Page 1 of 2
#1
I'm sure most of you will think this means correct picking technique, but i mean in general.
Notice i quoted perfect also :p
For example, this whole debate people have over using your pinky. Lets say you're playing a difficult solo.. At the end of the day, if you can achieve the right sound and play it correctly without using your pinky does it really matter. I personally always use my pinky as i can't do without it, but a lot of players i see doing some crazy finger stretches they use just 3 fingers and i consider it so much easier with just 4.
Other things like, bending... If you can do a 4 finger bend with 2 fingers, then why not use 2 fingers. As long as you can achieve what needs to be achieved does it matter.
Even just playing a simple riff that might be over a few frets. If you can achieve it with more movement (and that's your preference), and you can still achieve what needs to be achieve, then it doesn't really matter does it?
Just wanted other people's opinions on this topic, because i believe technique is an extremely personal and individual thing and unless infact they are being held back by a very unusual technique that causes problems, i don't think it matters at all.
Last edited by vayne92 at Jun 7, 2011,
#2
I hate to break it to you, but people try to improve their technique so they can achieve more. Not many people are interested in changing technique to achieve exactly what they already do.

If you're happy with what you can do and how you do it - then obviously "perfect" technique doesn't matter at all to you.
#3
Quote by Freepower
people try to improve their technique so they can achieve more. .

That is true, however, to do more you don't necessarily have to change your technique. I for one have stuck with some of my techniques for years and have achieved much much more without making any technical change.
I believe there is bad technique, but i don't think there is a perfect technique.
Obviously if a technique is restricting your playing it is bad, but if it doesn't then i don't think your technique needs to be changed at all.
#4
No you don't need perfect technique. There are plenty of guitarists who have very sloppy technique, but are still incredible guitarists. You don't have to use all of your fingers all the time, but you don't want to ignore a finger. It depends on what is coming up next in the song. Just because you can do a relatively big stretch with just 3 fingers doesn't mean you always should.
Quote by Geldin
Junior's usually at least a little terse, but he knows his stuff. I've always read his posts in a grouchy grandfather voice, a grouchy grandfather with a huge stiffy for alternate picking.
Besides that, he's right this time. As usual.
#5
well no perfect technique isn't required, however I would argue that it would be good to have so you can play exactly what you hear in your head, which you may not be able to do with sloppy technique....
Quote by Dirk Gently
Some pieces are only meant to be played by people with six fingers on their fretting hand. Sorry.
#6
Personally, I think its just better to come up with your own technique. If everybody followed the same technique, then we'd all still be playing greensleaves and rock wouldn't exist.
#7
One question what is perfect technique and who decided that one technique is the perfect one!?

IMO there is no such thing as perfect technique. The techniques you use should help you create the sounds you hear in your head, that’s it. There is no set law saying it has to be done one way, only one way or its wrong. If it’s comfortable and your able to express your music the way you want then your technique is fine. Who cares if it matches perfectly to what one narcissistic sociopath said perfect technique was 50-100 years ago.

Personally I try any and every technique I can "even techniques from diffrent insturments... because I can", then pick the one(s) that sounds/feels the best.
Quote by MetlHed94



Well played, sir, well played.
#8
There are, however, many artists in which you may not be able to replicate simply because what they write is an extension of certain techniques. Which are not possible unless you have control over the basic underlying technique involved.
#9
I'm not shure if there is or is not "perfect technique" , but I do believe there is a right and wrong way to do things, for the same reason you dont "lift with your back" you "lift with your legs".
Quote by AeolianSeventh
Maybe there are gnomes in your air conditioning vents using out-of-phase parabolic speakers to deaden vibrations from a distance.
#10
I like to take what i like listening to then adjust it to how I'd prefer it to be which most of the times means mixing different things from songs and techniques used in others into one ball of stuff
#11
My 2cents: if you're considering things like playing very fast, complex picking combinations, etc as parameters to measure 'perfect technique', then I would say: it's not really important. But to me what really makes the difference is playing whatever you play, whatever your style is, but do it flawlessly.

ps. some may say that in order to be able to play flawlessly, you will need perfect technique: I disagree with that opinion
#12
"Even just playing a simple riff that might be over a few frets. If you can achieve it with more movement (and that's your preference), and you can still achieve what needs to be achieve, then it doesn't really matter does it?"

