Be a musician

[lordgrudge]

After being on this forum for a couple of years now, and reading about how others strive for perfect technique, I have wondered about a simple question.

Why are so many guitarists falling to see the truth?

A lot of people neglect their musical side and focus on their technical side. I think this is sad because a lot of players are lacking something in their playing. I don't know a name for it. But it's really important.

I've already written about a couple of these things in other posts so I'm going to copy and paste. Here are some things that musicians get confused about

Complication
Voices
Beauty

Complication

I have heard so many musicians who want their music to be more fuller and complicated. Most of then don't even know what complication is. Here is my run down on this topic

As a musician, you don't want something more complicated you want it to be more complex. There is a difference. Complex is a whole set of simple ideas which work together. That's complexity. Complication is just messy.

An example would be to look at any fugue study by JS Bach. He would have an initial theme (idea) and build upon it using many different voices. His music was complex because you can have two individuals playing a solo version of this and they would emphasise on different voices.

Even where music would appear to be chaotic, there is still a lot of complexity in it. It all manages to join at certain places together. Yet in between, each voice is off on its own direction.

I think most musicians forget that they actually don't want complication in the music the want complexity.

Complexity creates a fuller sound, and enables the audience to be dragged away by multiple things rather than just by one thing. However it is important to keep it simple enough that you can recognise voices.


Voices

The first question one might ask themselves is “What is a voice?”. The answer to that is, an individual idea or line of music that follows a common direction with other voices.

Ok, you know what a voice is but how is this relevant to your own playing and listening?

This is the most important and yet most neglected musical topic in the guitarist world. Each voice should be either heard as a solo voice or working in with another voice. If you hear a classical piece of music where there are many voices you will notice that different voices create different amounts of tension and use different dynamics. The use of different dynamics helps to build on complexity. Guitarists tend to neglect the small simple voice. They prefer to play a harder more technically challenging part. However, this can be bad for their general musicianship. Playing a simple piece well while bringing out each voice with its own characteristic is far far harder than playing something technically challenging. Basically what I am trying to say is that while you are training your technical abilities you are often forgetting the basics of learning simple small voices.

Beauty

Beauty is a very subjective term. While some call Petrucci's playing beautiful, others call it boring. The same goes for almost all musicians. The most important thing to realise is that beauty comes from simplicity. You may argue that complexity is beautiful, and I agree with it. Just remember though that complexity is just many simple ideas moved together. Every single simple idea however isn't beautiful until you take it to its own full potential by using creative and musically intelligent voicings.


In summary, I would like to say that you shouldn't underestimate something because its simple. Because I can guarantee that almost all great songs were build from simple ideas.

[trickymanssx]

Wonderful article, I learned a lot from reading it. I often try to make things more technical when a simple idea would work better. I aspire to one day be a great musician and have badass chops. But this article really opened my eyes more than I thought a few paragraphs could, Good job!

[lordgrudge]

thanks trickymanssx.

I have always had an opinion that the greatest answers and songs are the simple ones

[GnRockGod79]

Great article dude! I whole-heartedly agree. Maybe where some people say they want "confusion" and such, they actually mean "complexity." But the JS Bach example is perfect. He's a hero of mine for having so many things going on, but theyre all relevant, and sometimes even the same things but are going on at different times, IE the Inventions:cool:
When it comes to voice, I think a great example of that would be Satch. He's never bored me, ever. His music is always perfectly melodic, and is always logical, though it can be also be chaotic and crazy. It always comes out good. And you can just hear HIM through his guitar.
Ive been told that I have voice not only in music, but in writing. Voice in writing is when you can really hear the author actually saying those words. Voice in music is the exact same thing. Its hard to acheive if it isnt natural, and most people strive too hard to get it if they dont have it already.
Beauty. Its the perfect opposite or the exact thing as complexity. Beauty can be simple, or can be complex. Beauty can be voice. But still, beauty is just the music when everything comes together.
Awesome article dude. Id love to hear more!
smitty:mad2:

[lordgrudge]

