Conference napalm::guitar

	Now it would seem we get into a discussion of what makes a musician
or a Technician. Depending on my mood I find a lot of other guitarist's more 
interesting than Dimeola who I last listened to in the 1970's when he was with
Chick Chorea. Dimeola is definately a Technician as his music reading capabilit
ies are incredible and near perfect. 
	To paraphrase what Larry Carlton has said is that studio players are 
indeed technicians first and musicians second.I would classify Dimeola in this 
group as a technician whereas Bill Connors who was replaced by Dimeola was more
of a musician. For those who don't read music may be considered  a "pattern 
player". As I think Alan Holdsworth falls into this category.
	Music reading is not a prerequisite for either but it helps to under-
stand what,when and where everything fits. 
	BTW, Larry Carlton's new album "Last Night" is quite good and has some
nice phrasing. It was done live in LA.

So,What I'm saying is this:

Technician = Lots of scales!
Musician   = Lots of phrases!

	Phrasing to me is what I would rather hear and play, but that's
    just my taste's

    Maybe i'm not in a position to reply in Dimeola's defense, but i
    just bought his album scenario and the MUSIC is incredible.  He
    is not just standing out front and playing a million notes per second
    like some guys do.  The music on this album is a combination of
    keyboards and guitars with both playing an equal roll.  So while
    i sat here and read your reviews of Al's playing -- calling him
    a technician all i could think of was his composition on this album
    -- he is a MUSICAIN!!!
    				Dave

    This is a good arguement. Personally, I see a lot of negitive attitudes
    towards the more technical players. Why is it as soon as someone
    plays a fast scale, lick, whatever...it's immmediately labled "No
    feeling" ..."Useless Trash" ..."Just pure technique, no musical
    value"??? You going to sit there and tell me that the great works
    by Nicollo Paganini was a bunch of technical horsesh*t?? His music
    contains some of the sickest, most technical stuff to date, but
    it still *is* music and you can't take that away from him. I just
    think it's a totally onesided view of music...slow is great, fast is
    trash. EX. Eric Clapton is god...his solos have SO much feeling,
    they say so much...Al DiMeola is a clown, all he does is play fast
    phrygian modes, BFD, that's not music. Well, that attitude doesn't
    wash with me! I feel a musician can express himself with speed to
    a degree. Should not a *true* musician be able to play as slow AND
    as fast as they want...providing the melody and phrasing is there.
       I state Bach and Mozart's works as good examples of `lots-of-notes'
    that *work* and make music.
    
    What does separate a musician from a technician?
    
    WJB

	The point is, being able to play fast doesn't necessarily make
	you a good musician. On the other hand, neither does refusing
	to play fast:-). Playing fast is simply a skill which can be
	used to serve the basic goal of making music that sounds good.
	It is a useful skill, but not nearly important as having a
	good ear and a good understanding of melody, harmony, and
	rhythm. The complaint of the base note (which I agree with) is
	with those "musicians" to whom speed is the most important
	thing, and that's how I would classify DiMeola and Malmsteen.

	Musical skill lies in the mind and the ears, not in the
	fingers.
	
	I'd defend Morse, but I'm sure Dave Blickstein will
	momentarily make that superfluous:-).
	
	Mike

    Interesting way to approach an old subject.  This has been hammered
    around in various places before.  If I understand what you are saying
    then the bottom line statement is that quantity is NOT quality.
    I don't think you'll find disagreement with that as much as you
    will the difinition of the word quality.  After all, quality is
    in the ear of the beholder, so to speak.  Just because you don't
    like Al DiMeola doesn't mean that everyone else must not like him,
    too.  Areas of personal taste are wide open for bitter arguement.
    You say tomato, and I say tomahto.  
    
    I do, however, disagree with the statement regarding the guitars
    design as an instrument for accompaniement.  That sounds too limiting.
    Like any other instrument, it's potential is in the hands of the
    user.  Check out some early baroque and classical guitar concertos
    and you will find that it is not just an accompaniement.
    
