Musicians playing with emotion vs. musicians playing with technique

Dr. Percival Cox

My old posts make me cringe
Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
1,219
Location
The Idea of Serenity
Gil
66
This is a very boring debate that's gone on for too long and I'm not asking for anyone's preference though you can feel free to share yours.

Anywho, why can I not watch a video of Billy Sheehan or Michael Angelo Batio without someone making the comment "Yeah, they play fast but they don't have any emotion so they suck!"? Apparently, learning everything you possibly can about an instrument is a bad thing because...I can't think of any reason why this is a bad thing. Does it ever occure to the people who feel the need to say this shit that maybe the musician isn't going for speed or unbelievable technical playing? That maybe being rediculously fast on the guitar or bass is just how they're used to playing and it's the only way that feels natural? Of course not. Why take both sides to an argument when you can be close minded and ignorant?

Besides, personally, I like when guitar players are incredibly technical. It shows that they know what they're doing and aren't just improvising. Probably why I don't listen to much old music. I'm not knocking on any of the old school guitar players, but they mostly just made shit up. I like when I hear a guitar solo live that's done exactly like it was on the album. It shows effort.

Anyway, that's my little rant for the day. Oh, and I'm not just discussing guitar players, I'm talking about all musicians in general.
 
I always thought that music was about expressing oneself. Some people do this by putting their absolute soul into what they're playing/singing, whilst others prefer to concentrate on their technique and express themselves through their mastery of their chosen instrument. Its all a matter of personal style. Obviously no two people express themselves in quite the same way, so what does it matter if a musician plays with more emotion or a better technique than another one? Its not like they're really all that comparable anyway. You either like them or you don't. But just because you don't like them doesn't mean that they aren't any good.

Personally, I'm more partial to good technique than I am emotion in the music I listen to...being the emotionless drone that I am, I don't find myself affected by so-called "emotional" songs or anything very much. I like what sounds good to my ear, not what speaks to my soul, or whatever you want to call it.
 
♥Love Freak Flonne♥;835944 said:
Personally, I'm more partial to good technique than I am emotion in the music I listen to...being the emotionless drone that I am, I don't find myself affected by so-called "emotional" songs or anything very much. I like what sounds good to my ear, not what speaks to my soul, or whatever you want to call it.

That's pretty much how I see it. I like technical, complicate composure. That doesn't mean that I don't like slow music. I listen to Bush and Staind and neither of those bands have very complex music, but I still enjoy them. But I prefer musicians such as Paul Gilbert, John Petrucci, John Myung, Jason Becker. Any musician that puts their all into a song.
 
Having lots of emotion isnt gunna do you any good if you cant play your instrument. fact.
That aside i look at it like this. Honestly i dont care less what the musician feels when they play.
When i listen to music its all about how it makes me feel. The sound might spark a lot of mixed feelings in me, it could be technical as hell or it could be 3 guitar chords played in repetition. Wer all differnt therfore differnt songs will have us react in differnt ways.
 
Honestly, I don't care either way. I like things that are very technical and I like things that are emotional. If it sounds great, then I'm on board. :ryan:

Though I suppose if I have to choose, I tend to favor more of the emotional guitarists. The guitarists that I've come to love over time like Marty Friedman, Jason Becker, Buckethead and Slash, all tend to have a sound that sort of writes a story. Buckethead's diversity sort of puts him in both category's, as he does stuff that's not emotional and technical, and has stuff that's more on a basic level, but has the emotional edge to it. But even with emotion, these particular guitarists are technical as well. I suppose you can't have an emotional sound without being somewhat technical. :lew:

Guys like Eddie Van Halen and Dimebag Darrell, I don't hear much emotion in their stuff, but they are technical and they sound great. Seeing some of the stuff they do (Eddie in particular), it just puts you in a state of awe. Watching how they play sounds makes you appreciate how they play, just because it's so tough to do (or at least seems that way).

But I've always been a sucker for a more dreary sound, which for the most part has a more emotional feel, so I favor that over technical sound.
 
