What makes a good guitarist?

[meganutt7]

Shaun Lane can do it with a million notes. Muddy Waters can do it with 3. Shawn NEEDED the skill and knowledge to be honest. Muddy didn't.

 

 

+1,000,000 to this!! great way to break it down!

[Jeff1979]

We are on the same page here, i fully agree with you, how rubbish would Zepplin/GnR/Clapton be if they werent giving it 100% on stage, crap basically....

My point was/still is, to be completely honest and express yourself in a way that moves other people, you need time in to immerse yourself in the musical lanuague. Not just learn the alphabet (scales/chords etc) but how to put it all together in a way that makes sense and that i feel, comes through learning what goes where by fully learning your alphabet..

Like Jeremy said about the sax guy, he was killer at the sax and had a great natural ear, so that would crossover to the guitar (ask me to play a sax though and it would be painfull, only because my technique would be useless)..
Notes are notes, no matter what they are coming from.

I wouldnt be able to communicate in Russian to a Russian without knowing at least some of the lanuage Russian.

Some people are born with a great natural ear/feel, some arnt, anbody can learn scales, chords, yes i agree but its only a select few who can truly just pick up an instrument and play something honest.

The rest of us try and get there through hard graft, so that hopefully we can someday be free on the instrument and show what we feel on the inside to the people on the outside.

[bigboy78]

What makes a good guitarist?

 

One who can play {censored} you can't. There are no good guitarist who play worse than you play yourself.

[Jeff1979]

What makes a good guitarist? One who can play {censored} you can't. There are no good guitarist who play worse than you play yourself.

 

 

I would have to disagree with you on that, there's a million kids on You Tube, sweeping away, Clapton cant sweep, does that mean that because those kids can play {censored} Clapton cant that they are better??

[Jasco]

I would have to disagree with you on that, there's a million kids on You Tube, sweeping away, Clapton cant sweep, does that mean that because those kids can play {censored} Clapton cant that they are better??

YES YES YES.

Faster is always better.

You should know that by now.

And playing faster modes is even better than just plain faster.

RAWK!! :rawk:

[Virgman]

Jasco,

 

That's a cool video you made with the camera on the guitar.

 

You are skilled, man.

[Jasco]

Jasco, That's a cool video you made with the camera on the guitar. You are skilled, man .

Awe, thanks. But there's really nothin' to it. I just rubber-banded the cam to my headstock and hit 'record'. It has auto-focus, so the camera did all the work really.

[3shiftgtr]

And playing faster modes is even better than just plain faster.

And playing faster modes FASTER is better than playing the faster modes fast!:lol:

[dparr]

And playing faster modes FASTER is better than playing the faster modes fast! :lol:

Whole notes are for sissies!

[3shiftgtr]

What makes a good guitarist? One who can play {censored} you can't. There are no good guitarist who play worse than you play yourself.

 

 

Sorry bigboy, I know you are new here, but if that is a joke or sarcastic, feel free to use an emoticon or other somesuch interwebz intention clarification tulz.....

 

...but if it isn't, that is about the dumbest thing I've ever read in the LL.

[3shiftgtr]

Whole notes are for sissies!

...and bassists....

[jeremy_green]

Like Jeremy said about the sax guy, he was killer at the sax and had a great natural ear, so that would crossover to the guitar (ask me to play a sax though and it would be painfull, only because my technique would be useless).. Notes are notes, no matter what they are coming from.

 

 

The lesson i got from that guy was that he just fearlessly MADE MUSIC. Through any means necessary. He couldn't find 7 notes to work with so he chose 3 or 4. This had nothing really to do with vocabulary and everything to do with creativity. He knew he didn't have the materials to build a castle so he made a beautiful little garden shed!

 

Sometimes I think we get so caught up in the accumulation of knowledge that we can forget the basic principles. I have heard students say "I am not ready to write songs". For some reason we feel that until we know stuff we arent ready, capable or possibly worthy of doing so. I think this is way off base.

