I can never quite make my mind up when I watch guitarists like Buckethead and Ron Thal if they're brilliant or just soul-less virtuosos.... What do you think??

Just because you can plan a zillion notes a minute doesn't necessarily mean you should. On the other hand, it is kind of impressive...

MattyJam said:

I can never quite make my mind up when I watch guitarists like Buckethead and Ron Thal if they're brilliant or just soul-less virtuosos.... What do you think??

Just because you can plan a zillion notes a minute doesn't necessarily mean you should. On the other hand, it is kind of impressive...

IMO, being a good instrumentalist is like being a good speaker. with speaking, it's all very well knowing lots of words and lots of facts, and being a master of logic and so on, but if you want people to hear what you are aying you have to show your your stuff carefully and for the purposes of developing a discussion, otherwise you'll bore everyone senseless. with playing guitar, or any other instrument, knowing all the chords and tapping techniques on earth is only of use if you know who to use them to build a song...

Speaking of Mr Buckethead,you'll probably be interested to hear (seeing as you're obviously G n'R fan) that , allegedly, his guitar had to be turned down duirng most of his live performances with Guns, becuase he insisted on aimlessly noodling throughout most of the songs. Don't knwo if that was really true, but I do know that when he reins his widdling in a bit, some of his solo's are absolutely jaw dropping, like on the live versions of Nightrain of the end solo off There Was a Time on Chinese Democracy.

The same goes for Mr Thal. Some of his solos that I've heard sound like a swarm of bees being fed into a woodchipper. But others are deliciously soulful.

But the absolute worst culprit for not knowing when to hold back is Mr Yngwie J. 'Fucking' Malmsteen.

ReddishBrownOne said:

MattyJam said:

I can never quite make my mind up when I watch guitarists like Buckethead and Ron Thal if they're brilliant or just soul-less virtuosos.... What do you think??

Just because you can plan a zillion notes a minute doesn't necessarily mean you should. On the other hand, it is kind of impressive...

IMO, being a good instrumentalist is like being a good speaker. with speaking, it's all very well knowing lots of words and lots of facts, and being a master of logic and so on, but if you want people to hear what you are aying you have to show your your stuff carefully and for the purposes of developing a discussion, otherwise you'll bore everyone senseless. with playing guitar, or any other instrument, knowing all the chords and tapping techniques on earth is only of use if you know who to use them to build a song...

Speaking of Mr Buckethead,you'll probably be interested to hear (seeing as you're obviously G n'R fan) that , allegedly, his guitar had to be turned down duirng most of his live performances with Guns, becuase he insisted on aimlessly noodling throughout most of the songs. Don't knwo if that was really true, but I do know that when he reins his widdling in a bit, some of his solo's are absolutely jaw dropping, like on the live versions of Nightrain of the end solo off There Was a Time on Chinese Democracy.

The same goes for Mr Thal. Some of his solos that I've heard sound like a swarm of bees being fed into a woodchipper. But others are deliciously soulful.

But the absolute worst culprit for not knowing when to hold back is Mr Yngwie J. 'Fucking' Malmsteen.

LOL

That I do know.

Why I don't listen to him.

Pretty much in agreement, especially with the player you used as an example at the very end.

However, there are those where the solos are built around well crafted compositions.

With respect to modern guitarists, probably the grand-daddy of it all, Allan Holdsworth truly understands this.

...Tokyo Dream & Fred

And quite unlike Mr. Malmsteen, despite Holdsworth's incredible talents, he's an incredibly humble individual.

Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

[Edited 7/4/11 17:31pm]

Stevie Ray Vaughan - As souless as a rapist mannequin.

Brian May - As souless as a faulty dishwasher.

Eric Clapton - As souless as the most odious, ever-lingering, cancer bud.

theAudience said:

Pretty much in agreement, especially with the player you used as an example at the very end.

However, there are those where the solos are built around well crafted compositions.

With respect to modern guitarists, probably the grand-daddy of it all, Allan Holdsworth truly understands this.

...Tokyo Dream & Fred

And quite unlike Mr. Malsteen, despite Holdsworth's incredible talents, he's an incredibly humble individual.

Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

I tell ya, I think I learn something every time you post...don't leave us again!

I think there is a difference between someone who can play fast and a virtuoso.

Take someone like Stanley Jordan, Shawn Lane, Steve Vai or Greg Howe: they are (or "were" in Shawn's case) masters of their instruments and when you know what they are playing and you understand the music, you know its excellence. You know the genius behind what they are doing and its a challenge for even other good/great musicians to play and learn.

Then, there are guys who have built up finger dexterity from hours of playing scales who can't string together a real solo to save their lives. People who don't understand structure and melody may easily mistake them for virtuosos but those know REALLY know music know that they are not.

Playing fast stops becoming impressive after about 1 1/2 minutes to the ears of most who are over 17 and have any real appreciation and understanding of good of music.

Most of the "shredders" are rhythmic instead of melodic and they play like a train moves, with their solos sounding very linear.

[Edited 7/4/11 17:34pm]

BlaqueKnight said:

I think there is a difference between someone who can play fast and a virtuoso.

Take someone like Stanley Jordan, Shawn Lane, Steve Vai or Greg Howe: they are (or "were" in Shawn's case) masters of their instruments and when you know what they are playing and you understand the music, you know its excellence. You know the genius behind what they are doing and its a challenge for even other good/great musicians to play and learn.

Then, there are guys who have built up finger dexterity from hours of playing scales who can't string together a real solo to save their lives. People who don't understand structure and melody may easily mistake them for virtuosos but those know REALLY know music know that they are not.

Playing fast stops becoming impressive after about 1 1/2 minutes to the ears of most who are over 17 and have any real appreciation and understanding of good of music.

Most of the "shredders" are rhythmic instead of melodic and they play like a train moves, with their solos sounding very linear.

[Edited 7/4/11 17:34pm]

^ Right on the money!

Speaking of Greg Howe, more intelligent virtuosity.


Gentle Hearts Band...



...Wonderland In The Sky


Greg Howe - guitar
Tetsuo Sakurai - bass
Dennis Chambers - drums
Akira Onozuka - keys


Pure sickness (meant in a good way)

Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

theAudience said:

^ Right on the money!

Speaking of Greg Howe, more intelligent virtuosity.



Greg Howe - guitar
Tetsuo Sakurai - bass
Dennis Chambers - drums
Akira Onozuka - keys


Pure sickness (meant in a good way)

Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

Buckethead imo has some soul chops

BUT

there is a lot of them who are just.. oy, like Yngwie Malmsteen, i was obsessed as a kid with him, as i grew up i realized he can play the hell out of guitar. But he has no soul or feeling it's all speed, same with the guys from dragonforce and most speed metal bands/screamo.

Plus Yngwie writes AWFUL lyrics

i know just this guy who after the band has stopped is still soloin

he cant apreciate people who play with " feeling like hendrix or santana or what ever. al the youtube links he sends are fast , faster fastest guitar solos . i cant stand it , impressive if you can play fast , not so if it sounds like nothing . to me faster is not better

And the girls sing? Are there any females that could be mentioned?

None of you guys are qualified to make any qualitative assertion about a musician's

ability to play with "soul" - whatever that is.

So playing with soul means what?; that you are visibly, outwardly, and externally impassioned

as indicated by raised veins, sweat sliding off of your forehead which shows the audience that you are

truly possessed by the music thundering out of your fingers via instrument?

Bullshit.

A dude/dudette standing still, making no bodily movement, dry because of no perspiration,

where nothing about her externally indicates that she is qualitatively playing with soul; or that

her playing in and of itself is not passionately conveyed could believe in the music s/he offered.

Music is not about fucking 'soul'; you cannot qualify that, ding dongs. You can, however, qualify whether or not you like it, whether it influences you or whether or not...anything. But to question

'soul' or to assert 'soul' into the structure of musicianship is haughty and means absolutely nothing.

Besides, the question here is a fallacy: in order to become a virtuoso or to be considered a virtuoso indicates that one was dedicated to improving their technique or musicianship. If that isn't soul, than I don't what is.

duccichucka said:

None of you guys are qualified to make any qualitative assertion about a musician's

ability to play with "soul" - whatever that is.

