How do you compare against the famous?

[NewGuyonGuitar]

I was surfing guitar solo video's this morning on YouTube. Watched a little Yngwie Malmsteen, John Petrucci and Steve Vai.

 

So for those of you that have been playing a long time, how do your guitar skills compare against the famous? How do you stack up against, Jimmy Page, Joe Satriani, Eddie Van Halen?

 

Are you almost as fast, as fast or not nearly fast enough?

How do you compare technically? How do you think you would stack up in terms of creating your own solo's?

 

Just wondering if some of the stuff I see today seems pretty fast and amazing may seem less fast and amazing 5 years from now.

[guitarville]

I like being just me on the guitar, I guess the reason for that is I really never got into playing other peoples music much until recently. I think when someone or some people tell you, you are good. That may hit home for a few seconds, and then you get back on to your life.

[1001gear]

Those guys? No question they can operate a guitar. But man, what crappy material. Well I like Vai somewhat. Ever watch gymkhana?

 

4TshFWSsrn8

 

Wouldn't you rather be driving up the coast or through the mountains?

I prefer me.

[DCurtis]

This seems to be an expression of what I

think of as the athletic mentality about guitar.

 

How do you compare to John Scofield, Bill Frisell

Robert Fripp, Albert King, Albert Lee and Charlie Christian?

I think changing the names of those compared to, puts this

in a slightly different light. But ultimately it doesn't matter.

Guitar and music aren't a competition. Despite what some might say.

[JonR]

This seems to be an expression of what I think of as the athletic mentality about guitar. How do you compare to John Scofield, Bill Frisell Robert Fripp, Albert King, Albert Lee and Charlie Christian? I think changing the names of those compared to, puts this in a slightly different light. But ultimately it doesn't matter. Guitar and music aren't a competition. Despite what some might say.

This.

[jeremy_green]

I know this may seem like dodging the question - but it is my honest answer. Top level players are all about different flavors if you will. Is Chocolate better than Caramel?? Well to some it is.... others it isn't - neither is wrong. Do I have the technical facility to play like many of those cats? Sure... probably... but that is not the meat of it to me. We all have our own voice on the instrument. Each is unique in its own right. I haven't said anything as compelling as those folks.

 

I am soundly in the "this is art, not a competition" camp.

 

As far as things seeming less amazing in 5 years then I think you'd be missing the point. Speed is only impressive if it is used to SAY something interesting. There is no time limit on outstanding expression. I am 100% certain i will continue to be "impressed" by players as long as i am on this planet.

[JonR]

I know this may seem like dodging the question - but it is my honest answer. Top level players are all about different flavors if you will. Is Chocolate better than Caramel?? Well to some it is.... others it isn't - neither is wrong. Do I have the technical facility to play like many of those cats? Sure... probably... but that is not the meat of it to me. We all have our own voice on the instrument. Each is unique in its own right. I haven't said anything as compelling as those folks. I am soundly in the "this is art, not a competition" camp. As far as things seeming less amazing in 5 years then I think you'd be missing the point. Speed is only impressive if it is used to SAY something interesting. There is no time limit on outstanding expression. I am 100% certain i will continue to be "impressed" by players as long as i am on this planet.

This too.

[NewGuyonGuitar]

 

I know this may seem like dodging the question - but it is my honest answer. Top level players are all about different flavors if you will. Is Chocolate better than Caramel?? Well to some it is.... others it isn't - neither is wrong. Do I have the technical facility to play like many of those cats? Sure... probably... but that is not the meat of it to me. We all have our own voice on the instrument. Each is unique in its own right. I haven't said anything as compelling as those folks. I am soundly in the "this is art, not a competition" camp. As far as things seeming less amazing in 5 years then I think you'd be missing the point. Speed is only impressive if it is used to SAY something interesting. There is no time limit on outstanding expression. I am 100% certain i will continue to be "impressed" by players as long as i am on this planet.

 

 

Nooooooooooooo. I wasn't interested in comparison from a competitive point of view. Let me try to explain more clearly....

 

A few years ago, a previous guitar instructor that I had said he was much more technically proficient than David Gilmour. I, at the time, and maybe still don't, get how that could be. My guitar instructor was working part time as an instructor at a local store, David Gilmour has had a good amount of success, measured in money and record sales. How can one be technically more proficient/better/superior, yet be worlds removed from the success Gilmour has had.

