Great Debates

Here are some things to think about when it comes to music, musicality, and so forth. Some of these subjects have been touched upon before, but I feel the need to revisit them as I want to offer my own opinions. The concepts I wish to cover are:
1) Technicality vs. Soul
2) Theory vs. Non-theory (i.e. the 'uneducated' musician)


So here's my rant.

With regards to technicality vs soul, I don't see why there can't be a mutual harmony between the two. This is a hugely debated topic. People say that fast and technical guitarists don't 'feel' the music. Likewise, they say that soulful guitarists aren't technical. My argument is that this is just a myth. Technicality and soul can be blended together. I'd argue that guitarists such as Eric Johnson, Stanley Jordan, and even Shawn Lane are proof that technicality and soulfulness can exist in mutual harmony. While being the best at fast alternate picking or sweeping arpeggios certainly isn't (or at least shouldn't) be the aim of a musician, I'd argue that technicality certainly never hurt anyway. If used modestly and tastefully, being proficient on one's instrument only helps express themselves as artists. Why should we be so quick to scoff at a guitarist when they use a certain technique? There seems to be this mentality in society that complex music is crap (barring musical communities such as this guitar forum) as witnessed by the philosophy of punk bands (ie. Simple Plan, Green Day, etc) and, to a larger extent, the general music-listening audience. This is reflective in the tastes of mainstream music-consuming audiences. I'm certainly not out to change the mainstream music scene. But can you see what I'm getting at? The billboard charts and other statistics would tend to suggest that people generally like simple music. Let's face it, the average joe likes 'radio-friendly' tunes. You know, 3-chord per song tunes. Well, it's a shame that this is the case. I'm not advocating that all music should be complex like Steve Vai's music. There is certainly a time and place for simple music. But I digress. The point is, the more you know as a musician, the better you are able to express yourself. Don't look at technical proficiency as a hinderance; it can only facilitate better song writing.

On to theory vs. non-theory. Ok, there's a lot of half-assed musicians out there. We all know that. There's a lot of people who can play instruments, but a lot less that can play their instruments *well*. Of those who can play well, many are proficient with music theory. Hell, if you're a studio musician, you're going to need to sight-read sheet music and charts as well as have great chops. How about those great musicians, however, who have NO theory whatsoever. Herein lies the question: Is theory (in your opinion) essential to be a great musician? My response would be no. There are people who will argue against my position, which makes this a good topic. The reason I say that theory is not required to be a great musician is this: If one hones their skills or has natural ability and develops amazing chops on the guitar (or any instrument), regardless of his/her knowledge of theory, he/she can still become a great guitarist. Stevie Ray Vaughan, among others, is a primary example of such a musician. He couldn't read any music (to the best of my knowledge), but there are very few guitarists who can make the guitar sing like he can. Of course there are guitarists who can shred circles around him, but few can evoke the magic emotion and pristine sound he gets out of his guitar. Indeed, a guitarist can develop extensive technique with scales, arpeggios, alternate picking, tapping, and whatnot without ever really know what the circle of fifths is or what augmented means. One can have a working knowledge of the fretboard without ever setting foot into the realm of theory. Therein lies my case.

Looking forward to some heated debates guys. :)

PS: Sorry for the length, but I thought it'd make an interesting thread.

in regards to technicality vs. soul I would tell you to listen to Yngwie play "blues" solos as he calls it

it's not the blues, it's blinding fast licks without the use of harmonic minor , there is definatly no feeling to that music that he refers to as "blues"

there is a definate abundance of technicality and a lack of soul in those solos

and with the theory thing, I feel that theory can sometimes hurt the writing writing process, but the amount that it helps jamming and improv more than makes up for it

I think that feeling and techniques are not seperate in song writing. Feeling should come first, technical stuff second. Thats my opinion though.
Theory is a good thing, and I think knowing it helps with ones playing. I on the other hand don't my theory that well, so I can't actually preach this. I know that I play fine with out knowing my theory too well, somethings one can know without knowing theories. Pure instinct I suppose.

There is a beauty to a shape with pefectly symmetrical dimensions and that to me is the same beauty heard from a perfectly executed advanced technique song. After the first time though the appeal leaves me and I'd only listen to those longass instrumental soloing songs to analyse it (or any tunes by those technically advanced bands). On the other hand, there's a certain beauty in raw emotion displayed from some musicians who don't possess as much talent, but really have such connections with what they're putting across. ... So I only listen to music unless I'm analysing it, or about to go fight to the death (the band slayer comes to mind, i love those guys). I only have appreciation for those 2 extremes and everything else is below me.

