Sloppiness/emotion/skill and great players

[televiking]

Hi all
I've been pondering about this a long time.
Most of the guitarists that REALLY touch me emotionally are not the technical wizards. I love Steve Vai and all his like who can blend technical virtuosity with emotion, but when I really want to enjoy music and get in a warm and beautiful mood i do not listen to them.
What really hits me is Neil Young, Lord Keef Richards and Tom Waits playing those few notes on his acoustic and so on.
Are there any other weirdos like me and can anyone explain why sometimes not-so-perfect music matches my broken soul?
And yes, technique allows us to make our emotions audible. Sometimes it just seems less is more.

What's your view?
(and as usual sorry for the bad grammar...)
Televiking

[RevMike]

...once described himself and Jimmy Page (both of whom often get described as sloppy) as playing with a similar enthusiasm.

Eddie calls it "reckless abandon". Both guys make a lot of mistakes when they play live. I say, who cares? Their emotion still comes through loud and clear. Not to knock guys like Vai, who I love too, but I'd rather hear "reckless abandon". It seems to me, to be more passionate.

[GopherTele]

What you have described is the default position of most urban hipsters--I'm not saying you are one mind you--it is just something I have heard over and over for a number of years now.

I call them the anti-guitar hero guitar heros. They rave on and on about Neil's one note solo on Cinnamon Girl.

I guess I just find most of the guys who embrace the less is more philosophy do so out of lack of ability and this gives them a hip and sophisticated way to say that their lack of ability is actually COOLER than people who actually learned to play their instruments well.

If I hear one more person mouth the BB King cliche about hearing him play one note...I don't know what I'll do.

[lenny]

Originally Posted by GopherTele

I guess I just find most of the guys who embrace the less is more philosophy do so out of lack of ability and this gives them a hip and sophisticated way to say that their lack of ability is actually COOLER than people who actually learned to play their instruments well.

i love to hear someone who is capable of being flashy play simply and tastefully. i think that the ones who do it to hide a lack of ability will not sound as good as someone who plays like this because they like it, andwill be much less inspiring.
i also think that playing fast and flashy can be a way to hide ability.

[GopherTele]

Hide your ability when you are playing fast and flashy.

In fact, it is much easier to see the mistakes, boring ideas, etc.

But the guys who sit back and basically play nothing and then want to act like it was some kind of minamilist statement or something--THAT makes it easy to hide your lack of ideas, originality or general ability.

[TheGoodTexan]

I'm a big Joe Walsh fan. For me, Joe personifies the technically correct method for playing sloppy guitar!

Someone on here years ago described Joe's style as dripping molasses. I like that.

Although I'm can play decently fast (not EVH or Vai fast), I usually stay middle of the road.

I think I can connect better with an audience when I'm playing really slow. It makes me think more about them, than me.

[Skully]

Oftentimes, players with great technical ability get too caught up in speed and athleticism. Something that is difficult to play is not necessarily something that sounds good. They also play too much -- too many bars and too many notes per bar. They lack taste and restraint.

It amused me to hear some of the guitarists complain about harmonica players. I understood where they were coming from, but I think some were simply upset that wanking harmonica players interrupted their guitar wankery.

But the guys who sit back and basically play nothing and then want to act like it was some kind of minamilist statement or something--THAT makes it easy to hide your lack of ideas, originality or general ability.

Sometimes a one or two note solo is a good idea. It depends on the context.

[Val-tone]

I'd rather hear Keith Richards play one wrong note than hear Joe Satriani, Eric Johnson, Vai, etc., play some quadratic dorian euclidian scale perfectly and flawlessly.

I remember when Vai's passion and warfare came out. It literally made me tired listening to it.

[lenny]

Originally Posted by GopherTele

Hide your ability when you are playing fast and flashy.

In fact, it is much easier to see the mistakes, boring ideas, etc.

