# Here's my take on technique



## lelouch (Jul 30, 2013)

I have been called a troll, and annoyed several people on other forums (TGP, Jazz guitar forum) because of my views on technique, tone, and moving your audience. So here's a little mini essay on my philosophy on guitar playing. Sorry if I sound kind of meandering, but it's just that I'm pretty upset over how narrow-minded some people on other forums are, and how they attacked me just because I have a different philosophy than them.

As you all probably have guessed, I am a pretty academically-inclined person. Whenever I learn some workings of theory and technique that I did not know before, I kind of celebrate by cranking my amp up and making my neighborhood deaf.  After all, I'm not Neil Young; unlike him, I actually encourage people to study music formally.

But lately, I've become a HUGE sound chaser. As in, I spent more time within the past month looking for new pleasing sounds instead of playing. In that way, I am like The Edge. I need some delay, some volume swells, some effects to make me who I am as a musician. Without them, I'm nothing. 

What I'm essentially bringing up is the old debate about theory/technique vs soul and emotion. My goal as a guitarist is to move my audience with the simplest of notes. That's literally it. 

Here is a video of this one song I LOVE. It's "Lilium" from the anime Elfen Lied (do you watch anime?) The show is a heart wrenching tragedy, and the music fits it. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kua_iJ4bAmo

The song is pretty simple; my brother played stringed instruments, and this is as simple as his early strings learnings required him to play. But I love it because, in this case, technique is not required so much to make the audience cry over how sad the music, and the show, is. In fact, my dream is to cover this song with electric guitar; with some delay, ambient noise ala Adrian Belew, and volume swells, I think I can do a pretty decent job.

Now, I'M NOT SAYING GOOD TECHNIQUE IS BAD. Good technique is good. I am COMPLETELY open to people who can shred a million notes per second, on the condition that they use their technique with taste. My philosophy, however, can be summed up in one line: playing the simplest of notes, and moving your audience to tears or lifting them up, is the best feeling I get as a musician.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

You won't get chased off here for posts like that. Discussion is good 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

"ambient noise ala Adrian Belew" - why you little troll, I aughta... 

Just kidding but I'm an ardent Adian Belew fan and he does not make "ambiant noise". I'll forgive you just this once but... watch yourself, mister...

Just as the Mozart character in "Amadeus " responds when the king tells him there are too many notes in his composition," But sir, there are only as many notes as required". I love that line.

I think there is obviously more than one approach to creating music, sometimes highly technical and structured, sometimes loose and freeform and sometimes anywhere in between. IMHO, a well rounded musician is familiar with a wide variety methods and will be able to apply soul and emotion to applied theory and technique as second nature.

But there are many approaches to an art form like music with infinite possibilities and there is, happily, no right or wrong way to do it. The true mystery is how and why music can move a person so deeply just through abstract "ambient noise".


----------



## lelouch (Jul 30, 2013)

Well, ambient is the wrong word to describe Belew. But you have to admit that his tones can be pretty unconventional, or at least they were in the 80s. I'm a relatively new listener to Belew, but I love his seagull sounds in Matte Kudasai, although I haven't heard his solo work.

Anyway, it's good that some people get what I'm saying.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

LOL, yes, Adrian is very well known for his unconventional sounds and techniques, especially his guitar made animal sounds like in Lone Rhino.


----------



## lelouch (Jul 30, 2013)

^ Although I must admit, some of Belew's work is, might I say, not for everyone.  He is definitely a guitarist that keeps me awake, though!

Is it just me, or does ambient/delay laden guitar work lend itself more towards sad songs? 

IDK about the rest of you, but I love sad songs. It's harder to make me genuinely sad than it is to make me happy. (Who agrees?) When something makes me sad, it means that there's something in the song that makes it complete...idk what I'm saying haha.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2014)

d minor is the saddest key of all


----------



## LanceT (Mar 7, 2014)

Can you have sound & tone without at least some technique? Are not sound/tone possible because of technique? I would suggest any sounds you are chasing-and have chased- are a direct result of having technique.

Am I missing the point of your thread?

