The question no player ever wants to answer - can you really play?

[Annah]

But does it really matter?

Interesting topic, but does it really matter if a guitarist can "really" play? And what is "really" playing? Isn't a musician's skill determined not by their technical capacity but their enjoyment of the instrument and their ability to create MUSIC with it? The way I see it is that making music comes first - and that does not require some ungodly technical prowess to achieve. Technical ability is the icing on the cake, in my opinion, and can be a good thing when used in moderation - to accent the apex of a piece of music. There are violin players who are incredibly talented but don't "shred" and then there are the violinists who are amazing musicians that can shred and that shreddability adds to the *amazing* factor, but does not in and of itself make them a "real" violinist, per se.

Personally, I think the "shred factor" is the element in guitar playing that guys put in due to their more competitive nature. It's that "See! I'm better than you cuz I can play more notes per second!" thing, which is understandable. I think it's a good thing to have a competitive element in music, but when that's ALL there is? Nah. Then it's just, "Who's cock is bigger than whose?" and the quality of the musicianship drops.

Just my $.03 worth on that (extra $.01 due to inflation

[Shawn Lutz]

the answer is yes

always hated the term shred. I care about music, not guitar gymnastic. Can I sweep like Rusty Drooley? If I wanted to I probably could but I dont find playing sextuplets at 140,000,000,000 bpm musical. I love the technical aspects of playing and honestly don't see the need to play any faster that Malmsteen. To me it is all about being melodic

[atomic charvel guy]

I can assure you all, Lutz rips!!!

[MakeAJazzNoiseHere]

Oh dear, I thought this was going to be about Wilksy Baby....!

:ROTF:

There are tricks you can learn in a bus station that will earn you a lot more money than my guitar playing ever did for me...

[DalyTek]

Interesting topic, but does it really matter if a guitarist can "really" play? And what is "really" playing? Isn't a musician's skill determined not by their technical capacity but their enjoyment of the instrument and their ability to create MUSIC with it? The way I see it is that making music comes first - and that does not require some ungodly technical prowess to achieve. Technical ability is the icing on the cake, in my opinion, and can be a good thing when used in moderation - to accent the apex of a piece of music. There are violin players who are incredibly talented but don't "shred" and then there are the violinists who are amazing musicians that can shred and that shreddability adds to the *amazing* factor, but does not in and of itself make them a "real" violinist, per se.

Personally, I think the "shred factor" is the element in guitar playing that guys put in due to their more competitive nature. It's that "See! I'm better than you cuz I can play more notes per second!" thing, which is understandable. I think it's a good thing to have a competitive element in music, but when that's ALL there is? Nah. Then it's just, "Who's cock is bigger than whose?" and the quality of the musicianship drops.

Just my $.03 worth on that (extra $.01 due to inflation

Hey! ...I resemble that remark!

[Trem]

I care about music, not guitar gymnastic. Can I sweep like Rusty Drooley? If I wanted to I probably could but I dont find playing sextuplets at 140,000,000,000 bpm musical. I love the technical aspects of playing and honestly don't see the need to play any faster that Malmsteen. To me it is all about being melodic

i'm starting to have my moments, but i'm just average compared to what i see various people doing on you tube ect,..now that was an eye opener, i actually don't feel so bad now. There's always going to be someone better.

but i'm starting to be able to do stuff i couldn't do before i quite 13 years or so ago, actually i think in the last 2 years i'm better than i was before and i couldn't play squat when i started back up, barley even a pentatonic scale.

in my 20's i could at least turn heads in rooms, even if there were really good guys in the room, at least something i could pull out of my ass would get attention or compliment. I've had guys i thought were friking awesome and blew me away say that something i did changed their approach to playing, and was like huh? Still never got that, but

i never played much covers or learned anyones solos, good or bad i don't know, i don't think i've ever learned any solo from anyone all the way thru.
for me all i was interested in the why they chose those notes or how they decided that was good, the mental process of it. And i just wanted to tap into that and play my own way.

i learned a lot from Frank Zappa honestly, not music, but the taking chances and the total abandon to his playing, sometimes he sucked but when he was on he was untouchable.
it's weird how his compositions were so perfect yet when he played guitar it was all about shove it up the flag pole and see who salutes.

I heard Dweezil in an interview say that he finally figured it out himself, just the let go and be in the moment instead of sticking with what you know, take chances amaze yourself, i had to smile cause i had realized that myself listening to Frank, it felt like i got to share that epiphany with someone else, even tho i never talked to the guy.
not that i can play anything like him.

but for some reason i'm able to play stuff i was only grasping at before
maybe getting older and the non 24/7 party my brain has a fighting chance now
Also i don't listen to too much music nowadays as before i always had tunes going, i have no radio in my truck (it's broken) i just hum shit to myself. i think it allows my brain to come up with it's own stuff unhindered, forces it to make music since i'm not getting it externally, i think that is one of the biggest contributors to my progression this time around honestly.

[Soap]

I'm old school, so the whole Malmsteen and his replica's/clones are mind numbing.
I'd say the last tasteful shredder was Jason Becker, but that's just me.
Different strokes for different fokes.

Can you play was/is the question?

I'm a 60's child and learned guitar by the likes of Perry, Gibbons, Frehley and then came Eddie, Priest, Maiden, Sabbath, Ozzy and etc. Although mostly pentatonic still there's a lot of diversity in the mentioned players.