 

Take 2 sticks and start banging them together and make a nice little rhythm - now take that same approach with an instrument. I think this needs to be at the core of us as musicians.

 

Everything else builds off that.

[TrickyBoy]

It's interesting with all these types of threads how the top musicians always stop talking about what they do on guitar and instead focus on what they say with the guitar.

To me, that's the difference. Speed is easy. Making the hair on someone's arms stand up isn't.

[jeremy_green]

Speed is easy. Making the hair on someone's arms stand up isn't.

 

 

I cant possibly agree more with this!

[dparr]

To me, that's the difference. Speed is easy. Making the hair on someone's arms stand up isn't.

Well said!

Who wants to hear someone talking a million words per minute?

The same applies to music.

Less is more!

[TrickyBoy]

I cant possibly agree more with this!

 

 

I look at guitarists that I consider major influences on my playing:

 

Prince - Probably everyone on this board can play the Purple Rain solo, but to this day every time I hear it, it slays me.

 

Robert Smith: I still think the outro solo to "Pictures of You" is one of my all time favorites. And it can be played with one finger.

 

Steve Vai: The first time I heard "For the Love of God" it was literally like a religious experience. It was the first time that I ever heard someone really have that level of technical mastery and say something so meaningful (at least to me) at the same time. Still give me chills.

 

I could go on and on....

 

I guess, at least for me, I can sum up my guitar philosophy as follows:

 

"Technical mastery impresses me, but it's the ability to convey emotion that inspires me"

[bigboy78]

Sorry bigboy, I know you are new here, but if that is a joke or sarcastic, feel free to use an emoticon or other somesuch interwebz intention clarification tulz..... ...but if it isn't, that is about the dumbest thing I've ever read in the LL.

I was being a smart-arse, but my meaning was also misunderstood.

What I was trying to get across was that everyone's idea of a good guitarist is someone who is better than they are.

I think Yourself, Jeremy, Jasco, Mos & Danny are are good guitarist. I think we probably all spend a bit too much time navel gazing about what makes a good guitarist.

Music is an art, art is subjective, you're only as good as the person listening thinks you are. Nothing more, Nothing less.

[3shiftgtr]

I think we probably all spend a bit too much time navel gazing about what makes a good guitarist. Music is an art, art is subjective, you're only as good as the person listening thinks you are. Nothing more, Nothing less.

 

 

Sometimes here at the LL, we get into topics that seem a bit esoteric. But they lead to certain concepts. This thread asks for some clarification points that obviously bring out opinions regarding what is IMPORTANT to various guitarist and musicians. What makes them good of course is subjective.

 

What if someone put forth a concept that made you look at your playing in a new way....would that be navel gazing?

 

And I absolutely disagree with your p.o.v. If a 12 year old girl hears me play at an instrumental jazz gig, and thinks I suck cuz I'm middle aged and old and Justin Beiber rulz, well....is she right?

 

If listener's opinion is the only indicator of "goodness", then why would you EVER listen to what inspires you? You would only then listen to what inspires others. I'm not sure I see your logic.

[jeremy_green]

Music is an art, art is subjective, you're only as good as the person listening thinks you are. Nothing more, Nothing less.

 

 

That is an interesting angle on it... not rippin just riffin here.

 

So if a person sees the colour blue as red is it now less blue? Well to that person it certainly is... So should the artist change his approach to painting substituting blue for red because of that? Of course not...

 

IMO after a point players (or artists) just become different as opposed to better or worse. Is Pat Metheny better than Angus Young? Of course he is in a conventional sense but AC/DC would sound "worse" if Pat subbed in. So therefore the setting a player plays in has an affect on his perceived "quality" by the listener.

 

For that reason I dont think you can accurately connect "quality" to individual perception. I see your point there... but it doesn't sit right to me - not because I cant accept it. Just as a method or measurement there are too many variables.