I would agree no matter what that the simplest method to get your message across is the best. When I "deconstruct" favorite songs I listen to, it seems the least complex parts are the areas I spend the most time trying to understand and listen to the most intently.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

LanceT said:


> Can you have sound & tone without at least some technique? Are not sound/tone possible because of technique? I would suggest any sounds you are chasing-and have chased- are a direct result of having technique.
> 
> Am I missing the point of your thread?
> 
> I would agree no matter what that the simplest method to get your message across is the best. When I "deconstruct" favorite songs I listen to, it seems the least complex parts are the areas I spend the most time trying to understand and listen to the most intently.


In a way, I think you can have sound/tone without much technique. Youd be more likely to be a producer, engineer ,sound guy etc instead of a performer/artist though.


----------



## sambonee (Dec 20, 2007)

Having limitations with your medical medium (guitar or any instrument) causes one to explore deeper into what one can do. 

Remember the first time you had to play a 1 pickup guitar for 2 hours. I bet you learned every spot on that tone, and volume pot. As well as all the different strumming and picking positions. 

Point is musicality is only perceived in the ear. The technique that achieves what you hear is the mother of said sounds. 

It's also a valid point to mention that certain sounds and melodies and only be achieves with certain techniques (tapping, hammer-ons, harmonics ....). 

We need to train both, the ear and the body. The magic is getting the body to cause the sounds we want. 

In conclusion I'd say that classical music is the foundation of all harmony in practice. Therefor all we need to know (as a foundation) can come from there. Beautiful melodies will always prevail. 

If you can't whistle it, it will be soon forgotten.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

My take on technique is if you want good technique you must practice 3 hours every day.

If you want excellent technique you must practice 5 hours every day.

My technique stinks.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Poor or inefficient technique limits what one can play and the ease with which one can play. I see no benefit in avoiding anything that makes playing easier. This applies to every note played, even the simplest of phrases.

Music isn't about technique, but technique is about music. If the player wants to get the most out of their music, good technique is the largest stone in the foundation. 

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## sambonee (Dec 20, 2007)

Mooh said:


> Poor or inefficient technique limits what one can play and the ease with which one can play. I see no benefit in avoiding anything that makes playing easier. This applies to every note played, even the simplest of phrases.
> 
> Music isn't about technique, but technique is about music. If the player wants to get the most out of their music, good technique is the largest stone in the foundation.
> 
> ...



Very well said.


----------



## jbealsmusic (Feb 12, 2014)

I'm all for feel over technique and agree with the general sentiment of what you're saying. But poor technique just sounds awful. Ask anyone I've played with who has had to put up with my slightly out-of-tune bending and vibrato issues.

I've met guitarists who never had a lesson in their lives and don't even know the names of the notes on the fretboard, yet their playing could blow most people out of the water. Funny thing is, they use good technique because that's where their ears lead their fingers to get the sounds they want.

Sadly, many of us don't have whatever it is that makes people able to do that, so we rely on technique and ear training as a foundation.


----------



## jeremy_green (Nov 10, 2010)

lelouch said:


> Now, I'M NOT SAYING GOOD TECHNIQUE IS BAD. Good technique is good. I am COMPLETELY open to people who can shred a million notes per second, on the condition that they use their technique with taste. My philosophy, however, can be summed up in one line: playing the simplest of notes, and moving your audience to tears or lifting them up, is the best feeling I get as a musician.


So in fact this is a discussion then about good taste, playing what's needed, serve the song not yourself - all that yes? Because honestly none of that has anything to do imo with technique. One still needs excellent technique to deliver even the simplest of ideas.

The problem with these discussions and why you likely have had bad experiences discussing it is that comments like this 99% of the time, come from the mouth of someone who hasn't or isn't willing to put in the hours to attain a high level of "technique" a.k.a. speed (which is I think what you are meaning here). If I had a buck for every time I heard some kind of shitty player talking about the importance of "feel" over "speed/technique" I'd be rich. Not implying this is you in any way.. just saying that is likely why you have had bad experiences with a discussion of this nature.


----------

