number of people don't feel an emotional connection with an artist's music, then you could say that they weren't successful. Obviously no one will ever make an emotional connection with everybody, so saying "what if one person didn't feel an emotional connection?" really doesn't matter.

its like if a german person was pouring out their soul for you. you wouldnt understand what they are saying. thats kind of how i see it. its not that the person failed to express himself, he did in fact, but you just didnt understand it.

Actually, yes, he did fail to express himself. If I wasn't able to understand what he was saying, he didn't do a very good job of bringing me to his perspective, which is why people write music. He understood himself, but his audience didn't.

huevos
10-09-2009, 04:53 PM
There is no way to gauge it. You either like the music or you don't.
It's all about disposition and pre-conceived notions on what is music, art, that whole load of hoopla.
I like Behold...The Arctopus, Hella, The Number 12, and By the End of Tonight. Critics of such bands say they are absolute trite and that aren't music at all. That's fine, but in technical terms, music only has to be based* on 4 elements of rhythm, timbre, tonality, and dynamics.
On that criteria, they are making music.

Why then, would someone say that it's not music?
It's their idea of what music is or has to be. People tend to cling to their ideals. And there's nothing wrong with that. When people have this unshakable inferiority/superiority complex is when I have problems with them.

Speaking of which...
TS, you're just prolonging the life of this thread for the sake of your ego. Stop being so damn argumentative. Don't take that as a personal attack, as you have some good points.
I'm not one for blues players; I thought elitist metalheads where bad, but you've seen nothing until you come face to face with the obnoxious bluesmen.





*Music doesn't have to be anything.




Actually, yes, he did fail to express himself. If I wasn't able to understand what he was saying, he didn't do a very good job of bringing me to his perspective, which is why people write music. He understood himself, but his audience didn't.

As I just established, music doesn't have to be anything. It doesn't have to audience-centric, egocentric, artistic, fun, serious, expressive, extortive, or basically anything. It's all perspective, as art is not truly objective.

Carswell98
10-09-2009, 06:02 PM
in what way? is it because its more complex? because you said you find simple music to be better. (i dont actually think the hamster dance is better im just asking for arguments sake)

I said I like simple music, not that I have a preference, I like most forms of music, Rite of Spring is just one that I picked out because I like it.

It's an incredibly powerful, unyieldingly brutal piece of music describing a violent and archaic ceremony, and ushered in new ideas about composition that were previously unexplored, Hampster Dance however, is none of these things, and fails to communicate anything, at all.

well then answer me this: why does everyone have a different opinion when it comes to how much emotion someone plays with? imo, clapton plays with more emotion than robert johnson. but i know tons of people who disagree with that. so does he really play with more emotion, or is it just that what and how he plays/sings strikes a chord with me more than robert?

this is the problem. EMOTION has nothing to do with Clapton or RJ, you can't quantify it, you can't make that argument, because you could never be right or wrong. I would argue one could evaluate the music itself, and determine what is more valuble as art, but arguing over emotion is futile because not only is it completely unqunatifiable, it's not even important

well sure. but for example i dont really choose to like a piece. you can make music and make me have an emotional connection with it. i either do or i dont.

of course, I never suggest you could choose to like something, that is a very gut reaction

yes you are. and i think the other people in this thread kind of missed that point with what i said before. listening to a sad song can make you happy depending on the context. maybe it will cheer you up over a break up or something.

but that is your experience of the song, it says nothing about the song itself or it's artistic value, does that make sense?

but my point is that its these personal situations and feelings which determine how the music makes you feel sure, the song could be sad. but for personal reasons it may remind you of happier times. so whatever sadness the composer "put into" the song doesnt really affect you in that way.

see above

but at what point do you call it a fail? what if just one person didnt get it? is that a fail? he failed to convey the emotions in the eyes of that one person. to that one person, he failed. does that make him a bad player? i dont really see it that way. hes just a different player that just didnt appeal to that one person. havent you ever tried to explain something to someone and they just didnt get it no matter how you explain it? sometimes, its your fault. but other times it doesnt matter what you say. its like if a german person was pouring out their soul for you. you wouldnt understand what they are saying. thats kind of how i see it. its not that the person failed to express himself, he did in fact, but you just didnt understand it. and for me anyway, im fine with that. jsut the emotional release alone for me means a lot. i dont care if people dont get it as long as i get to have that release.