As a classical musician first and foremost, I understand the need for extremely good technique, when I'm practicing, I'll usually go from 1 to 4 hours daily to some points where I can't even walk straight after a session due to the mental strain.
That being said I'm not a big lover of shred. I adore Steve Vai, but I cannot stand Michael Angelo Batio or Yngwie Malmsteen; I'd much rather listen to Stevie Ray Vaughan or someone of the like. I think Jazz guitarists have the best of both worlds; someone like Joe Pass is just shit hot at guitar all round: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWa6aChSf1w

As I said, however, I have the greatest of respect to people who put all their effort into getting a solid technique, but it's only half the battle, I think only once you have a solid technique, can you really play both well and expressively, too much of one, with too little of the other, and you get a horrible synergy.
 
I don't really care, seriously.

Though what must be present is technique. No matter how emotional you are, you probably won't express it well without technique. However, assuming a case where the musician is both good in expression and technique...

... Well, that's where a sort of dilemma comes in for me. I suppose I'll go with whatever sounds good enough for me.
 
I don't think technique is the end all of music. People that thrash bands because of one miniscule technical thing bother me. I had a friend in high school that claimed he didn't like Disturbed because, and this is a near direct quote, "their drummer uses a double bass". I mean, seriously. If you don't like a band fine, but that's seriously your reason?

I will not listen to that screamo crap though. That is some non talented, no technique music right there. And I'm talking about the bands that are full time screamo. Some of my favorite bands, well, at least one comes to mind, started out pretty screamo, and thats Avenged Sevenfold. Now they are FAR from screamo.

As long as there is some technique involved in the music then we're all good.

I think emotion is VERY important though. I want to listen to music that the bands enjoy putting out. I want the music to sound like the band wants to play it.
 
Besides, personally, I like when guitar players are incredibly technical. It shows that they know what they're doing and aren't just improvising. Probably why I don't listen to much old music. I'm not knocking on any of the old school guitar players, but they mostly just made shit up. I like when I hear a guitar solo live that's done exactly like it was on the album. It shows effort.

I couldn't disagree more. If I hear a guitarist play a solo exactly like it was recorded, I get tired. It shows NO effort. Improvising and doing it well requires more effort than anything a guitarist does in his or her career, memorizing doesn't. Improvisation shows the player actually knows how to handle the instrument instead of repeating patterns like a machine. Those incredibly fast, technical guitar players can't hold a candle to people like Gilmour and Hendrix, whose sense of emotion and sophistication is unparalleled even to this day. Just listen to the solo of Comfortably Numb, and the many live versions of it. It's just amazing stuff.
 
If I hear a guitarist play a solo exactly like it was recorded, I get tired. It shows NO effort.

See, I personally think that it shows more effort. Improvisation more or less means "making shit up as you go" in other words, you're probably doing it that way possibly for the first time. And I will admit that some guitar players are very good at it. But to say that playing a guitar solo the exact same way live they did on the album shows no effort... I gotta call bullshit on that. It shows that they were proud of that particular way of doing it. Meaning they DID put effort into it because it was composed. I'm not saying that all bands that "compose" their music put effort into it, but a good deal of them do. Atleast progressive metal bands do anyway.

And I know I'm gonna get harassed for saying this, but I don't think Jimi Hendrix was amazing. I'm not saying he wasn't good. But I constantly hear people say he was "the best" and that bothers me because their are so many guitar players (keep in mind, this is my opinion) that are so much better. So much more skilled. He's definitely an influential musician and to be influential, you do have to have a certain amount of skill. But I think he was the best probably for his time. But as far as today, countless guitar players are better. I think the reason so many people give praise to Hendrix, Van Halen, and Page is simply because they're household names and it's practically blasphemy to speak against them. Again, this is all my opinion.
 
See, I personally think that it shows more effort. Improvisation more or less means "making shit up as you go" in other words, you're probably doing it that way possibly for the first time. And I will admit that some guitar players are very good at it.

