Technique vs. Technical

[Billster]

Oh no, not again...

 

I've been thinking about this in relation to recent dissection of the Al DiMeola/Kenny Neal juxtaposition:

 

"Well, let me go on record if I havent already, and say that the ability to display good or great technique should always be at the top of a guitarists list. I laugh when guys who cant display any real technique say sh*t like, You can say a lot more with one note. Some of these players have lousy or just-okay technique, and they use that line as their excuse for not aspiring to be better. The ability to play what you hear in your head with clear articulation should be your first and foremost goal. All the other emotions and expressions are equally important when combined with a clean technique that can execute those bursts you hear in your head."

 

You can express yourself a million ways with one note, or one way with a million notes.

 

Alright, listen up:

 

First of all, DiMeola places displaying technique at the top of the list, and also says playing what you hear in your head is your first and foremost. So which comes first Al?

 

Nonetheless, suppose what you hear in your head is not music which displays technique, but rather music that displays simplicity? Certainly, simple musical ideas can be played well, and thus more expressively by applying good technique. But does technique have to be technical?

 

There's always lots of discussion about simple approaches and dramatic use of silence and space in music. The idea is to be playing that one note, but playing it at the exact right time to make the maximum emotional expression. That degree of timing and sensibility is absolutely a technique, just not a particularly technical one in the sense of complex physical actions.

 

OTOH, don't try to sell me the idea that learning the technical facility to play complex passages diminishes the ability to discern the refinement required for less physical techniques. The world's fastest sprinter retains the ability to walk, jog, or skip without stumbling over his own feet.

 

Think about it.

[Terrell]

There's magic in single notes... There's magic in doing things only 100 in the world can do. There is magic in doing it just like "so n' so" did it. There's magic in doing it just different enough from "the unreferenced quote victim (who n' so)" that everyone thinks it's you...

 

Everyone has an opinion and it's always right. In mine: I hate to say that it's true, but I like the one note? I also like those that steal and never reference, but I know they are stealing. Most of all, I love those that can stretch it all into something previously unheard, unmistakably original, mixing true virtuosity and musicality. Very rare indeed!

 

However, those that bask in total righteousness of the "single note" are justifying their lack of commitment to the instrument and/or their inability to master it. When it's a perspective opinion and taste and represented as such, it's great. When it's a slight on those that display virtuosity, it's a cop out...

[alfonso]

Great technique doesn't mean speed. It means good execution with the best control of what you're doing. You can spot great technique ever in a 3 notes solo or a single note from touch, vibrato, timing, feel, bending precision or whatever makes great what you're playing. Nobody is perfect and knows everything, so there are personal languages and styles. The important thing is to make your playing "relevant" to the music, expressively powerful.

Al Di Meola has a great technique and so David Gilmour, each one with his exclusivity.

[Billster]

However, those that bask in total righteousness of the "single note" are justifying their lack of commitment to the instrument and/or their inability to master it. When it's a perspective opinion and taste and represented as such, it's great. When it's a slight on those that display virtuosity, it's a cop out...

 

Fair.

 

What about players who can churn out on the spot 32nd notes all night long, but have no off switch? Or when they try something less metronomic have no real sense of time? It can be easier to play a constant string of notes right on the beat than to play a few notes, precisely off the beat. And to play off the beat with a good technique, you must of course know where the beat is to begin with.

[Terrell]

However, those that bask in total righteousness of the "single note" are justifying their lack of commitment to the instrument and/or their inability to master it. When it's a perspective opinion and taste and represented as such, it's great. When it's a slight on those that display virtuosity, it's a cop out...

 

Fair.

 

What about players who can churn out on the spot 32nd notes all night long, but have no off switch? Or when they try something less metronomic have no real sense of time? It can be easier to play a constant string of notes right on the beat than to play a few notes, precisely off the beat. And to play off the beat with a good technique, you must of course know where the beat is to begin with.

