Page 1 of 2
#2
Yeah, I think that someone who can play emotional and beautiful music is more impressive than someone who can just play fast with no regard to melody and musicality.

But you know what is even more impressive? Someone who can play with face melting speed without sacrificing musicality. Mr. Govan here being a stellar example. I think the problem isn't the fact that people focus too much on speed and technique, it's that the majority of people see someone playing moderately fast and instantly jump on the "he's an emotionless shredder" bandwagon. John Petrucci, Jeff Loomis and Tosin Abasi are prime examples of people who are great guitarists, but whom a lot of people just shrug off as "emotionless and mechanical". There are thousands of carbon copy guitarists out there playing the same old blues licks over and over again. Speed at least shows great dedication and passion for the instrument, I think that the average blues improv is just as often about cheap tricks as shredding. The difference being that the blues tricks are quite a lot easier.

There are great "soulful" guitarists out there, just as there are great shredders out there. They don't cancel each other out.
Quote by Jet Penguin
Theory: Not rules, just tools.

Quote by Hail
*note that by fan i mean that guy who wants his friends to know he knows this totally obscure hip band that only he knows about with 236 views on youtube. lookin' at Kev here
#3
No, but it is all about genre and context. Knowing where to put something is a much, much more valuable skill as a player than being able to do certain things. The next level up from that is being able to nail the feeling for that moment consistently, even acknowledging that every night the song will feel different. That's where Guthrie really succeeds, he knows what should go where and how it should at that exact moment.

It's why he's incredible.
You Dont Know Me

I have 10 Anarchy Points - I also have 8 Mythology points!

Peavey Generation EXP Custom White
Yamaha 120S Black
Korg AX5G
Digitech Whammy
Zvex Fuzz Factory
Boss OS2

Quote by mrfinkle213
This man has brains.

Quote by CoreysMonster
Banned for indirect reference.
#4
It's exactly the same principles that mean if I do THIS it really emphasises the word "this".

BUT IF I DO THIS THEN I'M JUST BEING ANNOYING AND YOU NO LONGER CARE WHAT I'M SAYING.

Music is about contrasts...tension and release, peaks and troughs, light and shade, slow and fast. Being able to play fast kind of loses it's impact if all you do is play fast, all the best players know when to hold back and when to let rip for maximum effect.
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
#5
bottom line imo is that speed is great, but you don't need to whip it out all the time. it needs to be applied correctly and it needs to make sense. if you have the ability it can open up a lot of doors but it's just another tool. a lot of players come up to me and say "you're fast -i wish i could play fast" but i'm not actually fast, i'm quick and there's a difference. one needs to apply speed in the right places like in a conversation.
Last edited by ad_works at Jan 29, 2016,
#6
+1 to everyone above. I am very guilty of what Kevathuri mentioned. If I hear someone start a lead with a blazing speed/shred solo my brain automatically tunes out. That's not fair to the musician who may be approaching the solo with an idea that I will miss because of my own bias. By the end of the 80's the whole "speed is better" thing got old and out of hand and I'm sorry to say it unjustly colored my perception.

I realize (partly from listening to people on UG) that in the right context speed can be a part of the emotional flavor of the song and can really work well. By the same token I still think speed for the sake of speed alone can ruin a good song.
Yes I am guitarded also, nice to meet you.
#7
It is all about feel and emotion period!

But if you have the skills developed and apply them with taste and fitting in with the music you play then its another option you have.

I have gotten a lot better and faster using the Speed Mechanics book by Troy Stetina the last few years. The first couple of minutes of Far beyond the sun by Yngwie is pretty much nailed and feels fluid but again I like sometimes to play slower or different so I do.

To do one thing 100% of the time is never going to be me farst or slow but it does have merit to be able to do it when you desire to do it.

No the biggest thing is to play melodic as that is what works long term. I find a lot of shread to be non melodic and boring. Or Kerry King versus Kirk Hammett. Kirk has at least done a lot of melodic stuff on the first 5 albums with Metallica.
Last edited by anders.jorgense at Jan 29, 2016,
#8
Guthrie is right.

Speed is not dead but often highly overrated for making great music, especially among adolescent male guitarists. Stop with the flashy tricks and listen to great sax and horn players. They have a vocal quality that draws the ear in. Great guitarists understand how to draw the ear in and apply speed only when absolutely necessary to punctuate their solo. Develop the speed and chops, keep them in your pocket, and use them tastefully while having a musical conversation with your listener.

