Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Well, i was watching John Fruciante on youtube, and I read some of the comments and some kid was bashing him, and saying he wasnt that impressive cuz he uses funk and pentatonics (blues scales), which are sort of looked down on for how easy they are to learn. of course its opinion and a subjective one at that...

but It seems to me that this opinion has been echoed by alot of other guitarist... Another instance...I rememeber i showed my brother-in-law ( a bass player) a clip of one of Slash's blues solos and he said technically hes not that impressive, and he picked apart his solo. See, when I heard it for the first time I cared more about the feel of the music, not soo much the scales he was using, or picking apart his solo... Slash and Fruciante are more of emotional type players, who know how to rock and sway a crowd with their solos...

Now..on the other side of the spectrum...you have players like Steve Vai or Joe Satriani, who are technically perfect...but have been criticzied, because while they're solos are fast and precise, wide and long in range they transmit zero emotion to the audience... of course subjective


so what im saying is..it seems like they're is this black and white spectrum in guitaring, where you have emotional players who can stir the crowd with the strum of 5 notes, but technically compared ...arent that impressive (Hendrix, Fruciante, Slash, Page, Clapton, Santana). Then you have technical guitarist who can do every and anything with the guitar..but where is the feeling? ( Vai, Satriani)


not bashing any guitarist or downing any of the ones mentioned above, cuz i love all of em...but this is more of a guitar philosophy question...


What do you guys think? do this specturm exist? and are you more a technical or emotional advocate?

It's not opinion. There are definite levels of technical difficulty.

Being able to write great music is, and should always be, the focus.

-AC

It all depends on the sound for me. Some pieces can be very technically impressive, but just not sound very good. Of course, incorporating both is always good.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's not opinion. There are definite levels of technical difficulty.

Being able to write great music is, and should always be, the focus.

-AC i wasnt talking about technical ability, being subjective..i was talking about him saying Fruciante isnt that good...

what is your criteria for great music? Vai is technically better than Hendrix, but he clearly cant stimulate crowd like Hendrix can? People dont reminsce about Vai concerts like they do Hendrix...

so what im saying is Technical skill vs. Feel?

Originally posted by Tengu
i wasnt talking about technical ability, being subjective..i was talking about him saying Fruciante isnt that good...

what is your criteria for great music? Vai is technically better than Hendrix, but he clearly cant stimulate crowd like Hendrix can? People dont reminsce about Vai concerts like they do Hendrix...

so what im saying is Technical skill vs. Feel?

"Isn't that good" in what sense? Making music is subjective, ability isn't. Frusciante isn't Vai, but he's not sub part.

And I already answered that question.

-AC

I just have one question, who ever said that Hendrix wasn't "that impressive".

To answer your question... yes some guitarist just have major technical skills, such as Vai and Satriani. Personally I don't enjoy Vai or Satriani's music, I think it's amazing how they have mastered playing the guitar but they lack ability in music writing, IMO.

i wouldn't say that Satriani doesn't make emotionally charged music...take "the forgotten pt2" from the album "flying in a blue dream"...amazing piece of technically brilliant music and very emotional as well

although in general i do prefer people like slash, SRV, Hendrix, John Mayer etc than the likes of Vai, Satriani, Malmsteen etc....

i'll use a saying i've used already once this week...different strokes for different folks...although i dont see why someone, even being a guitar player, would want to sit and listen to a piece of music and in their mind, technically deconstruct it....it's like watching a film and complaining about the lighting or the camera angle...what's the point?...just enjoy it for what it is.

also, as AC says, being able to write great music is key...i've seen bedroom guitarists on youtube that are technically astounding...but all they can do is copy other technical guitar players stuff...cant write shit for themselves...and thus are destined to be bedroom guitarists all their days...or even worse...destined to play in some crap clubby covers band

sup broke beat

i think that technic is best viewed as a means to an end rather than a criteria for great music. people who judge music based on how hard it is to play are generally either jealous musicians or cunnts with monocles and judge's wigs on.

I think a guitarist can have technical ability or not but they have to have emotion or feel or whatever you want to call it in their playing and write great music that connects with people.

Emotion is a subjective perception, so it's wrong to say Vai et al aren't emotional. Otherwise emotion becomes a synonym for length of pause or whatever. It becomes another technical criterion.

I see, well I just wanted a couple opinions on the topic, appreciate the replies...

I understand that making great music is the overall goal, but my question was more of a philosophical inquiry on the elevation of guitar mastery... I dont personally believe you can fully master the guitar with only technical ability. It may be cool to do all kinds of tricks and flash with the guitar, but what does it do for an audience other than give them an fleeting "ohh and ahh." Easily forgettable, but people still reminisce about Woodstock to this day....

"People believe that by playing faster and creating new playing techniques you can progress forward, but then they realize that emotionally they don't progress at all. They transmit nothing to the people listening and they stay at where Hendrix was three decades ago. Something like that happened to Vai in the 80s."

-Fruciante

^my opinion pretty much

True enough what VVD said, though.

It's not really anyone's place to say technically blinding music isn't emotional to some. It's possible people get emotional feedback out of it.

-AC

Very interesting topic.

After seeing Satriani live last May, I think I can say there is a huge amount of emotion going in to his playing.

