Sloppiness/emotion/skill and great players

[cg73cmc]

Originally Posted by raisindot

Then again, one doesn't have to make general assumptions, like:

All "minimalist" players are not good at their instrument; and its corollary

All "good" guitarists make better guitar music than "minimalist" guitarists.

I think the key here is "music." If the few notes the minimalist guitar plays (example: John Lennon in the single version of "Revolution" of nearly all of the Sex Pistols songs) somehow fit perfectly into the musical setting, then that's great music, albeit not necessarily "technically" great guitaring.

Likewise, if a "good" guitarist is off in solo land and the musicality of the composition doesn't matter (example: most of Zappa's 70's and 80's solos) then that's great guitaring but lousy music.

Jeff

Right On Brutha!

There's a balance that you have to hit here.

By the way, speaking of tech skills ... Vinnie Vincent. Looks like he has a lot of skill -- but I almost throw up every time I see the guy play. I mean really -- I would rather spend an hour in a prison shower than be forced to listen to him for even 10 seconds. He's a good example of NO emotion in the playing. OTOH -- I really don't like Niel Young that much either - but I won't take a shower to avoid him!

By the way, I just reread my post here and I kinda like that line "hour in a prison shower". It rhymes! Maybe I'll write a song! Maybe NOT!!!

[Geyser]

Wow, these debates are always interesting. If we're discussing the merits of minimalism vs. athleticism, I wanna throw in my two cents for John Frusciante. Here is a guy who has consciously developed a minimal style (lots of single note lines and arpeggios and simple chord progressions) but can still rip when the time comes. Anyone who has seen him live knows that this guy can play circles around most players. I never see him mentioned on this forum, but he's been known to sport a Tele once in a while. This guy will always be one of my favorite players.

Anyway, how about this? Minimalism is cool. Shredding is cool. Neil Young, Willie Nelson, Lou Reed, Eddie Van Halen, Jack White, Jimmy Page, Redd Volkaert, Brad Paisley, Vernon Reid and Johnny Marr are all cool. Teles are cool. Les Pauls are cool. Everybody just go play. We're all just creative artists. If you don't like somebody else's art, then don't listen. Now get back to work!

[bo]

Pete Townshend took Dave Davies' power chord innovations and built his entire career on it.

Jeff[/quote]

Well, Link Wray's and Mick Green's power chord innovations ....

[GopherTele]

Teles are cool. Les Pauls are cool.

New around here, aint ya?

Git a rope.

:P

[Colo Springs E]

Originally Posted by GopherTele

The guy had to immediately cop an ironic attitude and said sarcastically that he "Comes in here to practice my super hot licks". He was embarassed to be known as someone who practices their instrument or wants to get better.

.....he was just exhibiting a sense of humor.

Are you in his head? How do you know he was embarrassed that he practices?

[rdchapman]

I see the discussion as a comparison between great players vs archtypes. Take for instance Chuck Berry. Sloppy, out of tune at times, BUT he defined a genre, along with others of his time. Keef does great Berry licks, but he is a copy (when playing the Berry style) and for me cannot provide the raw emotive power Chuck does. Now when Keef plays in his own context, he becomes the archtype IMHO. Listen to Robert Johnson and then say Clapton on the same song and basic arrangement. The skill level is better, but not the power of the performance. One more. Compare Bill Monroe to say Ricky Skaggs. Ricky is a fantastic Mandolin player, but who is the archtype? Bill. Yet listen to his recordings. Sloppy, and he playes way too hard for good tone. I like to think that archtypes are not looking at thier technical skills, but answering to a more powerful force. I think thier music comes from another place. I think the music controls them to some extent and the sound they create has more to do with emotive power than skill. I look at Roy Buchanan in this light. A gifted player who could not control anything in his life but his guitar. He played the small places because he could pull the emotion from the crowd in that world. Perhaps for the archtype, it is more about what thier music gives them than how it sounds. My 2 cents.
r

[Oskar]

saw him a few weeks ago and people went APE every time he took a solo. They weren't guitar players. Normal people respond to someone who is great at their craft.

Who determines who is a "normal" person? You? What is the criteria for being "normal", and if you are "normal" by those standards are you going to like the same music as another "normal" person? And if I really like Neil Young's playing (which I do) I am therefore not "normal"? Sorry, I find this statement and concept to be a very narrow-minded one at best.

