Page 1 of 4
Blind In 1 Ear
Git-Man
Join date: Jun 2006
2,962 IQ
#1
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...
UG Member
Join date: Sep 2009
260 IQ
#2
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.
I am the only sane person on the planet. Does that make me crazy?

Crank the Mids
fiend89
Registered User
Join date: Oct 2007
90 IQ
#3
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
Registered User
Join date: Dec 2008
149 IQ
#4
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
Banned
Join date: Jan 2009
250 IQ
#5
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
Not a fan of my username.
Join date: Aug 2009
16 IQ
#6
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.
Darkkon
Registered User
Join date: May 2008
178 IQ
#7
Quote by Blind In 1 Ear
im getting tired of ignorance.

Too bad. It's never going to go away, so the best thing to do is deal with it.
Sig.
jfreyvogel
UG's Forum Vagabond
Join date: Sep 2009
1,606 IQ
#8
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
Petrucciowns
Registered User
Join date: Jan 2008
468 IQ
#10
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
Not a fan of my username.
Join date: Aug 2009
16 IQ
#11
Quote by pwrmax
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
Last edited by Guitarfailwin at Oct 1, 2009,
Petrucciowns
Registered User
Join date: Jan 2008
468 IQ
#13
Yeah gilmour is amazing. He was my fav, but now has been topped by Petrucci. He will always be # 2
jfreyvogel
UG's Forum Vagabond
Join date: Sep 2009
1,606 IQ
#14
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
Not a fan of my username.
Join date: Aug 2009
16 IQ
#15
Quote by jfreyvogel
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
Git-Man
Join date: Jun 2006
2,962 IQ
#16
Quote by Guitarfailwin
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.

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...
UG Member
Join date: Sep 2009
260 IQ
#17
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.
I am the only sane person on the planet. Does that make me crazy?

Crank the Mids
carmour
Registered User
Join date: Nov 2007
243 IQ
#18
Quote by Blind In 1 Ear
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.


Quote by Blind In 1 Ear
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
Not a fan of my username.
Join date: Aug 2009
16 IQ
#19
Quote by Blind In 1 Ear
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.




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...

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
Registered User
Join date: Nov 2007
243 IQ
#20
Quote by jfreyvogel
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
Git-Man
Join date: Jun 2006
2,962 IQ
#21
Quote by Guitarfailwin


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...

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
Git-Man
Join date: Jun 2006
2,962 IQ
#22
Quote by carmour
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.
Last edited by Blind In 1 Ear at Oct 2, 2009,
carmour
Registered User
Join date: Nov 2007
243 IQ
#23
Quote by Blind In 1 Ear
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
Registered User
Join date: Mar 2008
1,695 IQ
#24
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^
Registered User
Join date: Mar 2007
348 IQ
#25
Quote by jfreyvogel
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 )

Quote by Blind In 1 Ear
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?
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.




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
Registered User
Join date: Aug 2008
18 IQ
#26
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
I pwn You
Join date: Jan 2005
913 IQ
#27
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
The BKP Guy
Join date: Nov 2008
5,267 IQ
#28
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!
Doin' DAT FUNKY DANCE
Join date: Sep 2004
2,037 IQ
#29
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.
On vacation from modding = don't pm me with your pish
Blind In 1 Ear
Git-Man
Join date: Jun 2006
2,962 IQ
#30
Quote by carmour
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.

Quote by ethan_hanus
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.
Last edited by Blind In 1 Ear at Oct 2, 2009,
food1010
Bassist
Join date: Jun 2007
1,660 IQ
#31
Quote by RyanMetalMatthe
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.
You really haven't heard much of his music, have you?
Only play what you hear. If you don’t hear anything, don’t play anything.
-Chick Corea
ethan_hanus
The BKP Guy
Join date: Nov 2008
5,267 IQ
#32
^ 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...
UG Member
Join date: Sep 2009
260 IQ
#33
Quote by Axegrinder#9
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.


I am the only sane person on the planet. Does that make me crazy?

Crank the Mids
Bluesy...
UG Member
Join date: Sep 2009
260 IQ
#34
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.
I am the only sane person on the planet. Does that make me crazy?

Crank the Mids
Zoot Allures
UG's Contrarian
Join date: Feb 2009
2,962 IQ
#35
Quote by Blind In 1 Ear
.

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.
Last edited by Zoot Allures at Oct 3, 2009,
Necrophrenic
Registered User
Join date: Mar 2009
33 IQ
#39
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.
Last edited by Necrophrenic at Oct 3, 2009,
Blind In 1 Ear
Git-Man
Join date: Jun 2006
2,962 IQ
#40
Quote by Bluesy...
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.

Quote by Zoot Allures
'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.

Quote by Necrophrenic
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.

Quote by ze monsta
Was that an attempt at humour?

why? can you some how guage feeling in someones playing?
Last edited by Blind In 1 Ear at Oct 3, 2009,