    Also interesting that you use non-guitarists, Cole Porter and Kurt
    Weill, as support in your arguements.  Kurt Weill is one of my hero's
    and I don't dispute his musicallity in your arguement but he was
    not a guitar player.  Django Reinhardt was a guitarist.  And, he
    used speed in his technique.  Not merely as a means to an end but
    as a form of interpretation.  
    
    Anyway, I'm sure that the guitarists you mentioned feel that they
    are very musical in terms of their technique.  And, just because
    I don't like Eddie Van Halen doesn't mean that the rest of the world
    should hate him, too.  It just means that my personal taste doesn't
    drift down the same river.
    
    =ken

    well put, ken...you saved me some typing....:-)
    
    when asked why he played a particular piece so fast segovia
    replied....
    
    	because i can!
    
    lots of you people keep bringing up the pro and con arguments
    of musicians and technicians.
    
    
    	the slowest guitarist in the world is GREAT if he's an
    
    	ARTISTE'
    
    	got that?
    	remember it.
    
    	same holds true for the fastest.
    
    	you're welcome.
    
    	musician/technician don't mean hoss feathers if the artist
    aint at home.
    
    	 i like being a musician and am quite happy/proud of
    my musical abilities.
    	  i also like being something of a technician and am
    happy/proud of these abilities....
                       
    	i work daily/weekly to increase my musical/technical abilities.
    
    	but my most cherished (though possibly false) belief is
    that i'm an artist.
    	this you don't work for.
    	either it's there and finds a way out or....well, perhaps it
    isn't there..?
    
    	i have no idea how (sorry to keep using you as an example,
    compadre) fast or slow karl moeller is but I recognize the artist
    that is resident in the flesh.
    
    	max lambert couldn't play the lead to i can see for miles
    	but he can pick that 12 string to move your soul....
    
    	i don't consider myself FAST and i know there are lots of
    things i've never mastered as a musician/technician....but i
    believe i play with taste...so i don't worry very much about
    speed....
    
    	people been listing their top favorite solos over the years...
    	in this notesfile and MOST of them weren't exceptionally
    	fast. They were, however, extremely tastefull and moving.
    
    	
    

	Ok I've got an extra 8 bucks I will give "Scenario?" a listen unless
someone wants to give me a money back guarantee? :^> 

	I had a teacher once tell me that anytime I get the urge to play
any scales or modes fast to try to sing what I was playing in order to
control phrasing,point being that if you were play similiar the way you speak.
Try setting a metronome to about 208 unless you do some serious vocal practic-
ing you could not keep up. Well I couldn't! 
	From a theoretical standpoint I find it hard to really know where I'm 
at in a chord progression if just blow away a couple octaves of scales and or 
patterns. Unless I can predict what is next from the sheet or hear the key 
change. 
	No I don't hate Dimeola I just don't hear what he hears as I'm sure
he hears Bach,Mozart and Pagnini differently from me. But Bach,Mozart are a
far cry harmonically from anything I've heard lately.
	Yes,fast playing has it's place when used tastefully and I'm sure that
Dimeola if he chose to he could do a "slow hand" solo. Like I previously
stated I'll give him another listen. 
	
	

	

    re: .0
    
    In reference to Steve Morse, I'll just say that if you think that
    "playing a lot of notes" and speed are the most important aspects
    of Steve's playing, it suggests that "playing a lot of notes" and 
    speed are the only things that YOU are able to appreciate in Morse's 
    playing.
    
    Actually, my guess is that you just aren't very familiar with Morse.
    Your criticisms of him are among the last things I would have ever
    expected anyone to criticize Morse for.
    
	db

    I am reminded of an interview with David Glimore in which he said
    that he realized that he could not play fast, so he worked on
    playing the *right* notes instead of playing fast notes.
    
    Al DiMiola is a split case.  He plays fast, but he can also play
    some passages that curl your toes.  I only wish someone would teach
    him another scale besides the minor scale...