But the guys who sit back and basically play nothing and then want to act like it was some kind of minamilist statement or something--THAT makes it easy to hide your lack of ideas, originality or general ability.

to a listener like many of us, its obvious. we are all guitar players (1 percent of the total population? :/ even less probably). but even so if you play fast enough i think (i've been wrong before) its easier to disguise "lick spewage"
i am thinking in terms of what the average listener would think..

[Oskar]

A main reason that I don't listen to much flashy country, fusion, or metal music is that after about a minute's worth I get bored, espcially with instrumentals. This may reflect my ignorance of music theory, but it's as if the player is competing with him/her self, or just trying to impress or outdo the next person.
Listen to some of the great pieces of classical music and you will find that many times the most haunting, beautiful and memorable melodies are the simplest. Ode to Joy, the great riff in Bolero, not to mention numerous overtures from operas.
That's not to say that something complex cannot be spellingbinding, but from what I hear from many guitarists it's musical masturbation (oops, am I allowed to use that word ).
It's a fine line sometimes between being technically proficient and emotionally expressive, although personally I would probably enjoy someone who was flying by the seat of their pants playing very emotionally and occasionally stumbling over a technocrat who is sterile and perfect. Just my opinion.

[genelovesjez]

Originally Posted by GopherTele

But the guys who sit back and basically play nothing and then want to act like it was some kind of minamilist statement or something--THAT makes it easy to hide your lack of ideas, originality or general ability.

In my experience, it's much harder to impress people when you play in a more mimimalistic way. IMO, putting exactly the right notes in exactly the right places is harder than noodling all over the place, and requires a better understanding of musical theory, knowledge of the fretboard and awareness of the song structure. The guitarists that do this well (few and far between, unfortunately) always get my highest praises.

[Kingpin]

When I hear the guitar playing of guys like Neil Young or Keith Richards, I think "Yeah, what a great songwriter and riff-writer (respectively), they seem to be loaded with natural talent... Why the Hell didn't they develop it a little more?" I guess they have personal or artistic reasons why they didn't evolve much from their early work. On the other side of the equation, guys like Vai, Malmsteen, etc. play stuff that is amazing but doesn't hold up to repeated listenings (for me) because of the sheer number of notes. Fortunately, we don't have to choose either of the two extremes here because there are some great guitarists out there that combine incredible technique with great taste and emotional feel. For me that would include players like Larry Carlton, Brent Mason, Redd Volkaert, Roy Buchanan, and many more.

[Smokin' Joe Picante]

I can hear great players names dropped on either side of the technical/emotional debate. But something to think about... with all due respect, we've ALL heard LOADS of guys who can rip like Yngwie, run scales like Petrucci, tap a'la Vai, etc. to the point where if you close your eyes it might BE them. I've heard very few guys play like Keef, or Neil, or B.B. for that matter.

I believe with really technical players, sometimes the sheer genius level of technique occupies a greater portion of the "message" than the emotional content within thier playing. Some guys like Frank Zappa really tried to split the difference, and I think he did a great job of it (Yeah, I know Vai played with Zappa, but his solo stuff is apples and oranges compared to Zappa.). I think for some guys the art and thrill is in the ability to execute and/or interpret very demanding technical passages. A somewhat more "classical" approach. Certainly not devoid of emotion, but just as concerned with interpretation and flawless execution of technical ideas. the sloppy stuff just has far more intangibles, is much more idiosyncratic, and places more emphasis on the transmission of an emotion than execution of an idea. IMO just tipping the balance towards the heart a little more than the head.

With repeated listening, a lot of really technical stuff can lose it's lustre. We know technique can be learned, and we hear other players do it ALL the time. More emotional music seems to hit the same spot time and again. The not-so easily-duplicated intagible elements conjure different emotions. There's a mystery to how those sounds that produce those emotions are made and how/why they move us so. Maybe that's why so many of us can grab onto, and identify with, the material of the "sloppy" artists over the "technical' ones.

Of course there are so MANY incredible players in the shades of grey between one "camp" and the other, and it's all music, so it's all good. Just my two cents.

[Dana]

This has been an ongoing argument amongst guitar players for years.