Save one shred song for each set and then fully release your inner souless chop monster.
Last edited by Cajundaddy at Jan 29, 2016,
#9
What does "feel" and "emotion" in music even mean? Nothing at all. They are silly terms people try and use as a way to justify their opinions on what music should be. "Oh yeah, he plays with no emotion." How do you know that? How do you know that somebody playing generic blues licks or plays melodically is playing with emotion? They could just be sitting there thinking, "I wish I could go home already," or something to that effect.

Also I don't get this idea that people suggest that melody is some kind of end-all, be-all in soloing. So rhythm, timbre, etc aren't important? I've always been a fan of atonal, chromatic, non-diatonic, etc approaches to soloing where the solo is used more texturally. Controlled chaos and aggression rather than a melodic approach. But somehow people consider this approach valid.

Another thing that I have noticed is that people often say that they are fine with shred as long as it is tasteful, but don't identify what musicians they consider to be tasteful shredders. To me, it sounds more like they are just saying it without really meaning it since they don't seem to want to back what they are saying.

Also, I've said it before, so I'll just repost this:

Quote by theogonia777
Yeah. Why are fast players automatically about themselves? Why can't some Johnny Ramone wannabe be some self centered as a musician? I think that it was a very overly simplified view that ignores most of everything outside of a small sphere of rock music.

I've never understood this rock guitar concept of being a "solid musician" and being "technically advanced" as being borderline mutually exclusive concepts. In like every other musical subworld, musicians don't get criticized for being too technical and being technically proficient is generally part of being considered a complete musician. It's very bizarre.

For a classical or bluegrass or world folk musician, the standard repetoire includes pieces that require technical profiency and nobody says "well I never learned to play those difficult passages because I don't want to be known for playing fast" unless they don't want a job. If you want a job in an orchestra, you need to be able to play anything they put in front of you. If you want to be a concert pianist, you need to be able to play Chopin and Liszt and Bach. If you want to play bluegrass, you're expected to be able to saw or pick the hell out of Clinch Mountain Backstep and Foggy Mountain Breakdown and Orange Blossom Special and all those other tunes.

But apparently not rock guitar.


And another:

Quote by theogonia777
In fact, rock (and its derivatives such as punk and metal) and blues are probably some of the very few types of music where people don't universally consider speed to be an important qualifier for a good musician. In pretty much every instrument in every other genre in every part of the world, speed is one of, if not the single most, valuable aspect of playing.

Now obviously you are expected to be able to play well slow, but you can't only play slow and be considered good. If you're a bluegrass fiddler or banjo player and you can't manage Orange Blossom Special and Foggy Mountain Breakdown respectively, you're not considered proficient. If you play Irish music and can't play through all the super uptempo jigs with elaborate ornamentation, you've got no business being in a session. If you play bağlama, korra, kopuz, pipa, morin khuur, guzheng, etc and you can't shred, what good are you?

Rock and blues, with guitar in particular, are two of the only genres where you can get away with not being able to play fast. And guitar in those genres is even rarer in that musicians, fans, and critics will actually denounce speed. Otherwise speed on an instrument is almost universally highly praised.


I still have never gotten a satisfactory response.
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#10
Quote by theogonia777
I still have never gotten a satisfactory response.


Um, just out of curiosity, what do you mean with a "satisfactory response"? You didn't ask a question or anything, do you mean that people have never replied to those posts in a way you deem appropriate? I just don't get what you mean with that sentence.

Other than that, I think you have the most valid post on this thread. Those would be my thoughts exactly, if my thoughts were organized and well presented.
Quote by Jet Penguin
Theory: Not rules, just tools.

Quote by Hail
*note that by fan i mean that guy who wants his friends to know he knows this totally obscure hip band that only he knows about with 236 views on youtube. lookin' at Kev here
#11
cajundaddy,

horn players indeed. their phrasing (imo) is very good in general. coltrane, bird, etc.. i can squirrel my way through about a third of "giant steps" but then i get lost.

on the other hand imo Thelonious Monk seemed to say a ton by leaving out giant sections of passages to just accent what he felt was the musical "statement". i'm not very good with musical terms i'm afraid.

theogonia777,

have a read of BB King's autobiography where he explains in great detail some of his "emotions" while playing. these often centered around girls at church and their panties among other non-musical topics. one might say that he had a wandering mind.

not really trying to "back what i'm saying" but i can give some supporting content so for me, i would say that Frank Gambale would be a "tasteful shredder" as an example. i can't play jazz fusion to save my ass, but i pick up what i can and apply it to my death metal stuff. Glen Tipton would be another for me. Not necessarily "speedy" but certainly quick and covers a wide range imo. Steve Morse, Alan Holdsworth, (he likes Coors) as well. Holdsworth can get textural at times though.
Last edited by ad_works at Jan 29, 2016,
#12
"I still have never gotten a satisfactory response."