At the end of the day it's the sounds you are producing with the guitar that counts, but someone with good technique will probably find it easier to play the same things than someone with bad technique, so that's why I think people should try to have efficient movements

But, as long as you are efficient in your movements,are relaxed while playing and can make the sounds you want to make, don't worry too much about being "perfect", focus on these guidelines instead. That's my opinion
#13
There's definitely merit in having good technique - ie nothing that holds you back majorly - as it means you can play what you want.

Making small adjustments to technique can be crucial in the long-run to prevent problems further down the line.

I think it's only worth going about changing things if you notice that something's wrong - I've had to do this recently and even in a short time I've noticed improvements.

On the other end of the scale there's some people who are just going to have their own way of doing things. I'll never forget the day I was in a guitar store messing around on the acoustics, this old black guy walks in, grabs a guitar and asks the store monkey if he could play. The way he was holding the guitar was just plain wrong, and would cause a classical teacher to have an aneurism. I thought he was just some gumbo trying to have a bit of fun. He asked me to play some blues rhythm which I reluctantly did and he came out with some outrageous blues licks. He was incredible.

I would feel like a total ass telling him he needs to improve his technique...

It's really up to you though mate.
#14
Yes- you need good technique for the reasons stated above.

Without good technique, can one really claim themselves to be a "player" of an instrument (instead of just being a dabbler)?

Could one go and be a session musician without good technique? Sure there are exceptions but they are not the rule.

Those who claim you don't need good technique are probably just trying to rationalize their own lack a discipline on their instrument.
#15
Are you able to execute all of your ideas in a way you are happy with? If you don't feel limitations and you like the way it sounds, then I guess you are good. Many people, me included, aren't entirely happy with the way we sound and feel that we have limitations in our playing, which is why we work on our technique.
#16
Quote by Riffman15
Yes- you need good technique for the reasons stated above.

Without good technique, can one really claim themselves to be a "player" of an instrument (instead of just being a dabbler)?

Could one go and be a session musician without good technique? Sure there are exceptions but they are not the rule.

Those who claim you don't need good technique are probably just trying to rationalize their own lack a discipline on their instrument.


Good technique is subjective. The only bad techniques are those which keep a player from reaching their full potential. But only that individual can determin what their true potential is, so what a good/bad technqiue truly is comes down to each individual musican.


Want a great example google James Jamerson. He was the house bassist for Motown and his bass "the funk machine" played on more #1 hits than any other instrument in the history or western music.

His right hand technqiue consisted of "the hook" he anchored his hand to the pickup cover with his middle, ring, pinky... and used only his index finger to play. Most people would consider this technique assinine and crazy, and should never work. But he played tracks with 1 finger that most stuido bassists can't play with 2 or 3 let alone with a pick.

This man played on more #1 tracks than any musican in history. He recorded "Whats going on by Marvin Gaye" drunk laying on the floor, with 1 finger on a bass who's neck was warapped so badly it was deamed unplayable. "he claimed the dirt keeps the funk", "and that the warped neck gave it a unique tone". Nobody can play that line like he did, and he did it laying down drunk on a broken bass.

Tell me James Jamerson isn't a true musican, and can't truly play his instrument... and is just a dabbler. A true musican thinks for themself and develops their own techniques to achive the sound they want. The hook was the ideal technique for Jamerson, who gives a hell if it works for anyone else. For him it was pefect, and at the end of the day thats all that really matters, is it not!?
Quote by MetlHed94



Well played, sir, well played.
Last edited by TheMooseKnuckle at Jun 7, 2011,
#17
Right. There are huge numbers of musicians who have achieved worldwide acclaim, fame, wealth, and popularity with what might be described as crappy technique.
A now-departed friend of ours was a well-trained concert pianist. he had invested years learning his craft and could literally play anything and sight-read complex pieces like a dream.

He recounted how his teacher harangued him for years on his finger position... He was constantly being scolded for not having nice, arched finger position.
So, when he finally got to see Horowitz live, he was astounded to see the man played with technique that would have shocked his teacher....

Technique is mostly about efficiency. Good technique allows you to do more and do it more easily. It's perhaps best to learn proper technique right from the get-go.
However, as the old saw goes, "it doesn't have to hurt your playing."
#18
Quote by TheMooseKnuckle
Good technique is subjective. The only bad techniques are those which keep a player from reaching their full potential. But only that individual can determin what their true potential is, so what a good/bad technqiue truly is comes down to each individual musican.