So playing with soul means what?; that you are visibly, outwardly, and externally impassioned

as indicated by raised veins, sweat sliding off of your forehead which shows the audience that you are

truly possessed by the music thundering out of your fingers via instrument?

Bullshit.

A dude/dudette standing still, making no bodily movement, dry because of no perspiration,

where nothing about her externally indicates that she is qualitatively playing with soul; or that

her playing in and of itself is not passionately conveyed could believe in the music s/he offered.

Music is not about fucking 'soul'; you cannot qualify that, ding dongs. You can, however, qualify whether or not you like it, whether it influences you or whether or not...anything. But to question

'soul' or to assert 'soul' into the structure of musicianship is haughty and means absolutely nothing.

Besides, the question here is a fallacy: in order to become a virtuoso or to be considered a virtuoso indicates that one was dedicated to improving their technique or musicianship. If that isn't soul, than I don't what is.

Some of what you've written actually amounts to a fair point. Maybe what were really talking about here are 'technical wizards who bore us to death'

sosgemini said:

And the girls sing? Are there any females that could be mentioned?

Mention them. No one is stopping you.

I'll get you started:

Hiromi Uehara:

And playing fast does not make you a virtuoso. Playing fast is muscle memory that can be acquired by daily practice. You could practice one scale for two years straight and be able to play it with extreme speed. That would not make you a virtuoso.

While I can agree that virtuosity is not directly linked to playing with soul, there is no denying that there are mechanical noodlers who are not virtuosos but can play very fast on their instruments.

BlaqueKnight said:

theAudience said:

^ Right on the money!

Speaking of Greg Howe, more intelligent virtuosity.



Greg Howe - guitar
Tetsuo Sakurai - bass
Dennis Chambers - drums
Akira Onozuka - keys


Pure sickness (meant in a good way)

Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

Great posts above and cool mentioning Greg Howe. I've already stated several times that I've studied with him. He's a fantastic guy and great teacher... he totally opened my mind with how he approaches his harmonic ideas....

I saw you guys take a dig at Yngwie...LOL I can't argue with what's been said, but I do have a soft spot for the first couple of Rising Force records... I think he was really, really on to something in the beginning. I've seen clips of him when he was this hot 20 year old virtuoso... it still blows my mind. Plus, he can play the hell out of some tasteful blues, but only really reserves that stuff for live concerts.

As for the original thread topic... I don't know. I did the whole shred thing. I did the whole Fusion Jazzer thing. I've debated the Technique vs. Feel arguments back and forth. I'm at a point now where I look for certain things in certain players and I take it for what it is.

My favorite guy is Jimmy Herring, who has probably the best blend of chops and phrasing I've ever heard.

duccichucka said:

None of you guys are qualified to make any qualitative assertion about a musician's

ability to play with "soul" - whatever that is.

So playing with soul means what?; that you are visibly, outwardly, and externally impassioned

as indicated by raised veins, sweat sliding off of your forehead which shows the audience that you are

truly possessed by the music thundering out of your fingers via instrument?

Bullshit.

A dude/dudette standing still, making no bodily movement, dry because of no perspiration,

where nothing about her externally indicates that she is qualitatively playing with soul; or that

her playing in and of itself is not passionately conveyed could believe in the music s/he offered.

Music is not about fucking 'soul'; you cannot qualify that, ding dongs. You can, however, qualify whether or not you like it, whether it influences you or whether or not...anything. But to question

'soul' or to assert 'soul' into the structure of musicianship is haughty and means absolutely nothing.

Besides, the question here is a fallacy: in order to become a virtuoso or to be considered a virtuoso indicates that one was dedicated to improving their technique or musicianship. If that isn't soul, than I don't what is.

I've had this discussion once on a Dream Theater forum... I think when people talk about "soul", the word they're really searching for is "phrasing"... Making the guitar speak in a way that's emotive and tells a story. Sometimes, it's hard to get that same feeling from flurries of 16th or 32nd notes.