As long as you continue to put words in others mouths, you probably never will.

Yep, Guthrie Govan is often very tasteful as well as lightning fast. Brad Paisley, Petrucci and Satch can be as well although they will all admit they sometimes get carried away with parlor tricks and overplay. Speed is one small piece of a very big musical pie that makes up a great musician. If you put all your eggs in the one-dimensional speed basket, you will surely bore listeners to tears in no time. If you combine all the elements of a great musician (including speed) you will attract and hold a much larger audience of listeners.

Feel is all about creating a musical groove that others can relate to:
Feel Def: a : to be conscious of an inward impression, state of mind, or physical condition

Emotion separates the musician from the technician:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_and_emotion

It is not an either/or proposition but more of an all of the above. Does this meet your standards as a "satisfactory response"?
Last edited by Cajundaddy at Jan 29, 2016,
#13
i came up playing wise in the 80s shred era and of course wanted to be a shredder to. it just wasn't in me to be able to play fast and not have it be a bunch of scaler sounding junk. a great solo is musical whether fast or slow. it needs to say something within the framework of the song. once i accepted this idea with my playing i got a lot further. even when i noodle i try to make it sound musical. it's always nice to have someone come along and ask "what is that you're playing" when you are just dicking around. if it didn't sound like it could be a part of a song etc then the ? wouldn't be asked. now i still love me some blazing licks but again they have to be structured in a way that adds to the listening experience. players like yngwie, satch and vai nail this for me. as for a guy who just didn't get it just listen to Vinnie Vincent on the first Vinnie Vincent Invasion album. super fast licks that were crap and fast for the sake of being fast (love the album because it's so bad it's good)
#14
Quote by Cajundaddy
If you combine all the elements of a great musician (including speed) you will attract and hold a much larger audience of listeners.


Not necessarily. To my knowledge, the biggest starts in the world today attract their audience through marketing and advertising rather than skill.

I feel like were all saying the same thing in a different way. Speed and emotion are not mutually exclusive. Technique and musicality are not mutually exclusive. However, I do think that "emotion" or "soul", whatever you call it, is a technical skill in the end of the day. It's not something magical that you're born with. It's not something only a select few have. It's a skill that you can practice and hone, and you will get better at it through hard work. Playing tastefully, with emotion, is just an another technique to practice. It's just something many overlook.
Quote by Jet Penguin
Theory: Not rules, just tools.

Quote by Hail
*note that by fan i mean that guy who wants his friends to know he knows this totally obscure hip band that only he knows about with 236 views on youtube. lookin' at Kev here
#15
Quote by Kevätuhri
Um, just out of curiosity, what do you mean with a "satisfactory response"? You didn't ask a question or anything, do you mean that people have never replied to those posts in a way you deem appropriate? I just don't get what you mean with that sentence.


I mean people can't explain why it is that way. Sometimes I get responses like "well other music is stupid" or people will just deny it or something. But nothing that even begins to explain why it is that people in the world of rock music basically write off technical playing. I'm not saying that everybody does it or that the majority of people do, but it certainly happens far more often than in other musical circles.

Quote by ad_works
theogonia777,

have a read of BB King's autobiography where he explains in great detail some of his "emotions" while playing. these often centered around girls at church and their panties among other non-musical topics. one might say that he had a wandering mind.


Yeah, that kind of thing.

not really trying to "back what i'm saying" but i can give some supporting content so for me, i would say that Frank Gambale would be a "tasteful shredder" as an example. i can't play jazz fusion to save my ass, but i pick up what i can and apply it to my death metal stuff. Glen Tipton would be another for me. Not necessarily "speedy" but certainly quick and covers a wide range imo. Steve Morse, Alan Holdsworth, (he likes Coors) as well. Holdsworth can get textural at times though.


I'm not saying you personally. It's just that I have had people bring that argument up in discussions.

"Yeah, I don't really like shredders. I guess they're okay if they play tastefully."

"Who do you like that is tasteful."

"..."

And they can't really answer.

Quote by Cajundaddy
"I still have never gotten a satisfactory response."

As long as you continue to put words in others mouths, you probably never will.


I'm not putting words in people's mouths. I'm just making comments on general trends that I have encountered.

Feel is all about creating a musical groove that others can relate to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groove_(music

Emotion separates the musician from the technician:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_and_emotion


The still doesn't explain what exactly it means to play with emotion or feel, or specifically how playing fast doesn't have emotion or feel but playing slow does. Again, I'm not saying that people here are saying that, I'm just addressing common cliches.