 

you brought speed up, I didn't... It's a time (TEF) art isn't it? Time Energy Frequency... The art part is art, it's one thing now and something else tomorrow. That's why it's love, that's why it's hate as well... In my art - a 32nd note is the same as a whole note or a squiggly noise I make by throwing a strawberry at my pick up after rubbing crushed pickle parts on my strings.

 

To your point: Those that bask in total righteousness of the "shred" are justifying their lack of commitment to the instrument and/or their inability to master it completely. When it's a perspective opinion and taste and represented as such, it's great. When it's a slight on those that display restraint, it's a cop out...

 

 

 

[Billster]

Those that bask in total righteousness of the "shred" are justifying their lack of commitment to the instrument and/or their inability to master it completely. When it's a perspective opinion and taste and represented as such, it's great. When it's a slight on those that display restraint, it's a cop out...

 

Right. It cuts both ways.

 

Some people are natural speed demons, some are natural "feel" players. You shouldn't limit yourself to the choices that come easiest to you.

[Caevan O'Shite]

"First of all, DiMeola places displaying technique at the top of the list, and also says playing what you hear in your head is your first and foremost. So which comes first Al?"

 

Uhmn, I thought that he said that "the ability to display good or great technique should always be at the top of a guitarists list", followed by "The ability to play what you hear in your head with clear articulation should be your first and foremost goal"... ?

 

An argument could be made that the first statement refers to the display of technique in and of itself, as opposed to the ability to express and convey via skilled execution; but I do think that he meant more or less the same thing in each statement. Remember, this wasn't a carefully edited written statement, it was a quoted conversational interview.

 

Please take all of the above in casual stride and with a grain of salt, said lightly as if in a barroom chat; as long as we were splittin' hairs, I just figured I'd do a little myself. No malice in ten did.

 

On the matter of capability in technique vs tha one note, I kinda think that a good player should know a lot and say what is needed; could be with one note, could be with enough notes to impress Carl Sagan, should be done with skilled execution. Neither are necessarily as simple as they might seem.

[Eric Iverson]

Yes, some parts are simple to play but COMING UP with those simple parts is an art in itself - ones that really add a lot to the piece.

 

And playing simple parts beautifully is quite another thing from just playing the notes.

 

I happen to like classical music when in the mood, and I note that some of the people who can play fast passages flawlessly put just as much heart and musicianship in the slow sections.. it doesn't sound like they take them lightly just because a non-virtuoso can play them!

[Billster]

Remember, this wasn't a carefully edited written statement, it was a quoted conversational interview.

 

Yeah, but he's still talking in circles! Note the smiley, too --->

 

In my opinion, the first goal in music is to express something, anything. What Al is saying is that guys who don't put in the technical training are limiting themselves. I'll agree with that, but displaying technique as an end in itself is ridiculous. Some guys do that (display technique) when they can't think of anything expressive to play. Sometimes a fast run expresses the right feeling, but sometimes it's the wrong thing to say.

 

On the matter of capability in technique vs tha one note, I kinda think that a good player should know a lot and say what is needed; could be with one note, could be with enough notes to impress Carl Sagan, should be done with skilled execution. Neither are necessarily as simple as they might seem.

 

Carl Sagan is a great thought in this context. Sagan knew more stuff than a lot of people, but he could express that stuff in ways that let a lot more people know about that stuff. Knowing how to express a complex thought in an accessible way is a talent and ability (and technique) all to itself.

[GuitarPlayerFL]

For me, music has to:

 

1) Excite me.

2) Hold my attention.

 

...regardless of number of notes played.

 

 

DiMeola and Paul Gilbert do that (to me).

 

Robben Ford and Jeff Beck also do that when they play at slower tempos. Ford can rip it up and also slow it down and still be exciting. Anybody that has seen Beck live knows how spellbinding his solo spots can be, yet he is not a shredder.

He's really not that fast at all!

 

I've seen Kenny Neal play live. His playing doesn't hold my interest.