I can't think of a guitarist that has a great technical ability, emotion and great songwriting all in one.

Then again, what is considered to be technically good? You could say even though bands like Misery Signals don't have many lead bits, they are very technical when it comes to time sigs/song structures.

Well wait, why is Hendrix being looked upon as anything short of technically great just because Satch and Vai are better?

He wasn't some pearoller.

-AC

Hendrix was a fantastic guitarist. His stuff is a lot harder to play than it sounds.

Originally posted by Bad Boy


I can't think of a guitarist that has a great technical ability, emotion and great songwriting all in one.



Prince, Zappa, Fripp, Blackmore, May, Hendrix, Page, Akerfeldt, Morello.

haha I think it's fair to say you've owned me there. Apart from Brian May.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Well wait, why is Hendrix being looked upon as anything short of technically great just because Satch and Vai are better?

He wasn't some pearoller.

-AC I didnt meant it like that, Hendrix and the above i mentioned are obviously great, those were just random examples i put out...I was saying just in terms of technically ability they dont match up with Vai or Satch.

I usually prefer emotionally engaging music over a technical display. I can certainly appreciate technical ability, but i usually cannot listen to that type of music for extended periods of time. I'm not trying to suggest that technical musicians cannot be engaging or emotional. Their sheer ability is often times emotional in itself. i'm only using the most generalized sense of the word. As talented and satisfying that Joe Satriani is, i've gotten more out of bands like Rancid and creedence clearwater.

Originally posted by Tengu
you have players like Steve Vai or Joe Satriani, who are technically perfect...but have been criticzied,

The criticism is usually from morons though. I grab guitar magazines every month and there's usually an interview where some player says 'I don't like Vai because his stuff is boring' but the interviewee is a guitar player from some generic metal band who only plays thrash riffs and has probably only listened to one Vai song.


Originally posted by Tengu
are you more a technical or emotional advocate?

From what I've seen in guitar shops/local bands etc, guitar players lean towards the technical guitarists, because there is more to learn from them. I don't like to recommend those players to friends (who only listen to whatever pop-rock stuff is on the radio) because they won't get to fully appreciate the art for what it is.

I've got The Offpsring, Guns N Roses, Trivium, Linkin Park etc in my playlist along with Vai, Malmsteen and Satriani because there's something to learn from every guitarist, whether it's technical skill or song writing ability.

Originally posted by Blinky
Personally I don't enjoy Vai or Satriani's music, I think it's amazing how they have mastered playing the guitar but they lack ability in music writing, IMO.

They write 6-7 min guitar solos, they don't lack song writing. There's an interview with Vai in a guitar magazine I've got lying around, he says something along the lines of 'anyone can write a simple song that appeals to a broader audience but he prefers to write music that challenges himself as a guitarist'. They play for themselves, not for the 15-19yr old money-making market.

Originally posted by Bad Boy
haha I think it's fair to say you've owned me there. Apart from Brian May.

Why?

I don't think he's a good guitarist technically. His stuff isn't hard to play and he has poor finger positioning. Innovative songwriter though.

It's not up to you who is and isn't technically great.

He has been consistently cited as one of the best technical guitarists for a long time, by guitarists technically better than you.

-AC

When I see "Technical vs. Emotional", and I think "Technical" I think Herman Lee.

Would that be a good example of a very "technical" sort of Guitarist?

First of all, I'm not a guitar player nor a professional fan of them. But I can tell the feelings of listening the guitarist and their music.

I'd love to listen to music of quiet and slow rhythm, which sounds more emotional while the technique seems simple. Say Jimmy Page's Stairway to Heaven, Comfortably Numb by Pink Floyd, Bob Dylan's Knocking on Heaven's Door, etc.

But some music of Steve Vai, say Tender Surrender is also a soft one (at least the beginning part) which maybe less of technique as his other works.

What I'm trying to say is that, there's not too mcuh comparison with technique and emotion. When a guitarist trying to show his feelings (sorrow or painful feelings for most of the time) he may play a less technical one with slow rhythm; while when he wants to show off his technique he may compose a song of fast rhythm, wihch could also transfer a kind of passional and exciting emotion to the audience.

So I love both of them as you do

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's not up to you who is and isn't technically great.

He has been consistently cited as one of the best technical guitarists for a long time, by guitarists technically better than you.

-AC

Dood it's a forum! Am I not allowed to express opinions?

I can play his stuff with no problems so to me he's not that great technically.

I enjoy both technicality and emotional play.

Progressive and power metal, I find, is a great genre for just that.

Originally posted by Bad Boy
Dood it's a forum! Am I not allowed to express opinions?

I can play his stuff with no problems so to me he's not that great technically.

It's not an opinion, it's a fact that he's a great technical player.

If you can play it easily, prove it.

Even so, that wouldn't make him poor.

The fact that he came UP with it is what makes him technically great.

-AC

Can you play guitar?

What I can or can't do is irrelevant, this debate isn't about me, it's about Brian May. The FACT is that extremely capable guitarists, more so than you, have labelled him very skilled, and they are way more skilled and carry a way more weightier word than you do.

What's relevant is you, and your claim. You said you can play "His stuff.", and that's why he's not technically great. A) That doesn't stop him being technically great. B) You haven't proven it.