That's my personal opinion. For the debate I'd like to add that of course you need theory to be a good guitar player. Anybody, and I mean anybody, can sit there for years and become an awe inspiring speed guitarist. But if you're wiping off those licks in the wrong key because you don't know the difference, I'd consider your life a waste. Call it musicality. Anybody can be a guitarist. Without musicality or theory, you're only that. A guitarist. SRV could get away with no theory, the same with Hendrix etc., because they dealt specifically with the pent. box. So I'm calling SRV and Hendrix non-musicians. haha. What have I done. ... Wait they had musicality, of course they did. They didn't have theory. They had musicality, but didn't have theory. I can't compute this. Must go insane.

IMO a good guitar player does not have anything to do with technicallity ( to some extent). U r a good guitar player when u can turn on the radio and automatically kno the sound of the guitar and whose playin it. Here are some examples.

1) Jimi Hendrix.. u always kno it is him when he plays.
2)Stevie Ray Vaughn... he has an unmistakable sound.
3) Jimmy page... when u hear a riff of his... in a second ur sayin "thats led zepp"

Those r just "some" examples.

With theory and non theory.... it doesnt really matter tom me... as long as ur a good player it does not really matter what u kno... some non theoritic players r better than those who r educated.

DreamRyche2112:
...some non theoritic players r better than those who r educated.

I couldn't agree more. There's some players with extensive theory knowledge that still suck compared to other musicians. The reason for this, I assume, is because guitar (as with any instrument) is a hands-on approach. You don't learn sweeping arpeggios in a theory book. You learn them by actually picking up the guitar and practicing.

There's a bunch of issues you guys addressed. Some interesting thoughts. I notice there tends to be lots of disagreement among these points.

Yngwies blues runs are very inventive and unique.I think he chooses to express all 'slow' deep emotion in harmonic minor,as its very dramatic sounding and not as 'slap-stick' sounding as pentatonic.

I had a revealation...why does something soulful or emotional have to be slow or not fast???
My soul or emotion might want to be a blazing dark power...
I'm not expressing myself any less if I choose not to use slow bends and exaggerated vibrato.


You speak with your instrument.I say whats on my mind.

Later! \m/

i always tell my students to learn as much theory as necessary, but as little as possible.

some basic knowledges can be a very powerfull partner when it comes to writing music. not necessarily when improvising though! some may dissagree here, but i personally think that it is way more important to be able to instantly play along with a tune you have never heard before and you dont know which key it is in - just by LISTENING.
99% of all studio-situations deal with very basic songs since thats where you make the most money with. and the ability to play those tunes by ear is what (for me) counts most. theory comes in handy when you encounter songs of a more difficult structure with unpredictable and mindboggling chord changes. in that case it will definitely be important to know your theory - but how often do you record non-prewritten guitarparts for frank zappa or his like?

to me, theory is a tool that helps me when i am stuck in a song and i cant seem to find a linking between two parts. when that happens i open the theory section of my mind and "construct" something that sounds well. other than that i rely on my ear and inspiration.

so much for the theory thing.

as for the speed thing. i think that in previous threads the tendency was not to generally bash speed and shred. it is a part of my training-routine aswell. what bugs me most is, that a very big part of the "young" or "new" guitarrists - those who are in the proces of startng out on guitar - is just after speed. nothing wrong with that, but i get the impression that speed is all that counts for them. i get the picture of a breed of new, superfast guitarrists with only one gual - 100 nps. thats why we (well - i at least) say that speed doesnt count. speed is (only) ONE part of countless others that make you a good guitarrist and most of all - a good musician.

[Edited by Azrael on 12-10-2003 at 02:13 AM]

I really like speed but i am the only one out of my friends that is interested in shredding. Also my goal isnt 4353nps. Its to be able to play a variety of music very well and i would say speed is just something extra i can add into my music sometimes. As my teacher says, if you can play fast you can play slow and if you can only play slow you cant play fast.

Azrael... maybe all the people and your students have been brainwashed by michael angelo :)

Guitarists are painters...the more colors and brushes with which to work with,the more interesting the art can become.

Speed is part of the pallette as well as theory.Different styles,techiques and theory are also on the pallette...the guitar is your canvas.

aquiring Speed is simply an expansion of potential expression options.

Knowing theory sure dosnt help your fingers go any faster or adapt any different.Theory is a knowlege of what comprises music and its faces/inner workings,the way physics explains motion.
You should have SOME understanding of what your doing even if vague,but explaining what your playing has no effect on the execution or what people hear.
Theory seems to be an accomplishing/self improving medium...sorta like going back to school in your 40's to get your mba for no real reason accept to build character and self worth/esteem...

well thats it.

Later! \m/

The whole reason I want to play guitar is to be able to put the music that plays in my head, out on the guitar.

That's it. I want to be good enough/fast enough/know enough techniques so that when I hear something in my head, it can be translated straight to the guitar.

That's the ultimate goal for all musicians I would think.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I'm going for.