okay, for the german person

he is obviously communicating to you inneffectively isn't he?, so what he's trying to say to you is lost, this is sort of what I'm trying to get across, if he isn't speaking your language, you might know he is sad, but that will never make you fully understand his sadness, and could never appreciate the communication

I can understand your position, and I can empathize, but it doesn't make sense to consider all art as equal to each other, I think some of your points are understandable, and I'm okay with you seeing things differently, but we don't see eye to eye :)

Blind In 1 Ear
10-09-2009, 11:32 PM
What sort of answer are you looking for if you're not happy with the answers so far? Do you want a detailed scientific answer or something (that will proove everything and yet nothing)?

Do you want to know the meaning of life? (yes, this question is flippant)

Why do you insist on asking such naive questions?

Try asking the same questions in other forums and let me know how you get on...
i havent actually gotten any answers to any of my questions. most people here have just said that you can detect and guage emotion but no one has actually explained how. no one here has explained how if this is in fact possible, why there are so many different opinions on how much emotion someone plays with. like i said, it cant be both. you cant play with emotion and not play with emotion at the same time. for example, death metal doesnt speak to me, but it does to people who like it. it doesnt ring a chord with me like blues does. does that mean it has more soul? well the people who listen to death metal might say the opposite. so can we really guage soul, or is it just our own feelings we guage?

So are you saying that you only want to judge guitar players by their actual physical skill then? Because that's not music. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who could blaze through scales faster than BB King, but does that make them better? You're oversimplifying the act of being a "guitar player". Just because there isn't a scale that can measure how much feeling is in a person's playing doesn't mean that the element should be completely ignored.
see, you are mixing guitar player and musican together. music and what qualifies as good music is personal taste. if you think BB kings music is better than steve vai's (i do), then thats fine. but that hardly makes BB a better guitar player. his music has nothing to do with guitar playing ability. bob dylan makes good music but that doesnt mean hes a great guitar player/singer/harmonica player. good music is whatever you personally want it to be.

Actually, yes, he did fail to express himself. If I wasn't able to understand what he was saying, he didn't do a very good job of bringing me to his perspective, which is why people write music. He understood himself, but his audience didn't.
but the other people got it right? in my mind at least, if at least one person gets it im not a failure. besides, what does it have to do with being a bad or good guitar player? there are tons of amazing guitar players whos music i just dont like. that doesnt take away their skills though. that doesnt mean the emotion isnt there either. it just means i dont happen to feel a connection to it.

souljer0
10-09-2009, 11:44 PM
you have missed the point completely im sorry to say. you are taking personal opinons and feelings and saying that is skill. if i see a painting that makes me feel good, yeah, i think its a good painting. but if i look at say an impressionist painting, and then a very realistic painting, id say the realistic painter is better at doing what he does. but maybe he cant do what the impressionist does. thats why i say there are only different artists, not better or worse ones.

im talking about when you are judging a guitarists skills on guitar. a lot of people take emotion and their music and put that towards their skill on guitar. but really, emotion and music is personal opinions and doesnt really have anything to do with whether or not they can play guitar well. for example, i made this thread because someone thought john mayer was a better player than satch or vai because he thought john was more musical and had more emotion. but obviously, if we look from a technical stand point, vai and satch are able to do a lot more on guitar than john. whether or not their music does anything for you doesnt really matter because thats personal. personally, i dont like vai or satch. but i know they are better players than some of the musicians i prefer.


what is the point of playing marvelously through your scales and making licks out of them if they're not emotional? what good does it do you to have all of those finger skills that satch and vai have if they cant use them to make art with emotion? what's the point of learning theory if you cant use it effectively?

Blind In 1 Ear
10-09-2009, 11:55 PM
I said I like simple music, not that I have a preference, I like most forms of music, Rite of Spring is just one that I picked out because I like it.