Now stop dodging and answer my question, I asked you first:

If you can do it, prove it.

If you can't prove your claim, then I see no reason why what you just said holds any weight in this debate, and deserves no consideration, but we all know that you are going to deliver an excuse that prevents your from coughing up undeniable proof that you can

Do you dismiss the fact that many guitarists better than you have labelled him a very skilled guitarist? You think that being able to play something means its creator isn't technically good?

Anyone can sit online and say "I can do that.". I'm not claiming anything that's false, I have the opinions of legendary guitarists as my argument. What do you have?

Show me.

-AC

What is up with you? Does this whole thing even matter?

You don't know anything about me musically. You have no idea how long I've been playing guitar, things I've acomplished, styles I play etc. Don't judge what you don't know. Other guitarists I speak to feel the same way. I didn't even say he was a bad guitarist, but in technical terms with things like finger positioning he has flaws.

And say I do prove my claim... so what? Some guy from S.Wales can easily play a Brian May song, big deal... thousands of other guitarists can too.

Originally posted by Bad Boy
What is up with you? Does this whole thing even matter?

You don't know anything about me musically. You have no idea how long I've been playing guitar, things I've acomplished, styles I play etc. Don't judge what you don't know. Other guitarists I speak to feel the same way. I didn't even say he was a bad guitarist, but in technical terms with things like finger positioning he has flaws.

So? Other guitarists more qualified than you and your friends have praised the man for longer than you've probably been alive, they have more experience and more knowledge than you do.

How do I know? Because I don't believe a guy from South Wales, calling himself "Bad Boy", somehow has weight enough to counter the factual claims of guitarists way better than him, simply because he managed to learn some of Brian May's stuff.

You never said he had flaws, you said he wasn't a technically skilled guitarist on the basis that you can play his stuff. That makes no sense.

So either prove yourself beyond all deniability, or stop claiming. It's a waste of my time and yours.

Originally posted by Bad Boy
And say I do prove my claim... so what? Some guy from S.Wales can easily play a Brian May song, big deal... thousands of other guitarists can too.

Exactly, so why does that make him someone who isn't great technically?

Do you have any idea how many people can Eruption by Eddie Van Halen? Does that make him any less of a greatly skilled guitarist?

-AC

I don't consider myself the best guitarist in the world. I've never tried to be, I've never wanted to be and I never will be... but I can play his stuff with ease. I had to play his solos in school concerts when I was 12. I can't exactly say the guy blows my mind technically if I could do that back then.

Genuine question: What do you mean by qualified guitarist. Again what do you know about me?

Until I see any quotes from legendary guitarists praising his technical skills we're just gonna go round in circles. Remember even some professional music experts ranked Jack White the 15th best guitarist of all time.

I've twice said in this thread that I think he has flaws.

Originally posted by Bad Boy
I don't consider myself the best guitarist in the world. I've never tried to be, I've never wanted to be and I never will be... but I can play his stuff with ease. I had to play his solos in school concerts when I was 12. I can't exactly say the guy blows my mind technically if I could do that back then.

Genuine question: What do you mean by qualified guitarist. Again what do you know about me?

Until I see any quotes from legendary guitarists praising his technical skills we're just gonna go round in circles. Remember even some professional music experts ranked Jack White the 15th best guitarist of all time.

I've twice said in this thread that I think he has flaws.

You think he has flaws, ok great.

That doesn't mean he isn't technically great, neither does you being able to play his music. Someone once posted a link to a 14 year old playing Eddie Van Halen's Eruption, does this mean he is not technically good? No.

You keep saying all this stuff you can do, prove it or stop saying it.

He's a technically skilled guitarist, he's regarded as a virtuoso.

-AC

Crikey this is such a childish argument - especially the 'prove it' part.
No guitarist, scratch that human in general is going to be able to maintain a 100% flawless record when doing something. One of you thinks Mays a good guitarist, the other doesn't fair enough you've both got points to highlight your cases but this prove it situation is childish to say the least.

I see your point, I obviously didn't explain myself properly in the first few posts.

I know I keep saying I can do certain things, if you don't believe me fair enough. But why would I say I can? It's the internet, I don't even know you! But I do agree with you, anyone can bullshit over the internet, but that's just sad. I don't feel I have anything to prove because for me to pick up a camera, film myself, upload it to youtube to try and prove myself to some random guy I don't share the same opinion with, is just as sad.

If I could play his stuff easily 11 years ago, how do you really expect me to be impressed with his technical skills?

When it's comes to passion and emotion, Brian May excels at it. But this is whole point of the Technical vs Emotional guitar playing. I've studied guitarists for 13 years and not once has Brian May impressed me with anything technical.

If you can post a link to anything he does that is really good technically then great. I'll enjoy watching it. Can you explain to me in guitar terms how he is a great technical guitarist.

Originally posted by wicker_man
Crikey this is such a childish argument - especially the 'prove it' part.
No guitarist, scratch that human in general is going to be able to maintain a 100% flawless record when doing something. One of you thinks Mays a good guitarist, the other doesn't fair enough you've both got points to highlight your cases but this prove it situation is childish to say the least.

haha yup!

Originally posted by Bad Boy
I see your point, I obviously didn't explain myself properly in the first few posts.

