technical or emotional?

This one turned out to be good reading for the lunch break! Cash to Kris to Yngiwe to Stevie! Cool.

I read an interview with Al Dimeola once where he said that the technical speed guitar path had gotten out of hand (late 70's) and he felt that he could play fast, but had forgotten the emotion. He had to stop and slow down and listen. (albeit, he still plays pretty fast). What came to mind reading this thread was a class in Art History. Dr. Boucher climbed down some poor girls throat when she commented that primitave art looked the way it did due to the people's inability to think like we do today. His response was primarily "never assume someone isn't technically able to produce a certain artistic quality because it doesn't appear that way to you."

Technical perfection is not defined by high speed or complex rhythms and note patterns. Virtuosity is defined as complete control over one's instrument.

As far as I'm concerned, one can express a great deal of emotion with out the technique, but it certainly helps. With out the emotion, the most perfect technique is .... boring. On the other hand, alot of emotion and horrible technique sounds horrible.

As far as my favorites.....

I like Randy California for his sound and style. I like Robert Fripp for his ability for being simple while being extreme. I love Marc Bolan's expression of notes and chords. Leslie West can make the air sound like it's on fire. Mick Ronson, BB King, Robert Cray made it all look so easy. And Joni Mitchell can do anything!

i consider myself a technical guitar player, i want to master my instrument, that does not mean i can't play, or don't play without feeling, speed
and being technical are 2 different things, if playing with emotion means you have to boohoo your brains out to make a solo sound good, i'll
take technical, and vai and malmsteen? i would bet my soul they can play with enough emotion to bring tears to your eyes, or they can melt your face,
thats why they are called virtuoso's, they do things on guitar that the majority of the players in the world can't 8)

I don't think you can substitute technique with emotion. That being said, I don't believe technique is hard stuff. Changing from an Em chord to a G chord, that's a technical skill. It's not hard to do but it's not something that emotion can substitute.

i consider myself a technical guitar player, i want to master my instrument, that does not mean i can't play, or don't play without feeling, speed
and being technical are 2 different things, if playing with emotion means you have to boohoo your brains out to make a solo sound good, i'll
take technical, and vai and malmsteen? i would bet my soul they can play with enough emotion to bring tears to your eyes, or they can melt your face,
thats why they are called virtuoso's, they do things on guitar that the majority of the players in the world can't 8)

I think that's the truth about it, even someone like B.B King which most people would say has lots of emotion (and i won't disagree) still is technical to some degree, he has his own type of vibrato and playing style. As well, Stevie Ray Vaughan has a ton of emotion in his playing and his technique is just amazing, no matter how "sloppy" some players claim his playing is (until I can play as good as him, I have no right to call his playing "sloppy" :lol: ). I think it really comes down to the fact that different people like different music and will feel different things: someone may listen to a love song and cry, while another person thinks it's just a sappy, cliched pop song.

Okay. Aside from guys like SRV and Hendrix who are probably the first names you think of when you hear "emotional guitarists," here's a few more for ya-

BB King- Extremely fast? No, not really. Flashy? Well, depends on what you consider flashy. He's none of this, in fact, you rarely, if ever, hear him playing chords. He's blues. He wouldn't be able to shred like a mad man, or maybe play these great chord arrangements (I'm sure he can, but you catch my drift), but he produces beautiful music with the emotion he has. He plays with his heart, not with his mind. That's what makes BB King who he is, all the emotion he pours into music.

David Gilmour- Yea, a lot of people consider David Gilmour a technical genious because he never missed a note. That's probably true, but at the same time, from the other perspective, in order to be be 'technical' you have to play fast. Now, I think David Gilmour is a technical and emotional player (he really cares about the music that comes out of his guitar and shows it when he hits that beautiful note). Anyways, on what some people think, sorry, you don't have to play extremely fast to be great. Dave plays with emotion and it shows through his guitar work, you don't have to be "technical" to be great. Again, I think he's flawless in his work (creates great guitar work, the arrangements, etc), but remember, I'm going by what others think "technical" is.