Want a great example google James Jamerson. He was the house bassist for Motown and his bass "the funk machine" played on more #1 hits than any other instrument in the history or western music.

His right hand technqiue consisted of "the hook" he anchored his hand to the pickup cover with his middle, ring, pinky... and used only his index finger to play. Most people would consider this technique assinine and crazy, and should never work. But he played tracks with 1 finger that most stuido bassists can't play with 2 or 3 let alone with a pick.

This man played on more #1 tracks than any musican in history. He recorded "Whats going on by Marvin Gaye" drunk laying on the floor, with 1 finger on a bass who's neck was warapped so badly it was deamed unplayable. "he claimed the dirt keeps the funk", "and that the warped neck gave it a unique tone". Nobody can play that line like he did, and he did it laying down drunk on a broken bass.

Tell me James Jamerson isn't a true musican, and can't truly play his instrument... and is just a dabbler. A true musican thinks for themself and develops their own techniques to achive the sound they want. The hook was the ideal technique for Jamerson, who gives a hell if it works for anyone else. For him it was pefect, and at the end of the day thats all that really matters, is it not!?


A relativist ideology is just another way of justifying one's lazyness. Essentially, it says "it's all relative so therefore I have no need to improve; one man's music is another man's noise; therefore, I can keep making my noise and rest assured that it has just as much value as any other musical creation."

Obviously, such a notion is absurd. A certain manner of technique will ultimately lead to better sounding results on the instrument than other styles. In other words, what constitutes pleasant sounding music, or "sound" more generally, is in fact universal.

When people argue for a relativist conception of musical quality, Jimmy Hendrix is often cited as an example of how "great music" can be created with poor technique.

However, if you listen to Hendrix long enough you are going to get a headache, because the gritty sound his technique produces lacks the same aesthetic appeal of, say, harp music played by a professional. Listen to more pleasant music such as Shawn Lane's Jazz/fusion style, and you will be able to listen longer than you would to Hendrix because his technique and tone produce better aesthetic results overall.

Unfortunately, Hendrix's music is one step closer to noise on the noise-music continuum, just as "higher" forms of rock music such as neoclassical metal are as well.

Overall, there is a lower tolerance threshold for listening to gritty forms of music, that feature a lot of distortion, harsh noisy plucking, poor intonation, etc. Listen long enough and you body will enter into "stress-response" mode, increasing levels of stress related hormones such as cortisol and norepinephrine and decreasing feelgood chemicals such as testosterone and serotonine.

This is why people get charged with noise violations!!!!

That is because certain sounds are inherently pleasing, whereas others are not! What constitutes pleasant sounding music is not relative, but universal.

After all, what can you tolerate longer: a bird in song, or a barking dog?
Last edited by Riffman15 at Jun 7, 2011,
#19
Belive you me I am far from lazy... but to each their own. What works for me doesnt work for everyone. I know this to be true, weather you belive it or not is up to you.

Universal generalizations are a way of justifying that a persons view point is the only one that matters. And is a way of justifying to themself why they refuse to listen to any other differing view points. Cults, religions, even Nazi Germany use this same ideology.

You are assuming because you enjoy Jazz, everyone does. I hate to break it to you but Jazz is my favorite genre and most people I know cant stand it. Ask most people I know and I bet more people would rather listen to Jimi Hendrix than they would Miles Davis "which is a horrible shame IMO". But thats their opinion and they are welcome to it. If we were to go to the middle east or india where they dont use our "westrn style of music" what they find pleasnt to listen to would probably be horrible to both of us.

If there were a set standard, there would only be one genre. There would be no need for anything else would there not!?

I hate to break this too you, but I was charged with a noise violation "disturbing the peace"... listening to "Bach's - Cello Suite No.1 i-Prelude"... it was simply too loud it had nothing to do with the amount of distortion and gain used... because well there wasnt any. Apparently not everyone enjoys Bach though... who would have guessed. Universal generalizations don't always work out so hot do they!?

As for which I could tolorate longer the dog or bird. It depends on that specific dog and or bird. If the Dog had a nice groove ie he had great rhythm, phrasing, spacing, rests, articulation, dynamics, ect... I wouldnt mind listening to it. If the bird had an amazing tone but was all over the place, and had no structure what so ever. I dont think I would like listening to it.
Quote by MetlHed94



Well played, sir, well played.
Last edited by TheMooseKnuckle at Jun 7, 2011,
#20
Quote by Riffman15
A relativist ideology is just another way of justifying one's lazyness. Essentially, it says "it's all relative so therefore I have no need to improve; one man's music is another man's noise; therefore, I can keep making my noise and rest assured that it has just as much value as any other musical creation."

