Originally Posted by: Incidents HappenSays who? You?

If it [U]were [/U] true, then the polls wouldn't look they do.

Speaking of which, lets look at the [U]polls[/U]
7 people say you need a great technique to be great
5 people say you don't.

If this were a presidental election and the state wasn't Florida where the states are counting ballots, then you would be [U]wrong[/U]. And if you say that the polls don't matter, then why did you have a poll? Face it, you won't make it to the big stage if you can't play consistently well and clean (which is the essential part of good technique). I never thought I'd see musicians who didn't think a great technique was important...Takes all kinds.


Still the sympathetic softie
~Incidents

So Incidents you have to distinguish between my last statement and the poll.
In the poll I asked, if you can also be a great player without beeing a master in technique, where I´m actually also not that sure, what the answer is.

And in the statement, I said that to sound great, you don´t have to be that good in technique.

Example for what I mean: Let´s take the Smoke on the water riff: Sounds great, at least for 99%. One of the 2 or 3 best rock riffs ever. But is it hard? No, of course not, everybody could play that riff after 3 minutes playing the guitar.

That´s just all what I want to say the whole time: You can touch people with your music without being technical, just with being musicial, but it doesn´t work the other way round.

But again, of course that doesn´t mean that you should quit trying to improve your technique to a very high level.