Great article dude! I whole-heartedly agree. Maybe where some people say they want "confusion" and such, they actually mean "complexity." But the JS Bach example is perfect. He's a hero of mine for having so many things going on, but theyre all relevant, and sometimes even the same things but are going on at different times, IE the Inventions:cool:
When it comes to voice, I think a great example of that would be Satch. He's never bored me, ever. His music is always perfectly melodic, and is always logical, though it can be also be chaotic and crazy. It always comes out good. And you can just hear HIM through his guitar.
Ive been told that I have voice not only in music, but in writing. Voice in writing is when you can really hear the author actually saying those words. Voice in music is the exact same thing. Its hard to acheive if it isnt natural, and most people strive too hard to get it if they dont have it already.
Beauty. Its the perfect opposite or the exact thing as complexity. Beauty can be simple, or can be complex. Beauty can be voice. But still, beauty is just the music when everything comes together.
Awesome article dude. Id love to hear more!
smitty:mad2:

I think that being able to hear voices isnt something that is hard to do. It is all about practice. Playing with other musicians will also help you. Take any decent classical piece and separate it into multiple guitars so that each plays a different line, and you can start to see how things work.

I think that satch voices well, until he goes off into wank mode. But it's good that you can use voices well in writing, that is a rare gift.

and thanks for the comments

[lespaul_rentals]

Excellent article. I didn't neccesary "learn" anything but you stated that very well. I wholeheartedly agree that it's not 300 bpm, or 50006828 note solos, but rather well composed, simple, well voiced, ideas. Great job.

[Beginner]

Excellent article. I didn't neccesary "learn" anything but you stated that very well. I wholeheartedly agree that it's not 300 bpm, or 50006828 note solos, but rather well composed, simple, well voiced, ideas. Great job.

Oh yeah, I agree. Good article & open up my eyes towards guitar. It's all about building a strong foundation in your basic before going to the difficult ones. Happy to know musicians that constantly remind each other about true 'guitarship'. :rolleyes:

[satch]

Wonderful jewel of wisdom!
Too many of us want to "show off"
Music isnt about trying to outgun yngwie vai or angelo.
When i see youtube link post about look at these sweeps or
look at this soloing ..im like ok Ive just been shamed on technique
but will anybody remember this
many months down the road.Probably not.

[GnRockGod79]

To me, the subject of technique was best said by (who else:rolleyes: ) Yngwie, though he doesnt really follow his own rules.
He said that the reason to practice chops is to be able to play better at slower, more "normal" speeds, and that when the time comes, you can play anything.
Thats what I do. Technique is absolutely necessary...its what playing is. No technique=no playing.
My songs on myspace were written in a day each, and I found that melodic songs with fast parts on top work very naturally for me. Like the verse and chorus are melodic (though they may actually be difficult to play, for example, the song "Redline" has a string skipping/pedal tone lick, 16th notes at 120bpm. Check it out at myspace.com/xandersmeeth!:cool: ) and there are fun, short fast parts to build energy and make people go :eek: Thats always fun.
Also, the way I see it, music doesnt have to be totally honest, like with the 90s grunge idea of "no showing off." Youre aloud to show off. When youre onstage, youre exactly that: on stage, center stage, all attention is on you, and all those people are there to see you (or whoever else is onstage). Saying that you cant show off is stupid. People want to see you show off. I think even the most die hard grunge kid would atleast admit that a crazy fast lick by Petrucci is awesome. The fact is, playing fast is fun, but you cant do it all the time. No one wants to hear it all the time. Thats why youve got to be a well-rounded player; pure technique is but one of many aspects, and all aspects of making music are equally important.;)
Example: In my eyes, (just to keep things simple, lets stay in the monoaspect of technique) if you can sweep, and cant play purely picked lines a la lets say steve morse, youve got work to do. Branching out from technique, if you can bend a note 100% accurately but cant vibrato worth crap, youve got work to do. And of course, bends and vibratos both change from song to song. One song may call for a fast, narrow vibrato, and the next may call for a slow, wide vibrato. Youve got to completely disect each aspect of music and become an expert on the subject. You develop your personal style and voice through those studies. Thats how you become an independant, unique musician, rather than just another guitarist.
Oh, and another aspect of playing is reading music. If you can read tabs, but not notation, youve got work to do.:p
smitty:mad2:

[Jed]

Technique is absolutely necessary...its what playing is. No technique=no playing.

Please forgive my taking the post out of context but it's a common sentiment amoung guitarists.

For me the issue is musicality, if there is no musicality then there is no music. I concentrate on musicality rather than technique in my practice. If I find my technique is lacking for a certain piece or style, I'll work on technique until I'm no longer limited by technique. But in all cases it's the music, the melodies, the harmonies that take center stage.

