# Jack of all trades, or master of one?



## satch09 (Jul 26, 2008)

I was just looking for some opinions regarding various techniques (sweep picking, tremolo, tapping, double stops, vibrato, bending, etc.) and various styles (blues, metal, jazz, country etc..). Now let's be honest with ourselves, most of us dabble in a bit of all of the above, but who really has the time to practice it all. Either way, my question is whats more valuable a jack of all trades or a master of one. Let me clarify as well, by MASTER I MEAN a complete master, generally I think most greats are known for their mastery of one technique anyway, like B.B. Kings, vibrato, Van Halens Tapping, Satriani's legato, and so on. I know everyone shouldnt be comepletely oblivious to other styles and techniques, but ultimately when we're practicing what should we focus on, learning everything about the guitar possible, or completely perfecting our personal styles or comfortable techniques.


----------



## GTmaker (Apr 24, 2006)

Good question...

I think it all depends on what you want to achieve.
If its "fame and fortune" your after, Master of ONE is madetory. Once you get noticed ( and thats not an guarantee), you can branch out and try different styles.
If its just playing music and getting by, you wont have the pressure and scrutiny that comes with the previous objective. This path will allow you to experiment, play different styles and have a good old time.

Its been my experience that most folks dont have the drive and detication these days to realy get to the "master of one" status. This should not discourage anyone from giving it a good shot. As I see the "new" talent pool on TV these days, I think the bar is set so low that anyone with some luck and very little detication can achive some success. 

Just my 2 cents worth.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Well jack of all trades can work for studio musicians. Although even they tend to have specialties.
They get more work if they can play a lot of different stuff, or at least fake some stuff, but they need to be able to fake it convincingly. 

It's like the saying the you can go a long way on sincerity--as long as you can fake it.

:smile:

Still, I say go for what you want. If you want to play a bunch of stuff--do it--you'll learn a lot.
If you want to focus on a specialty, go ahead.

But the best course is probably in between. Have a focus, but don't ignore other stuff.

At least that's been my observation, but as I'm not a household name--feel free to ignore this.


----------



## caaustin02 (Nov 1, 2007)

Personally, I don't have the time, ability, or ambition to be a jack of all trades type. What Zontar said about studio session players seems correct, that would be an asset to know different styles to ensure an abundance of work.

If I was to pick something that I am always trying to improve it would be finger (or bar) vibrato, phrasing, bends, and hybrid picking. I can't explain the sound that I am going for, all I know is that 5% of the time I play the sound I imagine in my head for vibrato and maybe slightly more frequent for phrasing.

If I was to pick apart and analyze all aspects of my playing I would drive myself insane.


----------



## Hamm Guitars (Jan 12, 2007)

When I was a young man, I was really into technique. I found that the more I practiced the faster I got, and the less musical my playing became (it became more acrobatic than musical). I had to put the guitar down for a few years as I would almost automatically start ripping off fast oddely-noodely stuff everytime I picked up a guitar.

Before I got into all of that crazy neoclassical stuff in the eighties, I pretty much played layed back and sloppy. That is how I play today. Is it a style or lack of skill, I don't know. But it is more earthy, stripped back and suits me fine.

I love playing big steel bends with lots of gritty distortion, I could work on them and get the bends to be perfect in pitch, but to be honest I like them better when they are a little disonent.

No doubt that haveing technique under your belt can do great things for your musical vocabulary, and your playing will become more sophisticated, but when I strap on a guitar I'm more trailer park boys style than sophisticated.

If I practice too much technique, my playing starts to become more like my everyday life - cerebral, safe and predictable. Take away the technique and it becomes chaotic, inconsistent, sloppy, gutsy and way more fun. But then again, no one is paying me to play, I do it for my own enjoyment.


----------



## droptop88 (Aug 25, 2006)

I think it's about musicality - whatever moves you as a player and/or artist. 


All of the styles the OP mentioned are exciting and fun to some degree. That said, each style encompasses many of the same basic techniques. Usually a player gets hooked on one thing initially, which draws them to the instrument, then branches out as his or her tastes change, knowledge increases, and credit limit is increased. 

Most players I know seem to lean toward one style or another. Although they can and do play other styles, and often very well, usually one is their first choice. I've found the longer I play, the more "authentic" my take is on one style or another, ie. it doesn't sound or come across as if I'm just learning. Thats usually comes for me a result of listening to and being inspired by other players, and not just on guitar, whatever the genre.

Peter


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2008)

Hamm Guitars said:


> Before I got into all of that crazy neoclassical stuff in the eighties, I pretty much played layed back and sloppy. That is how I play today. Is it a style or lack of skill, I don't know. But it is more earthy, stripped back and suits me fine.