Plus, with all due respect to Brad Paisley, many who are not guitar players go APE when Yngwie plays, or Steve Vai, or Randy Rhodes or any of the other shredders. But I guess they are "normal". I note there has been some desparaging comments on the heavy metal shredders and fusion shredders, but nothing on the country shredders. I find them just as tedious. After a while you want to hear something different, at least I do. I would rather listen to a band with a couple of decent, creative guitar players that truly add to the dimension of the song than a band fronted by someone who is self-indulgent in their playing and has to dominate everthing he/she plays.

[hippietim]

Originally Posted by raisindot

I think the key here is "music." If the few notes the minimalist guitar plays (example: John Lennon in the single version of "Revolution" of nearly all of the Sex Pistols songs) somehow fit perfectly into the musical setting, then that's great music, albeit not necessarily "technically" great guitaring.

Likewise, if a "good" guitarist is off in solo land and the musicality of the composition doesn't matter (example: most of Zappa's 70's and 80's solos) then that's great guitaring but lousy music.

Then there's differences of opinion. I think "Revolution" is a terrible song with a terrible lead and I like most of Zappa's 70's and 80's solos.

[GopherTele]

Normal, just meaning not guitar geeks like us.

I heard a teenager making the exact point (who is to say what is normal?) just the other day--which is something we can get into, it's just a little tedious and something I stopped thinking about in college.

What is that Dylan line...when relativity don't pull you through?

[Oskar]

but saying something is "normal" especially in a dialgoue of this sort I think leaves you open to question. If normal is what you think is right, then okay, it's clear to me, but that doesn't make it normal unless I agree with you. There's no subjectivity in normal.

Now I'll go back to having one of my sardine and spinach sundaes, and wash it down with a glass of pickle juice.
And please close the lid on the trash can once you've left. Thank you.

[tjalla]

I have to add this... BB's "one note" is cliche because its true. While he CAN play swingin' Charlie Christian/Django influenced lines, its that note that first made my eyes water up. This is coming from a city-raised, upper-middle class Asian kid, on the other side of the world, listening (at the time) mostly to Metallica and The Offspring. BB's feel in that one note to communicate across that wide a generation/class/cultural gap remains a defining moment for me.

IMHO, skillful can be soulful (eg Ronnie Earl, Derek Trucks, Satriani) and sloppy can just be boring (recent Clapton, sorry to say!).

Off my soapbox now, back to your regular viewing...

[Skully]

Then there's differences of opinion. I think "Revolution" is a terrible song with a terrible lead and I like most of Zappa's 70's and 80's solos.

And KISS is your avatar. Say no more.

[BB]

Originally Posted by rdchapman

I see the discussion as a comparison between great players vs archtypes. Take for instance Chuck Berry. Sloppy, out of tune at times, BUT he defined a genre, along with others of his time. Keef does great Berry licks, but he is a copy (when playing the Berry style) and for me cannot provide the raw emotive power Chuck does. Now when Keef plays in his own context, he becomes the archtype IMHO. Listen to Robert Johnson and then say Clapton on the same song and basic arrangement. The skill level is better, but not the power of the performance. One more. Compare Bill Monroe to say Ricky Skaggs. Ricky is a fantastic Mandolin player, but who is the archtype? Bill. Yet listen to his recordings. Sloppy, and he playes way too hard for good tone. I like to think that archtypes are not looking at thier technical skills, but answering to a more powerful force. I think thier music comes from another place. I think the music controls them to some extent and the sound they create has more to do with emotive power than skill. I look at Roy Buchanan in this light. A gifted player who could not control anything in his life but his guitar. He played the small places because he could pull the emotion from the crowd in that world. Perhaps for the archtype, it is more about what thier music gives them than how it sounds. My 2 cents.
r

Very interesting post. I dig your viewpoint. Made me think! Thanks!

[beez]

If he can communicate what he wants, be it beautiful ala "Something", stuttering like Funk #49, blazing like "Crazy Train", or one note like "Cinnamon Girl", he/she is a good guitarist.

