Old school vs the 64th note crowd

  • Thread starter Thread starter jeff0633
  • Start date Start date
Its ridiculous imo. You don't need to be playing a blues scale with a pained look on your face to put emotion into your guitar playing. I don't really see the need to draw a distinction, either you enjoy the music or you don't.

People with classical instruments have been playing fast for hundreds of years, no one accuses them of playing with no emotion or feel.
 
I'm not a big fan of shred...but I do think that guys like Vai and similar, at the upper ranks of shredders, actually DO play with feeling an emotion from their perspectives. It's not the same perspective as a blues guy or a jazz guy...etc........


You almost got it there;).

Some other posters here need to get over themselves (Woof Woof). Like it/agree with it or not, the point being made by the OP is valid, some players (of any instrument) get too caught up in the technicalities/showmanship of playing, it becomes kinda like a drug where they can't see any benefit beyond improving their technical skills............ultimately it is ego stroking at it's finest.

The polar opposite is the feel (emotional) player who tries to makes every note tell a story and last a lifetime...........boring!!!

A truly good player, is probably the one who has the ability to balance slow (sustained) notes with blisteringly fast passages tastefully combined, the one who leaves all listeners satisfied.

:cool:
 
A truly good player, is probably the one who has the ability to balance slow (sustained) notes with blisteringly fast passages tastefully combined, the one who leaves all listeners satisfied.

And I would have thought that Larry Carlton is as good an example of that as anyone.
 
"]I've seen both Malmsteen and Vai live.I could close my eyes and tell them apart anyday.Obviously you're not a fan,so you couldn't.If all four of them where on stage together,i'd be able to tell all of them apart from each other."

Ridiculous. To say their playing is not BASED INSIDE THE SAME mindset is just silly. CLEARLY, to anyone who can be honest with themselves, those who learned in the theory way sound more similar than those who learned by ear. If you can't even admit that, you are a lost cause.

""That's your belief.You can believe whatever you want.Stop pushing your beliefs on everyone else."

Pushing my beliefs? Again, just silly. If you can debate concepts without feeling people are pushing their beliefs on you, why even read this thread? No one is PUSHING their beliefs on you, how utterly ridiculous.

"Show me the facts or evidence.There is none.Art,emotion,feel,etc.,is a personal choice"

Nope, this is the politically correct garbage that is truly tiring and silly. If an artist flung some crap on a canvas and a couple iots called it great art, that doesn't make it great art. Sorry, but your silly PC belief that all art is equal, all of it is as legitimate as any other is just , well, dumb. That view point is the one that's really been thrown out for years by people like you and it's the one that is worn to death. It's time someone said it, all art is not equal, if fact, some of it is garbage, no mater if you can find some people who claim some crap on a canvas is wonderful or not.

"If you don't like shredders don't listen to them.Why do you feel the need to justify yourself or your own playing ability by blasting on the theory players?"

No need at all, if you even think this then you need to take some reading comprehension classes."

Again, CLEARLY theory players sound FAR FAR MORE ALIKE than ear players, and only someone who intentionally is trying to remain blind or dishonest would claim otherwise. There is a reason for it, and it's clear. If you learn by theory, you are locked in to that and lose a certain amount of individuality on the instrument, it's OBVIOUS. Because you don't want to face it, or you want to play the silly game of "all art is equal in it's content" crap, be my guest. That doesn't make it true, sure does sound nice and fuzzy warm though, doesn't it?

The last thing Vai is thinking on stage is, "I am expressing my inner emotions". It's laughable to even consider. He's thinking, "hey, i can put this Ionian scale over that chord, then add the 7th and 9th, then do an arpeggio sweep, yeah". So sorry, anyone who says these theory guys aren't WAY MORE similar sounding to each other than the ear guys are is just, well, full of it. be honest and admit it, then we can discus WHY THAT IS. I know why it is, they learned the same way, the same things, and they see their instruments basically the exact same way, and the only difference in their playing is what theory they want to apply at a certain time.

In short, ear guys express their actual individual thoughts with their notes, theory guys express theory and the only difference is what theory each decides to put over a chord sequence.

