Speed or feeling?

[axuality]

 

What the world needs is another newbie needing to vent

 

You sound as though you have never been married - once you're married for a while you may change your views about rehearsing what you say so you don't end up in the dog house.

 

As was stated in other posts' date=' sometimes the feeling is revealed within the composition be it fast or slow. It is reflected within a point - counter point or syncopated rhythm. Also, not everone is the same; we don't all show feeling in the same way.[/quote']

 

DJ,

 

--Dude, I'm sorry your marriage contains a 'dog house'.

 

---And sir, while it is true that "we don't all show feelings in the same way.", that isn't what we're debating about.

 

It is also true that we don't all show feeling at all times. And some of us are of the opinion that when a guitarist is shredding, that seems to be one of those times when that particular person isn't showing (much) feeling."

[milod]

axuality...

 

You make good points and - I'd add - one should consider some reasons why baroque fugue is not currently in vogue among a majority of music listeners.

 

That latter point is to me exactly why constant high-speed playing in any genre will be very popular for a while, then it's pretty much gone, beyond listening for a half hour or so.

 

I love fugue. Three or four concurrent lines, especially going at speed, shows great virtuosity and if nothing else, great hand coordination whether done by violin, keyboard or guitar.

 

But I really get tired of it after a while. In one sense, I'm increasingly convinced that there is a function of age and/or experience involved here.

 

When you're "young" as a musician, I think you want the speed thing as you develop your ability. When you're "young" as a listener, you find certain sorts of things in music that are especially appealing.

 

When you're "older" as either musician or listener - note that "older" is not necessarily a function of age - I think you find a broader psychological appreciation of different sorts of music. For example, I'll listen to string quartets playing Bach and enjoy the "listen," and then to Segovia doing something, and then a 70s rock band, then some old "country," then Ian Tyson doing cowboy songs... then...

 

As I noted before, some styles intentionally leave out the "emotion" function. Yes, "emotion" is a function of timing and other dynamics far more than speed.

 

Another factor, too, is over-emoting. T.S.Elliott the poet also wrote some "criticism" of poetry that I think is valid in terms of music as well as poetry. That is, that when one writes (plays, sings) to reflect the emotion of the moment, it's usually pretty bad art. In music we often call it "schmaltz." I remember listening to some blues tapes I made of myself some 35 years ago when I had more Scotch than I should have, and as I reeeeeally "emoted." It was horrid and perhaps some of the worst music I'd ever made - regardless of technical capability which it actually did have.

 

Then you listen to BB King, for example, and there's a reflectiveness in his music rather than simply "Oh, I weep and cry and still drink too much because 'The Thrill is Gone!'" No, it's a reflection that "The Thrill is Gone.... dammit."

 

So... I think a lot is a matter of taste.

 

Again, note how "old rockers" who actually do have talent - Clapton is an excellent example - have inevitably turned to "classics" as they continue to entertain us with both their talent and skill. They still can "shred" if they wish, but ... ever notice that it's frequently offering a far broader range of music and skills than that for which they became famous in the first place?

[axuality]

 

+1

 

 

Tell me theres no feeling in this.

 

 

 

 

Kinda like the guy who says his epiphone is better than a gibson.

 

--Okay, I will tell you, "There's no feeling in this." (actually, "There's not MUCH feeling in this". -there's SOME feeling in everything)

 

But look at his face. That's not the expression of someone who is expressing much feeling. He's too involved with playing his guitar to express much more than that he's trying hard to play his guitar. And if he practiced these licks for a 100 years so that he wouldn't even have to think about it or look at his fingerboard, he would probably be at that point too bored to feel much from that guitar work. Speed is amazing for about two songs at a time. After that, I gotta have more feeling.

 

And ha ha on the Epi vs Gibson thing. Kinda like the guy who claims that Apple is so much better than PCs. Or that Internet Explorer sucks compared to other browsers, isn't it? There's an agenda for everybody I guess. Frankly though, I don't see much important difference between Gibson and Epi, even though Gibson is all I've owned for 35 years because I'm too much of a Gibson snob to allow myself to own only an Epiphone.