Probably every one of us could list a group of technically proficient guitarists who's music doesn't speak to us. Yngwie, Satriani, etc.

I also believe that I could come up with a list of non-technically proficient guitarists who's music also doesn't speak to me. It's harder to do of course. I mean, there are very few guys with bad songs and bad guitar playing making a career out of music. It seems to me, that despite what people think about Yngwie's and Satriani's songs, they're able to have a career based on their technical prowess on the guitar. So perhaps great chops and bad songs will take a person farther than bad chops and bad songs.

There are, however, a small but fanatic group of people who love this type of music. I mean, these guys do make albums and have careers. Perhaps not on the level of Keith Richards, but they do survive. And, Keith Richards also isn't trying to make a career by making instrumental guitar music. I don't think he'd last long if he did. Keith has the luxury of being in one of the greatest rock bands in history playing alongside one of the greatest rock singers in history.

Unfortunately I've known too many guitarists who use this type of thinking to not practice their craft, work on their guitar skills, or learn to read music. There is this thought that if they learn too much about music, or how to read music, that they will lose the feeling aspect. I think that's crap, personally.

For me, when both these desired talents come together, it's unbelieveable. I mean, Hendrix Clapton, Beck, and Page aren't considered super technically proficient guitarists by today's standards, but in their day they were the Yngwie, Satriani, and Vai that everyone was trying to emulate.

[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!

[Val-tone]

and maybe I'm getting off topic, but it seems that when we're mentioning technical vs. non-technical players, the non-technicals are usuall associated with a band. Keef (Stones), Page (Zeppelin) Neil Young (Crazy Horse), Jimi Hendrix (Experience, Band of Gypsies), even Cream and Jeff Beck Group, etc. I think that's one reason why these guys appeal to me more-they're part of a band. You can tell the members are interacting when you're listening to their stuff. The sum is greater than the parts or however that's said.

I don't get that "band" sound when I listen to the Vais, Satrianis, etc.

I could be wrong, I don't have the casette anymore, but wasn't "Surfing with the Alien" recorded with a drum machine and Joe on bass?

[Smokin' Joe Picante]

Originally Posted by Val-tone

and maybe I'm getting off topic, but it seems that when we're mentioning technical vs. non-technical players, the non-technicals are usuall associated with a band. Keef (Stones), Page (Zeppelin) Neil Young (Crazy Horse), Jimi Hendrix (Experience, Band of Gypsies), even Cream and Jeff Beck Group, etc. I think that's one reason why these guys appeal to me more-they're part of a band. You can tell the members are interacting when you're listening to their stuff. The sum is greater than the parts or however that's said.

I don't get that "band" sound when I listen to the Vais, Satrianis, etc.

Excellent point. I've never understood how guys could dig a player (technical or not) if the band and music surrounding that player was generally accepted as just awful.

[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?

[raisindot]

Originally Posted by Smokin' Joe Picante

I believe with really technical players, sometimes the sheer genius level of technique occupies a greater portion of the "message" than the emotional content within thier playing. Some guys like Frank Zappa really tried to split the difference, and I think he did a great job of it (Yeah, I know Vai played with Zappa, but his solo stuff is apples and oranges compared to Zappa.).

Hmm, I was thinking Zappa when I first read this thread. In my younger days, I thought his 10-minute guitar solos were the most amazing things ever conceived. But now that you can buy a box of them on a CD, when you really start listening, you realize that in the end, most of his soloes from the late 70's on were monotonously identical--flashy technical displays that had little connection to the musical accompaniment (Zappa in fact extracted a lot of his live recorded solos and either grafted them onto different musical backgrounds or had his hand play new leads in and ends.

Consider Zappa's prodigious talent as a composer (really one of the few rock musicians who could apply classical structures in pop songs), it's rather interesting how little emotion and genuine musicality you see in some of this self-indulgent displays.

Jeff

[raisindot]

Originally Posted by Val-tone

I'd rather hear Keith Richards play one wrong note than hear Joe Satriani, Eric Johnson, Vai, etc., play some quadratic dorian euclidian scale perfectly and flawlessly.