I agree whole-heartedly with LordGrudge. Guitar-technique wizards are a dime-a-dozen. Musicians are a bit harder to find. Some of the most beautiful music I've heard is very simple. Even things like jazz standards strive for simplicity in a complex genre.

Modern guitar culture has forgotten it's reason d'etre.

[Scruffles]

Please forgive my taking the post out of context but it's a common sentiment amoung guitarists.

For me the issue is musicality, if there is no musicality then there is no music. I concentrate on musicality rather than technique in my practice. If I find my technique is lacking for a certain piece or style, I'll work on technique until I'm no longer limited by technique. But in all cases it's the music, the melodies, the harmonies that take center stage.

I agree whole-heartedly with LordGrudge. Guitar-technique wizards are a dime-a-dozen. Musicians are a bit harder to find. Some of the most beautiful music I've heard is very simple. Even things like jazz standards strive for simplicity in a complex genre.

Modern guitar culture has forgotten it's reason d'etre.

No it hasn't (http://www.guitar9.com/raisondetre.html).

Anyway, if you want to get really technical, music is made of notes. Therefore, more notes, more music. Simple.

\m/ :mad2:

Seriously, though, I'm tired of people talking about technique as if it's a terrible thing to have, like AIDS. There are plenty of musicians with incredible technique that kick ass, but many of the anti-shredders (mortal enemies of the Shredi) focus on the idiotic ones. Trust me, guitar technique wizards (just call us Shredi) aren't a dime-a-dozen. They're rare. There are plenty of people that play sloppy crap that lacks musicality, but damn it, don't lump them in with shredders. Paul Gilbert is a shredder. Synyster Gates is just a *******. Just take a look at Shawn Lane. The guy has better technique than, erm, anybody, but it would be the rare person that can't find musicality in his work. Trust me, the percentage of fast guitarists that are musical is much higher than in slow guitarists. It makes sense.

And as always, speed = emotion.

[GnRockGod79]

Well, speed=a different kind of emotion delivered than when playing slow. Speed is just something you need to have if you want to make it in the musical world. Maybe not scary fast, but if you cant play a pretty fast line, say 16th notes at 132bpm, then youll be missing out on alot of jobs. Just listen to TV car shows or sports center! Those are just studio guys playing the stuff they worked on in their room as teenagers, and their making money.
But yeah, Shawn Lane is a perfect example. His technique was just beyond scary, but his music brings tears to my eyes. I beleive it was Satch who said that its better to have something and not always need it than need something and not have it. Some when it comes to musicallity, if youre a musician, emotion should be natural. I dont see why people worry about it so much. If you dont put emotion into your music, you shouldnt be playing in the first place. But of course, emotion doesnt necessarily mean making funny faces like Vai:D
smitty:mad2:

[awesomeguitaris]

If you dont put emotion into your music, you shouldnt be playing in the first place.

In my opinion, "putting emotion" into your music is a bit of a subjective statement. To put things at a very basic level, what a musician does is create sound waves, which are then perceived by the listeners, who all perceive the sound waves in an individual way. One may decide that the sound waves express the musician's emotions very well, while another may perceive the sound waves as expressionless. Neither is wrong. The point that I am trying to make is that there is no difference between "music with emotion" and "music without emotion", it just depends how the listener interprets the music.

[Beginner]