Come on, here's Malmsteen
Yngwie Malmsteen - Like An Angel - YouTube

Listen to THE STYLE. Awesome to watch, and the song itself is nice, and imparts a certain emotion, but the guitar playing itself, listen to the style.
Yngwie Malmsteen - Like An Angel - YouTube

Now watch Vai. Again, GREAT performance, technically perfect, wonderful THEORY, but to say you cannot hear the SAME style and way of seeing the guitar by both of them is just silly.
Steve Vai - "For The Love Of God" - YouTube
CLEARLY they learned the same way, the same stuff, and it makes them express what they do in the SAME TYPE STYLE and way. This couldn't be any more obvious. The scales and such they use, the modes, the only difference is just what theory they decide to use at that moment, but their STYLES are the same, same as Dweezil, same as the rest of them, like they came off the same production line, and so they did.

If you don't want to admit it, or it hurts you smehow, so be it.

I like these performances as well, they are mind blowing, but I don't love them FOR THE SAME reason I love hearing Zappa play, or Robby Kreiger play, or Beck play. I love those because they express their unique personalities, with their unique little melodies in their playing, and they are very very different from each other as a result.

So now I have instructed you on why you like them as well, whether you want to accept it or not.






I've seen both Malmsteen and Vai live.I could close my eyes and tell them apart anyday.Obviously you're not a fan,so you couldn't.If all four of them where on stage together,i'd be able to tell all of them apart from each other.

"That's your belief.You can believe whatever you want.Stop pushing your beliefs on everyone else."

Show me the facts or evidence.There is none.Art,emotion,feel,etc.,is a personal choice.Van Gogh didn't sell a single painting in his lifetime.The buying public at large thought his work was crap and he was a bit of a weirdo.He didn't get much recognition til after he died.I'm still not impressed by his work but it is what it is...

No one is denying anything nor do we have a reason to.Not everyone shares your opinion.That's all you have.Your opinion means nothing to anyone else.People like what they like and all your posts on why,what,where,and how are meaningless.Most commercial modern rock nowadays sounds the same,theory or not.That's MY opinion.I'm not trying to convince anyone.If you don't like shredders don't listen to them.Why do you feel the need to justify yourself or your own playing ability by blasting on the theory players?
 
Like it/agree with it or not, the point being made by the OP is valid, some players (of any instrument) get too caught up in the technicalities/showmanship of playing

By what measure? If you're going to say something is too much you have to say what it's too much for. What you mean, and don't even know it, it that it's "too caught up in the technicalities/showmanship of playing" for your taste. There is no objective standard for art. When people start generalizing their personal preferences into objective standards you get into stupid endless arguments like this thread.
 
... for your taste. There is no objective standard for art.

I know what you mean...(but as a segue), it IS possible to indirectly impose a standard on art (maybe not objectively) if enough people hate or like something, it can drive the art and subsequent art.
Look at all the cookie cutter music...one artist breaks out with a new sound that everyone likes, and all of a sudden it becomes the current "standard".

And to bring it back to guitar playing...
These days the "standard" is about having minimal or no guitar leads in most current music, so by that, it means both shredders and blues playing shoe-gazers have been upstaged by the stargazers!
:laughings:
 
anyone that can't play as good as me is sloppy.
everyone who plays better than me is too technical.
 
anyone that can't play as good as me is sloppy.
everyone who plays better than me is too technical.

^^^^^^^^this

...it's what I keep hearing.

P.S. Robby Krieger is a professionally trained guitarist....and the dudes from Reel Big Fish, too. maybe it's just me, but I hear exactly zero similarities, tho they learned the same theory
 
"]I've seen both Malmsteen and Vai live.I could close my eyes and tell them apart anyday.Obviously you're not a fan,so you couldn't.If all four of them where on stage together,i'd be able to tell all of them apart from each other."

Ridiculous. To say their playing is not BASED INSIDE THE SAME mindset is just silly. CLEARLY, to anyone who can be honest with themselves, those who learned in the theory way sound more similar than those who learned by ear. If you can't even admit that, you are a lost cause.

""That's your belief.You can believe whatever you want.Stop pushing your beliefs on everyone else."

Pushing my beliefs? Again, just silly. If you can debate concepts without feeling people are pushing their beliefs on you, why even read this thread? No one is PUSHING their beliefs on you, how utterly ridiculous.