[raisindot]

Originally Posted by rdchapman

I see the discussion as a comparison between great players vs archtypes. Take for instance Chuck Berry. Sloppy, out of tune at times, BUT he defined a genre, along with others of his time. Keef does great Berry licks, but he is a copy (when playing the Berry style) and for me cannot provide the raw emotive power Chuck does. Now when Keef plays in his own context, he becomes the archtype IMHO.

Oh, I don't know about that. I'd say that in the best songs on "Sticky Fingers" and "Exile on Main Street" Keef takes Berry's style to a whole new level of tension that goes beyond pure "copying".

Originally Posted by rdchapman

Listen to Robert Johnson and then say Clapton on the same song and basic arrangement. The skill level is better, but not the power of the performance...I like to think that archtypes are not looking at thier technical skills, but answering to a more powerful force.

I agree with that. Generally, the first person to invent a style creates the idiom, and later players expand upon it through better technical skill. Look at Louis Armstrong, for example. He basically invented the jazz solo in this Hot 5's and 7's of the 1920's, and anticipated nearly every movement in jazz (swing, bebop, etc.) that followed in his wake. Yet, within 10 years of his best recordings, trumpeters like Roy Eldridge and Dizzy were able to play faster and with greater technical proficiency than Louis would ever achieve. Showing that it's much easier to improve upon an idea than to give birth to it.

Jeff in Boston

[Smokin' Joe Picante]

Sorry, I just have to give out some kudos. I LOVE this place because every once in a bit someone says somethings that really truly crystalizes a point for me...

Originally Posted by rdchapman

Listen to Robert Johnson and then say Clapton on the same song and basic arrangement. The skill level is better, but not the power of the performance...I like to think that archtypes are not looking at thier technical skills, but answering to a more powerful force.

Originally Posted by raisindot

I agree with that. Generally, the first person to invent a style creates the idiom, and later players expand upon it through better technical skill. Look at Louis Armstrong, for example. He basically invented the jazz solo in this Hot 5's and 7's of the 1920's, and anticipated nearly every movement in jazz (swing, bebop, etc.) that followed in his wake. Yet, within 10 years of his best recordings, trumpeters like Roy Eldridge and Dizzy were able to play faster and with greater technical proficiency than Louis would ever achieve. Showing that it's much easier to improve upon an idea than to give birth to it.

Jeff in Boston

I'm sticking those up on the wall for students. Brilliant! :D

[Great Ape]

I don't think that having technique should purely be defined by the ability to solo mellifluously. To me, it's harder to be a Jimmy Nolen or a Nile Rogers. The RIGHT note at the RIGHT time in the RIGHT place. Bam! Make the music sound good and leave ego at the door. If a bandleader says to me 'Bb9 on the 'and' of 1, that's it,' that's what he's going to get to the best of my ability.That's what moves people and gets gigs, by and large. Plus, a burning solo has so much more impact if it's driven by a great groove. Eg 'Cult of Personality,' 'Whole Lotta Love,'etc.

So few players (Clapton included, if the 'Legends' set from North Sea Jazz is to be believed) can do that. Bar bands who can romp through Satriani tunes etc regularly screw up 'Sex Machine' and a thousand others by killing the groove stone dead. This applies in any genre. To be honest, I believe that the 'technique' required to burn through a shred rock type thing is more rooted in the physical than the musical. Of course, there are some guys who naturally burn - like John McLaughlin, Larry Carlton - and have an enormous sense of groove, musical imagination, soulfulness, etc.

[Aen]

Originally Posted by David Barnett

Okay, here's someone who has it all:

http://www.tdpri.com/viewtopic.php?t=32336

He's a virtuoso instrumentalist on both electric and acoustic guitars, plays with great fire and emotion, writes and sings great songs, and can hold his own in either a solo performance or with his band.

Who are some other guitarists who can successfully straddle the technical/emotional fence?

The edge.

Also, if I'm damned to my own personal hell, I'm pretty sure they'd be blasting Steve Vai and Joe Satriani 24/7.

And everyday there would be a big "G3" show, so they can go even longer than the album versions.