Obviously, such a notion is absurd. A certain manner of technique will ultimately lead to better sounding results on the instrument than other styles. In other words, what constitutes pleasant sounding music, or "sound" more generally, is in fact universal.

When people argue for a relativist conception of musical quality, Jimmy Hendrix is often cited as an example of how "great music" can be created with poor technique.

However, if you listen to Hendrix long enough you are going to get a headache, because the gritty sound his technique produces lacks the same aesthetic appeal of, say, harp music played by a professional. Listen to more pleasant music such as Shawn Lane's Jazz/fusion style, and you will be able to listen longer than you would to Hendrix because his technique and tone produce better aesthetic results overall.

Unfortunately, Hendrix's music is one step closer to noise on the noise-music continuum, just as "higher" forms of rock music such as neoclassical metal are as well.

Overall, there is a lower tolerance threshold for listening to gritty forms of music, that feature a lot of distortion, harsh noisy plucking, poor intonation, etc. Listen long enough and you body will enter into "stress-response" mode, increasing levels of stress related hormones such as cortisol and norepinephrine and decreasing feelgood chemicals such as testosterone and serotonine.

This is why people get charged with noise violations!!!!

That is because certain sounds are inherently pleasing, whereas others are not! What constitutes pleasant sounding music is not relative, but universal.

After all, what can you tolerate longer: a bird in song, or a barking dog?


I would listen to Hendrix longer than I would Shawn Lane, and I wouldn't get a headache. Fact
#21
Quote by mmnohmygod
I would listen to Hendrix longer than I would Shawn Lane, and I wouldn't get a headache. Fact


I agree. Although Shawn Lane is much cleaner than Hendrix, It is mindless shred that gets old very quickly.
One thing that Jimi does better at is putting together pleasing licks and phrasing.
You want some more seeneyj hate? WELL YOU CAN'T HAVE IT

You're all a bunch of f*cking slaves! - Jim Morrison

UG Awards
1st: Biggest Ego
1st: Most Likely To Become Famous
1st: Most Pretentious User
#22
Quote by TheMooseKnuckle
I hate to break this too you, but I was charged with a noise violation "disturbing the peace"... listening to "Bach's - Cello Suite No.1 i-Prelude"... it was simply too loud it had nothing to do with the amount of distortion and gain used... because well there wasnt any. Apparently not everyone enjoys Bach though... who would have guessed. Universal generalizations don't always work out so hot do they!?


Three points:

-Had you been listening to Hendrix or rock music, you would have had the cops called sooner.

-The Cello, Violin and Viola, are also harsher and more grating to listen to than other instruments, such as the piano or the harp. There is variation among instruments, even in the classical world. Next time you are listening to Bach at night, you might try a rendition on one of these instruments instead.

-You also failed to refute my initial point: noise violations exist because noise is deleterious for the public well-being. However, the law, needing to use the broadest definition possible, does not distnguish between which musical styles qualify and which do not. Instead the law applies universal criteria (re: not the amoral relativist ideology that would let them punish just the punk rock and stoner kids and pardon the elite classical listeners).

Currently the law tends to define excessive noise as:

"sound above a threshold intensity. . . trespassing over (a) property line at night, typically between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m." (see noise pollution).

Beleive me, if the law had to choose between rock and classical music in terms of what is allowed to be played without receiving a noise violation, it would pick classical.

Quit pointing to meaningless exceptions. There are exceptions to every rule; rarely do they refute the general pattern.
Last edited by Riffman15 at Jun 7, 2011,
#23
Wow, you two are actually arguing this? Really?

Seriously guys, why?
R.I.P. My Signature. Lost to us in the great Signature Massacre of 2014.

Quote by Master Foo
“A man who mistakes secrets for knowledge is like a man who, seeking light, hugs a candle so closely that he smothers it and burns his hand.”


Album.
Legion.
#24
The hook was the ideal technique for Jamerson, who gives a hell if it works for anyone else. For him it was pefect, and at the end of the day thats all that really matters, is it not!


Well, this is very swiftly moving towards semantics but...

Technique is how you get your results.