It's an incredibly powerful, unyieldingly brutal piece of music describing a violent and archaic ceremony, and ushered in new ideas about composition that were previously unexplored, Hampster Dance however, is none of these things, and fails to communicate anything, at all.
well it just fails to communicate anything to you...and me actually. but i know a lot of people for example who dont like classical and think rap is real music. to them, it speaks to them. they dont feel what i feel when i hear classical and they dont feel the lack of feeling that i feel when i hear rap. they feel the opposite.
this is the problem. EMOTION has nothing to do with Clapton or RJ, you can't quantify it, you can't make that argument, because you could never be right or wrong. I would argue one could evaluate the music itself, and determine what is more valuble as art, but arguing over emotion is futile because not only is it completely unqunatifiable, it's not even important
thats exactly my point. you CANT guage emotion. thats the whole point of this thread! im tired of people using that as an argument.

but that is your experience of the song, it says nothing about the song itself or it's artistic value, does that make sense?
exactly. again this is my point. if someone makes a song, and puts all the feeling they want in it, it doesnt mean im going to feel it. if i dont feel anything from it, then im not going to like it. it seems to me that people tend to take this and mistake it for the artist not playing with as much emotion as someone else when really, its just that they dont like them. i see a lot of players say "well he plays fast, but this guy plays with feeling". again, you cant guage it. someone could here that supposed souless player and really feel what hes playing. its not a good argument when evauating players because its not based on anything quatifiable.
I can understand your position, and I can empathize, but it doesn't make sense to consider all art as equal to each other, I think some of your points are understandable, and I'm okay with you seeing things differently, but we don't see eye to eye :)
actually i think for the most part we do lol. maybe im just not explaining myself that well i dunno.

really the reason why i see all art as equal is because the more i listen, the more i see, the more i experience, the more i find that its all just different. what i may find as good music or art, someone else hates. what i hate, someone else loves. to them, that art is good art. so really, what is good art? what makes good music? if its the ability to reach the most people, then that would mean brittany spears is better than rabert johnson right? also, the music i used to the was bad, some of it i know think is good. i used to have no emotional connection and now i do. i used to be one who though vai was a souless shredder. now i listen to the love of god and tender surrender and it gives me chills (i still dont like most of his music though). so to me it seems obvious that its all personal interpretation.

i think some people here think im being arrogent and egotistical. but when i hear people say someone plays with more emotion than someone, thats arrogent. when someone says, "he can play fast, but i play with feeling", thats egotistical. im not even sure how anything i said in this thread was arrogent or egotistical. the title was really just an eye grabber to get people in the thread. i dont actually think most blues players are idiots lol.

i dont know what else to say but if anyone still thinks you can guage how much emotion a player plays with, please, let me know how.

Blind In 1 Ear
10-09-2009, 11:59 PM
what is the point of playing marvelously through your scales and making licks out of them if they're not emotional?
what makes you think these guys who can do that arent playing emotionally? just because you dont feel it doesnt mean it isnt there.

what good does it do you to have all of those finger skills that satch and vai have if they cant use them to make art with emotion? what's the point of learning theory if you cant use it effectively?
according to whom? because im pretty sure there are lots of people who think they do make good music and use their theory effectively and play with emotion.

carmour
10-10-2009, 02:40 AM
they dont feel the lack of feeling that i feel when i hear rap.

Really? Are you sure this isn't just out of not being accustomed to any decent rap? (Good rap pretty much never makes it to the radio/tv/awards). I'd question your ability to be emotionally receptive if you didn't feel something when you heard Mos Def raping about racism/politics/life/inequality/institutionalized racism..


when i hear people say someone plays with more emotion than someone, thats arrogent. when someone says, "he can play fast, but i play with feeling", thats egotistical.


There's nothing arrogant or egotistical about someone saying this unless he/she is touting it as gospel


see, you are mixing guitar player and musican together. music and what qualifies as good music is personal taste. if you think BB kings music is better than steve vai's (i do), then thats fine. but that hardly makes BB a better guitar player. his music has nothing to do with guitar playing ability. bob dylan makes good music but that doesnt mean hes a great guitar player/singer/harmonica player. good music is whatever you personally want it to be.

You've created this divide between 'guitar players' and 'musicians' which only serves the purpose of your argument, and has no practical application because it removes subjectivity from the argument of the arts. Art without subjectivity is Science. For me, a guitar player is a musician, and vice versa.

I agree with you about the subjectivity of music and musicians, and the fact that 'feeling' or 'soul' can't be reliably quantified. Here is where we differ though: Where I am content to leave the discussion as a merely subjective, opinion based discussion, you seem to have some immature fascination with the pursuit of absolute certainties (right/wrong) which doesn't allow you to accept the fact that arguments regarding art are supposed to be subjective.