To me, the subject of technique was best said by (who else:rolleyes: ) Yngwie, though he doesnt really follow his own rules.
He said that the reason to practice chops is to be able to play better at slower, more "normal" speeds, and that when the time comes, you can play anything.
Thats what I do. Technique is absolutely necessary...its what playing is. No technique=no playing.
My songs on myspace were written in a day each, and I found that melodic songs with fast parts on top work very naturally for me. Like the verse and chorus are melodic (though they may actually be difficult to play, for example, the song "Redline" has a string skipping/pedal tone lick, 16th notes at 120bpm. Check it out at myspace.com/xandersmeeth!:cool: ) and there are fun, short fast parts to build energy and make people go :eek: Thats always fun.
Also, the way I see it, music doesnt have to be totally honest, like with the 90s grunge idea of "no showing off." Youre aloud to show off. When youre onstage, youre exactly that: on stage, center stage, all attention is on you, and all those people are there to see you (or whoever else is onstage). Saying that you cant show off is stupid. People want to see you show off. I think even the most die hard grunge kid would atleast admit that a crazy fast lick by Petrucci is awesome. The fact is, playing fast is fun, but you cant do it all the time. No one wants to hear it all the time. Thats why youve got to be a well-rounded player; pure technique is but one of many aspects, and all aspects of making music are equally important.;)
Example: In my eyes, (just to keep things simple, lets stay in the monoaspect of technique) if you can sweep, and cant play purely picked lines a la lets say steve morse, youve got work to do. Branching out from technique, if you can bend a note 100% accurately but cant vibrato worth crap, youve got work to do. And of course, bends and vibratos both change from song to song. One song may call for a fast, narrow vibrato, and the next may call for a slow, wide vibrato. Youve got to completely disect each aspect of music and become an expert on the subject. You develop your personal style and voice through those studies. Thats how you become an independant, unique musician, rather than just another guitarist.
Oh, and another aspect of playing is reading music. If you can read tabs, but not notation, youve got work to do.:p smitty:mad2:

Yeah, I really have no idea in reading notes then. Need to attend classes for that yeah. But I still need to brush up on my playing first~

[marb]

Just listen to TV car shows or sports center! Those are just studio guys playing the stuff they worked on in their room as teenagers, and their making money.

So the reason someone should learn to shred is so they can play generic rock music in the background of a car commerical and make money!!?

I think you missed the point of the thread: being a musician. [Note: I'm not anti-technique, I'm anti-generic-rock-music-in-the background of a car commercial.]

[GnRockGod79]

So the reason someone should learn to shred is so they can play generic rock music in the background of a car commerical and make money!!?

I think you missed the point of the thread: being a musician. [Note: I'm not anti-technique, I'm anti-generic-rock-music-in-the background of a car commercial.]
Oh, no! Thats just something Ive always been interested in and I think that it would be a fun job. I said that to show that shredding does have a place, even in the studio world.
smitty:mad2:

[mikefly]

I have heard this debate many times and in one case the statment was "BB can get just as much out of one bent note as Vai can get out of 20" And i am both a BB and a Vai fan so i got to thinkin and i started listening to a bunch of songs by both artist and both took me to differnt places with diffent feelings but both made me just as happy so my awnser was "So".
If we all played the same way then we would all have the same sound and that would make for a very dull world. I personaly strive to play what makes me happy at the time if it calls for 20 notes then i play 20 notes but if all it needs is that perfect bend wellyou get my point

[lordgrudge]

I have heard this debate many times and in one case the statment was "BB can get just as much out of one bent note as Vai can get out of 20" And i am both a BB and a Vai fan so i got to thinkin and i started listening to a bunch of songs by both artist and both took me to differnt places with diffent feelings but both made me just as happy so my awnser was "So".
If we all played the same way then we would all have the same sound and that would make for a very dull world. I personaly strive to play what makes me happy at the time if it calls for 20 notes then i play 20 notes but if all it needs is that perfect bend wellyou get my point

Well with the BB and Vai thing, people miss the point there aswell. BB uses silence and space to make his music sound beautiful and whole. Vai uses alot of melodic phrases that blends it all together. They are two completely different styles. The whole arguement people have is whether its better to play slow with alot of emotion or fast with less emotion. Why do you have to sacrifice emotion to play fast. You can utilise both fast and slow speeds to create beautiful music.

BB King is loved by alot of people because he is predictible. Predictibility in melody is a good thing at times, because it gives the listener a bit of insurance.

Vai is out there and is less predictible to the casual observer. But to someone who likes Vai, it's his unpredictibility that makes him predictible and you get insurance from that.

Slow vs Fast doesn't exist. It's Space vs Notes, so how well you utilise the space you are given with melodies and silence. Sometimes one note does the job, sometimes a quick phrase does it, and othertimes the most powerful thing you can often use is nothing.

[GnRockGod79]

Well said, Lordgrudge.
smitty:mad2:

[Mac Sabbath]

Nice post.

Technique is definitely important, but too many players focus on it to the point of sounding mechanical.