I mean, unless your playing is not related to your emotions at all, like you're just not paying attention or are completely apathetic (then again, the lack of emotion could be considered an emotion in itself) about what you are doing, you're playing with emotion.

It's like when people say that somebody isn't even playing music and that it's just scales or whatever or that X or Y genre isn't music.

It is not an either/or proposition but more of an all of the above. Does this meet your standards as a "satisfactory response"?


No. It didn't address the specific thing I was talking about, which I mentioned in my response to Kevätuhri.
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
Last edited by theogonia777 at Jan 29, 2016,
#16
Quote by Kevätuhri
Not necessarily. To my knowledge, the biggest starts in the world today attract their audience through marketing and advertising rather than skill.

I disagree here. Malmsteen and Petrucci have extraordinary technical skill and limited ability to connect with a wide audience. They simply speak in a language that most do not understand and as a result appeal to much smaller audiences. Marketing has nothing to do with this.

I feel like were all saying the same thing in a different way. Speed and emotion are not mutually exclusive. Technique and musicality are not mutually exclusive. However, I do think that "emotion" or "soul", whatever you call it, is a technical skill in the end of the day. It's not something magical that you're born with. It's not something only a select few have. It's a skill that you can practice and hone, and you will get better at it through hard work. Playing tastefully, with emotion, is just an another technique to practice. It's just something many overlook.


We almost agree. Emotion, soul, and feel are a deeper connection to music and cannot be defined by technique. It's no longer about the fingers and notes but a far less tangible connection that listeners can and do relate to.
#17
It's like people describe things in music with words that don't really mean anything. Like take guitar tone for example. Things like bright, tinny, dull, boomy, etc all have some meaning. But what do things like creamy and lush mean? What does sweet mean? If it just means good, in what way? Or when people say that the guitar tone is musical. As opposed to non-musical guitar tone? Just words that people use to try and prove or disprove something.
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#18
Quote by Cajundaddy
We almost agree. Emotion, soul, and feel are a deeper connection to music and cannot be defined by technique. It's no longer about the fingers and notes but a far less tangible connection that listeners can and do relate to.


I can see you point, but I still do stand behind my words. It is about fingers and notes. Everything a guitarist plays is about fingers and notes. Whatever the musician is thinking, whatever he is connecting to at the time of his emotional solo, is unknown to the listener. No one can tell that BB King is thinking about panties when he's soloing.

I do think that emotion and the "deeper connection" are important for the musician performing. But they're pretty meaningless concepts to the listener. And I'm not saying that you should only compose for your audience either; you need to do what you want to do. But music is also about listening, and from a listeners viewpoint it is only about fingers and notes.

Quote by Cajundaddy
I disagree here. Malmsteen and Petrucci have extraordinary technical skill and limited ability to connect with a wide audience. They simply speak in a language that most do not understand and as a result appeal to much smaller audiences. Marketing has nothing to do with this.


That was just a dumb jab at the oversaturated pop industry from my part. I see your point.
Quote by Jet Penguin
Theory: Not rules, just tools.

Quote by Hail
*note that by fan i mean that guy who wants his friends to know he knows this totally obscure hip band that only he knows about with 236 views on youtube. lookin' at Kev here
#19
It's more than the sum of fingers and notes. I'll tell you a little story to see if we can illustrate.

I was in a band with another guitarist a few years ago. We were relatively equivalent technically with a similar vocabulary and our speed was about the same. He had a special talent though. He could play 5000 songs from memory in the original key with chords, embellishments and solos note for note. He was a walking guitar encyclopedia which can be very useful in a cover band. The trouble is he played everything technically well but it was flat with no emotion, feel or soul. All the notes were in the right place yet it was a snoozefest, zero charisma. A really skilled technician on guitar though.

I was the feel guy. I could play the same song, same solo and have immediate audience connection. Same notes in the same place but mine carried a lot more stank and sweat, and the listeners always responded. If we wanted to wind up the crowd it had to be me on most solos. Meanwhile I was lucky if I could remember all the songs for 4 sets. I usually needed lead sheets for a bunch of them. Very different talents yet it was never about "speed vs feel" cause we both had the speed. Only one of us had the feel.

We moved on to other bands and I went to see him play a while back. Still absolutely accurate notes and flat as a pancake. I looked around the room and listeners were tapping their feet politely but nobody was really into the set. Zero charisma with no emotion, personality, or feel in his solos.