He knew what results he wanted, he found the technique that delivered them.

That's great!

But quite frankly, a lot of people don't really know what results they want and often don't succeed when trying to create the sounds they want. A lot of people want to play in a fairly "standard" way - and that's what we generally talk about when we talk about optimising technique.

Most people are are not aiming for a unique sound with equally unique technical demands (again, I'm in favour of it - Shawn Lane, Luc Lemay, Allan Holdsworth, Frederik Thorendal - all my favourite guitarists fall into this category!) - but rather just trying to play normal guitar parts fairly well, in which case, general guidelines on technique are very helpful. Using all your fingers and alternate picking is almost always much better - physically and aurally!

I agree. Although Shawn Lane is much cleaner than Hendrix, It is mindless shred that gets old very quickly.
One thing that Jimi does better at is putting together pleasing licks and phrasing.


>.>

I couldn't disagree more. Shawn has lovely phrasing and plenty of pleasing licks. Not to mention he does some of the best note-for-note Hendrix covers I've ever heard (only really surpassed by SRV imho).

And Shawn wasn't always that clean either.

When people argue for a relativist conception of musical quality, Jimmy Hendrix is often cited as an example of how "great music" can be created with poor technique.

However, if you listen to Hendrix long enough you are going to get a headache, because the gritty sound his technique produces lacks the same aesthetic appeal of, say, harp music played by a professional. Listen to more pleasant music such as Shawn Lane's Jazz/fusion style, and you will be able to listen longer than you would to Hendrix because his technique and tone produce better aesthetic results overall.

Unfortunately, Hendrix's music is one step closer to noise on the noise-music continuum, just as "higher" forms of rock music such as neoclassical metal are as well.

Overall, there is a lower tolerance threshold for listening to gritty forms of music, that feature a lot of distortion, harsh noisy plucking, poor intonation, etc. Listen long enough and you body will enter into "stress-response" mode, increasing levels of stress related hormones such as cortisol and norepinephrine and decreasing feelgood chemicals such as testosterone and serotonine.


First of all, I listen to a LOT of music considerably noisier than Hendrix and haven't noticed many ill effects. Indeed, I do listen to pure noise quite often and find it pleasant, thank you.

Secondly, within his idiom and regarding his musical goals, Jimi had excellent technique. Fantastic bends and vibrato, a real sense of groove, a command of extended technique...

#25
I listen to a lot a metal (re: "noisy") too; it's good when you are pissed off(cognitive consistency) or working out, but it's not exactly music one would want to go to bed too.

If I'm listening to metal in my room at a loud volume (any volume, perhaps) there comes a point where it gets annoying.

With classical on the other hand, so long as its not a screaching violin, I can just keep it on for hours as background music, and it creates a more uplifting experience. Same could be said of smooth jazz.

Easy listening music is referred to as such because it is just that - "easy listening".
Last edited by Riffman15 at Jun 7, 2011,
#26
Technical players are a bore; I'd take a swaggin' Neil Young solo over Steve Vai anyday
#27
Quote by Riffman15
Overall, there is a lower tolerance threshold for listening to gritty forms of music, that feature a lot of distortion, harsh noisy plucking, poor intonation, etc. Listen long enough and you body will enter into "stress-response" mode, increasing levels of stress related hormones such as cortisol and norepinephrine and decreasing feelgood chemicals such as testosterone and serotonine.

This is why people get charged with noise violations!!!!

That is because certain sounds are inherently pleasing, whereas others are not! What constitutes pleasant sounding music is not relative, but universal.


Please do show us the research that backs up these absurd claims then.
#28
Quote by Zaphod_Beeblebr
Wow, you two are actually arguing this? Really?

Seriously guys, why?


I'm bored at work with nothing else to do!?
Quote by MetlHed94



Well played, sir, well played.
#29
Quote by Riffman15
I listen to a lot a metal (re: "noisy") too; it's good when you are pissed off(cognitive consistency) or working out, but it's not exactly music one would want to go to bed too.

If I'm listening to metal in my room at a loud volume (any volume, perhaps) there comes a point where it gets annoying.

With classical on the other hand, so long as its not a screaching violin, I can just keep it on for hours as background music, and it creates a more uplifting experience. Same could be said of smooth jazz.

Easy listening music is referred to as such because it is just that - "easy listening".