[axuality]

axuality...

 

You make good points and - I'd add - one should consider some reasons why baroque fugue is not currently in vogue among a majority of music listeners.

 

That latter point is to me exactly why constant high-speed playing in any genre will be very popular for a while' date=' then it's pretty much gone, beyond listening for a half hour or so.

 

I love fugue. Three or four concurrent lines, especially going at speed, shows great virtuosity and if nothing else, great hand coordination whether done by violin, keyboard or guitar.

 

But I really get tired of it after a while. In one sense, I'm increasingly convinced that there is a function of age and/or experience involved here.

 

When you're "young" as a musician, I think you want the speed thing as you develop your ability. When you're "young" as a listener, you find certain sorts of things in music that are especially appealing.

 

When you're "older" as either musician or listener - note that "older" is not necessarily a function of age - I think you find a broader psychological appreciation of different sorts of music. For example, I'll listen to string quartets playing Bach and enjoy the "listen," and then to Segovia doing something, and then a 70s rock band, then some old "country," then Ian Tyson doing cowboy songs... then...

 

As I noted before, some styles intentionally leave out the "emotion" function. Yes, "emotion" is a function of timing and other dynamics far more than speed.

 

Another factor, too, is over-emoting. T.S.Elliott the poet also wrote some "criticism" of poetry that I think is valid in terms of music as well as poetry. That is, that when one writes (plays, sings) to reflect the emotion of the moment, it's usually pretty bad art. In music we often call it "schmaltz." I remember listening to some blues tapes I made of myself some 35 years ago when I had more Scotch than I should have, and as I reeeeeally "emoted." It was horrid and perhaps some of the worst music I'd ever made - regardless of technical capability which it actually did have.

 

Then you listen to BB King, for example, and there's a reflectiveness in his music rather than simply "Oh, I weep and cry and still drink too much because 'The Thrill is Gone!'" No, it's a reflection that "The Thrill is Gone.... dammit."

 

So... I think a lot is a matter of taste.

 

Again, note how "old rockers" who actually do have talent - Clapton is an excellent example - have inevitably turned to "classics" as they continue to entertain us with both their talent and skill. They still can "shred" if they wish, but ... ever notice that it's frequently offering a far broader range of music and skills than that for which they became famous in the first place?

 

[/quote']

 

--Wow, dude you're smart and incisive beyond what is common. Thanks for your willingness to develop those smarts.

[djroge1]

 

DJ' date='

 

--Dude, I'm sorry your marriage contains a 'dog house'.

 

---And sir, while it is true that "we don't all show feelings in the same way.", that isn't what we're debating about.

 

It is also true that [b']we don't all show feeling at all times[/b]. And some of us are of the opinion that when a guitarist is shredding, that seems to be one of those times when that particular person isn't showing (much) feeling."

 

 

Dude - All relationships have a "dog house." it's an expression of what happens when two people disagree. our dog house is actually for our Jack Russell Terror, but that's another story.

 

You are correct in that many have an "opinion" that when a guitarist is "shredding" that is a time when that person isn't showing much feeling. Personally, I've never been attracted to shred guitarist. However, I absolutely love to hear Al DiMeola, John McClaughlin, and Paco DeLucia play and play fast on their acoustic guitars - I hear their emotion in their playing (speed) and I've seen it on their faces when I saw them in concert.

 

Your previous post did make a good underlying point - communication always involves 2 people (unless one is a schizophrenic). For communication to take place there is the speaker/player and the listener. Some people write music for the listener, the audience while others write for themselves - I don't know if this is true, but I think of Miles Davis because he so often played with his back to the audience.

 

It's difficult to say a person is playing with or without feeling because we can only come to that conclusion by how we are stirred in the music - thus we get "opinions" about one playing with or without feeling. This makes me think that a better question to ask would be, "What stirs your emotions more, one playing fast or one playing slow?"

 

I think the orginal question was loaded with a pre-conceved answer "What do you think is more important in a guitarist?" with the title of the post being "speed or feeling."

 

EDIT: IMHO it should have read "fast or slow" or "feeling or no feeling."