 

If somebody is going to claim slower is better, they better play an incredible choice of notes to hold my interest. Most simply regurgitate the same tired Blues cliches and pull out the feel card.

[miroslav]

...suppose what you hear in your head is not music which displays technique, but rather music that displays simplicity? Certainly, simple musical ideas can be played well, and thus more expressively by applying good technique. But does technique have to be technical?

 

NO!

 

I think too often, many guitarists get all too caught up with being too technical for the sake of technique.

Yeah...sure...the real masters can play with super-shred-speed and still impart a good amount of feel/emotion to their playing...but hey, they still have to keep playing real fast, and there is only so much feel/expression you can do while blazing away at a million-notes-per-second.

 

I like riffing away too...and I sure do work all the time on my speed and technical proficiency, as I think it's needed from time to time to accent particular solos.

But I also like to think in terms of melody with a lot of my lead playing...and will often try to play solos as though I was singing a melody line.

Theres an old saying (not sure who coined it or the exact wording) Its not the notes, but the space in-between them that defines a melody..

Without the right spacing between the notesjust playing LOTS of notes VERY FASTALL the timeit all comes off too mechanical, IMOand is more about showing off technique rather than playing something unique for a particular song.

While the real greats can shred and still play unique solos that define and complement the songthe majority of players will just *shred*, and too often it sounds the samefrom song to song to song...

 

The world's fastest sprinter retains the ability to walk, jog, or skip without stumbling over his own feet.

 

Think about it.

 

Yeah...but the minute he stops sprinting and just starts walking/jogging/skipping...he is no longer seen as a sprinter!

 

I do think many players feel the MUST keep on sprintingall the time...

 

[Terrell]

What Al is saying is that guys who don't put in the technical training are limiting themselves. I'll agree with that, but displaying technique as an end in itself is ridiculous.

 

OK - If you have technique, the only way to not display it is to "play left handed" or something... If you have it, you will display it. If you have enough of it, it will be the focus of your playing. It may not be your focus as the player, but that's how others will perceive your playing. If you enjoy technical music, you will probably play technical music and play it technically even if you focus on "being anti tech"...

 

I liken it to any and all discourse. For example: A person that loves Computers and the technical aspects of them is going to run Linux or other advanced platform and be well versed in it. The discourse they are going to share between their peers is technical. It will not be enjoyable to the common man. Now, some nerds can't or won't back down from that level of discourse to talk down to the common man. Some will, and are valued and awarded appropriately. Some of their weeny friends will despise those that can bridge the gaps. Some common people will only appreciate one aspect of them.

 

Then you have a computer professional. This person uses a computer and knows how to use it to get what they want. Typically they have a couple of tricks and know how to administer some aspects of a platform to suit their needs, That's it. Those people hate super weenies, especially those that can bridge the gaps. Although they try to position themselves as super weenies.

 

Then you have a user, they just want to get their friggin e-mail. They don't care about any of the technical stuff that goes into it... They may or may not even appreciate it.

 

I really don't know if you get the analogy, but I think it's accurate.

[Billster]

just playing LOTS of notes VERY FASTALL the timeit all comes off too mechanical, IMOand is more about showing off technique rather than playing something unique for a particular song.

 

I had a little correspondence with shred guy who was looking for some critique of his previous recordings before he started a new one. The guy had really incredible technique, but was kind of missing accents in his playing. I suggested that he map out some slower paced melodies within the kind of super fast lines he was playing, and accent those notes to create more definition and shape to the stuff. Some folks like to be able to hum along.

[Billster]

What Al is saying is that guys who don't put in the technical training are limiting themselves. I'll agree with that, but displaying technique as an end in itself is ridiculous.

 

OK - If you have technique, the only way to not display it is to "play left handed" or something... If you have it, you will display it. If you have enough of it, it will be the focus of your playing. It may not be your focus as the player, but that's how others will perceive your playing. If you enjoy technical music, you will probably play technical music and play it technically even if you focus on "being anti tech"...