What made this particular era so enjoyable and a great learning base these players gave the song the attention it deserved. The song was a solid piece of music in itself. The song matter mostly.
That's why you bought LP's and enjoyed listening to them back then because the songs were musical.
Thats why we crank up La Grange by ZZtop nearly ever time we hear it.
The same for Ozzy's tune Dairy of a Madman or VH's ain't talking bout love or Kiss's Cold Gin, Aerosmith Train Kept a Rollin or Stone's Get Off My Cloud.

I'm about the song and if the song requires a solo, then give it one.
There are many tunes that stand on their own without a solo/lead.

I'll never forget the first time a listen to La Villa Strangiato and 2112.
Musical masterpieces of their day.
I remember the joy of learning 2112 before tab and before a rewind button. This was before Malmsteem and his replica players/clones.

It was a time when you had to know how to play the instrument.
The fundamentals were the building blocks you build on.
If you couldn't or can't improvise and write in the main keys - E, A, C and G you shouldn't call yourself a player.

[zeegler]

I can't shred. I can't really improvise. I can play short, slower, less complicated leads when I take the time to learn them. I have a good sense of rhythm to the point where my band members call me the human metronome, which I guess is a good thing because, generally I'm just a rhythm player, and always will be.

[lerxstcat]

Interesting topic, but does it really matter if a guitarist can "really" play? And what is "really" playing? Isn't a musician's skill determined not by their technical capacity but their enjoyment of the instrument and their ability to create MUSIC with it? The way I see it is that making music comes first - and that does not require some ungodly technical prowess to achieve. Technical ability is the icing on the cake, in my opinion, and can be a good thing when used in moderation - to accent the apex of a piece of music. There are violin players who are incredibly talented but don't "shred" and then there are the violinists who are amazing musicians that can shred and that shreddability adds to the *amazing* factor, but does not in and of itself make them a "real" violinist, per se.

Personally, I think the "shred factor" is the element in guitar playing that guys put in due to their more competitive nature. It's that "See! I'm better than you cuz I can play more notes per second!" thing, which is understandable. I think it's a good thing to have a competitive element in music, but when that's ALL there is? Nah. Then it's just, "Who's cock is bigger than whose?" and the quality of the musicianship drops.

Just my $.03 worth on that (extra $.01 due to inflation

It matters to some people and not to others, is the short answer. We're lucky that there is such a wide spread of musical exploration to choose from. Steve Vai is certainly far better technically than Angus Young, but you can't really say he is "better" than AC/DC because it depends on what you are shooting for. To shredheads he is obviously much better, but to your average raucous rock fan AC/DC is equally obviously much better.

Everybody is entitled to their personal opinions but if it matters to you to be at the highest proficiency level, then that is valid. But I still remember an interview with Al DiMeola from a 70s Guitar Player Magazine writeup where he said in effect that music is the one area where the better you are, the more you limit your income potential as a pro. A 3-chord wonder can become a millionaire and a jazz-rock virtuoso like Al is stuck playing clubs. So if you want to pursue that level, be aware that you're limiting yourself, and don't be bitter that you're not playing arenas, but clubs full of guitarists with their arms folded, waiting for you to make a mistake.

Or you can do as Tony Fredianelli and Rivers Cuomo did. Learn that you don't HAVE to flex those chops all the time. Fredianelli went from Apocrypha shredding for Shrapnel, to playing simple songs with 3rd Eye Blind and Ashlee Simpson. He's laughing all the way to the bank at the shredders who look down on him for slumming. Same with Cuomo, he played lead in an Yngwie tribute band before he started writing songs like Buddy Holly. He can play whatever he wants now because he has sold enough records to be set for life.

[Grim]

Interesting topic, but does it really matter if a guitarist can "really" play? And what is "really" playing? Isn't a musician's skill determined not by their technical capacity but their enjoyment of the instrument and their ability to create MUSIC with it? The way I see it is that making music comes first - and that does not require some ungodly technical prowess to achieve. Technical ability is the icing on the cake, in my opinion, and can be a good thing when used in moderation - to accent the apex of a piece of music. There are violin players who are incredibly talented but don't "shred" and then there are the violinists who are amazing musicians that can shred and that shreddability adds to the *amazing* factor, but does not in and of itself make them a "real" violinist, per se.

Personally, I think the "shred factor" is the element in guitar playing that guys put in due to their more competitive nature. It's that "See! I'm better than you cuz I can play more notes per second!" thing, which is understandable. I think it's a good thing to have a competitive element in music, but when that's ALL there is? Nah. Then it's just, "Who's cock is bigger than whose?" and the quality of the musicianship drops.

Just my $.03 worth on that (extra $.01 due to inflation

I agree to a degree. I simply always wanted to be the very best. The truth is, a shredder can enjoy the instrument just as much as someone who is playing for enjoyment. After all, there's few things more enjoyable than finally nailing that blistering fast solo you've been practicing for weeks. I don't agree with the guitar as a competition, but I disagree with people who say that technical proficiency takes a backseat to creativity. You can be more creative when you have the tools.

[BenoA]

but I disagree with people who say that technical proficiency takes a backseat to creativity. You can be more creative when you have the tools.

+1 Nicely said.

[MakeAJazzNoiseHere]

It is not the technical ability that blows creativity, but the need to constantly show it off.

You know, the "everything I play is really hard to play" kind of player.

Some guitarists are technically skilled, creative, and know when to cut loose and when not to. Those are the ones I prefer. :dunno:

[wilkinsi]

I can't play guitar to save my life. I've never had lessons tho. That's my only excuse.

[micha]

I had lessons back in that day...
he told me to do downstrokes and "the pinky is not that important". yep. here I am.

[Flatpicker]

I would say that I suck, but that would probably be putting down people who actually are good enough to suck.