So you see a guy that can pull 100 nps or whatever is considered fast and odds are that's all he can do. That tempo only applies to certain styles. You ask that guy to play over some other style, other than what he's used to whipping the solos ontop of, and he's lost (brings to mind a thrasher I played with in a production of Grease hahahaha). A decent guitarist is well versatiled which stems from being a musician. That's why the people at the top are at the top - speed counts but it's only one aspect. And sure you can get away with no theory whatsoever but you've got to acknowledge that it's only going to be a limitation. SRV and Hendrix could not have gone out of their realm because they had no theory. They were very good at what they did but I'll bet you they had regrets (actually 1970 Hendrix started looking into learning theory before he bought it - for orchestral reasons I think, I can't remember). ... A good ear, in my opinion, is unrelated with theory. A good ear come from experience, learned in time. By a good ear I don't necessarily mean pitch-wise, but general musicianship-wise.

Daveasdf,

Well you raise an interesting point I think. It may very well be that SRV and Hendrix couldn't play outside their niche. However, herein lies yet another problem. If an artist does decide to play music outside of their niche, they often get slack for it. There are a few musicians out there (if you can call them musicians) like Cher, Madonna, Neil Young (who shouldn't be mentioned in the same line) that have managed to diversify their sound over the years. Niel Young has dabbled in country, rock, blues. But, for a lot of artists, changing their style is considered 'selling out'. Can you imagine Metallica play country? How about the Dixie Chicks playing metal? My point is that once you've established a trademark sound for yourself or your band, it is very hard to change things. And in many cases, your audience or followers won't want you to change things. They want you to continue writing the same **** over and over. Therefore, even if you have the desire and motivation to want to write new and refreshing stuff (by learning more theory or whatever), there are societal constraints working against you. Just a thought.

While I'm on a rant, I wanted to also mention....

Everyone is guitly of this. Everyone is guilty of having certain expectations of their favorite artists. Here's an illustration. Say, for some reason, Steve Vai was bored of writing the same old guitar-driven albums and wanted to try something different. Say he decided to do a rock album along the lines of Nickelback or Creed with a heavy emphasis on vocal arrangements and nearly no guitar work. We (or fans of Vai) would be angry. We want to hear his guitar work. Hell, that's what he's famous for. But, from his standpoint, it is very possible he was just bored of working on guitar stuff and wanted to try something different.

This notion of 'selling out' is very strong in our society, but it's not necessarily the case. An artist may just want to experiment in different musical genres, with little or no concern about an album's success or monetary value.

Could those of you who are Michael Angelo fans still respect him if he suddenly decided to perform 3-chord pop songs and tour with Britney Spears as her guitarist? Worse yet, what if his decision was not driven by financial gain or stardom but rather just an inherent craving to start playing simple pop tunes?

I think that artists are very much labelled and are expected to stick to those labels.

You really cant knock Yngwie's pentatonic stuff. Its not exactly groundbreaking, but he does have a few killer pentatonic licks.

Originally posted by finger_cruncher
Can you imagine Metallica play country?

Sure can. "Mama Said", off of Load.

Originally posted by chucklivesoninmyheart
Guitarists are painters...the more colors and brushes with which to work with,the more interesting the art can become.

If that's the case, I'm doing paint-by-numbers with my grandma. Just kidding :p

And I agree 100% with Pantallica's theory of the necessity of using theory to get the music out of your head and on to the guitar.

You're talking about a mainstream band doing a complete musical 180 which would be commercially unrealistic. You could slip a couple tunes of a different niche in your album, or do a solo album and such. If buddy from Metallica went and did a ... I was going to say a jazz combo album (then argue he can't and blah blah). I talked of versatility but what does it matter. If you're good at rock then odds are you can diversify into all rock associated music styles, which is personal opinion - not personal limitations. Jazz and classical are specified art forms which no doubt requires a musicians full attention no matter what level his or her theory/technicality is at. SRV had no theory but I'll bet if he had started off on jazz and spent the time on it as he did on blues, he'd have been just as competent at it as blues. It's all relative and of no consequence. They're all good guitarists whether they've got theory or not. Does precision sell more than emotion? Take your favorite of both and which is more commercially successful? That doesn't quite work either. I can't remember what I'm arguing anymore.

Bands and solo peformers doing 180's is a display of there lack of integrity,personally and musically.

Damn right I expect great stuff from bands I listen to.Theres no guilt in having high expectations of your favorite bands.If they are the musicians you think(and they say/or present)they are,then why not deliver?
Why fix something thats not broken and mess up a great sound.Breaking formulas is essential and fresh riffs/approaches is a must for a long running,respected band/peformer.

Sounds should evolve,but not change for any sake but the music.I'm talking as if fact,I know.

Later! \m/