[Ian Hooper]

Sorry guys but i'm going to have to go with the "soul" side of this arguement. I think the reason more people like guitar playing with soul is becasue they can relate to it. Chances are that 99% of you guys play to crowds that have never picked up a guitar before. The audience doesn't know how hard it is to play a certain lick on guitar becasue they don't play so they can't relate to it. What the audience can relate to is emotion. Everybody goes through hard times in their life. It makes since that if you play emotionally more people will like it becasue they can relate to what your doing and saying to them with your guitar. Sometimes you just have to let the music breathe and a lot of these fast guys don't do that. Just my 2 cents guys, not trying to offend anyone.

Ian

[genelovesjez]

Here's another way I look at it: imagine if we judged writers by how many big words they used!

[Skully]

Yes. A lot of bad writers (who think they're good) make that mistake. In both mediums, the goal is to communicate with your audience.

[danbind]

...CDs have been in my player consistently over the last DECADE for a lot of reasons, but a big one is probably that they are sprinkled liberally with melodic, interesting, feedbacky, noisy guitar solos, riffs, and licks. None of it is technically difficult, but they grab you by the throat and throw you around the room. THAT is rock-and-roll guitar playing!

[woodman]

ian said:
"Chances are that 99% of you guys play to crowds that have never picked up a guitar before. The audience doesn't know how hard it is to play a certain lick on guitar becasue they don't play so they can't relate to it. What the audience can relate to is emotion."

so true! in my hot-licks days, it used to boggle my mind how audiences would shrug off my dazzling runs and start hollering when the other guitar play would hit some repetitive riff (or not) over and over. the listeners weren't guitar players, and they responded to the repetitive thang just cuz it was intense!

[dhdfoster]

I don't discriminate between slop and technical prowess. It's almost impossible for me seperate the skill from the art. If the music is cheesy, then the player is cheesy because they are making the music.

I find Vai just as silly as any number of Strat-in-a-hat "blues" guys.

When I was young I got the flexi-disc in Guitar Player magazine of Steve Vai's, "The Attitude Song". I actually liked him for a couple years and bought Passion and Warfare. One day I just thought to myself, "This is horrible music".

Techinique just isn't enough to hold me. It's got to have something to offer the soul, and I don't mean the pseudo-emotional epics like "For the Love of God". I'd rather see Buddy Miller on a bad night than sit through five minutes of a Joe Satriani concert.

On the other hand, I do enjoy listening to exciting and accomplished players, also. I love Jimmy Bryant and Hank Garland, and they can "shred" with the best of them.

The music always comes first for me.

[lenny]

Originally Posted by danbind

His guitar playing on "Angel Too Close to the Ground" is just magnificent. A good friend of mine, who is all the way over to the technical side, can't stand his playing or that beat up guitar of his.

Just as I am not moved by Malmsteem, etc., some people are so tied into technique that they can't look past poor hand position, etc. To each his own, I guess--but lighten up, people!

i have an mp3 of willie nelson solo, playing "crazy" where he sings, accompanies himself, and takes a solo..
i was astonished. it was great start to finish-including the guitar solo! i was like ... holy crap he can play! why doesnt he do that more..
i realized he can do it he wants, yet doesnt. and we all know hes one of the all time greats...
/shrug
music is so great, we could discuss this forever, but one listen and we'd all be on the same page

[raisindot]

Originally Posted by woodman1

ian said:
"The audience doesn't know how hard it is to play a certain lick on guitar becasue they don't play so they can't relate to it. What the audience can relate to is emotion."

so true! in my hot-licks days, it used to boggle my mind how audiences would shrug off my dazzling runs and start hollering when the other guitar play would hit some repetitive riff (or not) over and over. the listeners weren't guitar players, and they responded to the repetitive thang just cuz it was intense!

I think this really gets back to the DNA. No evidence to support this, by my theory, and as a theory, it is mine, at-hem! Atttt Hem!-- is that humans are "hard-wired" to respond to simple, familiar, loud sounds and rhythms. Perhaps it began as a survival instinct--being able to respond instantly to the lion's roar or the stampeding herd and all that. Over time, our hunter/gatherer ancestors began imitating these natural rhythms with drums and simple horns. Chunka-rhythms and 5-note riffs are much easier to understand that complex melody lines, which require a lot more "thinking" to absorb their impact. The repetition of these phrases create a kind of hypnotic effect that somehow taps into emotions. Of course, the predominance of these kinds of riffs and simple phrases in the history of music also belies the basic technical limitations of the vast majority of musicians, i.e., if you can build a song with three chords and four notes, why create one with four chords and five notes?