Know what'cha mean. I'm pretty much happier now
playing acoustic with a coupla' buddies round a 
campfire. I don't expect to hit a stage again in my
life (final hoorah), but, sure was a fun experience.


----------



## dwagar (Mar 6, 2006)

Unless you're a studio musician, as mentioned above, and have to adapt to work with various people, I think most of us have a comfort zone with a genre that is probably based somewhere in what we listened to growing up, played in our learning years, etc.

Makes me think of catching Santana when he was in Calgary awhile ago. I love Santana, I think the guy is fantastic. But, during the show, he had to go and delve into a blues set (because, of course, blues sells). IMO, he sucked. I think he lacked the feel for it. But move him back into that Latin rhythm feel he does so well, and it just brings a smile to my face.


----------



## satch09 (Jul 26, 2008)

Not there's much of a lead 4 to 3, but still I'm surprised that jack of all trades is in the lead at all, because according to everyone here, generally jack of all trades is more of an asset to studio musicians, whereas the successful ones have their own thing, or least comfort zone, so it seems like the posts are leaning towards the master of one, like I said not huge poll results, but I do think they differ from the posts.


----------



## cdub66 (Dec 13, 2007)

As a beginner I'm not yet a jack of any sort, but my musical interests vary so widely I can't imagine trying to pick any one genre to focus on and strive for "perfection".

My hope is that, in a few years, I'll be able to contribute a little bit to just about anything be it a jam session with friends, an open air stage at local community events or a sing along around the campfire.

sdsre


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

I'd pick one, but I don't see 'Hack of all trades' or 'Master of none' as an option. :wink:


----------



## satch09 (Jul 26, 2008)

NB-SK said:


> I'd pick one, but I don't see 'Hack of all trades' or 'Master of none' as an option. :wink:


haha nicely put...maybe I'll do that in the next poll


----------



## Wheeman (Dec 4, 2007)

"Jack of all trades, master of none, though ofttimes better than master of one." That is the full figure of speech :smile:.

I like to dabble in a bit of everything. Sure, I might suck at double stops, but I know what they are. My theory may be lacking, but I can still tell you what chord I'm playing.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

I barely qualify as a jack of one trade.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

NB-SK said:


> I'd pick one, but I don't see 'Hack of all trades' or 'Master of none' as an option. :wink:


I resemble that remark...:smile:


----------



## Waldo97 (Jul 4, 2020)

Depends. Are you the guy at the table who has an opinion about everything all the time and mostly doesn't know much about anything? Or are you the guy at the table who's mostly silent, listens, then adds an occasional perceptive remark that helps to clarify the issue or move it in an interesting direction?

A bore is a man who deprives you of solitude without providing you with company._ Gian Vincenzo Gravina_


----------



## bw66 (Dec 17, 2009)

Up from the grave after 12 years...

Interesting discussion though. 

I have a friend who is a full time busker and a hell of a performer who claims that if you have a good handle on three different playing styles, you can keep a crowd interested. He is speaking from the perspective of a solo performer who uses a guitar to accompany his singing rather than a lead player or a studio musician. I would imagine that your ambitions would largely dictate your position on the matter.

As a teacher, I would vote jack-of-all-trades as I have students with widely varied interests but have yet to have a student who exceeded my limited mastery of any of them.


----------



## gitapik (Aug 5, 2016)

I was a master of fingerstyle solo acoustic until my wrist gave out for those stretches. So now I’m more of a jack of all trades working towards mastering the electric.


----------



## zztomato (Nov 19, 2010)

Apart from mastering classical music, I can't think of any other genre that does not require you, as part of its mastery, to be fairly fluid in a wide array of styles.
Players who become known for their particular style or genre are usually well versed in many styles. Look at a guy like Jeff Beck. He has a very distinct style but can also play traditional rockabilly, blues, jazz and also dabbles in classical. Modern music is an amalgamation. You can't master any of it without an understanding of most of it.


----------



## bw66 (Dec 17, 2009)

zztomato said:


> ...
> Players who become known for their particular style or genre are usually well versed in many styles. ...


I heard a podcast with Rick Rubin and he maintains that most truly great musicians grew up immersed in a different style of music than the style they earn their pay with.


----------



## zztomato (Nov 19, 2010)

bw66 said:


> I heard a podcast with Rick Rubin and he maintains that most truly great musicians grew up immersed in a different style of music than the style they earn their pay with.


That makes good sense when you think about it. You have to do a lot of exploring to find what will work with your own pursuits. Even within a genre, jazz for example, I often hear musicians talk about who influenced their playing and quite often they've spent more time studying the way players of instruments other than their own do things just to get a different perspective. Guitar players often cite horn players as a major influence and so on. 
I think it's true of art in general that you look for influence or inspiration from sometime even disparate sources.


----------