I know I keep saying I can do certain things, if you don't believe me fair enough. But why would I say I can? It's the internet, I don't even know you! But I do agree with you, anyone can bullshit over the internet, but that's just sad. I don't feel I have anything to prove because for me to pick up a camera, film myself, upload it to youtube to try and prove myself to some random guy I don't share the same opinion with, is just as sad.

If I could play his stuff easily 11 years ago, how do you really expect me to be impressed with his technical skills?

Stop saying it, prove it or stop saying it.

Secondly, you're dodging my question.

Is Eddie Van Halen not technically impressive? Is Eruption NOT a song that changed modern guitar playing? Answer it.

Originally posted by Bad Boy
When it's comes to passion and emotion, Brian May excels at it. But this is whole point of the Technical vs Emotional guitar playing. I've studied guitarists for 13 years and not once has Brian May impressed me with anything technical.

So? There are guitar critics the world over who regard the man as a virtuoso. They're not wrong, are they? You think you could debate the likes of Eric Clapton?

Originally posted by Bad Boy
If you can post a link to anything he does that is really good technically then great. I'll enjoy watching it. Can you explain to me in guitar terms how he is a great technical guitarist.

If you need it explained then maybe you need to consider how well you've spent that 13 years.

I'll consider you a liar until it's proven.

-AC

I can't be assed with you.

See, we knew this would happen. Why waste our time?

Just don't say things next time.

-AC

Brian May's not technically good because he puts his fingers in the wrong place?

That's honestly ridiculous.

There's better than him, clearly, but this whole idea of emotional music is flawed in any case. There's no factual reason that Hendrix's music is more emotional than Vai's.

It's not a workable dichotomy. Technique doesn't clash with emotion, same as cackhandedness doesn't mean the player is emotional. It just means he's shit.

To work within this idea of technical and emotional guitarists, as suggested in this thread, just means a guitarist with good technique who's idiosyncratic enough to be regarded as emotional.

Basically AC I can't be assed with you if you're gonna speak down to me. Don't call me a liar, tell me to prove things because as it's been mentioned before, it's childish. I'm up for a debate about Brian May but chill out.

As far as your Eruption question goes, of course that doesn't mean Van Halen is bad technically. That 14 year old kid is obviously a child prodigy. I, on the other hand, was never a child prodigy.

In terms of what Victor Von Doom said about the fingering- good point. To me it's bad technically because bad fingering equals bad guitar theory. I'm quite strict when it comes to things like that, but still a good point and can easily be argued for and against. Totally agree with the other stuff you said though.

You can say he's regarded a fantastic guitarist because music critics say so, I just happen to disagree. And at the moment I can't really change my mind until I see/hear something that technically blows me away. As I said before, please post a link proving me wrong. Not in a sense of 'prove it to me' like attitude, but in a way where I can see how other people take pleasure out of his skills, I can see great technical musicianship and I can hopefully get inspired by it.

Originally posted by Bad Boy
Basically AC I can't be assed with you if you're gonna speak down to me. Don't call me a liar, tell me to prove things because as it's been mentioned before, it's childish. I'm up for a debate about Brian May but chill out.

Then stop bringing shit up. Prove it or stop claiming it. You're lying until you prove otherwise. If you are bugged by this, prove it or stop.

Originally posted by Bad Boy
As far as your Eruption question goes, of course that doesn't mean Van Halen is bad technically. That 14 year old kid is obviously a child prodigy. I, on the other hand, was never a child prodigy.

So? That draws the conclusion that being able to play something doesn't make it technically inferior.

Originally posted by Bad Boy
In terms of what Victor Von Doom said about the fingering- good point. To me it's bad technically because bad fingering equals bad guitar theory. I'm quite strict when it comes to things like that, but still a good point and can easily be argued for and against. Totally agree with the other stuff you said though.

Yeah, but that's you, and you've got no basis for it. You're acting as if you notice shit all the people who praise him haven't noticed. He has decades of guitar players and experts calling him a virtuoso, it's his reputation. Some guy in South Wales doesn't hold as much water.

Originally posted by Bad Boy
You can say he's regarded a fantastic guitarist because music critics say so, I just happen to disagree. And at the moment I can't really change my mind until I see/hear something that technically blows me away. As I said before, please post a link proving me wrong. Not in a sense of 'prove it to me' like attitude, but in a way where I can see how other people take pleasure out of his skills, I can see great technical musicianship and I can hopefully get inspired by it.

You obviously can't, because you are saying such ridiculous shit as "Bad fingering means he's not technically good, because I can play it.". That's like disagreeing with top scientists because you just love science.

You're talking nonsense, and stop saying you can't be assed. You can and will reply.

-AC

I'm not proving it because we're not 7 year olds in school. Let's just leave it here. I can see how that guy in 'emo' thread got so frustatred with you when you were adamant that Hawthorne Heights are metal.

If anyone has any cool Brian May links, please post them up.

Moving on... would people consider Paul Gilbert a guitarist with emotion?

Originally posted by Bad Boy
I'm not proving it because we're not 7 year olds in school. Let's just leave it here. I can see how that guy in 'emo' thread got so frustatred with you when you were adamant that Hawthorne Heights are metal.

If anyone has any cool Brian May links, please post them up.