Also, I could go on and on about Hendrix, but I'll keep it short. Sloppy, sloppy, that's a load of crap. He poured his heart into his music, even though some people think it was fake. When he played with his teeth, "it just happened." When he played behind his back "it just happened." And whenever he had that "moaning" face expression, "it just happened." Jimi created his music through his dreams and his heart.

And on the first page I noticed "Arjen" (his old username haha), was saying that different people connect to different types of music. But we're talking strictly about guitar playing. Nowdays the guitar has become non existant. Chords, chords, no solos, or very few atleast.

this has been a topic that has been debated for years, the way i look at it is, there's nothing wrong with shredding, there's nothing wrong with being a technical player, and there's nothing wrong with playing with alot of emotion, i love the guitar period !, and it doesn't matter who your favorites are
there all great because they touched each and everyone of us in a way that made us want to play and thats the beauty of it 8)

And on the first page I noticed "Arjen" (his old username haha), was saying that different people connect to different types of music. But we're talking strictly about guitar playing. Nowdays the guitar has become non existant. Chords, chords, no solos, or very few atleast.

I'm confused, how is the guitar non-existent if people play chords on them? Why does their have to be a solo? Alot of songs have interludes now, usually with vocals. Singers go in keys, scales, and melodies. Not all that different from soloing on a guitar.

OWA: In all my years of music listening/playing I could never understand the difference between lead and (not)lead guitar. If a band has one guitar player, why is he/she the lead guitarist. Why are there bands with two lead guitarists? ect.... I never understood the concept of alternative music either. And then one time I was in a band with a "lead" guitarist. I reached my breaking point with him, but had a clear understanding of alternative. No lead guitarist, just a guitar player.

Kevin 72790: As far as David Gilmour, he definately describes what some of us are going to here. Emotion and technique, with out being extravagant. You should read "Inside out" by Nick Mason. There's a bit about the "Momentary Lapse of Reason" tour hiring extra musicians. The comment Pink Floyd made was that the musicians hired had an easy time playing their music. They (Mason/Gilmour/Wright) didn't want to actually decide if it was because they were really good musicians, or if it was because Pink Floyd's music isn't that dificult.

I don't think technique is synonomous with speed. I saw Sergio and Omar Assad a couple of years ago. Talk about technique, incredible. When I saw BB King last year, he sat down and didn't play much guitar. But when he did, WOW! Back in 1991, I saw a band called Stevie Stilletto and the Switchblades in a warehouse in Tallahassee. Their guitarist's performance is still an awsome memory.

Well, to each his own, but I would rather be a player who can play with feeling and emotion over sheer technical style. Of course you have to have technique to play soulfully, you need technique to play well at all. But many "soulful" players (for lack of a better term) play very simply. They concentrate on the mood of the music they play as opposed to showing how well they can play.

I have listened to Yngwie, Steve Vai and all those great players. Seriously, I have never heard anything from any of them that moved me.

Now here is some super simple guitar playing (and singing) that does move me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPSTHQg44p0

Now you can argue that Chris Issak is just singing technically. He could sing this song regardless of the way he personally feels. I would disagree with that. If you have ever played live you know there are times when you are engrossed in the feeling of the song. He absolutely had to have strong emotions to even write a song like that. True artists put their entire soul into their music, and the listener can tell. You can't fake this type of thing.

The lead guitar in this song is super-simple, most players could play this easily. But to originally compose this beautiful lead guitar took intense listening, and becoming "one" with the music, the feeling and mood.

Sure, I would love to run all over the guitar like Yngwie, or Vai. But I would rather player soulful guitar like this anyday of the week. But that's me. :D

Wes...your the man!!!!

play/sing from the heart and not the head 8)

could not agree more Wes.
I'm a big Isaak/Silvertone fan.
Hershel Yatovitz is a master of 50s' and 60's style guitar, few can create that kind of mood with the spaces between the notes.