In most cases I think listeners are more interested in a personal connection with the performers than the notes. That is why BB King, The Stones, and other far less technically skilled players owned world stages for 5 decades. They connected with their listeners with feel and emotion in intangible ways.
Last edited by Cajundaddy at Jan 29, 2016,
#20
To me, it just sounds like you were more experienced in a different way. You had spent your time practicing different things.

And I would still say it's about the notes, if not completely at least for the most part. If BB King played a solo full of wrong notes, it would still sound horrible, no matter how much emotion he put into it. Note choice, rhythm and phrasing are all technical skills, and they're also the most basic building blocks of great lead playing. They're required in order to play a good solo.

Maybe we could settle on this: emotions and charisma are really important parts of great guitar work, and set the great guitarists apart from the average ones. But all of that emotion is completely wasted without practice and technical skill.
Quote by Jet Penguin
Theory: Not rules, just tools.

Quote by Hail
*note that by fan i mean that guy who wants his friends to know he knows this totally obscure hip band that only he knows about with 236 views on youtube. lookin' at Kev here
#21
Quote by theogonia777
It's like people describe things in music with words that don't really mean anything. Like take guitar tone for example. Things like bright, tinny, dull, boomy, etc all have some meaning. But what do things like creamy and lush mean? What does sweet mean? If it just means good, in what way? Or when people say that the guitar tone is musical. As opposed to non-musical guitar tone? Just words that people use to try and prove or disprove something.


Merriam-Webster is as good a place as any to discover musical word definitions:

Lush: very rich and providing great sensory pleasure. "lush orchestrations" (Fender BF clean)

Creamy: thick and smooth (describes Mesa Mk1 OD to a tee)

Musical: having the pleasing qualities of music

Non-musical: Opposite of musical (Marshall MG)

Sweet: d (1) : delicately pleasing to the ear or eye <a sweet melody> (2) : played in a straightforward melodic style <sweet jazz>
Last edited by Cajundaddy at Jan 29, 2016,
#22
Quote by theogonia777


I'm not saying you personally. It's just that I have had people bring that argument up in discussions.

"Yeah, I don't really like shredders. I guess they're okay if they play tastefully."

"Who do you like that is tasteful."

"..."

And they can't really answer.



ok, i get it. i studied photography at ucla back in the day and i had a class where we were instructed in how to critique people's work. not just say "i like that picture" or " that color looks cool".. but to really define the response with more substance and to articulate it better. i don't see much of that in the musical world.

if i go up to some dude playing an amp at guitar center and ask what they think about it 9 out of 10 times i'll bet, the response will be "it's cool" or "It rocks bro..you should buy one" -not very helpful. but if said player is able to more accurately convey what they like about the amp, to me that would be better and would show some signs of critical thinking.
Last edited by ad_works at Jan 29, 2016,
#23
Disclaimer - I can't shred.

I think that playing melody lines fast, as in "modern" shredding and as also found in genres like Latin and flamenco is fine for ornamentation, eg "bravura", flashy displays of technical skill. However it seems to me that many modern players have lost sight of the forest through spending too much time looking at the trees, the bravura has become an IMO unmusical end in itself.
#24
Quote by Cajundaddy
Merriam-Webster is as good a place as any to discover musical word definitions:

Lush: very rich and providing great sensory pleasure. "lush orchestrations" (Fender BF clean)

Creamy: thick and smooth (describes Mesa Mk1 OD to a tee)

Musical: having the pleasing qualities of music

Non-musical: Opposite of musical (Marshall MG)

Sweet: d (1) : delicately pleasing to the ear or eye <a sweet melody> (2) : played in a straightforward melodic style <sweet jazz>


imo, still subjective though. in other words, how (to you) does "Creamy" equal "Mesa Mk1 OD"? how does "Lush" equal "Fender BF clean"? to me a marshal MG is not as bad as a (possibly pretty close though) Crate, so i would consider the Crate more "non-musical" then the Marshall. Someone might think that a Peavy Bandit is musical.

would what one plays through these amps have any bearing upon the descriptors being used?

basically any medium that has a component of artistic endevour or expression has the potential to be described subjectively. culinary, visual, and auditory media are all interpreted differently among a population. now if a consensus is reached among the populous for example, that "the Marshall MG sucks" then does it now become fact?
Last edited by ad_works at Jan 29, 2016,
#25
But what does "thick" overdrive even mean? What is a "rich" sound? You're explaining words that don't really mean anything with other words that don't really mean anything.
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#26
Quote by ad_works
imo, still subjective though. in other words, how (to you) does "Creamy" equal "Mesa Mk1 OD"? how does "Lush" equal "Fender BF clean"? to me a marshal MG is not as bad as a (possibly pretty close though) Crate, so i would consider the Crate more "non-musical" then the Marshall. Someone might think that a Peavy Bandit is musical.

would what one plays through these amps have any bearing upon the descriptors being used?

basically any medium that has a component of artistic endevour or expression has the potential to be described subjectively. culinary, visual, and auditory media are all interpreted differently among a population. now if a consensus is reached among the populous for example, that "the Marshall MG sucks" then does it now become fact?