 

I liken it to any and all discourse. For example: A person that loves Computers and the technical aspects of them is going to run Linux or other advanced platform and be well versed in it. The discourse they are going to share between their peers is technical. It will not be enjoyable to the common man. Now, some nerds can't or won't back down from that level of discourse to talk down to the common man. Some will, and are valued and awarded appropriately. Some of their weeny friends will despise those that can bridge the gaps. Some common people will only appreciate one aspect of them.

 

Then you have a computer professional. This person uses a computer and knows how to use it to get what they want. Typically they have a couple of tricks and know how to administer some aspects of a platform to suit their needs, That's it. Those people hate super weenies, especially those that can bridge the gaps. Although they try to position themselves as super weenies.

 

Then you have a user, they just want to get their friggin e-mail. They don't care about any of the technical stuff that goes into it... They may or may not even appreciate it.

 

I really don't know if you get the analogy, but I think it's accurate.

 

Maybe I don't get it, but I don't really agree with what I think you're getting at.

 

If you have it, you will display it. If you have enough of it, it will be the focus of your playing. It may not be your focus as the player, but that's how others will perceive your playing.

 

Disagree. You can consciously choose to display technique, or try to present your music in such a way that technique is not the focal point. Outside of guitar shops, listeners aren't really sitting around saying "wow, what technique!"

 

 

 

[GuitarPlayerFL]

You can consciously choose to display technique, or try to present your music in such a way that technique is not the focal point. Outside of guitar shops, listeners aren't really sitting around saying "wow, what technique!"

 

I'm sure there are a lot of Classical and Jazz music listeners who can't play an instrument who are dazzled by and enjoy great technique.

 

Before I could play guitar, I was into Prog Rock and that was a major attraction to the music for me. I also remember playing Deep Purple's Machine Head for the first time and commenting on how jaw dropping the playing ability was.

 

Who cares what the average listener thinks? That's why they're average. Anybody who wants to appeal to the average Joe should be focusing on playing to the lowest common denominator. I know if I wanted to try and make a lot of money in music, I'd be doing rap or trying to write hits for somebody like Christina Aguilera.

[Terrell]

What Al is saying is that guys who don't put in the technical training are limiting themselves. I'll agree with that, but displaying technique as an end in itself is ridiculous.

 

OK - If you have technique, the only way to not display it is to "play left handed" or something... If you have it, you will display it. If you have enough of it, it will be the focus of your playing. It may not be your focus as the player, but that's how others will perceive your playing. If you enjoy technical music, you will probably play technical music and play it technically even if you focus on "being anti tech"...

 

I liken it to any and all discourse. For example: A person that loves Computers and the technical aspects of them is going to run Linux or other advanced platform and be well versed in it. The discourse they are going to share between their peers is technical. It will not be enjoyable to the common man. Now, some nerds can't or won't back down from that level of discourse to talk down to the common man. Some will, and are valued and awarded appropriately. Some of their weeny friends will despise those that can bridge the gaps. Some common people will only appreciate one aspect of them.

 

Then you have a computer professional. This person uses a computer and knows how to use it to get what they want. Typically they have a couple of tricks and know how to administer some aspects of a platform to suit their needs, That's it. Those people hate super weenies, especially those that can bridge the gaps. Although they try to position themselves as super weenies.

 

Then you have a user, they just want to get their friggin e-mail. They don't care about any of the technical stuff that goes into it... They may or may not even appreciate it.

 

I really don't know if you get the analogy, but I think it's accurate.

 

Maybe I don't get it, but I don't really agree with what I think you're getting at.

 

If you have it, you will display it. If you have enough of it, it will be the focus of your playing. It may not be your focus as the player, but that's how others will perceive your playing.

 

Disagree. You can consciously choose to display technique, or try to present your music in such a way that technique is not the focal point. Outside of guitar shops, listeners aren't really sitting around saying "wow, what technique!"

