Guitarist...Technical vs. Emotional

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

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 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.