Who cares about guitar technique?

[Adam Blake]

But, while I've been away, I've not been idle. I have finally thought of an album that doesn't have a duff track. 'Hard Days Night' by the Beatles. That's it. I don't think there is another one.

Ha ha! Laugh out loud! I agree with you! 28 minutes and 13 songs long and not a second or a note wasted. Surely the best purely Pop (with a capital P) album ever made by anybody ever.

(Norman, you know you're just being foolish. As if our esteemed colleague here is going to waste his valuable time listening to the likes of Lol Coxhill...)

[AndyM]

The problem with over-emphasising the importance of 'virtuosity' or 'technique' is it can, if you're not careful, lead you back to that tired 1970s oposition where Emerson, Lake & Palmer were deemed by their fans to be superior to the Buzzcocks because the latter '''''couldn't play their instruments'''''.

But who, outside of lunatic asylums, would ever choose to listen to 'Tarkus' over 'What Do I Get?' ?

[judith]

The problem with over-emphasising the importance of 'virtuosity' or 'technique' is it can, if you're not careful, lead you back to that tired 1970s oposition where Emerson, Lake & Palmer were deemed by their fans to be superior to the Buzzcocks because the latter '''''couldn't play their instruments'''''.

I don't know about those conversations, but I think the point Lev Fruchter was discussing was that not one of his students had even recognized the notion that a person's playing of an instrument was an element to relish in music, a key element - at all - and thus over-emphasizing the importance of said element had not even yet come to bear in the concept. Thus, it would have been as if the topic of whether or not Emerson, Lake & Palmer or the Buzzcocks could or couldn't play their instruments did not even exist in that 1970's discussion. I wonder what would have been the rallying point, or point of contention, should that have been the case?

[Adam Blake]

Actually I could make a pretty good case - with musical examples - for saying that The Buzzcocks were actually far better musicians than Emerson, Lake and Palmer.

[AndyM]

Actually I could make a pretty good case - with musical examples - for saying that The Buzzcocks were actually far better musicians than Emerson, Lake and Palmer.

That would be interesting to hear, Adam. But back in the late 70s, the 'good musician' was, at least at a fan level, the preserve of the ageing prog-rockers and the accusation of musical ineptitude was regularly & tediously hurled at those of us jumping up & down to X-Ray Spex.

[Charlie]

When did the guitar solo drop out of music?

It was still there in all its glory in Dire Straits, but was that the end, were they the last band to base their sound on guitar technique?

Walk This way had a great guitar break in the middle , featuring whoever plays guitar in Aerosmith. That was 1982 wasn't it?

Speaking of Aerosmith, the rumour is that they have earned more royalties from being featured in a game (called Guitar Hero, I think) than they ever made from records. So somebody must still be interested in guitar technique, they just don't go to school in Brooklyn.

Around the time I lost interest in records with guitar solo (never a big thing for me in any case), I discovered Kanda Bongo Man and the dazzling session guitarists on his records, which then led onto all the other Congolese guitarists....

But, back to the question, what was the last group to feature guitar as the main reason for their existence. I'm voting for Dire Straits, 1978 - 84.

[Adam Blake]

But back in the late 70s, the 'good musician' was, at least at a fan level, the preserve of the ageing prog-rockers and the accusation of musical ineptitude was regularly & tediously hurled at those of us jumping up & down to X-Ray Spex.

Oh I remember! I was there too. Probably spilling your lager at the X-Ray Spex gig. The thing is - and it is funny in hindsight - that those people were entirely wrong, and the people who gave their misguided arguments credence were also entirely wrong.

Charlie - I think you're right re.Dire Straits. I can't think of a more recent pop group who have achieved any success whose raison d'etre was the guitar playing. Guitars were important to the Britpop crowd, and in that they were a reaction against the synth drenched 80s, but the songs and singers still outranked the guitarists and the guitar solos (just about).

[Adam Blake]

Speaking of Aerosmith, the rumour is that they have earned more royalties from being featured in a game (called Guitar Hero, I think).

The computer game Guitar Hero should be banned by law, every copy collected and destroyed, it's manufacturers jailed and it's inventors keelhauled.

But I would say that, wouldn't I?