Moving on... would people consider Paul Gilbert a guitarist with emotion?

Yeah, people get frustrated when they're wrong, it happens. You're right, we're not seven, so maybe stop embellishing every detail because you feel anonymous enough that you won't have to prove it.

Funny how you're this 13 year experience guitarist and apparantly you need us to supply you with Brian May's music. I smell a liar.

And yes, I would say he is. I've heard him speak about technique, and it's from very emotional side.

-AC

Originally posted by Outbound


They write 6-7 min guitar solos, they don't lack song writing. There's an interview with Vai in a guitar magazine I've got lying around, he says something along the lines of 'anyone can write a simple song that appeals to a broader audience but he prefers to write music that challenges himself as a guitarist'. They play for themselves, not for the 15-19yr old money-making market.

Firstly I expressed an opinion, hence the "IMO". The music Satriani and Vai play is not that great to me. Just because they write "6-7 minute solos" does not mean that the music itself is inherently awesome. It's great that they write music that accentuates their skills, but I really think that that is their music's major purpose… to showcase their talents. Sorry but I don't think much of Satrianis music itself, it bores me very quickly, and it boredom is independant of the length of the piece itself. Mind you again, this is all my opinion.

Originally posted by Blinky
It's great that they write music that accentuates their skills,

infact i've read an interview with Satch where he stated that he writes entire albums solely to show off certain guitar techniques...and while they're still amazing to listen to it's a concern that showing off a technique is considered before writing a good song

well, it is his music, and he can do whatever he feels with it. but i mean honestly its an artform, not a sport. but i guess a guitarist has to test his limits, and push himself for his own pride as an artist.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Brian May's not technically good because he puts his fingers in the wrong place?

That's honestly ridiculous.

There's better than him, clearly, but this whole idea of emotional music is flawed in any case. There's no factual reason that Hendrix's music is more emotional than Vai's.

It's not a workable dichotomy. Technique doesn't clash with emotion, same as cackhandedness doesn't mean the player is emotional. It just means he's shit.

To work within this idea of technical and emotional guitarists, as suggested in this thread, just means a guitarist with good technique who's idiosyncratic enough to be regarded as emotional.

and how not? Pete Townshend and Clapton will go on for days about how they shit their pants at Hendrix concerts as well as everyone else, celebrities, musical legends, and common fans that frequented his shows. The guy stimulated a crowd factually more and better than Vai did. Vai can make some damn good music that pushes the bill ie. Lotus Feet, Sisters, and shit even Bad Horsie (me personally) but he can't work a crowd like Hendrix can, that is fact, and I bet Vai would admit it himself....


It may not necesarily make sense to you, but its just a concept that i presented, just merely out of curiosity, not saying its concrete or nothin. i dont think its somthin to look at like a scientific formula, like Hendrix stirred X amount of nerve endings in the brain more than Vai....i mean just go by fan response, that should tell you right there better than anything. You as a listener can decipher between music that stimulates emotions within you and music thats doesn't do anything for you.


and who said technical music clashes with emotion?...i know i didnt. all i was saying was that i notice that some guitarist tend to wanna focus soo much on technical ability ALONE, and being able to do any and evertyhing with the guitar that they sacrifice an emotional aspect that goes into music period....


they dont say "Music soothes the savage beast" for nothin...

Originally posted by Blinky
Firstly I expressed an opinion, hence the "IMO".

I know, I understand that you don't like their music. I just brought this part of your post in:

Originally posted by Blinky
but they lack ability in music writing

because it just seemed like you disregarded their work simply because it isn't 'catchy' or comparable to other guitar players, then I posted the interview bit about Vai writing music for himself etc.

What do you look for in music writing?

Originally posted by Blinky
It's great that they write music that accentuates their skills, but I really think that that is their music's major purpose… to showcase their talents.

(Removed the rest of your post because I'm not arguing your opinion of their music)

Exactly. They are guitar virtuosos, they make guitar albums specifically for their skills. What is wrong with writing music that solely showcases their talents? If they can put together a structured song out of bits and pieces of random guitar techniques, and still make it sound good then what is the problem? They aren't aiming for an MTV award for Best Album or anything.

You're saying Vai/Satriani etc are good at playing, but bad at writing. Why are they bad at writing?

Well because this is based solely on opinion, I suppose that I can answer your question "what do you look for in music?”

Well that really is hard to explain, I am a person who steps back and likes to look at each “song” (for lack of a better term) as a whole. Because I am a big fan of classical music, I suppose this is my major influence for determining what I do and do not like. The classical musicians (I'll spare you of names) were at a whole another level than most modern musicians, IMO. They studied music relentlessly from a very young age and understood the language, science, mathematics and theory of music. They seemed to study music to a point were they could actually a have a logical basis to say "these two notes or chords work better together than these two". So they composed whole pieces of music that were almost perfectly seemed together.

To be honest I know little about musical theory, but it just seems to me that Satrianis music as I said before, is thrown together to merely to showcase his skill. Hence his music just seems like a mess of note- littered guitar solo at times. I never did dismiss his talent to do what he does, that is to play the electric guitar with almost unmatched technical skill and speed, but that is what he will be remembered for, IMO... not quality of his music. Sorry that was long and went on a tangent but I had a lot of time on my hands today.