 

 

 

USERS - That is what I'm saying... Outside of guitar shops, they don't care and couldn't possibly understand technique. Most are ignorant to it, and like it that way... They wanna have a beer to it.

 

PROS - There are those in the guitar shop or out front smoking that understand it and frown upon it, cause they don't have it, don't need it as a means for their ends, and those that do have it make them look less professional... Personally, I hate these haters! They're typically your one note evangelists!

 

Sure, you can choose to TRY and play without technique... You can choose to TRY to play direct into the board running your guitar through a light bulb as an effect... Who that has technique would choose to play without it and if they do, would it sound as if they "chose to"?

 

[Billster]

You can consciously choose to display technique, or try to present your music in such a way that technique is not the focal point. Outside of guitar shops, listeners aren't really sitting around saying "wow, what technique!"

 

I'm sure there are a lot of Classical and Jazz music listeners who can't play an instrument who are dazzled by and enjoy great technique.

 

Before I could play guitar, I was into Prog Rock and that was a major attraction to the music for me. I also remember playing Deep Purple's Machine Head for the first time and commenting on how jaw dropping the playing ability was.

 

Who cares what the average listener thinks? That's why they're average. Anybody who wants to appeal to the average Joe should be focusing on playing to the lowest common denominator. I know if I wanted to try and make a lot of money in music, I'd be doing rap or trying to write hits for somebody like Christina Aguilera.

What Al is saying is that guys who don't put in the technical training are limiting themselves. I'll agree with that, but displaying technique as an end in itself is ridiculous.

 

OK - If you have technique, the only way to not display it is to "play left handed" or something... If you have it, you will display it. If you have enough of it, it will be the focus of your playing. It may not be your focus as the player, but that's how others will perceive your playing. If you enjoy technical music, you will probably play technical music and play it technically even if you focus on "being anti tech"...

 

I liken it to any and all discourse. For example: A person that loves Computers and the technical aspects of them is going to run Linux or other advanced platform and be well versed in it. The discourse they are going to share between their peers is technical. It will not be enjoyable to the common man. Now, some nerds can't or won't back down from that level of discourse to talk down to the common man. Some will, and are valued and awarded appropriately. Some of their weeny friends will despise those that can bridge the gaps. Some common people will only appreciate one aspect of them.

 

Then you have a computer professional. This person uses a computer and knows how to use it to get what they want. Typically they have a couple of tricks and know how to administer some aspects of a platform to suit their needs, That's it. Those people hate super weenies, especially those that can bridge the gaps. Although they try to position themselves as super weenies.

 

Then you have a user, they just want to get their friggin e-mail. They don't care about any of the technical stuff that goes into it... They may or may not even appreciate it.

 

I really don't know if you get the analogy, but I think it's accurate.

 

Maybe I don't get it, but I don't really agree with what I think you're getting at.

 

If you have it, you will display it. If you have enough of it, it will be the focus of your playing. It may not be your focus as the player, but that's how others will perceive your playing.

 

Disagree. You can consciously choose to display technique, or try to present your music in such a way that technique is not the focal point. Outside of guitar shops, listeners aren't really sitting around saying "wow, what technique!"

 

 

 

USERS - That is what I'm saying... Outside of guitar shops, they don't care and couldn't possibly understand technique. Most are ignorant to it, and like it that way... They wanna have a beer to it.

 

PROS - There are those in the guitar shop or out front smoking that understand it and frown upon it, cause they don't have it, don't need it as a means for their ends, and those that do have it make them look less professional... Personally, I hate these haters! They're typically your one note evangelists!

 

Sure, you can choose to TRY and play without technique... You can choose to TRY to play direct into the board running your guitar through a light bulb as an effect... Who that has technique would choose to play without it and if they do, would it sound as if they "chose to"?

Both of those responses twist what I'm saying.