[judith]

But, back to the question, what was the last group to feature guitar as the main reason for their existence. I'm voting for Dire Straits, 1978 - 84.

Do groups such as Double Trouble count? Or would they be considered more of a backup band for Stevie Ray Vaughn? And then, there's Santana.

[Nigel w]

Only just read this thread and thanks to everybody - a fascinating debate.

I have little to add except to say that I am surprised at the number of musicians - mostly not guitarists, I admit, but lets widen the remit here - who tell me they spent x years learning a virtuoso technique and then have had to spend twice as many years unlearning it and rediscovering a way back to playing with 'feel' or intuition or spontaniety, or whatever you want to call it. Trilok Gurtu was the most recent and there will be a feature coming up in Songlines in the autumn in which he talks at length about this.

When Simon Broughton and I spent an afternoon in conversation with Ravi Shankar the summer before last, we were surprised - even shocked - that even he now denounces the traditional way of teaching Indan classical music with its strict regime of practicing 8-12 hours a day as unecessary and inappropriate in the modern age. Does that mean Anoushka will never be as 'good' a sitarist as he was technically? Quite possibly. Will anybody outside a tiny elite cognoscenti of Indian pandits notice the difference? Almost certainly not.

For what it is worth, my own suspicion - perhaps a banal one - is that playing an instrument is probably a bit like playing cricket. Before you can smash the ball around the park in a 20-20 game with a bunch of totally unorthodox shots that defy every principle taught in the MCC coaching manual, you first have to master all the conventional wisdom the coaches have to impart ...

[Charlie]

Ravi Shankar now denounces the traditional way of teaching Indan classical music with its strict regime of practicing 8-12 hours a day as unecessary and inappropriate in the modern age.

Started listening to the Teach Yourself Spanish CDs that came with the Guardian/Observer last weekend, presented by a man called Michel Thomas. In a mid-European accent, Michel starts off by saying, don't write anything down, don't try to remember anything, dont think you have to do homework. Then he begins, and very cleverly inveigles me into saying complete sentences out loud. Brilliant. I wish I could have learned to play guitar like this.

[Dayna]

It would be nice if we could learn Spanish, guitar or piano that way. I was good at 3 years of Spanish in highschool but found it's better to learn if you can live around people that speak the language. There's a book I was reading called Talent Is Overrated that said being talented in something isn't as important as the amount of practice but I think both are probably necessary.
Katie White is good.

[judith]

Who is Katie White?
Yep, I would agree, Dayna - talent and practice - and desire. Like the title of this thread, who cares and what do they care about?

I have little to add except to say that I am surprised at the number of musicians - mostly not guitarists, I admit, but lets widen the remit here - who tell me they spent x years learning a virtuoso technique and then have had to spend twice as many years unlearning it and rediscovering a way back to playing with 'feel' or intuition or spontaniety, or whatever you want to call it. Trilok Gurtu was the most recent and there will be a feature coming up in Songlines in the autumn in which he talks at length about this.

Thanks, Nigel. I will be watching for Trilok Gurtu's comments. It's all quite thought compelling.

I, too, have heard people, more so the classically trained rather than the autodidactic, talk about the years of unlearning techniques or even having to wait until they were 'old', until people/teachers/colleagues quit having expectations of their work and quit commenting on the correctness or incorrectness of their 'techniques' before they really really, deeply in their souls, enjoyed creating music (or whatever skill spoken of). Then, there's the aspect of the telling of the inner critic to kiss off as well which can often enter this conversation.

[Dayna]

Who is Katie White?
Yep, I would agree, Dayna - talent and practice - and desire. Like the title of this thread, who cares and what do they care about?

http://musicremedy.com/t/Ting_Tings/alb ... -5285.html


"As Jules was customizing his 21st century signature electronic percussion rig, Katie was performing some musical experiments of her own. "I couldn't play an instrument," she freely admits, "so I picked his guitar up and played a D chord for about four hours just learning rhythm and I put my finger on the wrong string and made this weird chord which eventually turned into 'Great DJ,' our first pop song."

Katie White started playing guitar fairly recently, & sounds pretty good. I really admire her. She plays very similar to some from 70s & 80s.

[judith]

There we go, proof it's not too late to start, and that somebody's wrong might be their first record. Thank you for the links. I see why you admire her.