For you I'm sure that's fine but you're way too absolute about this: I can and do listen to nothing but metal for literally hours without a break, almost no matter what emotional state I'm in.

Now, again, why do you keep going on with this? This isn't even an argument worth having let alone one that should be happening here.
R.I.P. My Signature. Lost to us in the great Signature Massacre of 2014.

Quote by Master Foo
“A man who mistakes secrets for knowledge is like a man who, seeking light, hugs a candle so closely that he smothers it and burns his hand.”


Album.
Legion.
#30
Quote by Freepower
Well, this is very swiftly moving towards semantics but...

Technique is how you get your results.

He knew what results he wanted, he found the technique that delivered them.

That's great!

But quite frankly, a lot of people don't really know what results they want and often don't succeed when trying to create the sounds they want. A lot of people want to play in a fairly "standard" way - and that's what we generally talk about when we talk about optimising technique.

Most people are are not aiming for a unique sound with equally unique technical demands (again, I'm in favour of it - Shawn Lane, Luc Lemay, Allan Holdsworth, Frederik Thorendal - all my favourite guitarists fall into this category!) - but rather just trying to play normal guitar parts fairly well, in which case, general guidelines on technique are very helpful. Using all your fingers and alternate picking is almost always much better - physically and aurally! ...


I agree with everything you said... thats why in my other post I said it was up to each individual player to determin what is right for them. If someone only wants to use a traditional technique and nothing else. Thats fine, if they want to create some crazy new technique from scratch thats fine too.. it's their decision. Personally I attempt to learn any and all I can. But learning a hundred diffrent right hand techniques isn't for everybody.

I just threw Jamerson in the mix. Because that other fellow said that if you didnt use one specific technique "the perfect one" your basically a bum, and a dabbler. Jamerson and his hook seemed like a pretty good counter to his point. And validated mine that its up to each individual player to find the technique thats right for them.

The sad part is he was an upright player for 20 years and then when he switch over to the electric bass. He kept the "hook" technique he mastered on the upright... it had nothing to do with sound. He was just that bad ass and lazy that he didnt want to change technique when he changed instruments. Where there is a will there is a way. Jamerson was a true genius... imagine what he could do with a modern bass with an unwarped neck, and 2 fingers
Quote by MetlHed94



Well played, sir, well played.
Last edited by TheMooseKnuckle at Jun 8, 2011,
#31
Riffman, I gotta prove you wrong on your point. I can, have, and do, fall asleep to metal, ranging from Metalcore to Death Metal. All your points are subjective and a matter of opinion.

Note: For the record, I'm not a classical hater, I play piano and cello, as well as guitar. I would just choose rock/metal anyday over classical.
Last edited by AFDGuitarist at Jun 8, 2011,
#32
Quote by AFDGuitarist
Riffman, I gotta prove you wrong on your point. I can, have, and do, fall asleep to metal, ranging from Metalcore to Death Metal. All your points are subjective and a matter of opinion.

Note: For the record, I'm not a classical hater, I play piano and cello, as well as guitar. I would just choose rock/metal anyday over classical.

I also fall asleep listening to metal (sirius metal station on my tv) , but I'm not shure he said it was impossible to do, only that he could not do it, unless I missed something. But all of this is a bit off topic really.
Quote by AeolianSeventh
Maybe there are gnomes in your air conditioning vents using out-of-phase parabolic speakers to deaden vibrations from a distance.
#34
Quote by sohdubom
My 2cents: if you're considering things like playing very fast, complex picking combinations, etc as parameters to measure 'perfect technique', then I would say: it's not really important. But to me what really makes the difference is playing whatever you play, whatever your style is, but do it flawlessly.

ps. some may say that in order to be able to play flawlessly, you will need perfect technique: I disagree with that opinion


Your two cents is if you are playing something that demands good technique, forget about technique?
#35
It boils down to 2 options. Either you can take the 2 seconds to come to a "Guitar Technique" forum and learn how to do something properly (cant go wrong with any response zaphod or seagull give you). OR, you can be stubborn, and try to learn everything on your own, possibly with incorrect hand position/posture/etc. in which case you will probably suffer from injury and/or strains/tendonitis/carpel tunnel.

Another piece of advice, if you ask for technical advice and someone here says "play whatever feels right to you", tell them to f### off, there is a correct way to do everything to minimize injury, including sit and hold your guitar correctly. "Guitar Technique" is supposed to help you, dont turn away from it cause it seems hard.
#36
Quote by acidosis
Please do show us the research that backs up these absurd claims then.