"Hershel has played guitar since the age of 12. He is proficient on guitar and bass and draws from a variety of styles, including rock, jazz, blues, African, reggae, Latin, Euro-ethnic, country and folk. He performed and taught for nine years at the Stanford Jazz Workshop, where he worked with Dizzy Gillespie, Stan Getz, Joe Pass and many other jazz luminaries."

http://p203.ezboard.com/Hershel-Yatovitz-Bio/fchrisisaakandsilvertonefansitefrm7.showMessage?topicID=1.topic

And on the first page I noticed "Arjen" (his old username haha), was saying that different people connect to different types of music. But we're talking strictly about guitar playing. Nowdays the guitar has become non existant. Chords, chords, no solos, or very few atleast.

I'm confused, how is the guitar non-existent if people play chords on them? Why does their have to be a solo? Alot of songs have interludes now, usually with vocals. Singers go in keys, scales, and melodies. Not all that different from soloing on a guitar.
I'm not trying to sound like an ass or anything, but you are clearly biased towards your favorite genre of music.

Wes- So true.
Oenyaw- Yeah, I'm gonna pick up that book someday. Nick Mason left a lot of holes in the book, I've heard, bujt it'd still be worth the read since I love Floyd.

Kev, I don't see what OWA said as bias, its truth. The guitar is still very much present, it's just taken a different form. I think its you and I who are biased, we expect to have good guitar solos in our music, while a lot of modern music lovers find this standard intro-verse-chorus-veruse-chorus-solo-verse-chorus-solo-outro format to be repetitive and over done. Which in truth, it is. Very few classic rock songs vary from this format.

I still love it, but its clear that guitar playing has taken a different direction in modern music.

Kev, I don't see what OWA said as bias, its truth. The guitar is still very much present, it's just taken a different form. I think its you and I who are biased, we expect to have good guitar solos in our music, while a lot of modern music lovers find this standard intro-verse-chorus-veruse-chorus-solo-verse-chorus-solo-outro format to be repetitive and over done. Which in truth, it is. Very few classic rock songs vary from this format.

I still love it, but its clear that guitar playing has taken a different direction in modern music.
Yes, it has. And it's a lot less of a factor as it used to be. Electric especially. I'd say acoustic is the same as it was in 60s, in terms of importance/times it's used. Bass probably plays the same role too.

But guitar, I feel like it's slowly dieing in importance for many bands especially since a lot of bands in todays music are using electric sounds to take the place of that. I'm not saying the guitar is nonexistant(its not), the importantance has just fallen.

Music is a different style nowadays, and all opinions differ. But some people forever defend their style of music, that's why I said OWA is biased. It's clear from many of her past posts. I don't wanna be rude or anything, that's not me, it's just my perspective on the situation here.

There's a lot of good points made on either side of the argument - but isn't the simple truth of the matter that you NEED some degree of technical skill in order to convey emotion? I feel this more strongly about songwriting - how are you going to get your point across to your audience if you can't articulate your emotions? Just as you need some command of your chosen language to make your audience aware of your message, surely you need some degree of mastery of your chosen instrument to get your musical point across?

It's funny, I'm not much of a Classical buff - but the music that really stirs emotions in me is Bernstein's score for "The Magnificent Seven" - for me, that music alone lifts the film from a good Western to a great film. I can't explain why - I just love the music, it gives me goosebumps in a way that no other piece of music has ever done. I could listen to it for hours and find something new every time...to me, it's musical perfection. Yet when I mention this to anyone else, they tend to fob it off with "Yeah, it's cool, but....."

The only songs I can think of that provoke a similar reaction are Lennon's "In My Life" - it just touches a chord somewhere in me - and Gilbert O'Sullivan's "Alone Again Naturally." The latter song is easier to explain - it was played a lot on the radio at the time my father died, and one verse had the lyrics:

"I remember I cried when my father died,
Never wishing to hide the tears,
My mother, god rest her soul,
She was 55 (?) years old,
Couldn't understand why the only man
She had ever loved had been taken..."

In that case, there was instant communication between writer and listener - it was as if he'd crawled right inside my head and put exactly what I (and my mother) were feeling to music. I still can't listen to that song without welling up, over 35 years on.....

But to get back to the original point, there has to be emotion and technique in a piece of music....perfect technique is meaningless unless you've got something to say, and emotion is meaningless unless you've got the necessary skills to convey that emotion. That's my take on it anyway, for what it's worth.....

:D :D :D

Vic