 

So I thought about that. Maybe luck has more to do with it. Maybe lots of guitarists here could have cut it with Led Zeppelin had they been in Jimmy Page's shoes at the time....

 

I am a novice. I'm so close to the beginning of learning guitar it's not funny. Cowboy cords and a few pentatonic scales are all that I know. I don't have enough experience to judge anyone's guitar playing. I can't even make an informed decision as to why I like Jimmy Page over Joe Satriani. Yes, I hear what I like and I get that....

 

So I can view all these guitarists, amateur and world renowned on Youtube, and wonder what seperates them. In my ignorance, I put the famous up on a pedestal with super human abilities for speed and ingenuity and dexterity. Maybe they should't be up on a pedestal, maybe in my ignorance I have it all backwards. Maybe there are hundreds or thousands or ten's of thousands of everyday guitarists who are just as good, but haven't had the luck or exposure to become famous. Is that possible?

 

If I were to restate my question, it would be this:

There are a lot of famous guitarists out there who seem to be great at playing guitar. If, I continue to practice and play for a long time, will my perception change? Do you think I'll realize that while these guys are really good, that if you work hard and practice well, their abilities don't seem superhuman anymore? That I too, can play, in my own fashion, almost as well, or as well as some of them?

[1001gear]

To paraphrase, "It's the music stupid ... "

 

Some people start on guitar and work their way outward. Some are music nuts to begin with and work their way inward. I'm of the latter. Exposed to classical music at a very early age and over the decades refined my tastes and direction to focus on combo instruments. Coming from this direction makes me very aware of "substandard" material and playing. I refuse to acknowledge players of this ilk. That's just me. BFD.

 

 

Just keep learning and don't worry about it.

[DCurtis]

I think you are confusing success and fame

with ability. There are famous guitar players with

little skill and ability (Curt Cobain comes to mind)

and then Eric Johnson and Danny Gatton were unknowns

for years. I've known, and know many scary good guitar

players who will never be known outside of their local circles.

Two of my teachers I had as a kid were North Texas alumni,

top tier session players, highly sought after, etc, etc, blah blah.

But they (sadly) will never be known outside of their little niche.

 

Think of Tommy Tedesco or Dean Parks. Two great players

who can (or could) read anything. But most guys who know

the names you mentioned will probably never hear of the two

I just named.

 

And being more technically proficient than Gilmour is highly

questionable. Gilmour is about tone, feel and note choices.

He's *never* been about technical skill or ability, by his own

admission.

 

As to your restated question: Only time will tell. I've played 30

years and some of those shred guys seem unbelievable to me still.

But what has changed is my interest. I value well played melodic idea

woven through chord changes with great tone and feel more than I

do some amazing display of technical prowess. Herman Li bores me to

tears in less than five seconds.

[AXEL276]

 

If I were to restate my question, it would be this: There are a lot of famous guitarists out there who seem to be great at playing guitar. If, I continue to practice and play for a long time, will my perception change? Do you think I'll realize that while these guys are really good, that if you work hard and practice well, their abilities don't seem superhuman anymore? That I too, can play, in my own fashion, almost as well, or as well as some of them?

 

 

Yes. If you practice hard and correctly you can/may attain the technique of the greats.

But the thing to remember is that besides the greats having chops, technique, style or whatever you call it. They write. On this forum I've seen guys compare themselves to Jimmy Page, bash him. But he and his band wrote those classic Led Zeppelin songs. That's what makes them all so unique. That is where the magic is.

[NewGuyonGuitar]

 

I think you are confusing success and fame with ability.

 

 

That's exactly it. I am confusing ability with success.

[NewGuyonGuitar]

 

On this forum I've seen guys compare themselves to Jimmy Page, bash him. But he and his band wrote those classic Led Zeppelin songs. That's what makes them all so unique. That is where the magic is.

 

 

I understand that. Thanks for shedding a little light in my darkness.

[jeremy_green]

Firstly, Luck and right place at the right time and chemistry and all that come into play for sure. Many known players are no better than many players here. So is it possible that these unknowns are as good or better - sure it is. Your guitar teacher could very well be better... he is likely far technically better - meaning at the nuts and bolts of playing. But what has he built with those pieces... to date not much noteworthy.

 

Having said that, some of the names mentioned above in this thread have been standouts in amongst guitar players. David Gilmour is to me among the very top for creativity and touch. He is not fast at all but that isn't his bag. Jimmy Page - same thing. His writing skills are off the charts. Can I play his stuff? Damn right... Can I write like him?? Hell no.