Most people can't do the critical thinking needed to appreciate complex musical arrangements, long melody lines, or tunes that don't follow "normal" tonal guidelines. Admittedly, a lot of this music is more "intellectual" (think Ornette Coleman, John Cage or even the early beboppers) versus emotional (think Glenn Miller or Illinois Jacquet). Of course, some of this kind of hi-falutin' stuff is pure crap, even if it's well-played crap.

It would explain why those garbage can "drummers" you see on the street always seem to attract a crowd, while the lonely guy playing a saxaphone never seems to get any attention. Why the people who can sit through a 20-minute funk jam will walk out of a Mahler symphony.

Jeff

[Bandit]

take a look at Johnny Cash's early stuff with the Tennessee Two. I mean the way the lead guitar was approached became his trade mark. You know that boom-tick-boom-tick was Johnny 2 seconds into the song. Johnny said in his autobiography that lack of skill was how they created their sound. It's not that they were trying for that sound, that was all they could play.

Or you could say they just stuck to the less is more idea and sold lots of records.

I like music that you can dance to. Take Old Time Rock and Roll (Bob Seger) for example. That's a really cool song in my book and it's so basic.

I like the Brad Paisley, Danny Gatton, Keith Richards, SRV and lots other guitar players but I know I'll have practice a lot more to be able to play at their level.

LESS is more and 10 minute guitar solo's are BORING.


here's a list of songs that are fun and simple and hardly ever played in bars in this area:

Old Time Rock and Roll
Memphis Tennessee
Takin Care of Business
Wasn't it a Party
Folsom
Riverboat Fantacy
The House is a Rockin

[Bandit]

take a look at Johnny Cash's early stuff with the Tennessee Two. I mean the way the lead guitar was approached became his trade mark. You know that boom-tick-boom-tick was Johnny 2 seconds into the song. Johnny said in his autobiography that lack of skill was how they created their sound. It's not that they were trying for that sound, that was all they could play.

Or you could say they just stuck to the less is more idea and sold lots of records.

I like music that you can dance to. Take Old Time Rock and Roll (Bob Seger) for example. That's a really cool song in my book and it's so basic.

I like the Brad Paisley, Danny Gatton, Keith Richards, SRV and lots other guitar players but I know I'll have practice a lot more to be able to play at their level.

LESS is more and 10 minute guitar solo's are BORING.


here's a list of songs that are fun and simple and hardly ever played in bars in this area:

Old Time Rock and Roll
Memphis Tennessee
Takin Care of Business
Wasn't it a Party
Folsom
Riverboat Fantacy
The House is a Rockin

[Ian]

We're playing Memphis Tennessee AND House Is a'Rockin tomorrow night!!! That's spooky man, I just did up the lyrics and the changes for the other guys.
In honor of this thread, both solo's will be pre-empted by a mid-song pantomime in order to "tastefully" express to the crowd my deep and heartfelt emotions.(lol). As I have not been fourtunate enough to have benifited from formal Pantomime training at a certified pantomime academy,my own sloppy pantomome stlye will no doubt blossom!!!
CHEERS!!

[Colo Springs E]

.....for the opening notes of "Blister In The Sun" than any solo we do in a song, and we have a killer lead guitarist.

People wanna groove 'n move.

-Eric

[hippietim]

Originally Posted by Great Ape

Of course, there are some guys who naturally burn - like John McLaughlin, Larry Carlton - and have an enormous sense of groove, musical imagination, soulfulness, etc.

You wouldn't say that if you watched McLaughlin on the Crossroads DVD. His performance is torturous. It's the worst thing on the DVD by far.

[guitbox]

"The spaces between the notes are as important as the notes being played..." is attributed to a jazzer (I think Monk or Evans.)

As much as I am jealous of the technical prowess of the "fretboard artists" like Vai, etc, it comes across as too much guitar gymnastics and not enough beauty and soul. Just because you can type 150 words per minute w/o error does not make you a writer or poet. The music does not hold up, and like "free jazz" (think Miles Davis' Jack Johnson days), it will always have a group of admirers who think it is nirvana. However, for most of us, the music doesn't hold up.