 

That's why I feel the measurement must be placed on the players affect on the setting around them. Do they make the group as a whole sound good. Likely in my Pat with AC/DC scenario I believe Pat would do the part justice. He would research the tone and learn the lines and get his part together. He would likely defer to the other guys a lot rather than try to play over them. He would be sensitive to the genre and the fact that he is presently not the go to guy. The band would sound great because Pat is a GREAT and sensitive musician. In that setting Angus would still blow his doors off. But its the ability to serve the music and do what it takes to sound complimentary - those qualities to me are the essence of "What makes a good guitarist?"

 

FWIW - I think the only judge can be yourself. Who cares what others think. FIRST though you do need to get past the technical hurdles and be actually able to execute and play songs. Once you have collected the basic tools it is up to the artist to use them to create their own works - to I supposed be judged by others. So beginners aren't really part of this discussion in that sense.

[meganutt7]

That is an interesting angle on it... not rippin just riffin here. So if a person sees the colour blue as red is it now less blue? Well to that person it certainly is... So should the artist change his approach to painting substituting blue for red because of that? Of course not... IMO after a point players (or artists) just become different as opposed to better or worse. Is Pat Metheny better than Angus Young? Of course he is in a conventional sense but AC/DC would sound "worse" if Pat subbed in. So therefore the setting a player plays in has an affect on his perceived "quality" by the listener. For that reason I dont think you can accurately connect "quality" to individual perception. I see your point there... but it doesn't sit right to me - not because I cant accept it. Just as a method or measurement there are too many variables. That's why I feel the measurement must be placed on the players affect on the setting around them. Do they make the group as a whole sound good. Likely in my Pat with AC/DC scenario I believe Pat would do the part justice. He would research the tone and learn the lines and get his part together. He would likely defer to the other guys a lot rather than try to play over them. He would be sensitive to the genre and the fact that he is presently not the go to guy. The band would sound great because Pat is a GREAT and sensitive musician. In that setting Angus would still blow his doors off. But its the ability to serve the music and do what it takes to sound complimentary - those qualities to me are the essence of "What makes a good guitarist?" FWIW - I think the only judge can be yourself. Who cares what others think. FIRST though you do need to get past the technical hurdles and be actually able to execute and play songs. Once you have collected the basic tools it is up to the artist to use them to create their own works - to I supposed be judged by others. So beginners aren't really part of this discussion in that sense.

Jeremy..

Allow me to play devils' advocate here for a second.

First off, why do you say Pat is better than Angus??

because he plays arpeggios of 7th chords?? because he uses chromaticism?? Because his compositions are more complex???

These are not really valid arguments t oclaim someone is BETTER on a global and incontestible level. I think that if you're a guy that thinks jazz is kind of gay, but you like powerful rock riffs with tasty understated solos, you will say IT IS NO CONTEST. ANGUS RIPS METHENY! If you are, on the other hand, a jazz oriented guy, who is aware of the complexity of the things Pat does, and you like his chromaticism and great superimpositions, etc. you would likely say I LOVE PAT! SCREW ANGUS!!

Which brings me to my point. I actually have to agree with BigBoy. It IS subjective.

I know plenty of people who would rather listen to Velvet Underground than Yngwie Malmsteen. Are these people IDIOTS? Are they "slumming it" because they would rather hear a guy strumming simple chords on an out of tune guitar and singing while strung out on heroin?? I don't think so. I thin kthjat the aesthetic appeals to them more.

In the same way, some people would prefer to have a Da Vinci on their wall. Others a Rembrandt. others still a Basquiat, Picasso, Van Gogh, Botero or Jackson Pollack piece. WHY? Some of these artists COULD be and actually ARE considered, in some circles, technically inferior to the "masters". But again, the appeal is undeniable to SOME PEOPLE.

