How do you compare against the famous?

[1001gear]

@ NewGuy

"working outwards" refers to discovering music via an instrument - guitar in this case as opposed to discovering guitar via music. Not a right or wrong thing. I WAS saying though that many players only know their instrument and the role it plays in certain gigs. Again no right or wrong about even that. How much better though, if you know the field first?

[Cary Chilton]

It's a journey. When I met Joe Satriani, he told the audience at the clinic that he'd invented a technique for song that he needed to get proficient at in a hurry since it was his song. That is cool, inspiring yourself to rise to a new challenge. When you fresh out of ideas, learning technique in a musical context in the form of cover tunes is also great. I still play as fast as I'd like, after seeing Michael Angelo Batio in PERFECT 64 note timing, WTF is that guy an alien? I play fast enough, especially for the listener.... I already play way tooooo fast for the listener (most are music appreciators). I think I know what the Op is trying to say, I think if you know your timing is getting better and better, you go back to old difficult songs you just couldn't play, but now find after 20-40 minutes -it clicked mentally and physically. I always aspire to learn any GREAT musician's song or solo or riff EXACTLY to the same phrasing even it is slow. The tempo is secondary... If you can get the feel of phrasing from a solo/riff/rhythm that inspired you, then you internalized it and made it your own.... and you'll see, when you start to write, new ideas based off a deviation from what you learned.

I used to always PLAY MY version of a solo and riff..... for YEARS. Nothing wrong with that, so long as you feel you are as technically proficient as you want to be as a musician OR if you know or have a good idea that the song/solo/riff is WAY out of your league (current skill-set ), but you like the song, so your playing it your way. Learning someone's style or a style of the riff, is hard, but it is all about dynamics and timing. So unless we are talking about singing here, all styles can be theoretically perfectly copied by another person. Not necessarily a great goal, but possible. Music Snobs are at each spectrum: Playing technical, learning styles is lame Playing only your way or your stuff because you can't play anything else. I say do whatever makes you happy. After all, why are you playing music? To feel happy.. great, what makes you happy? Expressing your inner voice, true feelings and only that? Ok, great Or is it not necessarily so deep for you all the time. Maybe just picking up your instrument and playing a cover or a noodling brings your happiness ...great.

Some, however, play I think to feel intelligent... or to feel unique ....or to feel powerful and accomplished? Ego-freaks, not great.

[the_SLOP_king]

All I gotta say is Paul Gilbert would shred the pants right off of my sorry ass. I've been playing for 17 years, went to school, been in a band for 5, blah blah blah. Still doesn't add up to dry {censored} at the end of the day compared to Paul.


If playing guitar was like Star Wars, I'd be Chewbacca. I'm no Luke Skywalker, but I'm definitely NOT Jar Jar Binx. And I'm pretty damn lethal with a bowcaster.

[JonR]

Just to add another personal angle. Although I don't compare myself to others (much) - in the sense of striving to get as fast or as good as them - that doesn't mean I don't listen to them.

I play for myself, of course. But the pleasure I get from it is bound up with social relations and events. I want my music to communicate. (It's not just a kind of therapy or relaxation for me in private.) And if it has to communicate, then I have to learn the language right. That means listening to the best music I can find (in the style I want) and copying as well as I can.

Naturally I encounter some of these famous guitar virtuosi. But I'm not after their technique. I'm after their ideas. OK, maybe I can't play a phrase as fast as they can. But if it's a good phrase, it'll work at any tempo. Into my bag it goes.

If I find some music that just doesn't sound good when slowed to a tempo I can manage - I'll just leave it. It's of no interest to me.

That applies to plenty of great music in many genres, of course. But that's OK, because there's so much good music left that's within my grasp (way more than I can ever learn in a lifetime).

When I compose my own music, I don't want to blind an audience with science. I'll often invent fancy chord sequences, but I know that's mostly for my own entertainment (or my fellow musicians). I know most audiences like strong simple tunes and good grooves - they can be combined with fancy chords if you want. So that's what I like playing.

When I improvise, it's of no account that I'm not lightning fast. I can play fast enough to impress most people, if necessary. But I know (from experience) that what entertains (and moves and excites) people most is simplicity - music that speaks plainly. Simple music can still be deep.

[3shiftgtr]

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

 

 

It's easy to do when you are young.

 

Quick story....Steve Morse (my high school hero) and The Dregs were doing a clinic (rare in those days) at Gary Gand music in Highland Park Illinois. Got to see them with my stomach against the stage. Blown away of course and just so inspired after.

 

Steve and Rod Morganstern had a little question and answer after. Some guy offerd Steve his pick and Steve graciously declined saying that he had some picks he really liked but the company went out of business. Being a young kid, I said to myself "Why don't you just buy the company?" cuz, you know, if you are a touring musician that is THIS FREAKING GOOD that you certainly are some kind of millionaire, right?.

