Fastest guitarist in the world - official
- Thread starter Superhuman
- Start date
ocnor
Lord Of The Thighs
lpdeluxe
The Precision Bass Guy
Yes, I'm condescending, and I don't try to hide it. This speed picking discussion reminds me of when my boys were small and all excited over the "free gifts" they could earn by answering the ads in comic books.
I'll bail out of the conversation: I've stated my views, others disagree, and we'll leave it at that.
Cheers
I'll bail out of the conversation: I've stated my views, others disagree, and we'll leave it at that.
Cheers
DrewPeterson7
Sage of the Order
I'll take an "agree to disagree" - I certainly don't see eye to eye with you, but provided you express your opinions politely I'll gladly do you the same courtesy.
famous beagle
Well-known member
I agree that many musicians get on their emotional high horse when it comes to technique in music.
The funny thing is ... where do you draw the line?
Everything on the guitar has to do with technique. Stevie Ray's "technique" was almost solely responsible for his tone --- the way he picked (with a lot of rest strokes on the lower strings) and dug in, how hard he pressed, the way he used left-hand muting so he could strum through all six strings and just sound one note, etc. Blues guitar is just as much about technique as any style is. Sure, it's not the "proper" technique (whatever that means), but it's technique all the same.
Every guitar player has at some point in their development worked on their technique to enable them to play something faster than they previously could. Remember your first time playing through a minor pentatonic shape and how long it took? Well, I don't remember that specifically because it was too long ago, but I do remember thinking I'd never be able to play the "Back in Back" riff because it was just "so fast!" Now it's very easy.
What's the barometer as to what's too fast and what's not? This guy likes playing the guitar fast. So what? The title of that video wasn't "check out my incredibly emotional playing." It specifically said in the title that it had to do with a world record in playing speed. The intentions couldn't be more clear.
What's the limit? Jimi Hendrix played some fast stuff in "Machine Gun" (especially for back then), but of course he played it "with feeling." What exactly does that mean? Are you going to tell me that he wasn't playing as fast as he could? Was Hendrix thinking, "I could play faster, but it won't have as much feeling if I do." That's ridiculous. He was playing as fast as he could, and he was doing it as precisely as he could.
A lot of people praise Gilmour for his feel. "He doesn't play fast ... he plays with feeling" people say. But compared to a long time ago he plays pretty fast.... and very cleanly too.
Everyone has to work at technique on their instrument to play things faster than when they start. It's just that some players feel compelled to keep increasing their top speed, and others don't. It doesn't necessarily mean they're putting less emotion into their playing.
I always bring up the Steve Vai song "For the Love of God" when people say you can't play fast with emotion. That solo is incredibly emotional to me. When he lets loose with the fast playing in the middle of the solo, it sounds as though it's been building up inside of him the whole song and finally just explodes into this emotional flurry. That flurry eventually gives way to some more incredibly melodic playing that's dripping (IMHO) with emotion. If someone can listen to that song and say they don't think he's playing "with feeling," then that person and I must come from different planets.
I like a lot of blues players, rock players, country players, jazz players, folk players, and other sub-styles. All those styles require different, specific techniques. I don't just listen to one type of music; I get inspired by all sorts.
Now, I certainly don't usually enjoy people like Michael Angelo Batio (does anybody else remember when he was just Michael Angelo?) and others like him where it really seems that speed is really a means to an end. But who am I to say that he's not playing "with feeling?" Who knows? He could be. Whatever.
Music is not a competition. It's not a speed competition, but by the same token ... it's a not "feeling" competion either.
I don't think anyone is going to argue that this video was meant to be incredibly emotional music. It's a technical demonstration, and that's all it was advertised as too.
The funny thing is ... where do you draw the line?
Everything on the guitar has to do with technique. Stevie Ray's "technique" was almost solely responsible for his tone --- the way he picked (with a lot of rest strokes on the lower strings) and dug in, how hard he pressed, the way he used left-hand muting so he could strum through all six strings and just sound one note, etc. Blues guitar is just as much about technique as any style is. Sure, it's not the "proper" technique (whatever that means), but it's technique all the same.
