Originally Posted by: iamthe_eggmanOuch, sorry, gotta call you on this one, Incidents... Let's take a look at who has voted in the polls, and while we're at it, who hasn't voted. How can you say that a poll of 12 persons on this board is [U]at all[/U] representative of the 60,556 members, or the 50-100 actively posting members?

I did say that I felt that good technique was necessary, but I only said that because I define good technique as "playing the guitar well". So it was pretty obvious to me that you need to play the instrument well in order to become a great guitar player. If I had for one moment thought that it meant playing perfectly, or superfast, I would have swung to a no.

I believe there are some misconceptions about "Great Technique" and what it is. I don't like Yngwie or Steve Vai, and my idea of Great Technique isn't around those two.

My idea of great technique is the ability to very consistently be able to play clean (no sloppiness), use a wide range of dynamics, the ability to adapt to many styles and changes in music (that is, to adapt your technique as needed), to have individual dexterity for each finger, and have some virtuoso tricks up your sleeve (doesn't mean you have to use them, just know them). Does a person need all these? I think a person needs the majority of them if they want to be regarded as a seriously talented musician; It depends on what you consider "good". It is important. Is it the most important thing? No. Like I said before, technique is the construction crew on the bridge between your mind and your sound. It's up to you to decide how smooth you want the road to be. And about Music Theory, I made a comparison of those who disregard Technique with those who disregard Music Theory; What's wrong with that?

~Incidents