 

'Cept I used my outside voice by accident. I kinda muttered it to myself but apparently loud enough for Steve to hear it, and Morse turned to Morganstern and laughed and said "This dude has a warped sense of reality." I musta turned 30 shades of purple!

 

But ya know, he was right. These guys were on their 5th album and were still living out of a van. I had confused skill and how I felt when I listened, with reality. Although it stands on its own, good music has very little to do with success. A great lesson.

 

And here's the follow up:

Steve played a gig about 8 years later at the Park West and I got a chance to hang with him after due to a connection with the promoter. In conversation, I mentioned my purple face incident at the clinic. He laughed and said "Oh yes," he said. "I remember."

 

I said "Lemme guess, you guys had a good laugh in the bus about it, right?" He said yes and that it also became a running joke for about a week after. Whenever someone in the band couldn't get something they needed, they'd say to each other 'well why don't you just buy the company?'"

 

Probabally thru another purple face I said "Well Steve, you've entertained me so much, it's my way of giving back." The conversation then shifted to how the myth the record companies promote is a double edged sword.

 

So don't worry newguyon....you're not alone!

[GreenAsJade]

An interesting side note:

 

 

{composing requires} (a) having something you want to sing about

 

 

I have come to realise that this is quite a challenge in itself.

 

For a while I started having a notebook on hand and quickly writing down whatever I care about and would like to express/rant. What I quickly found were the the topics were either too personal (If you're married you have to be able to sing these songs in front of your wife, and some stuff doesn't warrant digging up and putting into song) or too "pedestrian". For example, it craps me off that they're filling my suburbs with 4 houses to the block. Maaaybe you can write a song about that, but I haven't been able to yet...

 

So my songwriting took a big pause, waiting for something to write about!

 

It's no suprise that the bulk of great songs out there are about relationship highs and lows: that's where the power of human emotion and relatability is highest. If you can't write about that ... then what....

 

GaJ

[mosiddiqi]

I don't really compare, as others have said it's not a competition. I can certainly play a bunch of Page/Blackmore/Schenker things note for note, but I didn't write them!..and I certainly struggle to play Malmsteen or Paul Gilbert note for note..so they're technically way more proficient than me. However, I do write my own music and I put everything I have into those songs..that's good enough for me.

[AxAxSxS]

My take on this. One maestro who never connects with other musicians

[1001gear]

Issa no maestro den.

[GreenAsJade]

FWIW, most of the responses have been down a general direction of "this is not a good question". Making the (very important) point that music is not a competition, and the other important point that there's more to music than technique. This was triggered by the OP saying "how do you compare to...."

 

But I think the original question was different and interesting. It was generally about technique, in the broadest sense, which is still important in itself and worth discussing.

 

I think it was along the line of thinking of "Have we, as guitarists, evolved? Are we still evolving? Are you personally part of the evidence of this?".

 

I think the answers are Blindingly Obviously Yes, Maybe, No.

 

Before Van Halen, was anyone doing that crazy stuff - technically? No. Are they now? Yes. It was a piece of technical repetoire added around that time that now many people use. The same with sheer speed. The speeds that your average guitarist can play have demonstrably increased since electric guitar came on the scene.

 

Given these observations, it's not unrealistic to ask "hey, Van Halen was technically a monster and unsurpassed, but now a generation later has that level of technical skill become more of a norm?"

 

The way that the OP extended this question was to ask whether any of us out here are now technically where those greats of a generation ago were: at their time unequalled, but now equalled by some guy on an internet forum? Is this possible?

 

More or less, I think the answer is "yes". You only have to google a guitar hero of yesterday to find 10 youtubes of someone in their bedroom technically mastering that stuff, and one of those at least will be very close.

 

Whether the art is still evolving is less obvious to me. Musos out on the fringe might be better placed to comment. Often it's hard to see evolutionary steps till you're looking back at them (Van Halen being a counter example).

 

FWIW.

 

GaJ

[mosiddiqi]

Good points GaJ.

 

FWIW, technically, I'm not sure there's ever been anybody as good as Guthrie Govan. To me, he is the "new standard" which is pretty sobering.

[jeremy_green]

The thing is the creative - it's all about that. Songs... making contact with humans, connecting.

EVH on his own would have been nothing more than a sideshow...But inside the vehicle that was Van Halen the band - and the great songs they wrote he becomes a legend. Technical know how has little to do with it. Do people see you play and feel something?

 

Also it's doing it WHEN they did it. It is simple to sit and rip out Sweet Child of Mine solo in your bedroom note for note.... COMPLETELY another to have created that THEN executed in an expensive studio ($1000's of dollars an hour) while the TAPE rolls.