Mind you again, this is all personal preference and opinion. Sorry if I didn’t feel like writing "IMO" after every sentence.

Originally posted by Tengu
and how not? Pete Townshend and Clapton will go on for days about how they shit their pants at Hendrix concerts as well as everyone else, celebrities, musical legends, and common fans that frequented his shows. The guy stimulated a crowd factually more and better than Vai did. Vai can make some damn good music that pushes the bill ie. Lotus Feet, Sisters, and shit even Bad Horsie (me personally) but he can't work a crowd like Hendrix can, that is fact, and I bet Vai would admit it himself....

Stupid territory to wander into. Backstreet Boys stimulate a crowd more than Hendrix ever did. You don't prove subjectives by relative weight of numbers.

Originally posted by Tengu

It may not necesarily make sense to you, but its just a concept that i presented, just merely out of curiosity, not saying its concrete or nothin. i dont think its somthin to look at like a scientific formula, like Hendrix stirred X amount of nerve endings in the brain more than Vai....i mean just go by fan response, that should tell you right there better than anything. You as a listener can decipher between music that stimulates emotions within you and music thats doesn't do anything for you.

See above.

Originally posted by Tengu

and who said technical music clashes with emotion?...i know i didnt. all i was saying was that i notice that some guitarist tend to wanna focus soo much on technical ability ALONE, and being able to do any and evertyhing with the guitar that they sacrifice an emotional aspect that goes into music period....


The thread is called technical vs emotional. Jesus. It's a false dichotomy to posit. It's false even to go so far as to say that pure technical playing is necessarily lacking an emotional aspect.

You are also conflating the concepts of musician emotion with received emotional response.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yeah, people get frustrated when they're wrong, it happens. You're right, we're not seven, so maybe stop embellishing every detail because you feel anonymous enough that you won't have to prove it.

Funny how you're this 13 year experience guitarist and apparantly you need us to supply you with Brian May's music. I smell a liar.

And yes, I would say he is. I've heard him speak about technique, and it's from very emotional side.

-AC

Wait which idiot thought HH were metal?

If by idiot you mean genius, then me.

Of course, you have an Akercocke sig, so anything that isn't metal to you, isn't metal at all. I'm more than familiar with your kind.

All bands like them, incorrectly labelled emo, are if anything, alternative metal, or at least alternative rock. They're not emo, but if that's a discussion you wish to have, we'll take it to the relevant thread.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If by idiot you mean genius, then me.

Of course, you have an Akercocke sig, so anything that isn't metal to you, isn't metal at all. I'm more than familiar with your kind.

All bands like them, incorrectly labelled emo, are if anything, alternative metal, or at least alternative rock. They're not emo, but if that's a discussion you wish to have, we'll take it to the relevant thread.

-AC

Before you get off your high horse I was generally curious as to who thought HH were metal.

And yes I like Akercocke, but if you're going to judge my entire musical spectrum on one band then you are indeed an idiot. You have no idea of my kind for you don't know me, you think you know me you'd like to know me - in order to pick faults and make yourself feel superior but at the end of the day you don't.

I have no qualms with the Emo genre in fact I'll happily listen to it, but then again I never made a derogatory reference to Emo be it in terming it to Hawthorne Heights or in general.

I like Akercocke, actually.

You obviously feel anyone calling Heights such a thing is an idiot, so you really threw the first shot.

As for judging your taste, if I judge I judge based on the mammoth list of bands in your profile.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I like Akercocke, actually.

You obviously feel anyone calling Heights such a thing is an idiot, so you really threw the first shot.

As for judging your taste, if I judge I judge based on the mammoth list of bands in your profile.

-AC

So why go off on a tangent and assume I hold Emo in such a negative light, and indeed why assume you know my kind?

Yes I love Metal; the large proportion of my collection is Metal however that list does not cover every act I'm partial to.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom

The thread is called technical vs emotional. Jesus. It's a false dichotomy to posit. It's false even to go so far as to say that pure technical playing is necessarily lacking an emotional aspect.

You are also conflating the concepts of musician emotion with received emotional response.

relax, i can admit when im wrong...its not that serious

i see your point above, but i named it technical vs emotional because i see a difference in playing (that and i couldnt think of anthing esle to name it). and im not the only one that shares this opinion (otherwise i wouldnt have brought it up) I threw down the Fruciante quote for a reason. Music IMO has a sort of feel to it, and it may just be me, but some music by some guitarist, (technically-focued guitarst especially) is just really hollow to me, not to say there incapable of playing with emotion, but just some of their music.

I dont know it might be a guitar player thing, i've had this discussion with other guitarist and they see the same thing. I remember watching a video where Clapton talked about not listening to certain blues artist within mixed company because people just dont feel it.

Originally posted by Tengu
relax, i can admit when im wrong...its not that serious

i see your point above, but i named it technical vs emotional because i see a difference in playing (that and i couldnt think of anthing esle to name it). and im not the only one that shares this opinion (otherwise i wouldnt have brought it up) I threw down the Fruciante quote for a reason. Music IMO has a sort of feel to it, and it may just be me, but some music by some guitarist, (technically-focued guitarst especially) is just really hollow to me, not to say there incapable of playing with emotion, but just some of their music.