I remember when Vai's passion and warfare came out. It literally made me tired listening to it.

I agree with that. For me, the best rock n' roll guitar doesn't come from head-banging thrash or Satriani/Van Halenish self-indulgence, but those guitarists (generally rhythm players) who were able to incorporate the use of space into their chops to create tension and swing.

Very few guitarists have been able to achieve this kind of "tense perfection." Chuck Berry solidified the approach in the 1950's. Keef took it to a new level from "Honky Tonk Women/Jumpin' Jack Flash/Beggar's Banquet" forward. Pete Townshend took Dave Davies' power chord innovations and built his entire career on it.

Jeff

[agent2x4]

Any good jazz guitarist can do BOTH with aplomb. If I could snap my fingers and suddenly be an "accomplished" guitar player, and could pick what genre/person I could mold myself after, it would be jazz/Joe Pass. Guys like that make the hair stand up on the back of my neck to hear them play.

[raisindot]

Originally Posted by GopherTele

I guess I just find most of the guys who embrace the less is more philosophy do so out of lack of ability and this gives them a hip and sophisticated way to say that their lack of ability is actually COOLER than people who actually learned to play their instruments well.

Your argument is the same one people said about Miles Davis, who was criticized throughout his career for not being able to play fast, and for using short phrases that rarely strayed beyond the mid-range of his instrument.

But if you really listen to a classic Davis solo--"All Blues" What," "Summertime" and "Round Midnight" come to mind, you'll hear more musical and emotional content in his stark, carefully chosen phrases than in any 10-minute Freddie Hubbard ramble.

Jeff

[GopherTele]

Yes, raisindot, that is exactly what I'm saying.

Those of us in the know realize that Miles was not a very fast player and therefore is not considered one of the all time greats. All the cool people know this.

People are setting up straw men here--it's turned into Yngwie vs. BB--which side are you on?

That is taking the argument a little far in both directions. My point is that WAY WAY too many guitar players these days think that they don't need to practice or learn or get good at their instrument--it's not cool, and most of them are more interested in being cool than being good.

I was watching a recent episode of MTV's Cribs and they had the dudes on from Maroon 5. They went into the guitar player's room and he had a Twin Reverb in there with a stack of music books, including a Steely Dan book and books on theory.

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.

[hekawi]

the YES guitarist has long been one of my favorites. the band, especially singer Jon Anderson, take the music very seriously and yet Howe still seems to have fun with it. He can be a virtuoso and sloppy in the same song (granted some of YES' material can be in the 30 minute range) and it all fits and sounds just right.

[Joel Terry]

Originally Posted by raisindot

Your argument is the same one people said about Miles Davis, who was criticized throughout his career for not being able to play fast, and for using short phrases that rarely strayed beyond the mid-range of his instrument.

But if you really listen to a classic Davis solo--"All Blues" What," "Summertime" and "Round Midnight" come to mind, you'll hear more musical and emotional content in his stark, carefully chosen phrases than in any 10-minute Freddie Hubbard ramble.

Jeff

Great call, Jeff.

I think that's why I now gravitate toward players like Bill Frisell and John Scofield. To me, they're technically proficient guitarists, but they aren't afraid to take chances with either a minimalist solo or an avant garde/sloppy (depending on how pretentious or street you want to get with your adjectives :P) passages/solos. And, of course, both Bill and John play with emotion to spare. They use both sides of their brains to play.

Joel

[Jakedog]

Originally Posted by David Barnett

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

Two words for y'all: Steve Kimmock


This guy has both sides covered better than anyone else I've ever heard. He's my favorite type of guitarist lately, enough knowledge and chops to scare me a little, but sloppy and emotional because he's all improvisation. The way the songs sound depend completely on the moment, and what kind of mood he's in. Dig it.


Jake

[hippietim]

This debate always seems silly to me.

Playing fast or slow doesn't mean crap. Equating quality of music or emotional content based on technical execution in EITHER direction is pure BS.

