shredding? why are most people down on playing fast...

[ChanMan]

Ahhh. I see, said the blind man!

 

Page was known to be sloppy, so I can see where you're coming from.

 

I guess I've always seen the occaisional out of scale note as an atonal hook. I'm not sure I can really explain it, but think of it like a blues player doing multiple bends that don't quite reach the note before he finally stretches it on up there. It builds tension into the solo.

 

I guess that doesn't help, huh?

[NeoConMan]

I think the music suffers when it basically turns into . . . well "watch this" rather than listen to this.

Bottom line.

[TommyK]

Probably because most 'shredders' I've heard can't play a lick, and do so just to impress... to impress... just who is it they are trying to impress? There are a few who can pull it off, but most are posers.

[Duende]

Agreed.

 

I was just more or less quoting him from an interview in Guitar World, where he basically said "Yeah, I'm a shredder and I'm proud of it." I've gotta say his musicianship, to me, far out paces the label "shredder", as most folks tend to think of it.

 

 

he was being ironic?? LOL (I jest trying to find a get out)

 

re Bach. (the following is just a theory, but one I veer towards) With the music of a composer like Bach, he has designed each piece knowing exactly what he is doing. There are no spaces being filled like Norton says of the college guys playing jazz he experienced. The counterpoint is not only intelligent but also so musical the way themes return in different voices and the interplay between them is just as clever as it is beautiful.

 

I think the resentment many feel towards 'shredders' (I use the term referring to the metal/virtuoso genre) is that they do not have the musical skill to pull of fast sections. When you sit down and look at what they have just played and shelve the side of your brain that confuses impressive with beautiful, the melody is not distinct and the harmonies supporting it lacklustre.

 

 

Matt

[milod]

Two points...

 

First... <grin> What Matt Sear said. But then, were I go to England I'd rather meet up with Matt for a cupla beers than most "tourist" type things.

 

Second...

 

I think also that the classical player isn't given any "credit" for the fact that he's playing not only a "lead" set of notes but usually also a set of supporting notes. In the Baroque especially, that tends to be a degree of counterpoint. So here we've got a picker playing at least two musical lines simultaneously.

 

 

 

Figure how many notes per measure... <grin> And the old man makes it look so easy.

 

This is what I meant by "style" of music plays a major role in perception. Notes per measure?

 

I note that regardless how many notes are played, the relaxed ease and varying dynamics, either by a classical or electric guitar master playing fingerstyle makes the playing seem slow. Chet Atkins, Mark Knopfler...

 

That........

 

m

[damian]

EDITED FOR CLARITY;

[Versatile]

Pitching into the mix....

 

Possibly the first shredders were Flamenco artists...fast technical players with sometimes gratuitous lead lines

Then there was Django Reinhardt

Then there was John McLaughlin

Followed by Al DiMeola

Then the more recent 'hi gain' players like EVH, Satch etc

 

Perhaps

 

V

[Shnate McDuanus]

...I can copy Robbie Robertson's licks. He most certainly isn't a shredder, but what he is, is incredibly tasteful and talented, despite not being one of the most technically capable or advanced guitarists. He knows how to work with a chord progression, with a mood, and with a whole band (capital "B" in his case,) and to me this is why he's one of the best. He's not known as particularly flashy--he could do some flashy stuff, though: check out his work on Blonde on Blonde, his more ambitious attempts during the Last Waltz concert, his guitar solo at the end of "To Kingdom Come," etc.--but what he did was play lines which were expressive, subtle, stylistically congruous and meaningful in the context of the rest of the song. That's what makes the difference for me, as far as individual instrumentalists are concerned: Robbie had to contend with Garth Hudson's keys and sax and Richard Manuel's piano, and he had to complement Rick Danko's bass and Levon Helm's drums! What he hear, given this role, is a guitarist who knows when to lay back, and knows when to stand out. He's not spending all of his time tapping, doing pick slides, and playing diminished arpeggios at 500 BPM at every second of the song; he can sit back and strum, fill in with finger-picked rolls, or bust out a wailing solo, and he knows when to do or not to do any of these things.