 

Superior technique transcends the listener saying "wow - technical" or "wow - moody" Superior technique does not call attention to itself.

 

Turn for a moment to Emmylou Harris' "Hot Band" of the 1970s with James Burton and Albert Lee, plus stellar musicians on the other instruments. Those guys could play rings around the page, but when you listen, you hear music. You aren't sitting there marveling at how fast something is, or how many bent notes were perfectly in tune.

[Terrell]

You can consciously choose to display technique, or try to present your music in such a way that technique is not the focal point. Outside of guitar shops, listeners aren't really sitting around saying "wow, what technique!"

 

I'm sure there are a lot of Classical and Jazz music listeners who can't play an instrument who are dazzled by and enjoy great technique.

 

Before I could play guitar, I was into Prog Rock and that was a major attraction to the music for me. I also remember playing Deep Purple's Machine Head for the first time and commenting on how jaw dropping the playing ability was.

 

Who cares what the average listener thinks? That's why they're average. Anybody who wants to appeal to the average Joe should be focusing on playing to the lowest common denominator. I know if I wanted to try and make a lot of money in music, I'd be doing rap or trying to write hits for somebody like Christina Aguilera.

 

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

EMO BAND SEEKS ONE NOTE PRO. Must have up to date look, practice facility and no balls...

[Terrell]

You can consciously choose to display technique, or try to present your music in such a way that technique is not the focal point. Outside of guitar shops, listeners aren't really sitting around saying "wow, what technique!"

 

I'm sure there are a lot of Classical and Jazz music listeners who can't play an instrument who are dazzled by and enjoy great technique.

 

Before I could play guitar, I was into Prog Rock and that was a major attraction to the music for me. I also remember playing Deep Purple's Machine Head for the first time and commenting on how jaw dropping the playing ability was.

 

Who cares what the average listener thinks? That's why they're average. Anybody who wants to appeal to the average Joe should be focusing on playing to the lowest common denominator. I know if I wanted to try and make a lot of money in music, I'd be doing rap or trying to write hits for somebody like Christina Aguilera.

What Al is saying is that guys who don't put in the technical training are limiting themselves. I'll agree with that, but displaying technique as an end in itself is ridiculous.

 

OK - If you have technique, the only way to not display it is to "play left handed" or something... If you have it, you will display it. If you have enough of it, it will be the focus of your playing. It may not be your focus as the player, but that's how others will perceive your playing. If you enjoy technical music, you will probably play technical music and play it technically even if you focus on "being anti tech"...

 

I liken it to any and all discourse. For example: A person that loves Computers and the technical aspects of them is going to run Linux or other advanced platform and be well versed in it. The discourse they are going to share between their peers is technical. It will not be enjoyable to the common man. Now, some nerds can't or won't back down from that level of discourse to talk down to the common man. Some will, and are valued and awarded appropriately. Some of their weeny friends will despise those that can bridge the gaps. Some common people will only appreciate one aspect of them.

 

Then you have a computer professional. This person uses a computer and knows how to use it to get what they want. Typically they have a couple of tricks and know how to administer some aspects of a platform to suit their needs, That's it. Those people hate super weenies, especially those that can bridge the gaps. Although they try to position themselves as super weenies.

 

Then you have a user, they just want to get their friggin e-mail. They don't care about any of the technical stuff that goes into it... They may or may not even appreciate it.

 

I really don't know if you get the analogy, but I think it's accurate.

 

Maybe I don't get it, but I don't really agree with what I think you're getting at.

 

If you have it, you will display it. If you have enough of it, it will be the focus of your playing. It may not be your focus as the player, but that's how others will perceive your playing.

 

Disagree. You can consciously choose to display technique, or try to present your music in such a way that technique is not the focal point. Outside of guitar shops, listeners aren't really sitting around saying "wow, what technique!"

 

 

 

USERS - That is what I'm saying... Outside of guitar shops, they don't care and couldn't possibly understand technique. Most are ignorant to it, and like it that way... They wanna have a beer to it.