Every guitar player has at some point in their development worked on their technique to enable them to play something faster than they previously could. Remember your first time playing through a minor pentatonic shape and how long it took? Well, I don't remember that specifically because it was too long ago, but I do remember thinking I'd never be able to play the "Back in Back" riff because it was just "so fast!" Now it's very easy.
What's the barometer as to what's too fast and what's not? This guy likes playing the guitar fast. So what? The title of that video wasn't "check out my incredibly emotional playing." It specifically said in the title that it had to do with a world record in playing speed. The intentions couldn't be more clear.
What's the limit? Jimi Hendrix played some fast stuff in "Machine Gun" (especially for back then), but of course he played it "with feeling." What exactly does that mean? Are you going to tell me that he wasn't playing as fast as he could? Was Hendrix thinking, "I could play faster, but it won't have as much feeling if I do." That's ridiculous. He was playing as fast as he could, and he was doing it as precisely as he could.
A lot of people praise Gilmour for his feel. "He doesn't play fast ... he plays with feeling" people say. But compared to a long time ago he plays pretty fast.... and very cleanly too.
Everyone has to work at technique on their instrument to play things faster than when they start. It's just that some players feel compelled to keep increasing their top speed, and others don't. It doesn't necessarily mean they're putting less emotion into their playing.
I always bring up the Steve Vai song "For the Love of God" when people say you can't play fast with emotion. That solo is incredibly emotional to me. When he lets loose with the fast playing in the middle of the solo, it sounds as though it's been building up inside of him the whole song and finally just explodes into this emotional flurry. That flurry eventually gives way to some more incredibly melodic playing that's dripping (IMHO) with emotion. If someone can listen to that song and say they don't think he's playing "with feeling," then that person and I must come from different planets.
I like a lot of blues players, rock players, country players, jazz players, folk players, and other sub-styles. All those styles require different, specific techniques. I don't just listen to one type of music; I get inspired by all sorts.
Now, I certainly don't usually enjoy people like Michael Angelo Batio (does anybody else remember when he was just Michael Angelo?) and others like him where it really seems that speed is really a means to an end. But who am I to say that he's not playing "with feeling?" Who knows? He could be. Whatever.
Music is not a competition. It's not a speed competition, but by the same token ... it's a not "feeling" competion either.
I don't think anyone is going to argue that this video was meant to be incredibly emotional music. It's a technical demonstration, and that's all it was advertised as too.
NewAgeMuttLange
New member
....anger and hatred are feelings.. and 320 could, in theory, accurately represent those feelings... i win?
Henry Mars
New member
I have seen this performed before by classical guitarists, just as fast.
So what.
Before you all cream your jeans see if he can play it on an acoustical guitar.
...and if you all practice your tremelo you could play it fast too. Ok mabey not at 320bpm.
I have the score for this and was going to learn it. Then I realized that there was no reason to do it other to impress other guitar players. At some point you realize that you don't need to impress other guitar players you just need to make music.
Besides, rather than shoot the whole wad it is more fun to turn up the heat incrementally until the show off exausts what they know or you learn something.
It is all bull crap. My advice, change your shorts and get on with the music.
So what.
Before you all cream your jeans see if he can play it on an acoustical guitar.
...and if you all practice your tremelo you could play it fast too. Ok mabey not at 320bpm.
I have the score for this and was going to learn it. Then I realized that there was no reason to do it other to impress other guitar players. At some point you realize that you don't need to impress other guitar players you just need to make music.
Besides, rather than shoot the whole wad it is more fun to turn up the heat incrementally until the show off exausts what they know or you learn something.
It is all bull crap. My advice, change your shorts and get on with the music.
DrewPeterson7
Sage of the Order
Bravo, beagle. Excellently worded post.