 

Of course, I'm not saying that shredders don't or can't do this, or that there aren't places for shred techniques. All I'm saying is that, in a full band situation, it's really important to be able to figure out your place within the music. In a solo situation, this is different, of course--one provides all of the instrumentation, which in ways presents its own set of both assets and drawbacks. A character like Paul Gilbert can do very interesting stuff with nothing but himself and a drummer or prerecorded drum track. A guy like Segovia is on a whole different level, of course, but his performance ethic was worlds apart from Gilbert's and anyone else one could mention in the "rock" idiom. Chet Atkins could do incredible things with one guitar. It's not really a question of how many musicians--it's more about what is done by the musician(s) in question. In this sense it's really up to personal taste ( ) which explains why I'd rather listen to "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down" than "Far Beyond the Sun" any day, but for some people it's quite the opposite. All in all, I have no opposition to shredding, but I can't listen to it all the time the same way I can listen to The Band all the time.

 

And I mean it, too. Lately I've been listening to The Band ALL THE TIME. I'm thinking of trying to start a tribute band to The Band. Maybe I'd call it The Tribute Band, or The Group, or The Cover Band. Or it could be a Mariachi tribute to The Band, called El Banda (en espanol), with all of the songs translated into Spanish. That would be a riot!

 

Anyway...as to the classical composers? I consider it a whole different issue from that of shredding, mostly because (despite however much shredders may try to get credibility by stating otherwise) they operate out of different aesthetics. The classical composers didn't do what they did for the sake of speed. The shredders often (almost by definition) do. So a whole different compositional ethic comes into play. Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Vivaldi, Handel, Hayden etc., were not necessarily making attempts at making instrumentalists play as fast as they can. They were making music, with no pretenses regarding tbe speed or difficulty of their material. The closest I can think of, in Western art music, to the "shred" performance ethos, is Chopin in his solo piano pieces--they tend to be very dense, and IMO less musical than his ensemble compositions. On that note, players like Buckethead and Michael Lee Firkins and Neil Zaza are more similar to the other composers I mentioned as they appear to have very little regard as to the speed or difficulty of their pieces--they are, in a similar way, creating music for its own sake. I guess what I'm getting at is that shredding is fine if it's done for the sake of music and not for the sake of showing off or as a way for an insecure player to stroke his ego.

 

One more point, on a bit of a tangent. When I began playing guitar, I made an agreement with myself that I wouldn't be worth costly gear until I could "shred." I've been playing for a few years now, and there are things I can do and things I still can't do, and it's true that I still don't really feel like blowing a lot of money on gear--except now it's more because the practical reality is that expensive gear is simply not realistic or necessary for my purposes. I don't need a $3,000 amp head, a $2,500 guitar, or several $300-500 pedals...but do I feel like I'm not good enough? Well, first of all: I can play the "Stairway" solo at the speed of the recording, so according to one definition I am a shredder. Second: I've reached a point where I feel like my gear is actually holding me back. In other words, the notes come out clearly and I can put them together in a pleasing way, but I find myself consistently disappointed by the sound I get. The tone's just not there for me. Third: there are plenty of things I feel like I am great at, and at the same time I know that there are a ton of things I still need to get better at (i.e. finger-picking, reading notation, etc.,) but the fact is that, as a musician, I should constantly be learning new things about the instrument and about music. If I ever get too satisfied with myself, I'll stop improving. BUT, back to my point: I think (and I'm not sure if this is true) that, in part, shred culture has bred a certain degree of animosity in the guitar-playing culture on the whole, because shredding tends to be very flashy (in essence, making shredders legitimate show-offs) and at the same time it is something that not everyone can do. So it tends to intimidate some and annoy others--some say "Gee, I'll never be that good", while others go "Shoot, that isn't even that good!" What we have, then, are players who work in a certain way that bothers other players on principle!

 

And, I guess I'm out of stuff to say. Sorry for the novel.

[damian]

Well, you make some good points, with the exception that quite a few compositions by the big guys ( Bach, Mozart etc. ) were, and or, incorporated elements which would be difficult to copy / and or play. And they were the origional shredders...period.............I like the Band as well.....

[Shnate McDuanus]

Well, you make some good points, with the exception that quite a few compositions by the big guys ( Bach, Mozart etc. ) were, and or, incorporated elements which would be difficult to copy / and or play. And they were the origional shredders...period.............I like the Band as well.....

 

True...but would you say that they were complex merely for the sake of their own complexity, or were they complex as the complexity of the parts added something of value to the overall pieces? In other words, there are many things which are complex which, to the composers, would sound bad, or which would not fit within the pieces they were composing. In other other words, was the complexity a function of the music, or was the music a function of the complexity?