Right or wrong, most of us aren't drawn to it because it lacks soul.

[John Harrison]

To me, playing guitar is just another form of communication. Some people speak volumes without using a lot of words. Others use volumes of words and have relatively little to say. Some guitarists are great editors, some are not. There're possibilities in both forms of playing.

I admire players at all points along the spectrum. Neil Young, George Harrison, and the 3 Kings are some of my favorites and have had as much influence upon me as anyone. At the same time, players such as Robben Ford, Michael Landau, and Allan Holdsworth, who I'd place nearer the "shredder" end of the continuum, fascinate me with their abilities to both "say" something meaningful (melodic, challenging, etc.) and play in technically demanding and musically advanced/informed styles.

Vive le difference!

[microphonic squeal]

Originally Posted by Great Ape

To be honest, I believe that the 'technique' required to burn through a shred rock type thing is more rooted in the physical than the musical.

Sure that's true.

Shredding is based on techniques. Not just anyone can do it, it takes physical co-ordination and fast reaction time can learn to shred.

I can't do it. Also, at 52, I can't win a 100 yard dash with a teenager either. What I can do when I play is get women to wiggle their butts. And if the women are dancing, the men will follow.

[showard44]

Clapton and all the boys that are more "feel" players have always impressed me, but it seems more and more on these forums guitar players who are technically sound get ripped on for "showing off" or doing too much.

We all have our likes and I think a lot of these guys just get bored with "minimalistic" music.

The lead player in our country band is a shredder. He can play flashy stuff all day long that is better than many pro artists out there making big money from guitar virtuasity. I can't believe he isn't doing the same, but regardless, he knows guitar like no one I have ever met. He doesn't just burn to burn, when he burns, you can hear melodic passage and everything he does makes sense. I can play fast too, but I am the guy who can hammer on a few trill licks and make it look like I am doing something cool when I am really not. But to the contrary of his amazing speed, he can strip off all the distortion and play a simple country solo that has more "expression" than I will ever have. We played Fulsom Prison the other day and he took that simple solo and flavored it up just a touch to make it really amazing.

It just sucks to know that people who have worked so hard to become great musicians get "disrespected" in this way. Shredding may not be for everyone, but it doesn't mean it comes without talent. It saddens me to know that our lead player can play 40 solos a night that are true country chickin picken form and totally support the context of the song that he is playing them in, but when me and him dual at the end of a song like "Ain't Goin Down" and he proceeds to show just how good of a musician he really is, their will be some guitar player in the audience talking about how he is "overplaying".

[Teletwang]

Originally Posted by Bandit

here's a list of songs that are fun and simple and hardly ever played in bars in this area:

Old Time Rock and Roll...

Ugh, this one is as bad as "Brown Eyed Girl" around here. I have to move up Ontario way!

[Oskar]

People wanna groove 'n move.

As far as playing in a bar, that's the bottom line. There will always be a few, almost exclusively guys, who will nurse a beer at the back and comment on pickup tone, amp tone, style, speed, facial expressions, dress, loudness, and equipment. The other 99.9% are dancing or grooving to the music. That's who I play for, and to them I'm grateful for coming and enjoying the music. The guys at the back? I usually buy them a beer.

[Stan Martin]

[Shredding is based on techniques. Not just anyone can do it, it takes physical co-ordination and fast reaction time can learn to shred.

I can't do it. Also, at 52, I can't win a 100 yard dash with a teenager either. What I can do when I play is get women to wiggle their butts. And if the women are dancing, the men will follow.[/quote]

dumbass comment deleted

[genelovesjez]

Originally Posted by microphonic squeal

Shredding is based on techniques. Not just anyone can do it, it takes physical co-ordination and fast reaction time can learn to shred.

I disagree - barring any unusual physical restrictions, anyone can learn to shred. Perhaps you can't do it right now, but if you applied yourself, you could do it. That's what shredding has in common with typing, knitting and juggling.

Creating art, on the other hand, is something far more elusive...

[GopherTele]

Is getting paint on your tele--that is annoying.

And my Princeton Reverb is all gunked up now with molding clay from my last performance experiment.

Good thing my beret still looks cool.