 

The guitar playing is one part of it. To achieve commercial success other things non-guitar related need to line up as well. Writing and finding co-writers who match then having a time and audience receptive to what that brings is some of the mojo magical stuff.

[NewGuyonGuitar]

 

Firstly, Luck and right place at the right time and chemistry and all that come into play for sure. Many known players are no better than many players here. So is it possible that these unknowns are as good or better - sure it is. Your guitar teacher could very well be better... he is likely far technically better - meaning at the nuts and bolts of playing. But what has he built with those pieces... to date not much noteworthy. Having said that, some of the names mentioned above in this thread have been standouts in amongst guitar players. David Gilmour is to me among the very top for creativity and touch. He is not fast at all but that isn't his bag. Jimmy Page - same thing. His writing skills are off the charts. Can I play his stuff? Damn right... Can I write like him?? Hell no. The guitar playing is one part of it. To achieve commercial success other things non-guitar related need to line up as well. Writing and finding co-writers who match then having a time and audience receptive to what that brings is some of the mojo magical stuff.

 

 

I get that. Thanks for the response.

[NewGuyonGuitar]

 

Can I write like him?? Hell no.

 

So creative writing ability is one factor that differentiates. Don't imagine creativity is something you can learn.....

[jeremy_green]

 

So creative writing ability is one factor that differentiates. Don't imagine creativity is something you can learn.....

 

 

Sure! Writing is THE factor... Most things that become 'written' start out as some sort of improv.... So I guess the ability to create music spontaneously is the skill. Definitely it can be learned to a degree.

 

Here's my rant on creativity. I believe we were all born creative - look at a room full of toddlers and watch them ALL play make believe etc. They do REALLY creative stuff as a matter of course. Education and schooling and parents teach them right vs wrong - "no that isn't right - THIS is" and piece by piece this desire to be 'correct' erodes the underpinnings. Before long some people feel they can't create at all.

 

Then there are the lucky ones... THEIR creative endeavors were deemed good enough that teachers and parents wanted to encourage the behaviour. So they continued on confident and happy with their tag of "artist". But be there no mistake - these kids spent a GOOD DEAL MORE time doing it than the others. Because it made them happy.

 

Can we all be Jimmy Page or Van Gough... likely not. But you can be FAAAAR better than you think you can be. It's all about time spent and dedication to the process. I TRULY believe a large part of the populace COULD do this... but they WON'T ever. Largely because people will tell them they can't. I bet people will read this and think it is bull{censored} or happy happy crap - THIS is exactly why they won't reach levels they dream of. It starts with a basic belief... from that belief a love is formed. From that love great things are born.

 

Surround yourself with people who believe this and the glow is infectious. MOST greats grew up surrounded, encouraged and competitive with other like minded and skilled. You can push your boundaries but it works quicker if others are simultaneously pulling you!

 

Sorry for the length

[BydoEmpire]

 

But the thing to remember is that besides the greats having chops, technique, style or whatever you call it. They write. On this forum I've seen guys compare themselves to Jimmy Page, bash him. But he and his band wrote those classic Led Zeppelin songs. That's what makes them all so unique. That is where the magic is.

This hits the nail on the head. It's one thing to be able to play an Yngwie song note for note. It's another to have written and performed that material when he did. Same for Clapton, Page, Vai, Eddie Van Halen, or Charlie Christian.

 

 

Don't imagine creativity is something you can learn.....

I'm not so sure. I think everyone has a spark of creativity within them. Doesn't mean you're going to write "Let It Be" but I think everyone can express themselves creatively through art. And as far as writing goes, don't let anyone fool you - it's work, and it takes time and practice. Sometimes the muse just comes and songs write themselves. When that happens, it's awesome. But if that's the only way you write, you might be waiting a long time for the next song. The trick is taking that spark of inspiration that just magically comes, whether it's a title, a chord progression or a melody; and through blood, sweat, tears, and a lot of patience you wrangle it into an actual song. To paraphrase Thomas Edison, many people miss opportunity because it comes dressed in overalls and looks like work. Songwriting is that way. To me, that's creativity and can be honed, learned and improved like anything else.

[girevik]

 

So creative writing ability is one factor that differentiates. Don't imagine creativity is something you can learn.....

 

 

Creativity is something you can't "learn", because you are born with it. It's just like the ability to breathe - you don't need to learn how to breathe.

 

But just like you can learn certain methods to breathe (in yoga, martial arts, etc.), you can learn certain methods to exercise your creativity and, over time, increase your skill in these methods.