[milod]

One difference, I think, with the baroque composers is that initially they were working with instruments that lacked the degree of dynamic "we" have available. In fact, to me a huge shift into "classical" from "baroque" may have had as much to do with technology as anything. The piano was there, decent consistent steel wire for strings was there... still, for a while, they had to have more notes being played to an extent in order to create an orchestral sorta dynamic.

 

Moonlight Sonata is a good example of the incoming dynamics drawn into musical instruments. It wouldn't have the neat potential dynamics on a harpsichord. Imagine even string quartets played with gut strings. Steel strings on guitar meant an increasing potential that was refined on up into the 1930s. After that? It seems we get electrification.

 

I think baroque - to get more directly to the question of complexity - got increasingly complex as instruments improved but there remained some difficulty of a dynamic in a concert hall.

 

There's a good question how the geniuses of that general era would take to a number of more modern potentials in instrumentation and, especially, to the electric guitar as we know it. How might some of those intentional "lute" pieces have been written differently?

 

Frankly I think they'd still write with the same sorts of notes per measure, and with the assumption of fingerpicking. But I think also they'd use the different tonal potentials. Flatpick "shredding?" No I don't think so. But that's assuming taking an adult composer from the past and giving them a new tool that I think they'd exploit more in tonality, not as single string and double stop work as for the violin. That's just me.

 

m

[damian]

True...but would you say that they were complex merely for the sake of their own complexity, or were they complex as the complexity of the parts added something of value to the overall pieces? In other words, there are many things which are complex which, to the composers, would sound bad, or which would not fit within the pieces they were composing. In other other words, was the complexity a function of the music, or was the music a function of the complexity?

 

 

Music can be complex for the sake of being complex, but then it would miss the point of being music..Depending on the composer, complexisity is not the intent as a primary objective; why would it be ?? Complexity is secondary to the primary objective, the music itself. Mistakes and mistaken mistakes have been corrected in dead composer's music for centuries. The mistakes may or may not be real, but are never intentional. The complexity is a result of the music, and thus is not a function. Complexity was / is often thrown in for fun and / or to make it complicated, but never as a function. A good composer makes the simple sound complicated and the complicated sound simple; it's all in the math; if the math doesn't add up, then the music won't work for the human ear. Function is not a factor, as far as the actual music goes. Once the music is done, it serves a function. The tools to write music serve a function, and are funtional. Music can be a function for the complexity, but then it wouldn't be music as much as it would mathamatical code not pleasing to the human ear, thus could hardly be considered music. Words work because we assemble them a certain way. With function.

[damian]

One difference, I think, with the baroque composers is that initially they were working with instruments that lacked the degree of dynamic "we" have available. In fact, to me a huge shift into "classical" from "baroque" may have had as much to do with technology as anything. The piano was there, decent consistent steel wire for strings was there... still, for a while, they had to have more notes being played to an extent in order to create an orchestral sorta dynamic.

 

Moonlight Sonata is a good example of the incoming dynamics drawn into musical instruments. It wouldn't have the neat potential dynamics on a harpsichord. Imagine even string quartets played with gut strings. Steel strings on guitar meant an increasing potential that was refined on up into the 1930s. After that? It seems we get electrification.

 

I think baroque - to get more directly to the question of complexity - got increasingly complex as instruments improved but there remained some difficulty of a dynamic in a concert hall.

 

There's a good question how the geniuses of that general era would take to a number of more modern potentials in instrumentation and, especially, to the electric guitar as we know it. How might some of those intentional "lute" pieces have been written differently?

 

Frankly I think they'd still write with the same sorts of notes per measure, and with the assumption of fingerpicking. But I think also they'd use the different tonal potentials. Flatpick "shredding?" No I don't think so. But that's assuming taking an adult composer from the past and giving them a new tool that I think they'd exploit more in tonality, not as single string and double stop work as for the violin. That's just me.

 

m

 

Yup, Moonlight Sonata would not have worked on a harpsicord.......I have always wondered, what would Beethoven have done with a Les Paul and a loud tube amp ?? Would he have embrassed it or ignored it ?? I love baroque......When horns and stuff entered 'classical' music, well, I don't consider that classical music.....much, well, not pure....kills it a bit...Hmmm. My ex wife stole my collection of over five hundred baroque and classical CDs....sure miss it. You always pose good questions Milod.....Hmmm.