(the ironic thing here is my two biggest influences are Joe Satriani and David Gilmour, lol)
Fair enough. However, take a world class classical player and hand him a solidbody electric guitar plugged into a high gain amp, and see how he sounds. The techniques to be a phenominal classical acoustic player and a phenominal "shred" player are TOTALLY different, and my money says the classical guy will have the guitar just blowing up on him because he can't control the way notes ring out through all the gain.
And that's sort of the point, that a lot of us COULDN'T play it at 320 bpm no matter how much we practice. It's a pretty cool achievement, even if it's nothing you or I would ever want to listen to for pleasure.
And what's to say the guy DOESN'T "turn up the heat incrementally" in his own compositions? again, this is just a technical excersize, and not an original peice or an improvised solo.
dementedchord
Psychotic State alumni ch
dont think that ole nikolai had in mind when he wrote that... and i dont think he played it note for note... just wanking around bumblebee...
famous beagle
Well-known member
It's funny ... when we think of playing fast on guitar, it's usually called soulless shredding.
But when people play fast on other instruments, especially in the classical genre, it's usually called playing with "fire" and "passion." Think about Franz Liszt --- one of the great piano virtuousos of all time. He was certainly pushing the bounds of what people considered playable at that point in time. And is anyone going to say that he didn't play with feeling? This is someone that would break piano strings at times from playing so ferociously.
from Wikipedia:
"Liszt claimed to have spent ten or twelve hours each day practicing scales, arpeggios, trills and repeated notes to improve his technique and endurance. All of these piano techniques were frequently applied in his compositions, often resulting in music of extreme technical difficulty (his Transcendental Etude No.5 "Feux follets" is an example). He would challenge himself and his immaculate fingering by presenting random problems to his playing.
While revolutionary and famously spectacular, Liszt's playing was far from mere flash and acrobatics. He also was reported to have played with a depth and nobility of feeling that would move sturdy men to tears. It seems that this quality to his playing may have continued to develop during his life, overtaking the youthful fire and bravura. Indeed, reports of his playing in old age include observations that it was surprisingly and distinctly subtle and poetic, with great purity of tone and effortlessness of execution; in contrast to the more tumultuous so-called "Liszt school" of playing, which by then had already started to become traditional in Europe."
So, apparently it's possible for someone to be both?
To all the naysayers, there are other types of music than late 20th century pop music.
But when people play fast on other instruments, especially in the classical genre, it's usually called playing with "fire" and "passion." Think about Franz Liszt --- one of the great piano virtuousos of all time. He was certainly pushing the bounds of what people considered playable at that point in time. And is anyone going to say that he didn't play with feeling? This is someone that would break piano strings at times from playing so ferociously.
from Wikipedia:
"Liszt claimed to have spent ten or twelve hours each day practicing scales, arpeggios, trills and repeated notes to improve his technique and endurance. All of these piano techniques were frequently applied in his compositions, often resulting in music of extreme technical difficulty (his Transcendental Etude No.5 "Feux follets" is an example). He would challenge himself and his immaculate fingering by presenting random problems to his playing.
While revolutionary and famously spectacular, Liszt's playing was far from mere flash and acrobatics. He also was reported to have played with a depth and nobility of feeling that would move sturdy men to tears. It seems that this quality to his playing may have continued to develop during his life, overtaking the youthful fire and bravura. Indeed, reports of his playing in old age include observations that it was surprisingly and distinctly subtle and poetic, with great purity of tone and effortlessness of execution; in contrast to the more tumultuous so-called "Liszt school" of playing, which by then had already started to become traditional in Europe."
So, apparently it's possible for someone to be both?