"Show me the facts or evidence.There is none.Art,emotion,feel,etc.,is a personal choice"

Nope, this is the politically correct garbage that is truly tiring and silly. If an artist flung some crap on a canvas and a couple iots called it great art, that doesn't make it great art. Sorry, but your silly PC belief that all art is equal, all of it is as legitimate as any other is just , well, dumb. That view point is the one that's really been thrown out for years by people like you and it's the one that is worn to death. It's time someone said it, all art is not equal, if fact, some of it is garbage, no mater if you can find some people who claim some crap on a canvas is wonderful or not.

"If you don't like shredders don't listen to them.Why do you feel the need to justify yourself or your own playing ability by blasting on the theory players?"

No need at all, if you even think this then you need to take some reading comprehension classes."

Again, CLEARLY theory players sound FAR FAR MORE ALIKE than ear players, and only someone who intentionally is trying to remain blind or dishonest would claim otherwise. There is a reason for it, and it's clear. If you learn by theory, you are locked in to that and lose a certain amount of individuality on the instrument, it's OBVIOUS. Because you don't want to face it, or you want to play the silly game of "all art is equal in it's content" crap, be my guest. That doesn't make it true, sure does sound nice and fuzzy warm though, doesn't it?

The last thing Vai is thinking on stage is, "I am expressing my inner emotions". It's laughable to even consider. He's thinking, "hey, i can put this Ionian scale over that chord, then add the 7th and 9th, then do an arpeggio sweep, yeah". So sorry, anyone who says these theory guys aren't WAY MORE similar sounding to each other than the ear guys are is just, well, full of it. be honest and admit it, then we can discus WHY THAT IS. I know why it is, they learned the same way, the same things, and they see their instruments basically the exact same way, and the only difference in their playing is what theory they want to apply at a certain time.

In short, ear guys express their actual individual thoughts with their notes, theory guys express theory and the only difference is what theory each decides to put over a chord sequence.

Come on, here's Malmsteen
Yngwie Malmsteen - Like An Angel - YouTube

Listen to THE STYLE. Awesome to watch, and the song itself is nice, and imparts a certain emotion, but the guitar playing itself, listen to the style.
Yngwie Malmsteen - Like An Angel - YouTube

Now watch Vai. Again, GREAT performance, technically perfect, wonderful THEORY, but to say you cannot hear the SAME style and way of seeing the guitar by both of them is just silly.
Steve Vai - "For The Love Of God" - YouTube
CLEARLY they learned the same way, the same stuff, and it makes them express what they do in the SAME TYPE STYLE and way. This couldn't be any more obvious. The scales and such they use, the modes, the only difference is just what theory they decide to use at that moment, but their STYLES are the same, same as Dweezil, same as the rest of them, like they came off the same production line, and so they did.

If you don't want to admit it, or it hurts you smehow, so be it.

I like these performances as well, they are mind blowing, but I don't love them FOR THE SAME reason I love hearing Zappa play, or Robby Kreiger play, or Beck play. I love those because they express their unique personalities, with their unique little melodies in their playing, and they are very very different from each other as a result.

So now I have instructed you on why you like them as well, whether you want to accept it or not.

There you go again Jeff, too many words man too many words.;)
 
Jeff, no one was saying that "all art is equal". In point of fact, the weight of consensus thus far is that because it's impossible to gauge, it's a fruitless argument. You say Steve Vai stands on stage and isn't thinking about expressing his emotions, only which bit of theory to use.
I wish I had your ability to read minds.
A thing to consider; maybe the way he plays, theoretic or not, is the way he is able to express his inner being.
Your point is a bit like saying that if a Burundi tribesman speaks the Queen's English, he can't really express himself because he's a prisoner of the way he learned to speak the language. The major league flaw in your hypothesis is wilfully ignoring that the ear player, who by logic alone has a limited amount of ways of getting to any particular point, is as much the prisoner of limitation. If I know 200 ways of playing something and you've taught yourself to play 15 ways there comes a point where you will be repetitive.
All musicians are. Theory and ear players can be emotionless and boring. And theory and ear players can be dazzlingly inventive and interesting. I think you'll find that actually, virtually all musicians know some theory and employ it, it's just a matter of degree. And equally, some of those who have been taught "theoretically" as you would put it, can pick things up by and improvise by ear. Some theorists are scared to branch out, true. There is security in the boundaries of what you know. Exactly the same is true of so called "ear" players. Just ask Eric Clapton why he does a blues tour every year.
 
