Guitarist...Technical vs. Emotional

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.

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?