B.B. King's music has something to do with guitar playing ability. His physical ability has slowly deteriorated so that he has had to boil his playing down to some contrived cliche's of licks (hardly his fault they've become cliche's, he did create them). His playing in the 1950s/60s/70s was much more imaginative and off the cuff.. god I love his early recordings.. (This paragraph isn't really relevant to this discussion, I rant sometimes lol)

I reckon Bob Dylan is a pretty good singer/harp/guitarist - merely because he's good at what he does. What's the point in judging how good he is at sweep picking, legato, shredding arpeggios, playing finger style jazz chord melodies etc etc? He doesn't play that music, it's not relevant. He's got his niche, and no one does it better.

itsnotGreenDay
10-10-2009, 12:25 PM
You've created this divide between 'guitar players' and 'musicians' which only serves the purpose of your argument, and has no practical application because it removes subjectivity from the argument of the arts. Art without subjectivity is Science. For me, a guitar player is a musician, and vice versa.


I was going to reply to you, blind in 1 ear, but this pretty much nailed it.

Blind In 1 Ear
10-11-2009, 10:29 PM
Really? Are you sure this isn't just out of not being accustomed to any decent rap? (Good rap pretty much never makes it to the radio/tv/awards). I'd question your ability to be emotionally receptive if you didn't feel something when you heard Mos Def raping about racism/politics/life/inequality/institutionalized racism..
well yes there is some rap i like. but im talking in general terms here. i like a little bit of every kind of music really. but for the most part, i dont like rap. i used to. i used to think it was the only kind of good music and felt no connection to anything else. now ive changed.
There's nothing arrogant or egotistical about someone saying this unless he/she is touting it as gospel
no, id argue saying it at all is arrogent. stating something like that is phrased as a factual statement. besides, a lot of people say things like this so they can be right about who the best guitar player is. so yes, id say its arrogent.
You've created this divide between 'guitar players' and 'musicians' which only serves the purpose of your argument, and has no practical application because it removes subjectivity from the argument of the arts. Art without subjectivity is Science. For me, a guitar player is a musician, and vice versa.
again, i think you miss the point of what im doing here. i know what you are saying completely. and i agree. i dont look at a guitar player as a player, but as a musician. but if im asked whether or not he's a good guitar player, i look at it objectivly. i dont let personal feelings or tastes in music get in the way. because thats just personal stuff, and it doesnt really apply to his skill as a guitar player. even if they asked me if he was a good musician, id have to answer with opinions. there are some things you can judge a musician on. for instance, can they compose complex pieces, is their music repetitive, etc... but for the most part "good music" and "good musicians" are opinion based. for example, a lot of people know that paganini was an amazing violin player. but its also widely accepted that he wasnt much of a composer. personally, i find a lot of his stuff repetitive but there is some stuff i really enjoy. those are just opinions and have nothing to do with whether or not he was a great player.

Where I am content to leave the discussion as a merely subjective, opinion based discussion, you seem to have some immature fascination with the pursuit of absolute certainties (right/wrong) which doesn't allow you to accept the fact that arguments regarding art are supposed to be subjective.
fair enough. but i dont think its so much that im in pursuit of absolute certainties. what im interested in is stopping the idea that rating the emotional input, which cannot even be gauged in the first place, is a valid arguement for anything. i think people need to realize this and stop thinking about the player/artists emotion, and focus on their own. if a persons art makes you feel better than someone elses, say that. dont say that this artist has more emotion than another. its just absurd.

B.B. King's music has something to do with guitar playing ability. His physical ability has slowly deteriorated ......... I love his early recordings.. (This paragraph isn't really relevant to this discussion, I rant sometimes lol)
oh i agree. but see hes still able to make good music even without the skills he once had. thats kind of my point. you dont need to be a good player to be a good musician. it helps sure but its not needed. and its not needed because really its just opinion (good music that is). so saying his playing isnt like it used to be is objective and its what im arguing here. his playing has slowed down, he relies more on standard licks and doesnt venture off as much, his playing isnt as crisp and clean sounding either. but i mean hey, hes getting pretty old. whether or not i enjoy his music or if he gives me an emotional response has nothing to do with his playing skills.