This is a crazy thread, but I did watch the Malmsteen and Vai videos. I thought they both were very emotional and I actually liked both (Malmsteen's more). And I have to agree with grim, being a prisoner can go both ways. Also I've heard people complain that all blues sound the same. I think it comes down to whether or not you actually like what you are hearing and that's that.
 
"Ridiculous. To say their playing is not BASED INSIDE THE SAME mindset is just silly. CLEARLY, to anyone who can be honest with themselves, those who learned in the theory way sound more similar than those who learned by ear. If you can't even admit that, you are a lost cause. "


I'm a lost cause because i don't agree with you about what constitutes "feeling?" I'm thinking your just a little too touchy feely,crying in your beer type of fellow.No i'm not gonna hug you or agree with you.There's nothing to admit to either.I like what i like and listen to what i like.I like hearing guitar players of all sorts and don't personally get all touchy feely when some guy on the internet doesn't agree with me.I'm not the one trying to prove one is better than the other.



"Pushing my beliefs? Again, just silly. If you can debate concepts without feeling people are pushing their beliefs on you, why even read this thread? No one is PUSHING their beliefs on you, how utterly ridiculous."

I'm not the one debating "feel."You're the one who keeps insisting that shredders play with less feel.I offered that "better" or "playing with emotion" or however you want to describe it is only a matter of opinion.Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and doesn't have to agree with you.But you insist on pushing your opinion like it's fact and not open to debate.Just accept that not everyone shares your opinion and let it go.

"Show me the facts or evidence.There is none.Art,emotion,feel,etc.,is a personal choice"

Nope, this is the politically correct garbage that is truly tiring and silly. If an artist flung some crap on a canvas and a couple iots called it great art, that doesn't make it great art. Sorry, but your silly PC belief that all art is equal, all of it is as legitimate as any other is just , well, dumb. That view point is the one that's really been thrown out for years by people like you and it's the one that is worn to death. It's time someone said it, all art is not equal, if fact, some of it is garbage, no mater if you can find some people who claim some crap on a canvas is wonderful or not."

O.K. I f you're going to quote me,than post the entire bit.

"Show me the facts or evidence.There is none.Art,emotion,feel,etc.,is a personal choice.Van Gogh didn't sell a single painting in his lifetime.The buying public at large thought his work was crap and he was a bit of a weirdo.He didn't get much recognition til after he died.I'm still not impressed by his work but it is what it is..."

I'm not to say what is or isn't art.Neither are you.Millions of folks buy crap all the time and enjoy it regardless of your opinion.



"If you don't like shredders don't listen to them.Why do you feel the need to justify yourself or your own playing ability by blasting on the theory players?"

No need at all, if you even think this then you need to take some reading comprehension classes."

Again, CLEARLY theory players sound FAR FAR MORE ALIKE than ear players, and only someone who intentionally is trying to remain blind or dishonest would claim otherwise. There is a reason for it, and it's clear. If you learn by theory, you are locked in to that and lose a certain amount of individuality on the instrument, it's OBVIOUS. Because you don't want to face it, or you want to play the silly game of "all art is equal in it's content" crap, be my guest. That doesn't make it true, sure does sound nice and fuzzy warm though, doesn't it?


No need at all, if you even think this then you need to take some reading comprehension classes."

From your above statements how can i not think this?There's nothing blind or dishonest about disagreeinging with your opinion.


The last thing Vai is thinking on stage is, "I am expressing my inner emotions". It's laughable to even consider. He's thinking, "hey, i can put this Ionian scale over that chord, then add the 7th and 9th, then do an arpeggio sweep, yeah". So sorry, anyone who says these theory guys aren't WAY MORE similar sounding to each other than the ear guys are is just, well, full of it. be honest and admit it, then we can discus WHY THAT IS. I know why it is, they learned the same way, the same things, and they see their instruments basically the exact same way, and the only difference in their playing is what theory they want to apply at a certain time."

You don't know what anyone is thinking and never will.Mr Vai could be thinking about the wet fart he left during his Ionian run and hoping it doesn't seep through his pants.That would be embarressing...but when has the knowledge of knowing how to play efficiently become a bad thing?If you break a string and can still play a part of a solo or a certain chord and have the knowledge to do it effectively that's theory at work.If you do it by bending a string up to that note or know where to find that note on a seperate string,that's theory at work.If you just grimace and fake it,who cares...if it sounds good and folks like it..no harm no foul.