Thinking a player is great because they can play fast is crap - there are a lot of examples fast mind numbingly boring guitar out there - Michael Angelo, Impelliteri, Johnny Hilland, John Mclaughlin (these days anyhow).

Thinking a player is great because they play slow is crap too - there are a lot of examples of that - Neil Young (he got lucky with Cinammon Girl - the rest of his lead work is awful), George Thoroughgood, Santana, and any Clapton post Cream.

There are a lot of great players that simply transcend these discussions either way for me - Keith Richards, Steve Vai, Angus Young, Pat Travers, Jimi Hendrix, SRV, Danny Gatton, Buddy Guy, Robin Trower, George Harrison, Al DiMeola, and many, many more. The common link between all of these players for ME is that they have an intuitive skill to play pretty much the perfect compliment to the song they are playing. They simply play what is appropriate whether it's ripping or roaring or tripping or soaring (I'm a poet ).

Someone mentioned Miles above, he belongs in my "transcends" category. I don't know how to judge the technical skills of a horn player, I just know what sounds good to me and Miles sounds fabulous to me.

[Jakedog]

As an addendum to my earlier post, I will weigh in on the arguments at hand as well. Gopher, I can see your point. (Strange, because I almost never agree with ANYTHING you post, but we see eye to eye here.) I too, am disappointed by the idea that learning and becoming proficient on your instrument is so "un-cool". It sucks that so many young players have the idea that practicing and getting to be a truly competent guitarist is a bad thing.

However, I came up in the hey day of shred, and spent hours every day woodshedding to get to the level of the players I looked up to then. I came to a realization, the "better" I got, the less the audience cared. And the less satisfying playing music was. It loses people when guitarists lose sight of the emotion, and focus too hard on the technical side of things. Sure, people like Vai and Malmsteen sell records, but to who? Other musicians. That's pretty much it. People (myself included) connect much more with the emotional aspect of playing. I realized early, (thankfully) that the music that is the most moving to the most people is invariably the simplest. There is no question in my mind, whatsoever, as to whether or not Yngvie is a more accomplished guitarist than Neil Young. It's obvious to anyone smart enough to pour piss out of a boot who the better "musician" is. But it's also obvious to me who the better "artist" is. Neil paints on a canvas that players like Yngvie will never be able to see, because they've stacked up so many art supplies they can't find the wide brushes, and while fine lines are sometimes necessary, the color is what really makes the piece move people.

If that made no sense to anyone, I'm really not surprised.


Jake

[GopherTele]

I hear you Jakedog about the guitar players playing to other guitar players, but look at Brad Paisley.

I 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.

And Hippie Tim, you're winning an argument no one is having. This isn't fast vs. slow--which is better?

This trend I see in the hipsters toward promoting being bad at playing guitar--and then saying that being bad is cool--is not good.

BB King can pull of the one note thing because he is BB King. Keith, same thing. It does not give average and below average musicians cart blanche to never practice or get better.

And that's where we are at right now.

Like I've said before, too many English majors and not enough linebackers.

[Smokin' Joe Picante]

Originally Posted by GopherTele

People are setting up straw men here--it's turned into Yngwie vs. BB--which side are you on?

That is taking the argument a little far in both directions. My point is that WAY WAY too many guitar players these days think that they don't need to practice or learn or get good at their instrument--it's not cool, and most of them are more interested in being cool than being good.

I was watching a recent episode of MTV's Cribs and they had the dudes on from Maroon 5. They went into the guitar player's room and he had a Twin Reverb in there with a stack of music books, including a Steely Dan book and books on theory.

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.

I agree with your point Gopher. People using the "emotion" argument as an excuse for not personally being more proficient on thier instrument is a copout.

But I think the issue of people being honest with themselves as to thier motivations (or lack thereof) to play well and push themselves to greater levels of expression (technical or not) is different than that of our appreciation and understanding of others work based on how technically challenging it is. Though it does drive me nuts to see a zillion "alternative" type bands sprout up with guys advocating the idea of not knowing (or caring to know) anything about playing.