To all the naysayers, there are other types of music than late 20th century pop music.
dementedchord
Psychotic State alumni ch
it's curious that you should bring up liszt... beacause there are differing accounts as to the musicallity of his performance... one such story concerns the schumann's (clara and robert) who were close friends and often attended liszts little sunday afternoon concerts at his home... on this occasion it happened that it was their wedding aniversary and liszt played "tramerai" (sp?) which robert had written for clara as a wedding present... liszt of course takes off on the thing and gives his usuall bombastic performance... but as everyone gets up to go to the dining room clara sits down and plays it as intended... everyone stops in their tracks... not a dry eye in the house... liszt never played it again... ever get a chance to hear the peice do so... one of the masterpieces of the romantic period...
famous beagle
Well-known member
Yes there are differing accounts. I'm sure there were plenty of times where rooms full of listeners were left open-jawed after he finished, just as there were with Paganini and, more recently, Jimi Hendrix (I mean ... if you're going to talk about "bombastic performances" and all).
dementedchord
Psychotic State alumni ch
damn beagle... dont tell me you just tried to link hendrix to liszt/paganini and schumann.... i give jimi his due but come on... lmao...
Watch this totally stupid rendition of a classic immediately brought another classic to mind:
Belushi on the staircase in Animal House.
famous beagle
Well-known member
I was linking Hendrix to Liszt as a showman of "bombastic performances."
DrewPeterson7
Sage of the Order
Hey, Hendrix himself would agree he was not the same sort of studied musician, much to his frustration... But if you're talking about a list of guys reputed to be completely over the top technical performers in their day, surely Hendrix belongs. No one had done anything like that in his genre before him.
ocnor
Lord Of The Thighs
If by that you mean that Hendrix could ingest enough LSD to kill a bull elephant and still be able to stand up then I agree.
eyema_believer
Bondservant
Surely we've all got to recognize that all of this is subjective. (well, sort of... ) In this regard, all of our opinions are valid. The other thing to keep in mind is that the words we use are just containers to carry an idea or thought from one person to the next. Sometimes, the words we use are not really the best ones, instead they are usually chosen because a certain term has been used in that sense before, and it more or less carries the idea. Personally, I think when we use the word "feeling" when associated with playing an instrument, we might be better served by using my favorite term for what I think we mean, and that term is simply saying someone plays with a "vocal-like" quality. When I think of what makes Joe Satriani's playing so great, it's because it seems as though he is "talking," or singing through his guitar. If I listen to it, I can almost put words to it at times. In this context, it would certainly be hard to inflect vocal like qualities when playing the bumble-bee song at 320 bpm. I've never heard speech or singing like that, and with the short time between notes, it would be hard to put vocal-like inflections of any kind between them, such as vibrato, or varying the intensity of the attack, or the amplitude, just to name a few of the things that make someone speaking tolerable to listen to. One of the things we're taught in speech class 101 is how to vary the voice in order to keep a listeners attention.
I do think that shredders get stereo-typed a lot, people saying that they don't play with "feeling." However, this is not without reason(s), primarily two. The first is that it can be true! Tony Macalpine comes to mind. Here is a guy that can do all of the technical stuff that Yngwie Malmsteen can do, but it sounds like a robot is doing it. There is simply not much of a 'vocal-like" quality to his playing. I think that these deficiencies are underscored and highlighted by the technical prowess of these "non-feeling" guitarists. It's just plain hard to imagine that someone with so much technique can't make his guitar "sing!" I know it is for me, anyway. Another reason some faster than "normal" guitarists get nailed for this is because people have to have a trained ear in order to appreciate it. Watching hockey comes to mind. When I first started watching hockey on TV, I couldn't for the life of me keep up with what in the heck was going on. It was just too fast for my mind to grasp. I would sometimes ask a friend after a play had ended, "What just happened?" I think the same thing with music. It's sometimes hard for a "normal" (whatever that is) person to appreciate the higher artsy forms. There are plenty of guys that I can't stand to listen to because they're simply too "out there" for my ear to find pleasing, and I'm someone who does nothing but play and sing music to pay the mortgage, (which doesn't mean anything, other than to say I might have a fairly developed ear.)
