mdc
UG's Mr Chord Man
Join date: Feb 2008
722 IQ
#2
In blues? Taste. Tone is literally 1 nano millimeter behind. Technique is about 3 micro nano millimeters behind.
Last edited by mdc at Jan 6, 2013,
mark.bark
Laugh often and sleep in
Join date: Feb 2009
128 IQ
#3
technique is last? You can play a guitar through a shit amp, but theres no point in having a £2k stack if you cant play....


All 3 are unique to each person

except taste.... it nearly always tastes like wood
EpiExplorer
orsonfacenospace
Join date: May 2008
5,559 IQ
#4
Technique first.. for pretty much anything. Taste, then tone. Plenty of musicians can write and play great music with shit tones, and a lot of others write and play shit music with great tones.
o()o

Quote by JamSessionFreak
yes every night of my entire life i go to bed crying because i wasnt born american
Geldin
Registered User
Join date: Sep 2008
1,677 IQ
#5
You can't compare the subjective to the objective. The question is unanswerable.

Technique is purely objective. If you have bad technique, there's no ifs, ands, or buts. You're doing it wrong.

Tone can be kind of grey. Some sounds are simply unpleasant to the human ear, but within the acceptable range, there's a lot of variation in what people like to hear.

Taste is purely subjective.
iduno871
Registered User
Join date: Dec 2007
477 IQ
#6
tone all the way, then taste and then technique. Most musicians won't see it this way. But fans will whether they know it or not.
jthm_guitarist
"funny" but "unmemorable"
Join date: Apr 2006
1,474 IQ
#8
I would put taste way out front. If someone is technically good and has good tone but is playing really boring or crappy music then what's the point?

Quote by emad
jthm_guitarist
Warned for trolling!


Quote by metal4eva_22
Didn't you say that you had a stuffed fox that you would occasionally fuck?

Quote by Axelfox
It's not a fox,it's a wolf.
Zaphod_Beeblebr
Shallow and pedantic.
Join date: Apr 2006
1,670 IQ
#9
Quote by jthm_guitarist
I would put taste way out front. If someone is technically good and has good tone but is playing really boring or crappy music then what's the point?


If someone is playing good music but you can't hear them because their tone is drowned out in the mix what's the point?

If someone is writing good music and has a decent, well EQ'd set up but lacks the physical facility to play any of it what's the point?


Now, all of these things are relative, many people will never need Guthrie Govan's technique to play the music they hear in their heads, but you must have some level of all three to be playing anything of worth.
R.I.P. My Signature. Lost to us in the great Signature Massacre of 2014.

Album.
Legion.
Zaphod_Beeblebr
Shallow and pedantic.
Join date: Apr 2006
1,670 IQ
#11
Quote by HoneyboyHart
Maybe I should put this in the context of the goal...

To move the audience!

So... put tone, taste and technique into the context of which is most important to move your listener?


Then tone and taste are equal. The audience, unless you're playing to a room full of guitarists, will never notice your good technique.
R.I.P. My Signature. Lost to us in the great Signature Massacre of 2014.

Album.
Legion.
cip 123
Registered User
Join date: Apr 2010
546 IQ
#12
i'd still say technique is first you cant move someone if you cant play?
mdc
UG's Mr Chord Man
Join date: Feb 2008
722 IQ
#13
Don't forget that this is with regard to blues.


BB King had great technique
Zaphod_Beeblebr
Shallow and pedantic.
Join date: Apr 2006
1,670 IQ
#14
Quote by mdc
Don't forget that this is with regard to blues.


BB King had great technique


Joe Bonamassa is also a blues player
R.I.P. My Signature. Lost to us in the great Signature Massacre of 2014.

Album.
Legion.
Elderer
UG Member
Join date: Dec 2011
1,208 IQ
#15
All three. Just look at good pianists-E.Kissin,that Georgian chick(forgot last name...something-vadze)-they have crazy technique that sets them free as far as 2 hand pieces go. The rest came later I guess-phrasing/articulation,tone.They have all three.

I mean Im a blues fanatic myself(altho I play hard rock-Zepp,TCV,Graveyard etc) and I can understand where that mentality comes from...its hard for me to catch that FEEL when/if Im distracted by bad pull-offs/hammer-ons/slides. Ive confronted a lot blues guitarists about it and the common answer is - its all about da feeeeeeel duud,you havent got it yet...to me its a rather poor excuse for shameless sloppy ripping of blues scale.


B.B. King is a fine example.
Bonamassa is too clean,polished for my liking.
Page...different story but I still forgive him slopyness in live bootlegs.He compensated it with songs.
Last edited by Elderer at Jan 6, 2013,
Mephaphil
No empty frets.
Join date: Apr 2012
1,956 IQ
#16
All 3 are equally important.

However, Tone and Taste are the most important. But technique has to be very close.

Like Zaph said, if you have great tone, and pick the right licks but you might catch the string above slightly when you bend, like I might do (like most of us) from time to time no one is ever gonna notice because it's so minor.

But if you aim to bend the E and bend out of pitch and the B, D and G ring out, well no tone is gonna help you.
Quote by Shredwizard445
Go ahead and spend your money, I don't care. It won't make you sound better.


Quote by Shredwizard445
Sure upgrading your gear will make you sound better.


wafflesyrup
Registered User
Join date: Aug 2011
465 IQ
#17
The majority of the audience has little interest in music. Don't pander to them. Make 'em work for it.
Dayn
Registered User
Join date: Jun 2006
536 IQ
#18
Ugh, blues. In that case, I value taste above technique or tone. I would say taste, technique, then tone. It must be interesting for me to listen to foremost, then there must also be the technique to back it up.

Tone is easy and entirely gear-dependent. If someone says tone is in the fingers, they're talking purely about technique. It's still just a bit of metal vibrating against metal.
Ibanez RG2228 w/ EMG808Xs | Line 6 POD HD500 | Mackie HD1221
macashmack
Maskcashmack
Join date: May 2011
3,359 IQ
#19
For an audience, taste, then tone, then technique. The classic rock guys were sloppy as hell and everyone loved 'em. Might not be the same now though.
TheProtoTYPE
Banned
Join date: Mar 2012
20 IQ
#20
If I HAD to choose from the three then I would go for technique. I am only biased because of how I was brought up with guitar.
HoneyboyHart
Registered User
Join date: Jul 2012
755 IQ
#21
Let's take a few guitarists and see how they break down in my opinion...

B.B. King

Tone- 50%

Taste- 40%

Technique - 10%

Joe Bonamassa

Tone - 25%

Taste - 25%

Technique - 50%

Eric Clapton

Tone - 40%

Taste - 40%

Technique - 20%

Does that help the conversation?
Geldin
Registered User
Join date: Sep 2008
1,677 IQ
#22
This is all silliness.

Like I said, the only one that can be measured objectively is technique. Tone and taste are subjective. They can't really be compared to one another. You can't go divvying up a guitarist's sound into percentages like that.

Besides that, like Zaphod said, they're all of pretty equal importance.
steven seagull
not really a seagull
Join date: Oct 2006
1,064 IQ
#23
^i was oddly thinking the exact same thing
Actually called Mark!

Quote by TNfootballfan62
People with a duck for their avatar always give good advice.

...it's a seagull

Quote by Dave_Mc
i wanna see a clip of a recto buying some groceries.


stuffmycatswatchontv.tumblr.com