Larry Mal wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 11:23 am
I never could shred. Never really tried.
People are handed a canon of classic rock in at least English speaking Western nations, and this comes with some kind of ranking about who is the "best" guitar players and shit. I worked with a guy who told me that Eric Clapton was one of the "best" guitar players and I could not understand what that meant.
In what way? Did that mean that he wrote great songs (hint: he didn't) or maybe he didn't write great songs but the guitar playing was still great? I just never knew what he meant and I doubt he had given much thought to it, either, there simply is a Classic Rock Guitar Hero canon and Eric Clapton is in it.
What always used to mystify me was Jeff Beck... I'm an old guy, but he's still talked about as if he was part of the same triumvirate of Yardbirds guitar players. Don't believe me? Go to the Gear Page right now.
Like it's 1965 and the Yardbirds are still a thing, and we just gloss over the new five decades of mediocrity with some of these people, the Michelob ads, the fusion albums no one bought and shit.
All very solid points. Cream wrote good songs, some of which were very unique. Clapton solo is nothing really unique or special at all. Mostly just cover songs, and ripping himself off over and over again. Original songs? Cocaine... yea, real special stuff.
Jeff Beck is on another level. He came up with techniques that pushed guitar forward, and never really sounded much like his contemporaries, melodically or structurally. Not my type of music, but to hear Jeff Beck and not hear this big difference is peculiar at best.
He belongs nowhere near the same lists as Clapton. His volume knob work and strat vibrato use alone puts Clapton nowhere near him.
That would be akin to comparing Zappa's guitar playing to Santana's, because they both use an SG and had big orchestral bands behind them.
Santana played latin style on an electric, often simply playing cover songs for his studio career. Zappa tossed the rules out and reinvented the wheel.
Some of his techniques are still underappreciated, due to his output being so odd and in left field. His playing style is largely unexplored and ignored, while Santana is revered.
I can "shred", but it is only because I spent many years playing Gypsy swing and Balkan music with a small combo, and it was never because I wanted to be a guitar "God". It was just part of the music to use arpeggios and fast runs, so I drilled the techniques until they felt natural, as you would with learning any new style.
Turns out, a lot of metal uses the same techniques, so you can also suddenly play metal after learning Gypsy.
The speed didn't impress me, it was the melody and harmony involved that blew my mind. The Eastern European and Romany modes and scales were fresh to me
I was in my mid twenties, when I got into this type of guitar playing, and had already been playing and performing music since I was a small child. I didn't even start on guitar. I played piano and bass with family bands for years before trying a guitar (Newfoundland Traditional Music).
This was common where I live. Newfoundland traditionally had a huge per capita percentage of musicians. Everybody could play something. The internet and globalization has absolutely fucked that up though. Kids these days listen to autotuned crap, don't want to play traditional music with their families as children, and really dont want to be told how shitty that is.
They want to play Call of Duty all day and listen to Lil Whoever's latest trap rap.
Not to derail the conversation entirely, but I notice a big difference in the perception of 'guitar skill' between those who were raised in musical families, or are multi instrumentalists, and those who only ever played guitar and picked it up later in life.
The former generally doesn't care about speed or technique, only that you are willing to learn, and that you are willing to try and improvise or create on the spot.
It's more about experience, a certain level of adaptability and general musical vocabulary. If you meet those metrics, you are considered a competent musician, no matter how fast or slow you are.
The latter group of guitarists seem to be mostly impressed by surface level skills, such as speed and intensity.
This is just an observation I have had from playing with both types of guitar player over the years. The guys that only care about guitar, seem to appreciate flashy playing more and put it on a pedestal. They care about guitar gods.
Anyone can get fast and loud with practice, but what can they do with this skill? There are thousands of well trained technical guitarists in every genre, but how many of them actually play stuff worth listening to?
Much of it is too cerebral and exists simply to show off speed and 'skill'. Even in Jazz, you get guitarists like Pat Methany, who is an absolute genius player, yet I can barely tolerate his work. Some of it is really amazing and will move you. Most of it is cerebral and seems to only exist to highlight all the wild ideas he comes up with.
My own original music uses none of these techniques, as they don't fit the music. My solo stuff sounds like a mix of a bunch of my influences, some obvious, some not at all, but I don't use much fancy schmancy playing techniques at all, unless it actually fits the piece.