 

PROS - There are those in the guitar shop or out front smoking that understand it and frown upon it, cause they don't have it, don't need it as a means for their ends, and those that do have it make them look less professional... Personally, I hate these haters! They're typically your one note evangelists!

 

Sure, you can choose to TRY and play without technique... You can choose to TRY to play direct into the board running your guitar through a light bulb as an effect... Who that has technique would choose to play without it and if they do, would it sound as if they "chose to"?

Both of those responses twist what I'm saying.

 

Superior technique transcends the listener saying "wow - technical" or "wow - moody" Superior technique does not call attention to itself.

 

Turn for a moment to Emmylou Harris' "Hot Band" of the 1970s with James Burton and Albert Lee, plus stellar musicians on the other instruments. Those guys could play rings around the page, but when you listen, you hear music. You aren't sitting there marveling at how fast something is, or how many bent notes were perfectly in tune.

 

semantics.... We're having an argument over the vernacular. Cause those guys are lovers that could cross down into the common. They're beyond pro, but understand common. They are the exceptional people I was talking about... I think we agree except for what "display technique" actually means. I think I would have said, "show off" or something to mean what your saying the Al was "implying" with "display"...

[Griffinator]

Who cares what the average listener thinks? That's why they're average. Anybody who wants to appeal to the average Joe should be focusing on playing to the lowest common denominator. I know if I wanted to try and make a lot of money in music, I'd be doing rap or trying to write hits for somebody like Christina Aguilera.

 

FTW.

 

/end thread.

[Justus A. Picker]

just playing LOTS of notes VERY FASTALL the timeit all comes off too mechanical, IMOand is more about showing off technique rather than playing something unique for a particular song.

 

I had a little correspondence with shred guy who was looking for some critique of his previous recordings before he started a new one. The guy had really incredible technique, but was kind of missing accents in his playing. I suggested that he map out some slower paced melodies within the kind of super fast lines he was playing, and accent those notes to create more definition and shape to the stuff. Some folks like to be able to hum along.

 

If he was "kind of missing accents in his playing" he didn't have incredible technique, he was able to play notes really fast. Two different things. Being able to play fast is just one aspect of a complete technique.

[miroslav]

 

Who cares what the average listener thinks? That's why they're average. Anybody who wants to appeal to the average Joe should be focusing on playing to the lowest common denominator.

 

But isn't that what happens every Fri and Sat night in most bars/clubs...?

[Gifthorse]

Yeah I would agree technique is alot about HOW you play stuff. Thats what I try to explain to younger players who sit around and rip on Eddie Van Halen, and talk about how much 'better' John Petrucci is. That is a silly argument. See, I am well aware that alot of Eddie Van Halen stuff is outdated from a shred perspective, but alot of these kids fail to realize how much energy he uses to produce his sound.

 

I mean to play an Eddie rythm or solo is one thing, but to make it sound like him isn't as easy as one might think. Because he is playing it EXACTLY how he wants to, and he is infusing it with tons of control and energy, and of course IMPECCABLE timing.

 

He isn't playing Yngwie licks, but in some ways Van Halen stuff is more difficult because is more unpredictable and the perfection is a constant in his rythm playing.

 

Yngwie has great technique for Yngwie, and he is the first REAL rock shredgod no doubt, but alot of the stuff he does is easy to figure out because it is so pattern based. Of course to play it up to speed with the grace of Yngwie requires tons of practice.

 

By the way, my buddy was at the NAMM show in 2007 and Yngwie supposedly was in bathroom stall 'getting grumpy' while my buddy was taking a leak. Yngwie's drummer came in and said to everyone, "Please leave the bathroom, the Master must prepare to blow people's minds." This is true.

 

One of the best lines I have ever heard actually..

[Billster]

Who cares what the average listener thinks? That's why they're average. Anybody who wants to appeal to the average Joe should be focusing on playing to the lowest common denominator.