I reckon Bob Dylan is a pretty good singer/harp/guitarist - merely because he's good at what he does. What's the point in judging how good he is at sweep picking, legato, shredding arpeggios, playing finger style jazz chord melodies etc etc? He doesn't play that music, it's not relevant. He's got his niche, and no one does it better.
well yes, thats true. but in terms of guitar playing in gerneral, not talking about music, can can logically deduce that he isnt really a very skilled guitarist. but like you said, his music doesnt need it. and if we compare his harp skills to say john popper, well obviously popper is a lot better. and thats objective. if dylans harp style touches you more, thats all good man. but i just want people to try and realize it doesnt mean bob has more soul because it reaches you more than popper. just say, sure pooper is better but i like dylans music more.

Gris-Gris-Man
10-11-2009, 10:37 PM
my view on guitar playing is technique and speed can also have emotion - John McLaughlin, Frank Zappa, Al Di Meola

carmour
10-12-2009, 01:20 AM
fair enough. but i don't think its so much that I'm in pursuit of absolute certainties. what I'm interested in is stopping the idea that rating the emotional input, which cannot even be gauged in the first place, is a valid argument for anything. i think people need to realize this and stop thinking about the player/artists emotion, and focus on their own. if a persons art makes you feel better than someone elses, say that. don't say that this artist has more emotion than another. its just absurd.


well yes, that's true. but in terms of guitar playing in general, not talking about music, can can logically deduce that he isn't really a very skilled guitarist. but like you said, his music doesn't need it. and if we compare his harp skills to say john popper, well obviously popper is a lot better. and that's objective. if dylans harp style touches you more, that's all good man. but i just want people to try and realize it doesn't mean bob has more soul because it reaches you more than popper. just say, sure pooper is better but i like dylans music more.

:haha: pooper is better, unfortunate typo

When I hear someone say "blah blah is the best guitar player" I instantly class it as opinion; imo it doesn't need to be qualified because it is implied.. to me atleast. If we jumped on everyone who didn't pre-face every opinion with 'in my opinion', we'd all look like raging douchebags.

And regarding Dylan and other Harp players.. I don't see the need to compare, specially with blues players. Dylan's playing folk harp with a neck brace so his hands are free, which is perfect for what he does. Little Walter/other blues harp players have their hands to create different tonal qualities, and have greater control of the harp. My point is, harp in blues and harp in folk have different roles, so there's no point in comparing the skills of players between different genres, because obviously those with more technically demanding genres are going to have better fundamental skills and technique, but that doesn't make them BETTER

what I'm interested in is stopping the idea that rating the emotional input, which cannot even be gauged in the first place, is a valid argument for anything

Here's the reality of the situation. You aren't going to stop anything, so you might as well accept that people are entitled to their opinion; entitled to the belief that they can base their opinion of a player on a players 'feel'.

I think the real problem is in the way you interpret what people say, and even in the occasional case where someone genuinely thinks their opinion is fact, you just have to accept there's nothing you can do about it. People are pretty stubborn about these things.

don't say that this artist has more emotion than another

Example. In my mind, if someone said one artist had more emotion and feel in their playing than another, I will immediately class that as an opinion and not be bothered by it. It is opinion, and to claim that it's a fact is absurd, but to say it is not.

Blind In 1 Ear
10-13-2009, 02:12 AM
And regarding Dylan and other Harp players.. I don't see the need to compare, specially with blues players. Dylan's playing folk harp with a neck brace so his hands are free, which is perfect for what he does. Little Walter/other blues harp players have their hands to create different tonal qualities, and have greater control of the harp. My point is, harp in blues and harp in folk have different roles, so there's no point in comparing the skills of players between different genres, because obviously those with more technically demanding genres are going to have better fundamental skills and technique, but that doesn't make them BETTER
well actually, it does make them better. if you are capable of more on the harp, you are a better harp player TECHNICALLY. but i mean, everything else is opinion based. i guess it would be hard though to objectivly find a good guitar player because personal opinions get in the way too much. its hard to be competely objective. plus, even technique can be argued. guitar for example, is fairly new. there is classical training for it but in the blues and rock world, none of that really applies. so "good technique" becomes opinion too. but im sure there are some things like playing choppy that can be guaged objectivly. but if you like that style, hey, thats cool too. its hard because what sounds amazing to one, may not to another. i guess im just tired of people bashing people like vai and satch. i mean, if you dont like them fine. but they are just trying to make music like everyone else. but you're right, im not going to be able to change anything. it jsut seems to me like sometimes blues players or listeners, try to justify their choices in music and playing by saying it has more soul than something more technically demanding. obviously not everyone, but ive come across a bunch who seem to think this way, and i was one of them actually. perhaps people just dont think you can have as much emotion when you play so fast and technically demanding. but actually, now that i can play a lot faster stuff i find its just the same as playing slow in terms of expression. the more you listen to it and play it, the faster your mind can process the music. so what used to sound like a wall of notes now seems like anything else.