[damian]

Edited for clarity;

 

 

[bluesguitar65]

If one can play the stairway to heaven guitar solo with some amount of style...... he or she is a shredder IMO

 

Great playing duane v. Found this vid on your youtube. http://www.youtube.com/user/camsprocket Do you have any vids or sondclips shredding?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lz4HHJm_vJw

[ShredAstaire]

Why get hung up on categorizing a guitarist based on their style? The best guitarists use all styles at their disposal....shredding is a tool that can be used tastefully, or not. It can be overused..just like vibrato, hammer on's, pull offs etc.

 

Are blues guys called "Benders"? Are straight metal guys called "Palm muters" or "Chugga Chuggers"? (hah!) Maybe to some of you, but they are all guitar players to me. I like some, and i don't like some. It's as simple as that!

[swampash]

My opinion, and it is only my opinion is that shredding belongs in the eighties and early nineties. It's not exactly cool anymore, in fact it's rather uncool.

 

But that's just my opinion.

[heymisterk]

When it comes to both technique and passion, I think the best classical players win, bar none. Thanks, Milod, for posting those clips.

[dbreslauer]

quite a few compositions by the big guys ( Bach, Mozart etc. ) were, and or, incorporated elements which would be difficult to copy / and or play. And they were the origional shredders...

 

i recently saw a show called "keeping score" about Beethoven's Eroica (Symphony #3). There is some serious shred potential in there. It was a truly epic piece of music that took him 3 years to complete. Clearly there was labor in the musical message...

 

fast playing, slow playing: if it fits what you are trying to "say" then it works. simply playing fast (or slow) without that is like speaking jibberish. But, when used to convey your ideas it can be very meaningful, regardless of the genre or style of music.

 

-Don

[Duende]

off topic a little...my apologies :) but thanks for Jasper (LOL) for opening a can of worms that has been bloody interesting.

 

to Miold and anyone else who maybe interested.

Do you like the composers of recent times that are non electronic - and whose music was written in the last fifty years ? Cheers Matt

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There has been some amazing work of recent times! This is my passion and favourite period of music to play on the guitar. From Benjamin Britten to William Walton - to Messien - to the 'off the wall' but greatness of Elliot Carter!!

Also there has been some wonderful work from guys like Julian Philips, Stephen Goss and Joby Talbot too!!

 

I mention the above to as many people quite understandably think of 'classical music,' as people in frilly sleeves and wigs and that it is always major or minor. ie they have quite a conservative perception of 'classical'. The irony is, although I am a classical musician, I am not very fond of the classical period. With a few exception like the Requiem, the majority of Mozart makes me quite nauseous I love writing contemporary classical music and also performing others' works too.

 

 

Walton's Bagatelle no 5 played by the amazing Julian Bream

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsansYL8vno

 

Britten's War Requiem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p3jNMCbaK0

[Duende]

ps is Julian Bream 'shredding' above

[Versatile]

Re Matt

A very good point made about contemporary Classical composers...Simon Rattle with the CBSO did much to champion 'new' music. I fear though, that much of it is dense atonal indulgence with few tunes

Some of my favourites

Leonard Bernstein

Darius Milhaud

Robert Saxton

Peter Maxwell Davis (Farewell to Stromness)

Mark Anthony Turnage

 

Some of this stuff you can even tap your foot to (whatever next?)

 

 

V

[Duende]

Re Matt

A very good point made about contemporary Classical composers...Simon Rattle with the CBSO did much to champion 'new' music. I fear though, that much of it is dense atonal indulgence with few tunes

Some of my favourites

Leonard Bernstein

Darius Milhaud

Robert Saxton

Peter Maxwell Davis (Farewell to Stromness)

Mark Anthony Turnage

 

Some of this stuff you can even tap your foot to (whatever next?)

 

 

V

 

Robert Saxton!! Cool you know him! He was the composition teacher where I studied as an undergraduate.

 

Yes, completely understand about the nonsense out there!!

 

Matt

 

 

 

[Zonkers]

a few of my favorite 'shredders'

It's amazing that B.B. King can say more with a few notes than most can with 20.

[cabba2203]

a few of my favorite 'shredders'

It's amazing that B.B. King can say more with a few notes than most can with 20.

 

That was great. Buddy took Jimmy to school. LOL!