I totally understand what you're saying, though and I agree in a way. Nobody can convince me that every virtuoso just puts out a lot of notes with no passion behind it.

duccichucka said:

None of you guys are qualified to make any qualitative assertion about a musician's

ability to play with "soul" - whatever that is.

So playing with soul means what?; that you are visibly, outwardly, and externally impassioned

as indicated by raised veins, sweat sliding off of your forehead which shows the audience that you are

truly possessed by the music thundering out of your fingers via instrument?

Bullshit.

A dude/dudette standing still, making no bodily movement, dry because of no perspiration,

where nothing about her externally indicates that she is qualitatively playing with soul; or that

her playing in and of itself is not passionately conveyed could believe in the music s/he offered.

Music is not about fucking 'soul'; you cannot qualify that, ding dongs. You can, however, qualify whether or not you like it, whether it influences you or whether or not...anything. But to question

'soul' or to assert 'soul' into the structure of musicianship is haughty and means absolutely nothing.

Definition of SOUL

BlaqueKnight said:

sosgemini said:

And the girls sing? Are there any females that could be mentioned?

Mention them. No one is stopping you.

I'll get you started:

Hiromi Uehara:

And playing fast does not make you a virtuoso. Playing fast is muscle memory that can be acquired by daily practice. You could practice one scale for two years straight and be able to play it with extreme speed. That would not make you a virtuoso.

While I can agree that virtuosity is not directly linked to playing with soul, there is no denying that there are mechanical noodlers who are not virtuosos but can play very fast on their instruments.

You always so defensive. I am not versed on this subject and just noticed whenever real lovers of music here talk about female guitarist, it tends to be about men--so I asked my question. That was all.

elmer said:

duccichucka said:

None of you guys are qualified to make any qualitative assertion about a musician's

ability to play with "soul" - whatever that is.

So playing with soul means what?; that you are visibly, outwardly, and externally impassioned

as indicated by raised veins, sweat sliding off of your forehead which shows the audience that you are

truly possessed by the music thundering out of your fingers via instrument?

Bullshit.

A dude/dudette standing still, making no bodily movement, dry because of no perspiration,

where nothing about her externally indicates that she is qualitatively playing with soul; or that

her playing in and of itself is not passionately conveyed could believe in the music s/he offered.

Music is not about fucking 'soul'; you cannot qualify that, ding dongs. You can, however, qualify whether or not you like it, whether it influences you or whether or not...anything. But to question

'soul' or to assert 'soul' into the structure of musicianship is haughty and means absolutely nothing.

Definition of SOUL

1

: the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life

2

a : the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe

3

: a person's total self

4

a : an active or essential part b : a moving spirit :

5

a : the moral and emotional nature of human beings b : the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment c : spiritual or moral force : fervor

6

: person <not a soul in sight>

7

: personification<she is the soul of integrity>

8

a : a strong positive feeling (as of intense sensitivity and emotional fervor) conveyed especially by black American performers

You've done nothing to prove your case that musicians have soul and others do not.

1. The immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual's life is entirely and wholly subjective and cannot be qualified nor quantified. You cannot prove that you have immaterial essence - you have faith that you do. But you cannot say that one musician has it and another does not.

2. The spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe is another phrase used to describe intangibles and things inexplicable. This definition again, cannot be proven to exist, proven true nor used to qualify that one musician has "it" and another one does not.

3. A person's total self is the subject of thousands of years of philosophical debate. Ontologists, metaphysicians, logicians, theologians, you name have never come to a conclusion as to what constitutes 1. personhood and 2. self. You cannot prove to me that you have a self and that there is one agreed upon definition of personhood - therefore, you cannot tell me that one musician has more 'soul' than another. You cannot prove nor point out nor qualify what 'soul' is and who has it.

4. If soul is the quality that arouses emotion, than the content of this thread is mute. It should not be titled "what virtuoso is soul-less" but instead should be titled "what virtuoso stirs your emotions and what virtuoso does not." But semantically, you cannot point out 'soul.' The attempt to do so is haughty and pointless.

8. Stereotype

Now, suppose these worthless and normative definitions are true:

1. Are there some people who are spiritually embodied, total selfs, with immaterial and spiritual substance and others who are not? Bullshit. Using your logic, you are suggesting that there are some people who fit the definitions above and some who do not.