I think the real problem is in the way you interpret what people say, and even in the occasional case where someone genuinely thinks their opinion is fact, you just have to accept there's nothing you can do about it. People are pretty stubborn about these things.
haha well unfortunatly, i hate letting little things like that go. it drives me nuts! im getting better at just not saying anything though but sometimes people say things that i cant just let go. like with the incident that started this thread for example. i mean, if you like john mayer better, you like his feel better, fine. but calling another musician a souless robot to me sounds as bad as racism. some people are like actually agnry at people like vai. im just like, settle down buddy. if you dont like them so be it. no one said you had to.

anyway, i think we are done here. this thread should die now lol.

carmour
10-13-2009, 03:32 AM
yep.. its about run its course

XxLloydxX
10-13-2009, 06:40 PM
Let's fly back 200 years in the past when Beethoven and Mozart stepped on the surface of the earth. These two genius musicians not only composed complex peices of art that delivers straight to the heart, but they played their instruments at the tips of the levels of virtuosity. I'm not saying virtuosity is needed to be a genius musician, but to be honest, you need it to be able to add every element that music presents to you, technical ability expands your selection of things to compose when playing your instrument.
Every time I hear people say technical ability isn't needed to make beautiful music, I believe that's just an excuse for not placing your ass on your ****ing chair to get better at your instrument because they are lazy to concentrate great amounts of hours on an instrument. Well I'll tell you what, if you say you're as passionate and determined to be a musician, then why the **** don't you play your instrument and practice to be a great musician better than your expectations, because that's what passion leads you to. Those people have to stop sayign **** about virtuosos or advanced players. Tt took those players countless hours of work to get to their levels, and it's extremely evident they did it because they had passion for the their instrument, and a strong desire to be musicians. Those players (Petrucci, Vai, Satriani, Gilbert, Emmanuel, Cooley, etc) , didn't sacrifice hours for the ability at guitar, they did it because they loved playing and practicing and were passionate for music. The technical ability came along in a package of passion as a reward.


Just because someone doesn't like a certain style of music doesn't mean it has no emotion. It's arrogant to say, "Petrucci just doesn't 'feel' the music when he plays the guitar'. Every music made with emotion has the "feel" and the spirit inside the music, some people just don't percieve it when hearing it, not because they can't, but because they haven't adapted to listening to"that" type of emotion and are not used to hearing the harmony of that music that creates a certain emotion.

For those who say speed and technique is not soulful music and that no emotion is transmitted to the listener, that's bull****. Speed is an element and tool to create energy and tension in a peice of music, if used correctly to increase the velocity in the notes being played without changing the tempo, you will feel tension, people who don't like this tension will respond negatively but that's just because they don't like hearing that tension. They prefer listening to music with just a certain amount of tension, that only builds to a certain level of energy.
Metal, Blues, Rock, Jazz, Rap, Indie, Punk, Country, Shred...each style has a certain emotion, because different Timbres are used to raise the emotion it tries to deliver. Everyone wants to hear to feel different things, so it's obvious everyone will like a different style more than another. Now, if we're talking about what music is more musical than the other, it obvious people will say that the music they listen to is more musical. Why? Because music is supposed to get to your heart, and the emotion they want to hear is in that musical style, so their hearts are open to feel what that music has to deliver. But in reality, the music that is more "musical" is the most creative music, the most complex but simple. When I say complex but simple, it's because everything in that peice makes sense, every melody relates to the next, every rhythm connects with the next and there was a thought to why every single second in the peice is made as it is.
The most artistic music is made by those people who can transmit their emotions through music in the most artistic way...and to do that, creativity, musical knowledge and technical ability (to some extent) is needed, as well as the most important element that defines an artist: Have something to say.