The definitions are Merriam-Webster, the analogies in parenthesis are my opinion. Opinions are not fact, but get 10 very experienced guitarists in a room and turn up a Fender BF Super Reverb clean. Strum a chord and describe it as lush sounding, the other guitarists will nod their heads in agreement. They agree with the opinion that it is a lush sounding amp. It meets the definition "very rich and providing great sensory pleasure" to their ears in their opinion. Opinions are not fact.

I suppose someone somewhere might be able to get musical guitar tone out of an MG but I couldn't and I have yet to hear a guitarist who can. They are damn painful to listen to. My opinion.
#27
>10 guitarists
>in agreement

Pick one or the other.
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#28
Quote by theogonia777
But what does "thick" overdrive even mean? What is a "rich" sound? You're explaining words that don't really mean anything with other words that don't really mean anything.


Google the word definitions and see if anything makes sense to you. It does to me.
Some concepts are simply beyond our comprehension.
#29
The only explanation that makes sense here is words that don't mean anything being used to argue that something is better than another thing since those words, being meaninglessness, can't really be argued against. If I told you that what you just said has no feel, what would you say?
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#30
Quote by theogonia777
The only explanation that makes sense here is words that don't mean anything being used to argue that something is better than another thing since those words, being meaninglessness, can't really be argued against. If I told you that what you just said has no feel, what would you say?


what makes your playing worth listening to? ok go ahead and answer that ?. you seem to be really hung up on semantics and trying to describe something that really doesn't translate to words all that well. so go ahead and answer
#31
Quote by monwobobbo
what makes your playing worth listening to?


It has a lot of emotion and feel to it. But I don't really even know if it's worth listening to.
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
Last edited by theogonia777 at Jan 29, 2016,
#32
Quote by Kevätuhri
Yeah, I think that someone who can play emotional and beautiful music is more impressive than someone who can just play fast with no regard to melody and musicality.




Quote by Kevätuhri
Speed at least shows great dedication and passion for the instrument


Gotta disagree with you on that one. To me, speed, in and of itself, shows great dedication and passion for speed. Nothing more. Does the average shredder know, for example, that the guitar's a descendant of the lute? Or more relevant, how many people have we had on here that can play 220 bpm 16th note sweeps, but don't know the notes on the neck? I don't have specific examples, but I'm sure you know what I mean. I guess I just see passion encompassing more than speed- but maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

Quote by Kevätuhri
I think that the average blues improv is just as often about cheap tricks as shredding.


So are you lowering other styles to the level of shred, or raising shred to the level of other styles?

Quote by steven seagull
It's exactly the same principles that mean if I do THIS it really emphasises the word "this".

BUT IF I DO THIS THEN I'M JUST BEING ANNOYING AND YOU NO LONGER CARE WHAT I'M SAYING.

Music is about contrasts...tension and release, peaks and troughs, light and shade, slow and fast. Being able to play fast kind of loses it's impact if all you do is play fast, all the best players know when to hold back and when to let rip for maximum effect.


This. Definitely.

Quote by theogonia777
What does "feel" and "emotion" in music even mean? Nothing at all.


It sounds like you're saying with all this that words that don't have an objective, universally agreed upon definition have no meaning- perhaps you could offer some words that "actually have a meaning" so we could get somewhere with this?


Quote by theogonia777
Also I don't get this idea that people suggest that melody is some kind of end-all, be-all in soloing. So rhythm, timbre, etc aren't important?


Well, guitar is chiefly a melodic/harmonic instrument. I'm sure that for other instruments, like drums, rhythm might be the "be all, end all", but, for me at least, melody is king.

No one's saying rhythm and timbre aren't important at all, just that they might not be as important.

Quote by theogonia777
Another thing that I have noticed is that people often say that they are fine with shred as long as it is tasteful, but don't identify what musicians they consider to be tasteful shredders.


Jason Becker. There you go.


Quote by theogonia777
I still have never gotten a satisfactory response.


First repost: A Johnny Ramone wannabe can be self-centered, but I cant really see it as a musician: "I can play three power chords. Look how awesome I am!" I've just never really seen it happen. Also, why the qualifier "as a musician" isn't it just in some peoples' nature (or nurture) to be self-centered, regardless of their circumstances?