Think about it:

Prove to me that you love someone. Actions are not proof; you can hate someone and commit acts of love simultaneously. The point is, when you start talking about what musician/person has soul and what musician/person does not, you are really saying:

1. Not everyone has a soul (whatever that is)

2. Only those musicians who play feverishly and arouse passion and emotions from the listener have soul

Call this thread "What musician's feverish and externally impassioned playing arouses zeal, emotion and excitement in you? What musician does not?" But to suggest that those who do not have no soul (again, whatever that is) is bullshit and you don't know what you're talking about.

Again, in order to be a virtuoso, utilizing the definitions I responded to, you must have soul - you must be passionate about your craft; you must have some sort of positive emotion gained from practice that renders you a virtuoso. I could argue that if you are considered a virtuoso, YOU HAVE SOUL!!!!!

Anyways, I'm defending all those musicians who play their instruments beautifully without external emoting who really mean what they are playing.

Yeah, that is soul - whatever is said musically as being truthful. But we will never be

able to qualify that assertion. You need to have faith in the immaterial.

If the musician is being authentic and playing because of the pure joy of expressing themselves musically, I could suggest that is soul. But if that is the case, we as listeners could never be able to make a distinction between authenticity or posing. And to be a stickler, unless you can prove that the opposite of your claim is not true, your posited claim remains vague (or, dumb as shit):

You need to have faith that the musician is being honest.

Again, you cannot prove love - you have faith in its verbal and actualizing expression. You cannot prove a musician does not have soul.

I wasn't getting semantic, I just copy and pasted the definition merely to suggest that the OP meant "an quality that arouses emotion and sentiment" which I bolded.

[Edited 7/5/11 17:30pm]

The act of experiencing is a singular one, and given the mutability of words we can only clarify on art, not define.

Aurally Coldplay are as much the proof as I think necessary: genre-based, derivative, and sterile.

And all this about my claims?? It was you who jumped overboard over a commonplace adjective.

I can make whatever qualitative assertions I like based on a sounds ability to please my ear, but no amount of exposition will suffice to make it objective fact.

gemari77 said:

Great posts above and cool mentioning Greg Howe. I've already stated several times that I've studied with him. He's a fantastic guy and great teacher... he totally opened my mind with how he approaches his harmonic ideas....

I saw you guys take a dig at Yngwie...LOL I can't argue with what's been said, but I do have a soft spot for the first couple of Rising Force records... I think he was really, really on to something in the beginning. I've seen clips of him when he was this hot 20 year old virtuoso... it still blows my mind. Plus, he can play the hell out of some tasteful blues, but only really reserves that stuff for live concerts.

As for the original thread topic... I don't know. I did the whole shred thing. I did the whole Fusion Jazzer thing. I've debated the Technique vs. Feel arguments back and forth. I'm at a point now where I look for certain things in certain players and I take it for what it is.

My favorite guy is Jimmy Herring, who has probably the best blend of chops and phrasing I've ever heard.

Greg is incredible.
I haven't met him yet but the bass player he uses a lot Jon Reshard is a good friend.

Herring is another monster.
I initially became aware of him with Aquarium Rescue Unit...



...Stand Up People


Got to see him here in '09 when he toured in support of his Lifeboat album:
http://prince.org/msg/8/309375

I agree that there's something to be learned from many players.
One of my current favorites is Wayne Krantz...



...One of Two

Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

elmer said:

And all this about my claims?? It was you who jumped overboard over a commonplace adjective.

I can make whatever qualitative assertions I like based on a sounds ability to please my ear, but no amount of exposition will suffice to make it objective fact.

Elmer, now you are cutting your nose off to spite your face; you are trying to defend an opinion that you know is impossible to defend for assuaging that same opinion.

You just said:

"No amount of exposition will suffice to make it (pleasant sounds) objective fact."

If this is true, then how can you make it (soul) an objective fact as well?; or, something to point out and claim that s/he has or does not have? How can you say "what I like is subjective" but "this dude has no soul"?