Here is one study:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024320505000378

Here is an exerpt from the literature review:

"At the psychological level, studies have consistently reported increases in self-ratings of aggressiveness, hostility, tension, anxiety, discomfort, and reduced caring, relaxation, and the like, after listening to rock or grunge music, with respect to silence or classicalmusic (McCraty et al., 1998; Umemura and Honda, 1998; Burns et al., 1999, 2002)".

"Gerra and colleagues (Gerra et al., 1998) compared the effects of listening to 30
minutes of techno vs. classical music, and found significant increases in heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and cortisol, among other measures, following techno music listening. Other studies have reported similar findings regarding rock and heavy metal music (e.g., Burns et al., 1999; 2002; Salamon et al., 2003)".


"Chronically elevated cortisol levels have been associated with several diseases (for a review, see Lupien et al., 1999), and have also been associated with a hypo-response to stress with time, such as those found in bodily stress-related disorders (for a review, see Heim et al., 2000)".

If you want to read more about the cortisol and the stress response system you can consult any of the following (exerpts are from the link directly above the text):

http://www.bmj.com/content/1/4667/1383.extract

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/180/2/99

"More recent formulations have suggested that elevated cortisol levels, probably caused by stressful life events, may themselves lower brain 5-HT function and this in turn leads to the manifestation of the depressive state (see Dinan, 1994)."


[http://www.ehow.com/about_5162836_effects-cortisol-testosterone.html

"When our body is faced with a threat of some sort, it perceives this as a stressor and releases hormones. For example, if we are going to need to defend ourselves physically, the adrenal-produced hormone norepinephrine is secreted."

"In order for our body to meet the demands of unexpected stress and overproduce the aforementioned three hormones, it has to turn off other important bodily functions temporarily. This allows it to use the energy from those activities to aid it in the crisis of the moment. One hormone turned off temporarily during this stress period is testosterone, thus putting a short-term halt to its important work in regard to human growth and reproduction."


See. Not absurd. It never ceases to amaze me how far people will go in deluding themselves in order to beleive what they want.

That said, do your neighbors a favor, and learn good technique.
Last edited by Riffman15 at Jun 8, 2011,
#37
listening to agressive rock/metal is like scratching an itch, if you got the itch it feels great otherwise your just hurting yourself
#38
This whole thread is a complete clusterfuck. *reported* for being so completely off topic it's ridiculous and nothing but bullshit anyway.
R.I.P. My Signature. Lost to us in the great Signature Massacre of 2014.

Quote by Master Foo
“A man who mistakes secrets for knowledge is like a man who, seeking light, hugs a candle so closely that he smothers it and burns his hand.”


Album.
Legion.
#39
Quote by Zaphod_Beeblebr
This whole thread is a complete clusterfuck. *reported* for being so completely off topic it's ridiculous and nothing but bullshit anyway.


Do you have any evidence to support your contention that it is "bullshit"? Any reasoned argument?

This is on-topic - by pointing to the mental health benefits of good tone (which is in part a product of good technique) I am supporting my position that yes, technique is "really that important [sic]".

And for someone who has in the past been so adamant about pointing out others' logical "fallacies" in messageboard discussions, I'm surprised to see such a blatant appeal to force to try to win the current debate:

"Argumentum ad baculum (Appeal to force or fear)
An Appeal to Force happens when someone resorts to force (or the threat of force) to try and push others to accept a conclusion. This fallacy is often used by politicians, and can be summarized as "might makes right." (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#baculum)
Last edited by Riffman15 at Jun 8, 2011,
#40
If you're looking to just cover various musicians, your technique only has to be as good as the musician's who played it. Such as if you want to play Metallica solos, you might not need your pinky, you can spazz pick from the elbow, even some bad muting can give a more authentic sound.

But, if you're looking to truly push the boundaries of music (In terms of Technicallity), you need to be able to far surpass that and increase your stretching range, speed, cleanliness, versitility and efficiency. If you have a playing posture that encompasses all of those without being detrimental to your muscles and joints, you have "Better" technique than the previous Metallica player.

The whole point of bettering your technique is to get better and make everything easier for you to play. Sure, the Metallica technique will work for Metallica, but will it work for Shawn Lane's material? I'm sure Shawn Lane's technique would work for playing Metallica.
Page 1 of 2