 

Then there is the whole question about what "feeling" are we talking about because there are many different feelings.

[axuality]

Okay, for those of you who think that feeling trumps speed without a doubt, allow me to tell you what I suspect is the best guitar solo I've ever heard. And I think I'd have to include even Hendrix' Machine Gun, Voodoo Chile, Clapton's Sweet Wine live. TNow not ALL of this guy's solos are great, but this one is. It is very slow, so be prepared. It is Leslie West in the song "Theme from an Imaginary Western by Mountain. I'm not sure I've ever heard a solo with more feeling. The album is 'Mountain Climbing'. There are two solos. Both are the same quality.

[axuality]

 

Dude - All relationships have a "dog house." it's an expression of what happens when two people disagree. our dog house is actually for our Jack Russell Terror' date=' but that's another story.

 

You are correct in that many have an "opinion" that when a guitarist is "shredding" that is a time when that person isn't showing much feeling. Personally, I've never been attracted to shred guitarist. However, I absolutely love to hear Al DiMeola, John McClaughlin, and Paco DeLucia play and play fast on their acoustic guitars - I hear their emotion in their playing (speed) and I've seen it on their faces when I saw them in concert.

 

Your previous post did make a good underlying point - communication always involves 2 people (unless one is a schizophrenic). For communication to take place there is the speaker/player and the listener. Some people write music for the listener, the audience while others write for themselves - I don't know if this is true, but I think of Miles Davis because he so often played with his back to the audience.

 

It's difficult to say a person is playing with or without feeling because we can only come to that conclusion by how we are stirred in the music - thus we get "opinions" about one playing with or without feeling. This makes me think that a better question to ask would be, "What stirs your emotions more, one playing fast or one playing slow?"

 

I think the orginal question was loaded with a pre-conceved answer "What do you think is more important in a guitarist?" with the title of the post being "speed or feeling."

 

EDIT: IMHO it should have read "fast or slow" or "feeling or no feeling."

 

Then there is the whole question about what "feeling" are we talking about because there are many different feelings.[/quote']

 

Okay DJ, now I see that you are a very smart guy. And I appreciate that. FYI, not all relationships have what either person would call a dog house. Life is so harmonious for some people that the concept of "being in trouble" with your partner, etc. doesn't really occur to the thought of either person. I hope that's actually the case with you and yours.

 

And I do agree with most of your points. Let me write a caution. I'm not sure it applies to you or not, but your writing reminded me of it. There IS such a thing as 'better'. Many people deny this, but that changes nothing.

 

Whoever would like to state that one guitarist isn't "better" than another simply makes a mistake of logic and observation. We live every moment of our lives on the assumption that one thing is better than another. Including guitarists.

 

And the obvious fact that people vastly disagree as to what items actually CONTAIN this quality of "better" and which don't, does not mean that "better" does not have a meaning. The same goes for the word "feeling". It may be expressed in various ways, but there are times when the concept called "feeling" is present or isn't present or is present in varying degree.

 

The simple fact is, that certain behaviors keep the human animal from expressing as much feeling. I can more easily express feeling when my wife says "Honey, take your time and tell me how much you love me", than I can when I am trying to juggle six eggs simultaneously without breaking them. (or when I'm playing 30 notes per second)

 

I'm feeling and expressing SOMETHING when I'm playing 30 notes per second, but overall, it's not a time when I'd actually use the common definition of the word 'feeling' to convey what I'm expressing.

[Riffster]

Wow this thread is still going:

 

So what do you guys think of SRV? he has slow songs and normal speed blues songs but he has songs that are quite fast especially for the genre.

 

Matter a fact the owner for Alligator records did not sign him because he thought Stevie was playing fast Albert King riffs but a lot faster and "with less feel".

[fartz]

Wow this thread is still going:

 

So what do you guys think of SRV? he has slow songs and normal speed blues songs but he has songs that are quite fast especially for the genre.

 

Matter a fact the owner for Alligator records did not sign him because he thought Stevie was playing fast Albert King riffs but a lot faster and "with less feel".