But, playing without this "vocal-like" quality is hardly restricted to guitarists that have more technical ability in their pinky than I do in my whole body. I guarantee you that there are more people who can't play fast and also can't sing through their instrument, than those who are super technicians and have this unfortunate quality about their playing. And no, I can't support this conclusion with any kind of quantitative data; it's simply an opinion based on my many years as a critically listening music lover and musician.
I think where we get the oft used term "feeling" in relation to music is that many of us have the notion that good music should and will evoke some sort of emotion, or feeling, from us. I think that most of us feel that way. That's why a guy like Keith Richards, who doesn't even play with all six strings on his guitars because he doesn't need them to do what he does, is worshiped like a little god. That's also why a guy who can play the bumble bee song at 320 bpm will never attain that kind of stardom. OK!
I'm tired, and I'm sure you're tired of reading this long post.
Peace!
~Shawn
I do think that shredders get stereo-typed a lot, people saying that they don't play with "feeling." However, this is not without reason(s), primarily two. The first is that it can be true! Tony Macalpine comes to mind. Here is a guy that can do all of the technical stuff that Yngwie Malmsteen can do, but it sounds like a robot is doing it. There is simply not much of a 'vocal-like" quality to his playing. I think that these deficiencies are underscored and highlighted by the technical prowess of these "non-feeling" guitarists. It's just plain hard to imagine that someone with so much technique can't make his guitar "sing!" I know it is for me, anyway. Another reason some faster than "normal" guitarists get nailed for this is because people have to have a trained ear in order to appreciate it. Watching hockey comes to mind. When I first started watching hockey on TV, I couldn't for the life of me keep up with what in the heck was going on. It was just too fast for my mind to grasp. I would sometimes ask a friend after a play had ended, "What just happened?" I think the same thing with music. It's sometimes hard for a "normal" (whatever that is) person to appreciate the higher artsy forms. There are plenty of guys that I can't stand to listen to because they're simply too "out there" for my ear to find pleasing, and I'm someone who does nothing but play and sing music to pay the mortgage, (which doesn't mean anything, other than to say I might have a fairly developed ear.)
But, playing without this "vocal-like" quality is hardly restricted to guitarists that have more technical ability in their pinky than I do in my whole body. I guarantee you that there are more people who can't play fast and also can't sing through their instrument, than those who are super technicians and have this unfortunate quality about their playing. And no, I can't support this conclusion with any kind of quantitative data; it's simply an opinion based on my many years as a critically listening music lover and musician.
I think where we get the oft used term "feeling" in relation to music is that many of us have the notion that good music should and will evoke some sort of emotion, or feeling, from us. I think that most of us feel that way. That's why a guy like Keith Richards, who doesn't even play with all six strings on his guitars because he doesn't need them to do what he does, is worshiped like a little god. That's also why a guy who can play the bumble bee song at 320 bpm will never attain that kind of stardom. OK!
I'm tired, and I'm sure you're tired of reading this long post.
Peace!
~Shawn
Last edited:
Roguetitan
New member
All I have to interject in this intellectual conversation is.....
opinions are like rectums, everyone has one and they all stink except of course for mine
opinions are like rectums, everyone has one and they all stink except of course for mine
Superhuman
Shagaholic
However, I'm compelled to ask. Who are you to tell anyone else in regards to playing @ 320 bpm whether anyone else can/has and/or will put any feeling into it or not? Do you have any charts or diagrams to back this up or is this opinion trying to pass as fact?
Just curious.
Eyema believer summed it up pretty well above. It's impossible to add harmonic varience, subtle inflections, vibratto, slides, bends and all of the other things that add a vocal effect to guitar at 320bpm.
Of course it's 'music', but I don't think the guy played it to be appreciated for it's musical qualities but more for his technical ability. This is fine in my book, I am pretty impressed and would love to be able to play that fast too.
As for my credentials, I am the best musician in the world. I took lessons on everything through a ouija board from Bach, Mozart, Frank Zappa and Jimmy Hendrix... I got some graphs in the boot of my car if you want them too... think the dog might have pissed on them though