Ndelle94
10-15-2009, 07:19 PM
Usually, the way it tends to be is that people with raw technical ability can't write as well as the soulful bluesmen, Because what good is raw technical ability if you can't make an enjoyable song.

cygnus...
10-15-2009, 08:33 PM
"It is about feeling and not feeling" - Jimi Hendrix.

Being a great technical player only makes you a great technical player /// whereas playing with your heart and soul, and letting your whole life, and mind and soul, not only influence your playing but just flow directly through it; like Hendrix and Eddie Hazel and Stevie Ray...those are the great players. When you can breath with your playing and just flow with everything you are a great player. Vai, and Satch...well they are just great technical players.

Its too bad that in today's world most of the young players comming up are all being influenced by really unsoulfull, music and trading emotion for the ability to do whatever technique. However there are still lots of us who try and bring everything into their playing. And I think that eventually we will see a new rise of young blues influenced players that the whole blues community can be proud of, and not wankers like John Mayer ;) ;)

Merman_of_83
10-15-2009, 09:21 PM
now that ive got your attention, i have a serious question. why i do i keep finding blues players that seem to look down on technical playing ability? time and time again i see people talk down great players because they dont play blues. usually they bring up vai and satch. now, i actually am not a fan of either of them, but they are obviously great players and musicians.

now, i just had an argument with someone because he thought john mayer was a better player than vai and satch because he "plays with more feel and musicality than them". which is just stupid to say the least. im not a mayer fan either so i feel i can look at this situation without any biased opinions.

john is a great player, but he is no where near vai and satch in terms of technical abilities. im not sure how much musical knowledge he has though. i know vai and satch have quite a bit. anyways, that doesnt really matter anyways. im really wondering where people, esspecially blues players, get the idea that they can somehow guage "soul" or "feeling" in someones playing. where does anyone get off telling anyone that so and so plays with more emotion that so and so? really what they are saying is that they personally dont feel a connection to that persons playing. but why dont people get this? why the arrogence? and since when does speed or technical ability have anything to do with emotion? you either feel what you play, or you dont. i doubt vai and satch would even make music if they didnt put any emotion into their playing. why would they do something they have no connection with?

i just really hope this way of thinking goes away soon. im getting tired of ignorance.
This is where this thread headed downhill. Yes, right at the start. I've been engaging in more debates and discussions lately, and the thing that tends to aggravate every one, and drive it down a familiar path to frustration is the lack of definition. Look through your first post, and define every term that is even partially abstract, such as technical ability, emotion, as well as the vague difference you place between the terms guitar player and musician.

As for the actual topic, I recommend you just stop. You claim you're tired of ignorance, but you seem to be ignoring a key aspect of this discussion: the human element. Emotion is unquantifiable, but that does not mean you can discount it. If you've ever listened to music in your life, you should agree that emotion plays a key role in it.

While you can study the differences in various artists technical ability, you can only take that to a certain point. Unless you can find recordings of Robert Johnson shredding to the best of his ability, and Satch playing stripped down, acoustic blues to the best of his ability, you cannot really quantify technical ability either. Most players stick to a select few genres, and do not branch out, at least not in their actual released music. Who knows how well David Gilmour can shred, if he tried? Who knows what Vai could do with just an acoustic and a harmonica with a little practice? You cannot discount these things. So is technical ability really as black and white as you make it seem?

Then the rather sticky aspect of emotion. Like I mentioned earlier, just because you can't quantify it, does not mean you can discount it entirely. Surely you have emotions, so you cannot approach this without bias. Emotions are felt by artists, who try and convey them in their art, and this sometimes gets through the way they felt it, and sometimes does not. Sometimes what the artist felt is different then what the listener felt. But does this change the music itself? That is an interesting question indeed. The complexity of the human mind and the incalculable effects of emotions definitely affects how people perceive music, and it changes from person to person. But just because the interpretation changes, does that really make the music worse? Or better?

Like I said, I recommend you just stop the argument, or at least improve on your opening statements. But I'd prefer it if you'd stop. You're comparing apples to alarm clocks...reality doesn't work as clearly and logically as you'd like it to. Is there really a point to trying to find the 'best' guitar player/musician (I use these terms haphazardly, because you've yet to define them), and is it even possible to? I think not. Music is art, and is approached in many different ways. It is not math, or science; there is not right and wrong. Only different.