 

That's a big load of nonsense. There is no such thing as an average person. An average is a calculation of multiple individual items. Each individual person may or may not relate to your music. The more people that relate to your music, the better. What matters is that your music be honest to yourself, and not some calculated manuever to cater to a non-existent "average person" - or to a non-existent "average shred fan"

 

just playing LOTS of notes VERY FASTALL the timeit all comes off too mechanical, IMOand is more about showing off technique rather than playing something unique for a particular song.

 

I had a little correspondence with shred guy who was looking for some critique of his previous recordings before he started a new one. The guy had really incredible technique, but was kind of missing accents in his playing. I suggested that he map out some slower paced melodies within the kind of super fast lines he was playing, and accent those notes to create more definition and shape to the stuff. Some folks like to be able to hum along.

 

If he was "kind of missing accents in his playing" he didn't have incredible technique, he was able to play notes really fast. Two different things. Being able to play fast is just one aspect of a complete technique.

 

You're right, you caught me in just the point of this topic. What I should have said was that he had incredible technical ability to play fast, but hadn't learned the technique of using accents that would add a more expressive element to his playing.

[GuitarPlayerFL]

By the way, my buddy was at the NAMM show in 2007 and Yngwie supposedly was in bathroom stall 'getting grumpy' while my buddy was taking a leak. Yngwie's drummer came in and said to everyone, "Please leave the bathroom, the Master must prepare to blow people's minds." This is true.

 

One of the best lines I have ever heard actually..

 

So we're supposed to call him Schwing-vie now?

[miroslav]

Yngwie's drummer came in and said to everyone, "Please leave the bathroom, the Master must prepare to blow people's minds."

 

One can only imagine what type of "preparation" can happen in the men's room!

[Griffinator]

Yngwie's drummer came in and said to everyone, "Please leave the bathroom, the Master must prepare to blow people's minds."

 

One can only imagine what type of "preparation" can happen in the men's room!

 

He's a contortionist. Other things had to be blown...

[Phillydor]

The comments made by Mr De Meola and Mr Neal caught my attention as well.

Damn - I've gotten away with that ol' one note excuse for a long time...now I feel like I've been caught out, so I'll have to change my tack in future. Here's one I like from a book of Taoist sayings - "All things in moderation...including moderation".

Put both comments in context though - they're not necessarily opposing views.I thought Al's comment was a little needless though and brought the tone down a little in what was an otherwise great GP interview.

Many thanks to GP for the Kenny Neal article - hadn't realised what a tough time the guy's been going through. Having been through some difficulties myself after an injury 3 years ago, I felt for the guy, and as well as that I found a very inspiring song with a positive message on his website.

I have to admit to not being a regular buyer of GP these days, but if the August issue with De Meola on the cover is any indication of things to come (took me back to GP's 'Golden Age!) I'll be first in line at the newstand evrey month from now on - promise!

 

 

 

 

[Billster]

By the way, my buddy was at the NAMM show in 2007 and Yngwie supposedly was in bathroom stall 'getting grumpy' while my buddy was taking a leak. Yngwie's drummer came in and said to everyone, "Please leave the bathroom, the Master must prepare to blow people's minds." This is true.

 

One of the best lines I have ever heard actually..

 

The Swede's been hitting the Indian restaurants

[picker]

The problem with focusing on technique as a means to play fast is that it tends to make you always play fast. People play what they know, and if working on playing fast, complex lines is what you do, playing fast, complex lines is what you know.

 

I'd really like to hear DiMeola play a convincing mid-tempo blues, or a stripped down rock and roll number ala Chuck Berry. If he really wants to display the superiority of his technique, he needs to show that he can do ANYTHING as well as his usual schtick.

 

I don't know if DiMeola can do that of not, but the maxim is that jazz guys have a much harder time decomplicating their style enough to play convincing rock & blues than rock & blues guys do playing convincing jazz...