Secondly, I can't speak for every genre, but punk developed as a reaction (as all music is) to rock of the time, which its creators saw as being characterized from a general excess- not just of technical proficiency- of everything from drugs, to promiscuity, and not to mention the ten-minute demonstrations of self indulgence. Tommy Ramone summarized it best: "In its initial form, a lot of [1960s] stuff was innovative and exciting. Unfortunately, what happens is that people who could not hold a candle to the likes of Hendrix started noodling away. Soon you had endless solos that went nowhere. By 1973, I knew that what was needed was some pure, stripped down, no bullshit rock 'n' roll." When the day comes that we have John Prine types snorting 20 lines of cocaine off of 5 naked women in their bed and then go on to perform a ten-minute ego stroke in some ostentatious outfit, maybe there'll be a reaction to that. But until that day....

Second repost: Blues evolved as a slow genre, I believe, because of its lyrical message- I'm sure it wouldn't have been effectively communicated at the tremendous speeds of today. Also, consider the meaning of the word blues: sadness. Do you envision sadness as fast or slow? Seeing as rock evolved from blues, I'm sure that it just took some of its elements. Oh, and one of the earliest phrases of punk was "Loud Fast Rules!"

Quote by Cajundaddy
"I still have never gotten a satisfactory response."

As long as you continue to put words in others mouths, you probably never will.


Last edited by Jake P at Jan 29, 2016,
#33
It sounds like you're saying with all this that words that don't have an objective, universally agreed upon definition have no meaning- perhaps you could offer some words that "actually have a meaning" so we could get somewhere with this?


What exactly are you asking? Do you mean a word like tempo? Or are you asking me to suggest alternative words to "feel" and "emotion"? In the case of the latter, it doesn't matter what word you substitute since it still isn't describing a definite thing.

Well, guitar is chiefly a melodic/harmonic instrument.


Guitar is not chiefly a melodic instrument. In most guitar-based genres, it is a chordal instrument used to provide primarily rhythmic and secondarily vertical harmonic accompaniment.

I won't bother with the rest of your post because it's barely even relevant to what I said. Honestly I'm not gonna bother responding to anything else you post. I tend to disagree with what some of the others say, but they are at least worth having a discussion with even if nothing comes out of it. You on the other hand, from what I remember seeing in a couple of your threads, are not worth any more of my time.
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#34
Quote by theogonia777
It has a lot of emotion and feel to it. But I don't really even know if it's worth listening to.


as i expected a smart ass answer but not an actual one. you talk a lot of smack on the boards but when it comes time to actually back it up a bit you don't. kinda like no actual full pix of you even though you post pix. i don't get it. you seem very intelligent
#35
[quote="Jake P



First repost: A Johnny Ramone wannabe can be self-centered, but I cant really see it as a musician: "I can play three power chords. Look how awesome I am!" I've just never really seen it happen. Also, why the qualifier "as a musician" isn't it just in some peoples' nature (or nurture) to be self-centered, regardless of their circumstances?




you kinda miss the point here. johnny played those 3 chords with just as much "heart" or "feeling" as any blues solo or shred fest. this is how he expressed himself on guitar and it was great. he influenced any number of punk kids to get up and play without playing solos or doing "guitar hero" antics. try playing some of those Ramones songs sometime not as easy as you might think
#36
Quote by monwobobbo
as i expected a smart ass answer but not an actual one. you talk a lot of smack on the boards but when it comes time to actually back it up a bit you don't. kinda like no actual full pix of you even though you post pix. i don't get it. you seem very intelligent


You had already answered your own question. There's no concrete, objective way of deciding whether or not it's worth listening to. Either you like it or you don't. It's like if I was to ask you if you like the color red and why do or don't you like it. There's really not an objective answer other than perhaps associating red with something positive or negative.

As for the second part, I don't see why it matters whether or not I post pictures with my face.
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#37
Quote by theogonia777
You had already answered your own question. There's no concrete, objective way of deciding whether or not it's worth listening to. Either you like it or you don't. It's like if I was to ask you if you like the color red and why do or don't you like it. There's really not an objective answer other than perhaps associating red with something positive or negative.