Improvisation is definitely not just making shit up as you go; there are many rules to learn and it's definitely an acquired talent, I have a friend who's doing a jazz degree and some of the stuff he talks about on improvisation is highly complex. Improvs are also almost always done around a pre-composed melody :/
 
See, I personally think that it shows more effort. Improvisation more or less means "making shit up as you go" in other words, you're probably doing it that way possibly for the first time. And I will admit that some guitar players are very good at it.

I don't really see what's so bad about, as you like to put it, "making shit up". It really is a challenge to come up with a great solo on the fly and impress the crowd, and I think it's much more enjoyable for the audience as well.

But to say that playing a guitar solo the exact same way live they did on the album shows no effort... I gotta call bullshit on that. It shows that they were proud of that particular way of doing it. Meaning they DID put effort into it because it was composed.

It shows no effort in the sense that the guitarist pretty much shows his lack of imagination and fear of venturing into unknown territories. I sincerely don't believe guitar solos should be played exactly the same every time they're played. Then again, I also believe music should evolve along with the performers, and conforming to the same formula is against that.

And I know I'm gonna get harassed for saying this, but I don't think Jimi Hendrix was amazing. I'm not saying he wasn't good. But I constantly hear people say he was "the best" and that bothers me because their are so many guitar players (keep in mind, this is my opinion) that are so much better. So much more skilled. He's definitely an influential musician and to be influential, you do have to have a certain amount of skill. But I think he was the best probably for his time. But as far as today, countless guitar players are better. I think the reason so many people give praise to Hendrix, Van Halen, and Page is simply because they're household names and it's practically blasphemy to speak against them. Again, this is all my opinion.

By "skilled", I presume you mean "fast". I've never thought technical perfection to be that important. After all, it's the music itself that matters: the melody, the SONG itself. I don't know what to say if you don't hear it, but in my mind Hendrix is still one of the best there is. His playing is extremely stylish and his sense of drama is magnificient. He was also one hell of a performer.
 
By "skilled", I presume you mean "fast".

No, by "skilled" I mean "skilled". John Petrucci for example. He can play incredibly fast. But his work that appreciate the most is usually his slower stuff, which still has a technical approach to it. It's not the speed that I take into thought. It's the sound. It's - and I'm starting to feel like I'm repeating myself - the composition.

Again, I'm not denying that improv takes skill. It just every time I hear an improvised solo I can't help but that they didn't put enough time into it originally to actually remember it. I always feel that they were kinda just like "eh, fuck it."
 
Again, I'm not denying that improv takes skill. It just every time I hear an improvised solo I can't help but that they didn't put enough time into it originally to actually remember it. I always feel that they were kinda just like "eh, fuck it."


I always wonder about that myself but improv probably gets me more excited about playing guitar than playing a solo exact. Playing a solo exact takes lots of hard work particularly if its long but it is predictable I like seeing a musician express their personality through a little improv and putting their own stamp on a piece and showing they know the key their solo is in well and keeping in mind what the bass and drums are doing as john Frusciante siad in an interview"I don't see a solo as a blank canvas I can just go crazy over irregardless of what the bass and drums are doing ". My first time seeing John Frusciante improvise with Flea on RHCP 2004 Slane DVD I thought it was amazing and too good to be thought up on the fly to this day I still think some of their improvisation are pre planned. But I should add how good you are at improvising does come down to your technical skills and you limit the amount you can improvise the less technical skills you have.
In the end you need a bit of both technical and emotional playing one without the other is either lifeless/robotic or brain dead in my opinion.
 
There are merits to both, when I play I try to incorporate a lot of emotion into vocals because it generally makes it sound a lot better richer and more meaningful however some songs I do require pretty intricate quitar strumming so you can't get so swept up in emotion that it hinders your technique or compromises the overall sound and vibe of the composition on the reverse if I just focused solely on my instrument and technique and just went through the motions with the vocals they would suffer severely and there would really be no life or feeling to the song it also just really depends on what you wrote the song about and how you wanted the melody and overall vibe of the vocals to be sung in the first place so idk its basically just about balance I mean when you play an instrument and sing simultaneously two different parts of you're brain are being used as it is so there's balance to that in itself
 
Back
Top