 

The simplest method to exercise your creativity for music is to write songs.

 

I cannot speak for others, but I can say that what has held me back was lack of willingness to write "bad" songs, as well as the pleasure I take in learning other people's songs/song arrangements. I think there is something to the argument that you may have to get the "bad" songs out of the way to let the "good" ones out.

 

I have a good friend who taught herself how to play guitar exclusively by writing songs - she never cracked open Chord Chemistry, practiced scales, or anything. I think she has close to 50 songs written now, mostly on guitar (some on piano). So while she does not have a formal practice method, I have heard her play the same song over and over again for as long as an hour. As a result, she is a better rhythm guitarist than I am, and a more creative musician overall.

[JonR]

Don't imagine creativity is something you can learn.....

Sure it is.

Everyone has the potential to be creative. Composing songs is a matter of (a) having something you want to sing about, and (b) plenty of experience listening to, learning and playing other people's songs.

It's like a language: you have to build the vocabulary (by stealing ideas from everyone else, which is what all geniuses do), and then you have to decide what you want to say with it.

Even if you think you have nothing to say right now, you'll probably find that the more of the language you learn, the more ideas you borrow, the more things will occur to you. It might just be a lucky accident of throwing 2 borrowed riffs together so they make a cool new one: there, now you're a composer!

You just have to get yourself into that frame of mind. You have your tools - your technical skills, your theoretical knowledge (both of which will naturally increase). You have your raw material - the scales, chords, riffs and songs you learn (especially whole songs). Sooner or later all that raw material will suggest things to you. All the music you've heard in your life churns around in your subconscious, and stuff will bubble up, strange cross-bred mutations of other songs. The better your ear and technique is, the better you can play those ideas and develop them; hammer them into shape.

 

Think of it like carpentry. Anybody can join a couple of pieces of wood by banging nails in. That's "creativity". All it takes to get good is practice: refining your knowledge and handling of the tools and the material; refining your eye for design; etc. After a few years, you can create a thing of beauty.

Of course, learning what "beauty" means is one of the more subtle, advanced areas of study; some students miss out on that module... But it's what marks out the really great from those with mere technical brilliance.

[JonR]

Creativity is something you can't "learn", because you are born with it.

I disagree. But I agree with the rest of your post .

IOW, you can learn how to become creative - in the ways you say - which means there's no real distinction.

How could you tell a person who was "born creative" from one who's learned it? You can't.

 

In fact, every child is creative, we're all born like that. It's more like some of us forget how to do it (maybe embarrassed by its childishness, or persuaded there's no future in it), and have to relearn it. A few just stay creative right through.

 

IMO the fact we use the word PLAY for both childish activities and for (grown-up) music is very revealing.

[girevik]

I disagree (Re: Creativity is something you can't "learn", because you are born with it .). But I agree with the rest of your post . In fact, every child is creative, we're all born like that .

 

Your post confuses me, Jon, but I think we're on the same page.

[JonR]

Creativity is something you can't "learn", because you are born with it.

I disagree. But I agree with the rest of your post .

IOW, you can learn how to become creative - in the ways you say - which means there's no real distinction.

How could you tell a person who was "born creative" from one who's learned it? You can't.

 

In fact, every child is creative, we're all born like that. It's more like some of us forget how to do it (maybe embarrassed by its childishness, or persuaded there's no future in it), and have to relearn it. A few just stay creative right through.

 

IMO the fact we use the word PLAY for both childish activities and for (grown-up) music is very revealing.

[JonR]

Your post confuses me, Jon, but I think we're on the same page.

Yes, I can see the potential for confusion now you mention it.

 

I thought you were suggesting you had to be born with it - or that some were and some weren't, but even those that weren't could learn it.

I see now I was misreading that opening statement. Duh

[Pitar]

I never compare because I don't listen to them... any of them. I'm pretty sure they don't either. I mean, the question about level of playing seems almost credible until you realize that's not why you play. Then it seems almost embarrassing to consider answering it. I get a lot of fun from the hobby but never compare my style or level of play with pop artists.

 

A long time ago I stopped listening to music to concentrate on my own... whatever it is I do... and being happy with that. The idea of not listening (actively) to anyone else was not a sudden thing or scheduled event I put out there to do. Over time I unconsciously switched from being an active audience to being a player. I don't own any music at all other than 4 LPs in frames on the wall. But I do play a lot.