My 2 cents.

JilaX^
10-16-2009, 04:03 AM
One thing that can be quantified, and should be regarded higher than technical ability is Phrasing.
The ability to structure together and play coherent solos, rather than just wanking scales and quarter notes, is something that every good guitar player must know.

vinnie-watt5
10-16-2009, 02:06 PM
That guy never seen Vai play live I guess.

He sometimes make me laugh though when I watch him play bad horsie.

RubberSoul54321
10-16-2009, 04:05 PM
The only judge I have is my ears. If I like it, I like it: end of. I really couldn't give a toss about how difficult something is to play (or vice-versa): I need to connect with the sound in some way. It's music, it should make you feel something.

Victor V.
10-18-2009, 04:31 PM
Everyone's playing has emotion. A measure of the feeling put into it is the feeling that you get out of it, which is completely subjective to everyone, not just blues musicians. Technical ability has little to do with composition and performance. Otherwise, the music as an art-form would be dead.

And if you cannot connect with the feeling of someone's music, don't listen to it.
The thread ended here.

For years I thought Van Halen was absolutely emotionless.

Axegrinder#9
10-19-2009, 06:16 AM
this thread will never die and poster's will keep running around in circles wasting time they should be investing in playing music or meditating upon the sound that an unstrung guitar makes.

I however am having lunch, so to make this circus continue here's my latest pearl of wisdom:

1. I think music is NOT relative.
2. I just saw an old G3 video after a long time, and... Vai shreds. So does Malmsteen. So does Satch. Somehow Malmsteen solos made me die a lil' bit from the inside.

3. Despite above statement, SPEED = EMOTION. I met Art Tatum in a dream and he told me that.

4. I would like to marry Tal Wilkenfeld. Why? Because if it really came down to it, I think I could take Jeff Beck down.

JilaX^
10-19-2009, 08:57 AM
:haha :haha :haha
:haha :haha :haha
:haha :haha :haha

Oh Axegrinder, how you crack me up. *wipes tear*

Carswell98
10-19-2009, 01:02 PM
at least he has good taste in bass players, :haha:

strawforest007
10-19-2009, 02:00 PM
Brae! You fancy doing a track or two for the blues/jazz album?

P.S. I love this thread, technically, emotionally and relatively. That's right folks, it's sarcasm day!

P.S.S. question to Braedon is genuine.

Carswell98
10-19-2009, 04:40 PM
Brae! You fancy doing a track or two for the blues/jazz album?

P.S. I love this thread, technically, emotionally and relatively. That's right folks, it's sarcasm day!

P.S.S. question to Braedon is genuine.


it'll all depend on the deadline man, I actually know someone with a studio I could use, but I'd need some time


and I'm not sure what i'd play :shrug:

wolflen
10-19-2009, 04:57 PM
3. Despite above statement, SPEED = EMOTION. I met Art Tatum in a dream and he told me that.

4. I would like to marry Tal Wilkenfeld. Why? Because if it really came down to it, I think I could take Jeff Beck down.
__________________
i dont know about the marriage part .. but i would like to play with tal wilkenfeld...wait...that doesn't sound right...

as far as taking jeff beck down...must be part of the dream you had about art tatum

its like miles...sounds easy and relaxed...but try it playing with any of the guys he played with...magin the band...coltrane..cannonball..mclaughlin..stanley clark..chick correa..tony williams...

makes ya nervous just thinking bout it...

play well

wolf

Axegrinder#9
10-19-2009, 06:19 PM
3. Despite above statement, SPEED = EMOTION. I met Art Tatum in a dream and he told me that.

4. I would like to marry Tal Wilkenfeld. Why? Because if it really came down to it, I think I could take Jeff Beck down.
__________________
i dont know about the marriage part .. but i would like to play with tal wilkenfeld...wait...that doesn't sound right...

as far as taking jeff beck down...must be part of the dream you had about art tatum

its like miles...sounds easy and relaxed...but try it playing with any of the guys he played with...magin the band...coltrane..cannonball..mclaughlin..stanley clark..chick correa..tony williams...

makes ya nervous just thinking bout it...

play well

wolf

no no I meant I think I could physically take down JB. in titty wrestling.