I dont know it might be a guitar player thing, i've had this discussion with other guitarist and they see the same thing. I remember watching a video where Clapton talked about not listening to certain blues artist within mixed company because people just dont feel it.

I am relaxed. I'm horizontal.


As I said in my first post, though, there must be an actual technical quality that creates the impression of emotional music, if you think about it logically. It's not actual emotion coming out of the strings.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I am relaxed. I'm horizontal.


As I said in my first post, though, there must be an actual technical quality that creates the impression of emotional music, if you think about it logically. It's not actual emotion coming out of the strings.
well you said Jesus in your post, so i thought you were getting a little on edge...but no big deal...


understood... I obviously can't dispute a guitarist's apitutde to make technical and emotinally gaging music. but , i dont believe you have to be as technically profiecient as a Vai, to put an emotional output into music. Im talking on the part of the guitarist not the guitar, thats just a vehicle. I believe you could have the skill level of the Jonas brothers and still have some sort aesthetic to your music, beatles or Nirvana for instance.

I do see your point tho

probably is just a subjective thought, but question, do you feel anything when you listen to music?

I'm sure you're going somewhere with it, so I'll just say yes.

Originally posted by geshien
I enjoy both technicality and emotional play.

Progressive and power metal, I find, is a great genre for just that.

Bingo!

My husband also like these two types!

Wow, a music/guitar-war-mass. An absolute V.S. now...

I forget to say, I'm not a guitarist, but my husband is. He has a band named SPELL and they played in bars and clubs years ago, where they got huge applause and screams.

All my knowledge about music is learned from him, but I still have a lot to learn to "argue" with you here, hah hah...

He composes and sings too, including Grunge, fusion, progressive, and even death metal.

I think he must be willing joining in your discussion if he could use English well

If you are actually searching for something that has both technicality and emotionality you need to listen to soothsayer by Buckethead. That is the only song I have been able to find that has both in abundance

Originally posted by artstates
Bingo!

My husband also like these two types!

punk

Originally posted by Spang53
If you are actually searching for something that has both technicality and emotionality you need to listen to soothsayer by Buckethead. That is the only song I have been able to find that has both in abundance

Really, only one song?

Here, give this a listen. Hope you like it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHy-OVlijsQ

Originally posted by Tengu
Well, i was watching John Fruciante on youtube, and I read some of the comments and some kid was bashing him, and saying he wasnt that impressive cuz he uses funk and pentatonics (blues scales), which are sort of looked down on for how easy they are to learn. of course its opinion and a subjective one at that...

but It seems to me that this opinion has been echoed by alot of other guitarist... Another instance...I rememeber i showed my brother-in-law ( a bass player) a clip of one of Slash's blues solos and he said technically hes not that impressive, and he picked apart his solo. See, when I heard it for the first time I cared more about the feel of the music, not soo much the scales he was using, or picking apart his solo... Slash and Fruciante are more of emotional type players, who know how to rock and sway a crowd with their solos...

Now..on the other side of the spectrum...you have players like Steve Vai or Joe Satriani, who are technically perfect...but have been criticzied, because while they're solos are fast and precise, wide and long in range they transmit zero emotion to the audience... of course subjective


so what im saying is..it seems like they're is this black and white spectrum in guitaring, where you have emotional players who can stir the crowd with the strum of 5 notes, but technically compared ...arent that impressive (Hendrix, Fruciante, Slash, Page, Clapton, Santana). Then you have technical guitarist who can do every and anything with the guitar..but where is the feeling? ( Vai, Satriani)


not bashing any guitarist or downing any of the ones mentioned above, cuz i love all of em...but this is more of a guitar philosophy question...


What do you guys think? do this specturm exist? and are you more a technical or emotional advocate?

At times, when music is composed especially on guitar and violin, the music can almost become technicaly emotional. I'm saying this from past experiences with several bands I have worked with, where their musical pieces are given a technical approach and at times they do come off as robotic and not fitting. Which is why they are given an emotional treatment as they have dubbed it, where the piece is then played with the rest of the band to give it meaning and intensity so to speak.

I do believe music isn't really educated. People have grown to lead successful music careers without any musical education. It comes from the heart and soul, so I suppose good music is the one that's created with soul and emotion imo.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I'm sure you're going somewhere with it, so I'll just say yes. lol i wasnt, just a simple yes or no question..

Emotional. By far.

To be able to play damn near perfect is an added bonus, but what gets me off is being able to elict some emotion when I hear a piece of music.

Musical wanking doesn't do anything for me.

I'm still waiting for somebody to give me an answer as to why Hendrix is considered "not that impressive". Where did this idea come from?

Originally posted by Blinky
I'm still waiting for somebody to give me an answer as to why Hendrix is considered "not that impressive". Where did this idea come from? ehh, dont pay attention to that...i worded that first post horribly....hendrix is beyond legend..

^to add

or course not my opinion..Hendrix, Buddy Guy, and others are the reason i picked up the guitar... but there are some that don't really accept Hendrix as the legend that he is.

Well, I also think that music, as technical as it may be at times, is still emotional. thee emotions that Steve Vai and Joe Satriani put on their work is still a sort of emotion. Every music is trying to convey something, if they aren't, then they aren't musicians. A meaning and an emotional are in every song. Most of the songs that The Sex Pistols have have a meaning and an emotion of anger to give the listener a motive on how to feel. Therefore, if every music style has emotion, then emotion gobbles up the competition, and thus makes technical stylings, an emotion.

