Originally Posted by: Incidents Happen"But to sound great you don´t need to abe to play 16th at 220bpm. what I meant with great technique is for example the level of malmsteen."

It sounds like you are trying to give yourself some self-assurance in not spending the hours in development of a great technique. This is like people who say "Is music theory really important?". How is that even a question? People are lazy, and like to give themselves excuses to not do something they think they won't enjoy. "Well, Hendrix couldn't read music, so I don't either!" - "Well Clapton doesn't have a great technique, and he kicks ass!"

When will the stupidity end?

~Incidents

Sorry man, but your presumption about me is unfortunately wrong. Why do you think, just because I think that to sound great, you don´t have to have a great technique, which is actually true, that I am trying to give myself some self-assurance in not spending the hours in development of a great technique? Why would I otherwise offer half of my practicing time in technique?
And to the theory thing, I´m also not one of those who doubt the importance of theory. But I also put efforts in improving my ear, because I think a good knowledge of music theory will really have great advantages, when you have a good ear and vice versa.

What I want to say is just that technique in my opinion is a bit overrated in comparison to other necessary things, without narrowing the imporance of it.