"In short, ear guys express their actual individual thoughts with their notes, theory guys express theory and the only difference is what theory each decides to put over a chord sequence.

Come on, here's Malmsteen
Yngwie Malmsteen - Like An Angel - YouTube

Listen to THE STYLE. Awesome to watch, and the song itself is nice, and imparts a certain emotion, but the guitar playing itself, listen to the style.
Yngwie Malmsteen - Like An Angel - YouTube

Now watch Vai. Again, GREAT performance, technically perfect, wonderful THEORY, but to say you cannot hear the SAME style and way of seeing the guitar by both of them is just silly.
Steve Vai - "For The Love Of God" - YouTube
CLEARLY they learned the same way, the same stuff, and it makes them express what they do in the SAME TYPE STYLE and way. This couldn't be any more obvious. The scales and such they use, the modes, the only difference is just what theory they decide to use at that moment, but their STYLES are the same, same as Dweezil, same as the rest of them, like they came off the same production line, and so they did.

If you don't want to admit it, or it hurts you smehow, so be it."


What's to admit?That both are shredders and play a similar style of music?Of course they do...but you're trying to sell us your idea of what "feel" is,and won't admit that others are entitled to their opinion.That somehow must hurt YOU because you can't accept that others like myself just won't blindly accept your position.


"I like these performances as well, they are mind blowing, but I don't love them FOR THE SAME reason I love hearing Zappa play, or Robby Kreiger play, or Beck play. I love those because they express their unique personalities, with their unique little melodies in their playing, and they are very very different from each other as a result.

So now I have instructed you on why you like them as well, whether you want to accept it or not."

I've been instructed!!! on why i like them whether i accept it or not....So now you're telling me what i like...You know what Vai is thinking while on stage...This last bit of yours sums it up nicely.Please post an example of YOUR work.I'd really like to hear some of YOUR "feel"

You're posting of links to famous guitarists is lame.If folks didn't like them they wouldn't be famous.Obviously their playing speaks to some,maybe not you,but some folks do like it whether you accept it or not.Post some links of Your playing.
 
Last edited:
By what measure? If you're going to say something is too much you have to say what it's too much for.

No I don't.

What you mean, and don't even know it, it that it's "too caught up in the technicalities/showmanship of playing" for your taste. There is no objective standard for art. When people start generalizing their personal preferences into objective standards you get into stupid endless arguments like this thread.

Nice try, but I do know exactly what I mean and it had nothing to do with my (or any specific persons) taste. ;)

:cool:
 
Whether we like it or not, guys who tour and make music for a living are doing a job. Often an enjoyable one. But not always. And it's a job. There have been very few humans since the dawn of creation that enjoyed every moment of their job. I doubt there has been one. So when the feel/ear player is playing, is every single note an expression of their inner being ? When someone is playing on demand night after night ? When they've got the flu or had too much to drink or worried about their kids or suspicious of their woman or man ? When they hate the band or members of it or are resentful at being ripped off or want to slap up the manager or president of the record company ?
Yeah, you're right. I'm being zzzzzilly. But it shows you how impossible this debate is.
You know what every musician, regardless of training or lack thereof, has in common ? We all look for notes that fit where we're at or are about to be. Even those avant garde artists that appear to jettison reason, good sense, melody and order. From their particular landscape, they're doing what we all do.
On a somewhat lighter note, this debate reminds me of a Bill Bruford segment I saw in a documentary on prog a couple of years ago. He was describing the difference between Yes and King Crimson and it made me laugh till I stopped. He said, in part flippant, part mysterious tones something like "in Yes we used to have countless arguments for hours about whether to play G with an F in the bass whereas with Crimson, you were just supposed to know......" :laughings:
 
Nice try, but I do know exactly what I mean and it had nothing to do with my (or any specific persons) taste.

Okay, clue us in and prove you're not just spewing bullshit to see your own words in print. By what objective measure can a musician be judged "too caught up in the technicalities/showmanship of playing"?
 
By the amount of drool coming out of his mouth....?

How do you know the stage is level at a bluegrass concert? Drool is coming out of both sides of the banjo player's mouth.
 
Okay, clue us in and prove you're not just spewing bullshit to see your own words in print. By what objective measure can a musician be judged "too caught up in the technicalities/showmanship of playing"?

You're an idiot. There thats my words in print. Thanks for the opportunity.
 
Back
Top