 

SRV could play circles around Clapton.

[axuality]

Oh brother. Now I really don't mean to be a ****hole, but someone said that guys who play really fast, may play slow also and I just don't know it, so you can't say they don't have feeling simply because I see them play fast.

 

I agree that slow does not equal feeling, but that doesn't mean that super fast does NOT imply lack of feeling.

 

Well, the deal is, I've seen some of these guys play slow, and they don't really do that with much feeling either.

 

I think it must be an attitude. I mean, it doesn't make the guy inferior that he doesn't play with much feeling, but I kind of think that the type of guy who would perfect the ability to play like Vai, etc. probably isn't a feeling kind of guy.

 

So when I see them play slow stuff, I'm not really surprised that they don't show much feeling there either. I've heard Satriani, etc. do some really pretty stuff, REALLY pretty, but it didn't make me want to cry or achieve great things. It was just pretty.

 

I've heard Wes Montgomery play stuff that wasn't very pretty, but I could scream because it was so full of heart.

 

And whoever said that feeling is in the timing, not the speed or slowness is exactly right. But I hope that that person realizes that you can't play certain timings on purpose and expect to sell them as feeling. It is the sincere output of the heart that causes feeling, and it is what the heart does for the timing of the notes that brings the feeling to the notice of the listener.

[axuality]

 

SRV could play circles around Clapton.

 

Yes, at least from what you and I have heard. But playing circles isn't as closely associated with feeling as is playing honest riffs.

 

Stevie Ray is good technically, he's good at feeling (a little too rote, perhaps) but he ain't no Clapton. And while they say to honor the dead, I know darn well that Stevie's knows what I'm saying right now, and he ain't arguing. He's now and then smart enough to know how good Clapton is.

[axuality]

Wow this thread is still going:

 

So what do you guys think of SRV? he has slow songs and normal speed blues songs but he has songs that are quite fast especially for the genre.

 

Matter a fact the owner for Alligator records did not sign him because he thought Stevie was playing fast Albert King riffs but a lot faster and "with less feel".

 

SRV's very good. So is the little I've heard of Garry Moore. So is the little I've heard of Harvey Mandel.

[FirstMeasure]

 

Yes' date=' at least from what you and I have heard. But playing circles isn't as closely associated with feeling as is playing honest riffs.

 

Stevie Ray is good technically, he's good at feeling (a little too rote, perhaps) but he ain't no Clapton. And while they say to honor the dead, I know darn well that Stevie's knows what I'm saying right now, and he ain't arguing. He's now and then smart enough to know how good Clapton is.[/quote']

When you get to the level SRV and EC play, one is no longer better than the other. Both Players are "Good" enough toplay circles around each other. Both players play with an incredible amount of feeling. It's true SRV's humility was well known, he thought his brother Jimmy was better than himself, let alone Clapton. But Clapton also thought Stevie was Better, just watch A Tribute To Stevie Ray Vaughan where we can hear Eric say, "If I was to be completely taken in by what what he was doing, I'd have had to clear out....do a Runner." Which is British for Leave the Building.

 

Personally I'd rather listen to SRV than Clapton when I'm in mood for Blues, and Clapton over Stevie when I'm in a Rock mood. But both Players could Play Rock or Blues with Feeling and Technical prowess.

[smithy78]

SRV is the real deal, Clapton's a sell out... He can play the blues but he plays cheesey poppy stuff too...

[:oilpit:]

SRV is the real deal' date=' Clapton's a sell out... He can play the blues but he plays cheesey poppy stuff too...[/quote']

 

I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

I couldn't hear you over the sound of your stupidity...

[milod]

Okay, this may sound screwey to some of you but - I guess because of my age I don't consider any of our "better known modern rockers" blues guitar players. And I include Clapton's earlier incarnations in that comment.

 

OTOH, I do consider Buchanan as a blues guitar player even if he played "Mary had a little lamb," and a lotta Butterfield stuff pretty well epitomizes "Chicago blues band."

 

Part of my outlook, I suppose, is a leftover from the "gotta be ethnic or at least honestly written in the folk tradition" perspective of my college years and specific environment. But...

