Technique v Musicality

Freebird

Most of the music I like is performed by a group of mediocre musicians, but it sounds great to my ears. However when I come across a Greatest Musician article, although technically brilliant, I find I can barely get through listening to any of their music.

Which one wins out for you?

viz

I have a mental graph with the vertical axis named "something to say" and the horizontal "the ability to say it", and most of the musicians I love tend to sit in the upper right quadrant. 

Lebarque

I'm with you, @Freebird The songs are more important.

octatonic

viz said:

I have a mental graph with the vertical axis named "something to say" and the horizontal "the ability to say it", and most of the musicians I love tend to sit in the upper right quadrant. 

Agree.

Fretwired

I don't think that it's either. I think it is perfectly possible to have an amazing technique and create music that people want to listen to ... I can think of some amazing bands with top notch musicians. I also don't think there are mediocre musicians who make great music. They are musicians .. they are good at what they do. I once watched Martin Carthy 'strum' on an acoustic guitar .. amazing  - his sense of timing and rhythm was flawless and musical. Looked easy - difficult to replicate without hours of practice.

earwighoney

Fretwired said:
I once watched Martin Carthy 'strum' on an acoustic guitar .. amazing  - his sense of timing and rhythm was flawless and musical. Looked easy - difficult to replicate without hours of practice.

Martin Carthy is a rare example of incredible technique and musicality combined. 

digitalscream

These days, technical brilliance seems to mean "unlistenable" (I'm talking about Dream Theater et al), but it wasn't always thus.

Some of my favourite acts - Extreme, It Bites, Satch etc - are both technically brilliant and good to listen to (in my opinion, at least).

Freebird

By mediocre, I meant outside of the group who invariably get mentioned everytime one of these 'Greatest Ever' discussions pop up  

Lestratcaster

All about the song for me too, be it 3 chords or 4 chords, if its catchy and has a hook, its good to me.

stratman3142

octatonic said:

viz said:

I have a mental graph with the vertical axis named "something to say" and the horizontal "the ability to say it", and most of the musicians I love tend to sit in the upper right quadrant. 

Agree.

Can I pick that answer as well?

guitarfishbay

All about the song or the vibe.

I like loads of music from raw singer songwriter stuff to technical metal.

The thing that kills my vibe right now is the perfectly timed shred picking stuff, as in edited to grid... while it can work for rhythms it just breaks my immersion for leads and doesn't have that 'holy shit did they just nail that' excitement to it that some 80s and 90s shred players did.. sounds too safe

richardhomer

I don't 'celebrate' poor technique - but certainly decry a lack of musicality.

For me it's probably about having sufficient technique to play what you want to express - and that can vary depending on your style. Jeff Beck clearly has more technique at his disposal than (say) B B King - but I'd hesitate to suggest he is more expressive....

Jez6345789

Its a strange thing that at times technique is a hinderence.
But I am sure many a producer has the over years told a guitarist to build the solo from the melody rather than head off into the place where only other guitarist might appreciate what they hear.

again people like Guthrie Gover,n Holdsworth etc all have awesome technique and advanced musical knowledge but most of the time they are only appreciated by other muso's and even then often the upper echelon.

english_bob

Jez6345789 said:

again people like Guthrie Gover,n Holdsworth etc all have awesome technique and advanced musical knowledge but most of the time they are only appreciated by other muso's and even then often the upper echelon.

I have to admit to not "getting" Allan Holdsworth at all, but I think Guthrie is one of a rare breed of musicians who can play everything there is to play from a technical standpoint, but can ditch the lot and play with feeling and soul when needed. 


In the 70s and 80s, twiddlywank guitar players were generally confined to a proper band- one that was expected to write music that might concievably trouble the pop charts usually- which meant that the squiddlynoodles had to be focused in to a short solo, a catchy riff and a few fills rather than sprawling instrumental epics designed to encompass all the time signatures known to man, all twelve keys and a bass solo because "hey, check me out". Say what you will about Eddie Van Halen, the guy knew to blow for eight bars then shut up and let the guy sing the song.

In the post-rock era (yes we are.) instrumental virtuosity seems to have come unstuck from popular music of the kind that normal people listen to (unless you count country music), so the sort of guitar players who grew up on Van Halen, Toto, Vai-era Whitesnake, Extreme, Mr Big or whatever have nowhere to park their skills. Anyone younger than that might never have heard a really challenging guitar solo in a new song on the radio ever. Or maybe they look down on that stuff because for the likes of Steve Vai it was a stepping stone to being able to to make Passion and Warfare, which is now what the aspiring meedle-meister is aiming for. Trouble is, people don't want to hear that shit. Not in nearly the numbers that wanted to hear 80s arena rock with kickass guitar solos anyway.

I wonder if maybe we need a new paradigm for what "technical" guitar playing sounds like. I can't help but feel like most of the shred guys around now are in thrall to Van Halen and his ilk, whose music is so far in the past, or so far to the fringes of pop music now as to be totally irrelevant to regular people. I wonder if popular music is too fragmented now to allow it, but what would make technical playing appealing and relevant again is for it to re-integrate itself in to music people like. How would you play guitar on a Rihanna record?* What could a guitarist contribute to Stormzy's music? 




* I know, Nuno's her guitar player. I'm not sure he's on some visionary quest to reinvent the guitar for the 21st century though. 

thomasross20

Always thought Slash was the perfect player... good technique but an AMAZING ear for catchy lines and puts real raw emotion into his playing. Sometimes I think the better you get technically, the less musical it can sound. Lots of focus on the exact movements needed but sometimes good to just roughly hit this that or whatever, not think about the technique, and just play something that sounds awesome. I remember an interview where Slash was saying about how playing scales was like playing "Mary had a little lamb" and who cares about that sh!t - he just plays what sounds good to his ear. And there was an Andy Wood video recently where he played Nightrain and said he'd rather be the guy that wrote that than some obscure jazz musician with blistering mental and physical technique - and I have to agree. 

"Normal" folk don't give a toss about speed or exotic changes - just something that sounds good. Use the guitar to its strengths without getting arty farty about it.. slap some gain on, do some string scrapes and chuck some vibrato on a few well-placed notes. 

I do listen to instrumental stuff but not as much as I used to. It's an indulgence and it can get boring. I actually prefer singer-songwriters now. I feel there's more "real life" to it, a connection with the voice and stories told. 

Every time I stick on Appetite it's like "F*** yeah" - takes me back to when I heard it the first time and it fuels a fire inside me - just makes me excited and want to play!! 

PolarityMan

So for guitar I agree, almost everything I like is done by I guess "reasonable" guitarists but not virtuosos. But if you look at drummers nearly everything Im really into has amazing drummers.

Actually these days for me to get into something new the singer has to be pretty decent too.

thecolourbox

It bothers me that people who play in an understated way, or a subtle way, seem to be excluded from being good technically. I grew up musically in the classical music world, whereby people that can play fast (or write the music for it) are still lauded for their ability but there is also a lot of reverence for those who can play slowly, expressively, with balance. It's a lot harder to ride your bike as slowly as possible than it is to freewheel fast down a steep hill.

I think though that is the musicality maybe. I think generally anybody can learn to play it fast if they put the hours in and the drills etc, but playing in a musical way is a lot harder.

There's then the difference between playing it and writing it.

I also like to compare it to art and painting - a lot of the less well known renaissance or romantic era painters were probably technically much better painters than the modern art painters (or they showed it more in their work at least, which is still a workable comparison), but the ideas or the stylistic elements of the modern artists' works still holds the interest as much if not more.