There is a happy medium where you can play with emotion and some knowledge of what it is your doing. As far as personal development with playing, I think it's all about balance. A little street smarts and a little book smarts goes a long way.

The Maroon 5 story was a great case in point of the pressure a lot of guys feel. But, as well, NOT being either technically gifted or inclined doesn't make you a "lesser" player. LOTS of guys feel the "I have no chops pressure" from other players, and that's not right either. It is funny how emotion and technical facility become mutually exclusive to so many people, both players and listeners.

Originally Posted by Kingpin

When I hear the guitar playing of guys like Neil Young or Keith Richards, I think "Yeah, what a great songwriter and riff-writer (respectively), they seem to be loaded with natural talent... Why the Hell didn't they develop it a little more?" I guess they have personal or artistic reasons why they didn't evolve much from their early work.

Could you imagine Keef sweep picking? He's taken playing in his particular genre and stlye to levels about as far as I can imagine someone going.

[hippietim]

Originally Posted by GopherTele

And Hippie Tim, you're winning an argument no one is having. This isn't fast vs. slow--which is better?

Huh? This whole thread is nothing but a discussion of the value of technical skills and the associated emotional content or lack thereof.

[Mik]

I want to hear, feel the interplay, the connections, among the band's musicians. I can't get into the lead guitar or guitar soloing without the interplay, a perceiveable connection between the soloist and band. Quality material and arrangements don't hurt either.

My wife has been playing a CD of a smooth jazz guitarist, no doubt the guitarist is talented, skilled, the playing is coherent and polished. But there's no fire in the performances and the supporting band sounds like a robotic machine disconnected from the guitarist. May be my loss but I've heard this approach so often with contemporary jazz and prog/technical guitarist rock that I've dismissed and ignored those idioms.

Mik

[jhundt]

I like minimalist guitar players because they remind me of me. I have been playing for 35+ years, I always wanted to be good. I just can't play fast and remember all those scales etc. etc. So I do my best to sound like me, playing the guitar my way.

A lot of guys (even some famous ones) don't really care to play like Paganini. The guitar is a convenient instrument they use to play whatever music they want to. What's wrong with that? You just play waht you want to and are able to. If people like it, you are lucky and can make some money.

If someone wants to play one note on every solo, that doesn't make him bad or good, it's just how he plays. Let him be. Go play all the notes you want, every scale, every chord, as fast as you can if it makes you happy.

[Teletwang]

Originally Posted by hippietim

....there are a lot of examples fast mind numbingly boring guitar out there - Michael Angelo, Impelliteri,

Impelliteri? Chris Impelliteri? Whoa, hippietim, now thats a name you don't read everyday. Don't mean to hijack but Chris grew up down the street from us. Back in the early '80s it was pretty obvious he was on a different level than the rest of us.

[Jakedog]

Originally Posted by GopherTele

I hear you Jakedog about the guitar players playing to other guitar players, but look at Brad Paisley.

I 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.

Absolutely correct, sort of... Brad is an amazing player, but he is also a great singer, and a pretty good writer. People respond to what he does because of how he does it. He plays amazing solos, but he does it (mostly) within the context of great songs that people know and love, and uses his skills to take the songs to the next level. There is no doubt in my mind that if he were to make an all instrumental album, and spend the entire time playing those solos over chord progressions whose only purpose was to be a vehicle for said wankery, he would enjoy a sizeable drop in record sales. Overnight. That is why when I go to see Brad Paisley, I see a wide cross section of people from all age groups and walks of life, and why when I go to see Steve Vai (who I have admitted to enjoying greatly) I can count the audience members who are not white males in the 30-40 age bracket, wearing some kind of clothing advertising gear, on one hand. Brad is certainly not ten times the musician that Vai is, so why do YOU think that he enjoys ten times the record and ticket sales? Hmmm...


Jake

Note- I'm not getting snotty with you, just trying to illustrate a point. And like I said, I LOVE Vai.