Yeah.

Did say this.

Ah, good.

answer, hendrix and clapton, they do both, end of story

where would the wipers and specifically, Greg Sage fit into this categorization? I mean, he's technically a very proficient guitarist who is fully capable of tapping and shredding like any big haired butt-rocker but only chooses to use his virtuosity where appropriate in songs and otherwise uses very simple chords and phrases that fit the emotion of the tunes.

I prefer emotional riffs than technical riffs.

Modest Mouse and As I Lay Dying have some good ones.

this might be a techie generalization but i've noticed for the most part that all the best emotional guitarists play guitars with very noisey, mellow sounding pickups like P-90's, jazzmaster soap bar single coils, danelectro lipstick style single coils or old telecaster humbuckers from the 70's.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Prince, Zappa, Fripp, Blackmore, May, Hendrix, Page, Akerfeldt, Morello.

Throw Neal Schon in on that too.

I'm a Schon-fanboy and it's a shame how underrated and ignored he is. Brian May and Steve Vai have gone on record practically fellating the man. His SSB is better than Hendrix's, imho. This is one of them (you can watch it in high quality), but there are about a dozen others of him playing it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-BknAz9kIE

And odd enough, speaking of May, I never really appreciated his guitar work. But I just got done watching the Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert and nearly cried. Sad thing.

Hell, since I'm on a Schon-sausage-fest, might as well point out that he did an album called "Voice" where he covered famous pop and rock songs and played instrumental versions. Here's his cover of Celene Dion's "My Heart Will Go On"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SAvuAWDDYw&feature=related

He was probably naming guitarists that filled the criteria who he liked, hence why Schon wasn't there.

Nothing Schon has done creatively has ever impressed me either, so I wouldn't have named him as someone who does great on both technical and musical fronts.

You can't realistically start having textual anal sex with Schon and then expect us to legitimately consider what you're saying. You are a Schon fanboy, self-proclaimed, so do consider that you possibly have a greater appreciation than is deserved, hence is the case with most fanboys.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
He was probably naming guitarists that filled the criteria who he liked, hence why Schon wasn't there.

I didn't question why Schon wasn't present. It never surprises me to see that he is ignored by most individuals.



Creativity is subjective, AC. I'm not questioning his list nor yours.



Anal sex? Nonsense. He and I barely know one another. Moreover, didn't you once tell me that Jimi Hendrix was "teh best technical guitarist EVAR!!1!"

He's not, so should we ignore everything you say, sir?

Anyways, I'm not suggesting that people appreciate Schon because I say so. I provided a link to his Star Spangled Banner which I find to be better than Hendrix's version. No doubt you'll disagree.



AC, wrap your head around the idea that I'm not pushing Schon upon you or cramming him down your throat. You've all provided the names of some people whom you believed to have a combination of technical, creative, and songwriting talent. I believe Schon to be one of them.

And that's the end of that.

Being technically proficient at guitar is a plus, but if you can't write good music with it then it's almost pointless. I like Vai and Satriani and all those other psychos, but a lot of their songs seem like the equivalent of musical masturbation.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Being technically proficient at guitar is a plus, but if you can't write good music with it then it's almost pointless. I like Vai and Satriani and all those other psychos, but a lot of their songs seem like the equivalent of musical masturbation.

That is a problem that Schon has at his concerts. Just nonstop shredding.

Edit: Do you not like shredding?

Originally posted by Gideon
Anal sex? Nonsense. He and I barely know one another. Moreover, didn't you once tell me that Jimi Hendrix was "teh best technical guitarist EVAR!!1!"

He's not, so should we ignore everything you say, sir?

Either I was joking or I've never said it, because I've consistently placed others above him, technically speaking.

Originally posted by Gideon
Anyways, I'm not suggesting that people appreciate Schon because I say so. I provided a link to his Star Spangled Banner which I find to be better than Hendrix's version. No doubt you'll disagree.

AC, wrap your head around the idea that I'm not pushing Schon upon you or cramming him down your throat. You've all provided the names of some people whom you believed to have a combination of technical, creative, and songwriting talent. I believe Schon to be one of them.

And that's the end of that.

I wasn't having a go at you, I just think you aren't helping yourself.

If you want to promote Schon awareness, it's best not to be a raving fanboy, because then people who don't actually know him probably won't even bother.

-AC

If I knew what his address was, I'd drive into the city, find Kip Winger's house and make him read this thread so he'd understand why Winger has always sucked ass

Originally posted by Gideon
Hell, since I'm on a Schon-sausage-fest, might as well point out that he did an album called "Voice" where he covered famous pop and rock songs and played instrumental versions. Here's his cover of Celene Dion's "My Heart Will Go On"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SAvuAWDDYw&feature=related

It's clever, but why cover such an abysmal song?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
It's clever, but why cover such an abysmal song?

No idea. He covered some stuff by Bryan Adams, too. My guess is that he took songs famous for vocal delivery and used it on his guitar, to replicate and emulate the sound. It's his style, the "singing guitar."

I imagine so, but it's just hard to look beyond the song choice.