As for the second part, I don't see why it matters whether or not I post pictures with my face.


the idea was to be descriptive as an exercise so to speak. you have gotten on people on this threads case about using descriptive terms that you deem have no meaning. just wanted to see if you could do any better. whether i "like" your playing isn't the point it's how you would desccribe the positive aspects of it (as you see it).

as for the pics it's just an observation. there is a certain hidden aspect to you.
#38
Quote by Jake P
Gotta disagree with you on that one. To me, speed, in and of itself, shows great dedication and passion for speed. Nothing more. Does the average shredder know, for example, that the guitar's a descendant of the lute? Or more relevant, how many people have we had on here that can play 220 bpm 16th note sweeps, but don't know the notes on the neck? I don't have specific examples, but I'm sure you know what I mean. I guess I just see passion encompassing more than speed- but maybe I'm misunderstanding you.


Yeah, you kind of are. I think that speed and technical proficiency are really important parts of musicianship. And this wasn't an argument between theory and speed. It was about emotion and speed. You know how many blues guitarists don't know the history of the instrument or the notes on the neck? Knowing that guitar descents from lute is an irrelevant piece of information when it comes to simply playing the instrument.

Speed is about more than just 16th note sweeps. It's about control and flow, and it helps you use your full potential on the instrument. I'm not saying that you need to be able to shred like hell, I sure as hell can't. But I can play technically demanding passages cleanly, and as a result I have to ability to songs and styles that require those passages. A good guitarists who has the ability to play fast can simply play with greater versatility than an equally good slow guitarist.
Quote by Jet Penguin
Theory: Not rules, just tools.

Quote by Hail
*note that by fan i mean that guy who wants his friends to know he knows this totally obscure hip band that only he knows about with 236 views on youtube. lookin' at Kev here
#39
I find it annoying some guys sit and practice guitar for hours and hours to get good (Musically and technical) choosing it over going out with friends etc.. And gets called emotionless.
Then a guy that picks up the guitar now and again, never practiced does a few bends and gets called a god. Cough**Śłàšh**Cough
🍗🎹🎶🎼🎧🎤🎮👾🎸🎨🎷⚽️🎱🏁🎺🎻🍮🍰🍪📱👻🐔🐣🐥🐤🐽🐷💀👽💩💸🚽👻
Last edited by Guitar137335 at Jan 30, 2016,
#40
I'm pretty sure that most players make music so they can connect with their audience (either playing live or via recording). I'm pretty sure bedroom players want to become such players, and not keep themselves to themselves. I'm pretty sure that the percentage of players who only play for themselves, is tiny.

For me, the emotional side is about how the music affects the listener, not the player. Some players can produce many different emotional responses, some very few. The response will be altered based on whether the listener is also a musician, as well as taste, culture, ...

The player may make his own emotions obvious or not, regardless of what's happening with the music (s)he plays. If the listener hears your recording, then (s)he can't connect to your body language. There's only the sound of the music.

You're now down to guitar chain (guitar build, strings, pick-ups, tone and volume controls and their settings, (pre-)amp, speakers (or emulation), mic placement, recording levels, EQ, mix...), note choice, guitar style, proficiency (if needed), and ultimately hands, for whatever musical genre.

If the hands can't do the job, the rest is irrelevant. That job is done better when guided by knowledge (however acquired) and mechanical technique (e.g. playing in time (or intentionally ahead, or behind), accurate string bends, vibrato slides, not bending notes out of tune unintentionally).

So, for me, the issue comes back to who (audience-wise) do you want to affect, and is that likely to change over time?

Developing generic skills seems like common sense, leaving your options open. Mechanical technique comes here ... timing accuracy, clear note production, speed, etc ... so that the mechanics of note production become non-issues.

Understanding your gear for the range of sounds you need, likewise.

Developing rhythmic awareness, and phrasing, are also generic. There's only so many scales, so if you want to develop your own style, here's where you can start making the differences.

Develop knowledge of chord voicings.

Learn how to smoothly change gear, if shredding is part of your toolbox (slow, medium, flatout)

Realise that shredding doesn't fit every musical situation, and if you anticipate being in those situations, then all the above can be called on.

That said, if shredding is the only thing that does it for you, go for it ... just be aware that at some stage you may find you want to explore other musical situations, and if shredding is all you have in your toolbiox, you'll find it difficult.

I'll leave you with this true story... I was having a drink with one of my guitar-students (he was 22) and a friend of his turned up, another young guitarist, who didn't know me. He went on and on how learning theory would wreck his style. I eventually asked him what does guitar style mean. He thought for literally a minute and answered "how fast you play". I won't repeat my reply.


[BTW, Kirsten ... those terms that musicians use to describe sounds, like creamy, distorted, clean, warm etc ... sound engineers map that to primarliy EQ and compression settings in the guitar chain, to control the harmonics present in the signal].
Last edited by jerrykramskoy at Jan 30, 2016,
Page 1 of 2