 

None of 'em ain't the Chicago blues bands or Delta pickers I remember from that era. They ain't John Lee Hooker or Howlin' Wolf. Rock-variation or "Blues inspired?" Yeah, I buy that. But I'm not sure that Hank Williams' "I can't help it if I'm still in love with you" isn't a lot more "real" blues in terms of guitar sound on some of the recordings. In fact, I hear some similarities - regional similarity if nothing more - in Hank's singing and some Leadbelly stuff.

 

So... I'm not questioning virtuosity or talent, just in ways whether we're not calling oranges "apples" in this case.

 

But... as I said, I'm old ... and one who is pretty much into appropriate definition. "Good rockin' lead guitar" ain't necessarily "blues," by definition in my opinion.

 

Both are something I enjoy, by the way.

[smithy78]

 

I'm sorry' date=' could you repeat that?

I couldn't hear you over the sound of your stupidity...[/quote']

 

And how do you justify his cheesey pop music then?

[:oilpit:]

 

And how do you justify his cheesey pop music then?

 

What are you referring to, Derick and the Dominoes? His solo work?

Either way, calling Eric Clatpton a sellout is just retarded....

[AXE®]

I'll never buy from zzsounds...

[RichCI]

I'll never buy from zzsounds...

 

+1

[RichCI]

Alright. I've wanted to say this forever. Speed is a function of practice. Anyone can practice. The ability to express feeling is a function of how well developed one's character and expression is. Not everyone has highly developed character or highly developed expressive ability. True' date=' it's oh so Politically Correct to say "Oh everyone has feeling", it's an individual thing, but I think that's BS. And to answer the person who said this:

 

[b']"I think saying that guys like Vai, Van Halen and etc. have no feeling shows a serious inability of being able to appreciate their musical styles and would argue that at least some of those players probably have a deeper feeling and understanding of music than a lot of us will ever be able to even recognize."[/b]

 

--Yes, they have SOMETHING, but it isn't exactly feeling, it's incredible discipline. While admirable, that isn't the same as feeling. The only "feeling" I get from those guys is one of great respect for what practice can do, and the "feeling" of "overwhelm". By overwhelm I mean 'the way you'd feel if you had a billion gallons of tomato soup poured over your head over and over and over and over. I enjoy these guys a LOT for two songs, and then it's (yes, I'm going to say it) "all the same".

 

The guy I just quoted also said this:

"I believe a lot of what people perceive as "feeling" is really "less precision;"

 

--Bravo! That's exactly what feeling is, but apparently (though not for sure) YOU are the one who simply doesn't understand. When you tell your girlfriend or mother that you love them, do you write it out, rehearse it until you can say it with 'precision', or do you just say it how you feel it, even if you trip over a word? And you better hope that this is one time that you really ARE expressing feeling. Feeling isn't EXACTLY "less precision" though, it's actually "less agenda". And feeling is based on sincerity, not insincerity (which in a very real way is a natural concomittant of 'agenda')

 

I hate to say this, but I suspect that there IS an unavoidable separation between VERY fast playing and feeling. One guy here said that just because it's fast doesn't necessarily mean that it has no feeling. With all due respect to him, I'm not sure that's quite true. Oh, a two-second flurry of high speed can denote the feeling of "hurry", "flurry", "quick", "intelligent", any number of good things that are part of expressing feeling. But extended super-fast playing or flurries that occur too often start saying less and less of varied things and more and more of the single "feeling" of "intensity, intensity, intensity, intensity, intensity, intensity", and that's not what I'd call expressing feeling. It becomes more of expressing monotony. Mind you, extended fast PLAYING is admirable, but that doesn't mean that it has feeling.

 

 

 

I stand by what I said and believe you are an example of someone who either doesn't connect with the feeling that those guitar players are expressing (not everyone connects with every person) or you just don't understand what those players are expressing. That last part isn't a dig on you; I don't connect well with Vai's playing at all and find his songs boring as hell but that doesn't mean that just because *I* don't connect with his expression that he isn't expressing anything with feeling.