[GuitarMonky55]

my gripe with this whole topic is that so many guitarists take it to the opposite extreme so they still suck: they say that less is always more and that technique and musicality are mutually exclusive terms. theres a fine line between good music and crap, and technique doesnt really have anything to do with it. if you play it fast and its good, its good. if you play it slow and its good, its just as good. as long as its good. if you ever find yourself thinking "this needs more notes" or "this needs less notes" or something regarding technique that you want to change in that frame of mind, then the music probably sucks anyway and thats why you are questioning it. but to say that something is musically superior because its good and slow, or because its good and fast, or good and clean, or good and sloppy, is illiterate.

[Millertime]

Guitarmonky pretty much said it, and its funny to see that guitar is the ONLY instrument where people even consider this a debate. Technique is crucial to good musicianship. So is taste. You would NEVER see a violinist criticized for using "too much" technique. Good music is good music, the number of notes has absolutely nothing to do with it.

[lordgrudge]

my gripe with this whole topic is that so many guitarists take it to the opposite extreme so they still suck: they say that less is always more and that technique and musicality are mutually exclusive terms. theres a fine line between good music and crap, and technique doesnt really have anything to do with it. if you play it fast and its good, its good. if you play it slow and its good, its just as good. as long as its good. if you ever find yourself thinking "this needs more notes" or "this needs less notes" or something regarding technique that you want to change in that frame of mind, then the music probably sucks anyway and thats why you are questioning it. but to say that something is musically superior because its good and slow, or because its good and fast, or good and clean, or good and sloppy, is illiterate.

My argument was not that you should neglect technique and focus on other areas. My argument was that you should not neglect the other areas. There is no point being able to play with the best technique when you can't actually PLAY anything.

It's just my opinion, that guitarists, are overemphasizing on technique. You need to have good technique, and you should always try to continue to develop it. I see all these people who can play 'fast chops' etc, or people like BB King who has a great 'vibrato technique', and yet because they haven't focused on other areas, sound like crap because they are boring. BB King, has a good vibrato technique and he has some good melodies to back it up. It's a combination of technique and the other stuff.

The whole more vs less notes is stupid. It's all about the silence in between the lines of notes. It's the silence that gives the notes their power. What Mac Sabbath said, was actually important. You took it as being a 'less is more' argument. He didn't say that, he said that because of too much focus on technique, and neglect of other areas, makes people sound mechanical because it displays no brains or any ability. It can impress the brain but not the balls. However, if he knew how to write and play with melodies effectively, he can play at what ever speed he wants, and it can sound good if he's utilized the space properly.

YJM, is a great example of a guy who people would say is boring because he is all flash and no class. You listen to some of the melodies he plays in slow-mo. They are actually really well composed and pretty beautiful. YJM's only problem, is that even though he has intricate melodies. He didn't give any room to breathe, so the melodies lose all their strength and power.

Millertime: I'd disagree. Whilst technique is important to being a complete musician. You forget that technique doesn't make music. It's the ability of the musician to be able to recognize phrases and voices that can be brought forward. You can play a song note for note, page by page, but you won't be able to recognize the music for what it is, and be able to interpret the music.

I recommend that you all read a book called Maestro- Peter Goldsworthy. It is a fictional novel, which talks exactly about what I'm saying

[GuitarMonky55]

i wasnt saying that your post was implying the less is more argument, i was just pointing out that a large majority of guitarists do take the idea too far to the opposite extreme.

As far as where I think the problem lies isnt really with what guitarists focus on, its who is doing the playing. anyone can achieve a technical level where they can play any idea that they can imagine, no matter how fast or how slow(virtuosity). that just takes practice. so anyone who really wants to can. but a separate school of thought is a persons creativity - not everyone has the creative capacity to make good melodies. its just like you can take all the art classes you want but if you dont have the mind of da vinci, you wont be imagining anything on that level to paint in the first place. what im saying is that they are kind of unrelated areas that people get mixed up. techique and musicality dont really have any correlation between them.

take steve vai for instance. that guy spent most of his younger life working on technique and playing. but his ability to create good melodies is a separate issue, arising from his creative mental capacity.

i like to go with jordan rudess' definition of virtuosity - 'virtuosity is the ability to play and idea in your mind no matter how fast or slow it is.'

also I would like to point out that it isnt silence alone per se that gives something more 'life' but its the fact that rhythm is just as integral a component as the notes in what a melody says. take for example chopin's fantasie impromptu - no silences in that theme but it sure says alot.