You can qualify your assertions about what you like. You can say: "I like Malmsteen because of his technique, compositional skills, precision, etc." Then you can go about explaining what exactly is it about Malmsteen's use of the Lydian mode, etc. Hell, most of music theory is just that - a theory. Music is not a law.

But you cannot qualify whether or not a musician has soul or not. You, or any of the other ding dongs in this thread who suppose they can, can not either. Because there is no such thing as 'soul' (i.e. immaterial) - you believe that the immaterial exists. Otherwise, it's material and belief is not required.

So I say again - what you and everybody in this thread has done is to simply list artists whose musicianship is aurally pleasing. But to claim 'so and so' has soul or doesn't, is bullshit and you don't know what you are talking about. You cannot back up your claim because you cannot prove, point out or indicate what soul is, who has it, who doesn't have it, etc.

All of y'all need to get off of your high horse and stop acting like you are an authority on what musician has soul - say what you really mean to say (I like Coltrane!) and keep it moving.

Addendum:

Elmer, I'm sorry if it seems like I'm beating up on you. I don't want to come off as a dickhead.

All I'm saying is that instead of denigrating musicians you suppose have no 'soul', say what you really mean to say in this thread (and what you are doing nesciently it would seem):

Musician A looks like she's really into what she's playing - she seems to play with passion!

I really like A's performance; and what/how she's playing in her music excites me!

Therefore, A has soul!

Musician B does not look like he's really into what he's playing - he seems to play without passion!

I don't really like B's performance; and what/how he's playing in his music does not excite me!

Therefore, B has no soul.

Every single video in this thread accomplishes the above. But do not believe that the videos are somehow showing us what 'soul' is and who has/doesn't have it.

theAudience said:

Greg is incredible.
I haven't met him yet but the bass player he uses a lot Jon Reshard is a good friend.

Herring is another monster.
I initially became aware of him with Aquarium Rescue Unit...



...Stand Up People


Got to see him here in '09 when he toured in support of his Lifeboat album:
http://prince.org/msg/8/309375

I agree that there's something to be learned from many players.
One of my current favorites is Wayne Krantz...



...One of Two

Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

I'm gonna have to check out Wayne. Thanks for hipping me to him, tA!

sosgemini said:

You always so defensive. I am not versed on this subject and just noticed whenever real lovers of music here talk about female guitarist, it tends to be about men--so I asked my question. That was all.

I was inviting you to bring them in. That's why I kicked it off.

theAudience said:

Pretty much in agreement, especially with the player you used as an example at the very end.

However, there are those where the solos are built around well crafted compositions.

With respect to modern guitarists, probably the grand-daddy of it all, Allan Holdsworth truly understands this.

...Tokyo Dream & Fred

And quite unlike Mr. Malmsteen, despite Holdsworth's incredible talents, he's an incredibly humble individual.

Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

[Edited 7/4/11 17:31pm]

Holdsworth is one of my absolute favorite guitarists. He has originality, amazing fluid legato techinque that no one has been able to duplicate, he's got a lot of good compositions and he improvises like a God. He never plays the same phrase twice in his solos. He's just incredible!

And he's got a lot of feeling!

BlaqueKnight said:

I'm gonna have to check out Wayne. Thanks for hipping me to him, tA!

Lately, I've been checking out Andy McKee. I'm not that deep into acoustic players but I like dude's style.

I think you'll dig Wayne Krantz. Since his main thing is heavy improv, you almost need to hear him reign it in a bit when playing with other artists (Steely Dan, Donald Fagen, Leni Stern) to realize how good he really is.

Donald Fagen...



...The Great Pagoda of Funn & Brite Nitegown

His rhythm is in the right channel and he does the guitar solo on both tracks.


Andy McKee is crazy good.
If you're getting into acoustic players, Tommy Emmanuel is someone you might want to spend some time with.

In a sense a more traditional approach but very skilled.




Somewhere Over The Rainbow, Angelina, Those Who Wait & Initiation

The thing that stands out for me with a lot of these players is the fact that they've established their own unique voice.

Which in my mind is much more important than speed or even technique. Within the first few notes/chords you know who you're listening to.


Music for adventurous listeners



tA

Tribal Records