 

For those too young to know - tape degrades with each pass. You couldn't take 10 takes (let alone 100) you had maybe 3 or 4 shots to nail your part. After that the degradation of the quality was pretty large. PRESSSSSUUUURE!

 

The ability to actually play a part is a small part of the equation.

MANY confuse this with the ability to play "better" than great player X.

 

Are they out there - yes.

Is this common - no.

[polishpaul]

Clapton:

 

"Love is lovely."

 

Me:

 

"Playing is lovely."

 

At any level.

[GreenAsJade]

I agree with both of you PP, Jeremy, but I still think you're defending one (important) point, which didn't happen to be the original topic, at the expense of missing out on another perhaps not as important but nonetheless interesting topic, which was the original topic.

 

I guess that as soon as someone uses the word "compare" or anything like it, in a thread in here, no matter what the actual topic is, we might as well close the thread with a standard post that says

 

"Music is about creativity. Do not compare."

 

GaJ

[BydoEmpire]

That's a great post GreenAsJade. It's easy to get off on a tangent, as a lot of folks seem to be big into "who's fastest" or "who's best" but that wasn't really what was asked by the OP.

 

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?

Myself, I'm nowhere near my 'guitar heroes' technically. Making progress slowly, but a long ways to go. I do like my own playing to some extent, especially when I manage to pull it off. Like anyone, I have my strengths and weaknesses as a player. Fortunately I've been playing long enough to actually know my many weaknesses and have some kind of understanding how to address them (even if it will take years). In terms of creating solos (or songs or riffs or paying rhythm) I have some things I'm proud of. Then again, when I listen back to some stuff I was proud of 10 years ago I cringe.

 

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.

I think that will absolutely be the case. If you keep listening and keep playing, your ears will get better. I can certainly play stuff now that when I was just starting, I couldn't really even hear what was going on, let alone play it. And when I listen to things beyond my ability now (Yngwie for example), at least I have an idea what's going on, I just can't execute. That said, I can still put in Rising Force and be amazed after all these years. Learning how to play a song has never lessened the magic of it. It's only given me a deeper appreciation.

[NewGuyonGuitar]

I think that will absolutely be the case. If you keep listening and keep playing, your ears will get better. I can certainly play stuff now that when I was just starting, I couldn't really even hear what was going on, let alone play it.

That's kind of what I was asking.

[jeremy_green]

I agree with both of you PP, Jeremy, but I still think you're defending one (important) point, which didn't happen to be the original topic, at the expense of missing out on another perhaps not as important but nonetheless interesting topic, which was the original topic. I guess that as soon as someone uses the word "compare" or anything like it, in a thread in here, no matter what the actual topic is, we might as well close the thread with a standard post that says "Music is about creativity. Do not compare." GaJ

 

 

I don't think I am off base at all with the question Jade. What I outlined is the crux of it. The ability to execute the stuff you hear on tape means these greats are EVEN BETTER in their own bedrooms. The fact these guys can lay it down as they do under pressure and create those iconic moments speak volumes to the depth of their technique. To hear these recordings after the fact and make assumptions on the players skills based on them is only seeing a small part of the picture.

 

A personal story to relate the point.

As many of you know I take some lessons with Oz Noy whenever he comes into town. In my studio at home I have lifted much of his material and play along note for note with most of it. So on this basis one could think that Oz and I are on a comparable technical playing field... WRONG!! The first time I sat with him, within seconds it was OBVIOUS to me that he was miles ahead of me - MILES.

 

Jasco says it on here all the time and I agree. The player you are isn't the one on your best night - its the one on your worst! To be able to execute on the big stage means you gotta have a LOT left in the tank. As I also said then there is that whole creativity ELEPHANT in the room.

 

Oh yeah... That : )

[1001gear]

Ok whatever you guys are yappin about I heard "compare - do not compare" "not a sport" or words to that effect. Well it's not a jock thing for sure but you gotta compare / compete / ??? / begborrowsteal ...

 

How else do you evolve?

[AJ6stringsting]

In the 1980's, I was like a zerox machine, I did solos note for note ( Malmsteen, Vai, Satriani, Rhoads, Holdsworth) .... after I copied them and learned all I could from their style , my own style absorbed what I took from them. I really scratched my head when people said , "Dude, You're so original".

[jonfinn]

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.

 

 

Boy, I haven't turned my computer on in a coupla days and I miss all the good stuff! I'd like to answer this question. For me, it's irrelevant how I stack up against others. Rather, I have my own standard that I try to live up to (which I might add, is pretty much impossible. Therefore, I must be engaging in self-torture. But that's a conversation for another day.)

 

Of course I go through stages where I compare my abilities to others. And it's totally ok as long as I don't let myself get distracted by it.

 

I've worked with a pretty long list of "name" players. Some of them you've probably heard of. In each of their cases, what stands out is that they're every but as good live as they are recorded.