I personally hate newer bands, like Fallout Boy. But they are LOVED by a bunch of people. More people than like, say Mr. Bungle. I think Mr. Bungle is BETTER in EVERY WAY. But go try to convince a contrived, sheltered youth of this argument. Thjey will say that Bungle is too weird and that they don't like it. They don't care that there are odd times or amazing tones, or crazy feels or hillarious subject matter. It does not appeal to their aesthetic.

You have to respect that. Variety and choice are what make the world go round. Sadly, alot of people make narrow minded choices. But We can't let that get US down.

[jeremy_green]

Danny,

 

I think you took me the wrong way. I didnt really mean Pat was "Better" - I said Pat was better "in a conventional sense" I probably should have said "in a technical sense" meaning yes his ability to play different arps and over changes etc.

 

The crux of my statement was this passage:

 

"For that reason I dont think you can accurately connect "quality" to individual perception. I see your point there... but it doesn't sit right to me - not because I cant accept it. Just as a method or measurement there are too many variables."

 

I completely agree perception is completely equal and valid to each individual. I just cant really get on board with using that as some kind of measuring stick.

 

My original response was "makes him and those around sound better" this is my measuring stick for quality of player. Just my personal approach which is what we are here to discuss right? Art cannot be quantified.

[meganutt7]

Danny, I think you took me the wrong way. I didnt really mean Pat was "Better" - I said Pat was better "in a conventional sense" I probably should have said "in a technical sense" meaning yes his ability to play different arps and over changes etc. The crux of my statement was this passage: "For that reason I dont think you can accurately connect "quality" to individual perception. I see your point there... but it doesn't sit right to me - not because I cant accept it. Just as a method or measurement there are too many variables." I completely agree perception is completely equal and valid to each individual. I just cant really get on board with using that as some kind of measuring stick. My original response was "makes him and those around sound better" this is my measuring stick for quality of player. Just my personal approach which is what we are here to discuss right? Art cannot be quantified.

Agreed, 100%, though that raises another question.

When you say that the "good guitarist" makes those around him/her sound "better", define better. Also, Pat Metheny is "better" in the "conventional" sense?!? What conventionality is that?!?!



I am just breaking balls, bro. Getting too philosophical and abstract in my old age.

[jeremy_green]

No man, not at all bust away!

 

You are right to chip away at any reference to that bull{censored} competition thing. There is WAY too much of that around. The correct term for Pat would be "more educated and experienced in broader applied theory" I suppose : )

[TrickyBoy]

To add a little to this discussion, I think you can look at a guitarist much like Olympic judges look at figure skaters. There's a technical element and an artistic element.

Both have their place.

The technical side can, generally speaking, be judged objectively and I think we could all get together and agree on a guitarist's technical skill. Guthrie Govan is technically a better guitarist that Angus Young.

The artistic side is 100% purely subjective.

Personally, I've never owned a Govan CD. I have AC/DC's entire catalog.

What's also subjective is how much weight you put on the technical side vs. the artistic side. To some people, the technical side a necessary prerequisite to be considered a good guitarist. To others, one's artistry can totally trump their lack of technical skill. I don't think there's a right answer.

[mosiddiqi]

People who don't play guitar generally don't give a monkeys about a players technical ability..they just want to dance/jump around and enjoy the tune (note I said the tune, not the solo ).

 

I went through a horrible phase where I'd be standing at the back of the room/pub/hall/arena..arms crossed, frowning, thinking "the guitar player's legato could be smoother, he's {censored}"...whilst everyone else was just having a great time. In that phase, I didn't enjoy a single gig I went to. What a wanker I was (still am sometimes ).

 

My personal turning point was going to see Public Enemy..not a "real instrument" in sight, and having my head blown off by the sheer power and musicality of their songs. They were heavier than any metal band I've seen..and I've seen them all, I'm old enough.

 

Nowadays, my criteria is simple. Move me. Make me feel something. Guthrie Govan does that for me by playing guitar at a technical level that is just astounding, and Mark Lanegan does that for me by singing simple songs beautifully. They both make my heart leap with their very different talents.

 

I'm not sure if I've added to this discussion