[hippietim]

Originally Posted by Teletwang

Impelliteri? Chris Impelliteri? Whoa, hippietim, now thats a name you don't read everyday. Don't mean to hijack but Chris grew up down the street from us. Back in the early '80s it was pretty obvious he was on a different level than the rest of us.

No doubt the guy is just a freakin' amazingly skilled guitar player. I have a couple of his albums but his music was always just hard for me to listen to - he did do a fun version of Somewhere over the Rainbow.

[hippietim]

Originally Posted by Jakedog

Absolutely correct, sort of... Brad is an amazing player, but he is also a great singer, and a pretty good writer. People respond to what he does because of how he does it. He plays amazing solos, but he does it (mostly) within the context of great songs that people know and love, and uses his skills to take the songs to the next level. There is no doubt in my mind that if he were to make an all instrumental album, and spend the entire time playing those solos over chord progressions whose only purpose was to be a vehicle for said wankery, he would enjoy a sizeable drop in record sales. Overnight. That is why when I go to see Brad Paisley, I see a wide cross section of people from all age groups and walks of life, and why when I go to see Steve Vai (who I have admitted to enjoying greatly) I can count the audience members who are not white males in the 30-40 age bracket, wearing some kind of clothing advertising gear, on one hand. Brad is certainly not ten times the musician that Vai is, so why do YOU think that he enjoys ten times the record and ticket sales? Hmmm...


Jake

Note- I'm not getting snotty with you, just trying to illustrate a point. And like I said, I LOVE Vai.

I think Brad and Vai both share a couple key things that makes them both exceptional - they both know what the right thing to play is for the song - IOW, they put the song first; they both seem absolutely delighted to be playing and it really shows.

As for the popularity and gender bias, instrumental music is simply not as popular as vocal music. And in my experience, more men than women seem to enjoy instrumental music particularly improvisational music. I used to go to jazz clubs a lot and the male to female ratio was not to my benefit at all except on nights that had a singer. I can assure you that there was plenty of women at the David Lee Roth and Whitesnake shows that Vai was in.

[Teletwang]

To me technical proficiency doesn't always equate to mindless wanking. Alan Holdsworth is a player I still keep track of. The man dissects the fingerboard to abstract levels but still seems accesible to my ears.
Michael Hedges is another. That said, one of my all time favorite solos is Townsend's on "I Can See For Miles".
One extreme to the other yet both musical.

[cg73cmc]

Originally Posted by GopherTele

I guess I just find most of the guys who embrace the less is more philosophy do so out of lack of ability and this gives them a hip and sophisticated way to say that their lack of ability is actually COOLER than people who actually learned to play their instruments well.

Gopher, don't take offense, but I don't agree with you on this. Just speaking from my experience, a lot of the rippin' stuff is easier to play cause all you really got to do is hit the right notes and get the timing down. Speed and accuracy usually gets me there -- and without having to express a whole lot of emotion in my playing.

And I know a lot of pieces where there's really not a lot of ripping going down but -- still hard as heck to play because you have to articulate EMOTION into each and every note. I usually point to George Harrison as an example -- very minimalist kind of guy -- yet every note precisely articulated with exact emotion. AND -- very difficult in many cases to reproduce.

I'm not a real proponent of the "less is more" philosophy -- cause I like to rip and I like to listen to other people rip. However, I also like the "lesser" stuff too.

YMMV

[raisindot]

Originally Posted by GopherTele

People are setting up straw men here--it's turned into Yngwie vs. BB--which side are you on?

That is taking the argument a little far in both directions. My point is that WAY WAY too many guitar players these days think that they don't need to practice or learn or get good at their instrument--it's not cool, and most of them are more interested in being cool than being good.

One doesn't have to take "sides" in this situation. I don't think anyone is arguing that gigging or recording artists shouldn't have some level of technical proficiency in their instrument. Neal Young and Bob Dylan may not be able to solo for their lives, but both can chord extremely well, particularly on acoustic.

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