    My, my.  Such taste, such manners, such restraint!  Why is it that
    this same discussion in the MUSIC notes would have my terminal about
    ready to melt by now?  Guitar noters, give yourselves a pat on the back.
    This is an excellent note.
    
    /rick

    
    about .0....
    	what DOES practice make?
    
    

    Practice reduces the gap between what you can hear in your head,
    and what you can play with your fingers.

    
            
               yes!!!
    
              that's what i would like to know what does PRACTICE MAKE.
    
                                     MARC
    

    That's all. Nothing else.
    

    I like both styles.  I like to hear the nice crisp fast licks.
    I like to hear the nice melodic hooks too.
    
    I dunno, but if you fit speed or taste where it belongs, it
    doesn't matter whcih notes were 1/32 notes and which were
    1/4 notes, etc..  Malmsteen is a good example of speed, but
    man, I feel what he's doing.  On the other hand, some of the
    melower guys, do some great stuff.
    
    For me, it just has to fit.  I can play fast, but I also hope
    that I can find the nice melodic hook I hear in my head to fit
    a particualr place in a song.  Technician/musician ?  Just
    play.

    
    WJB_Louder_n_Faster ...Right Stevie K???? (^;

    which brings us back to square one.....
    
    is louder-faster = better?
    
    right wilfred?
    

    re:17
    
    	<is louder-faster = better >
    
    	Da point is moot Rik !  DOES IT FIT.
    
    	One very important issue asside louder,faster,better,slower,etc...
    
    	How many times have you guys wathced as a guitarist went right
    off the deep end.  What I mean is played beyond his abilities, and
    failed miserably.  You gotta stay within yourself.  Don't play over
    your head.  Don't be intimidated cuz Guitarist A just punched a
    new door in the wall, (If he did, he was too loud anyway)  Don't
    try to run your fingers into next no-ever cuz Guitarist B just made
    new meaning to the word lighting.  Do what you've been doing for
    the last x-years.  That's you.  Don't be a copy-cat.  Yeah, you
    gotta have influences, that helps you to learn, but you can't be
    a carbon copy of another guitar player.  Stay inside yourself. 
    With a little bit of help from the rest of the band, and a dash of
    adreneline, you'll do just fine.

    Right boys ?

    (now pass me the suntan lotion....)

>    How many times have you guys wathced as a guitarist went right
>    off the deep end.  What I mean is played beyond his abilities, and
>    failed miserably.  
    
    This reminds me of a dream (or rather nightmore) that I frequently
    have.  Although it may be a dream, it is actually just a slight
    exageration of a common experience.  
    
    In the dream I walk into a music store, and am immediately inundated
    by the sound of 23 teen-aged guitarists, each hacking out their 
    own version of "Eruption" or some other sorta pyrotechnical display.  
    (Does this sound familiar to anyone else but me??)  Most of
    them are playing well beyond their current level of skill (i.e.
    they are playing very sloppy), and all of them seem to be out to
    impress each other.
    
>   Is louder-faster better?
    
    The louder, the better.  Unquestionably.
    
    On this issue of "faster".  Every guitarist has a set of things
    he's good at.  These things combine to make up his guitar vocabulary.
    The larger your vocabulary the better.
    
    Speed is a valuable asset to have, but there are other assets that
    are just as valuable if you're goals are truly musical and artistic.
    
    HOWEVER....  if you have some other goals, like trying to make money,
    trying to impress people, etc.  I'm sorry to say that it is my opinion
    that YES, the faster the better.  That's what seems to impress people
    these days.  The plain truth is that speed is a very marketable
    commodity.
    
    	db

    Musician/Technician ref: Check out what Larry Carlton has to say
    on his 'STAR LICKS' video.  A perspective on the BIG PICTURE.

>    I don't think you'll find disagreement with that as much as you
>    will the difinition of the word quality.  After all, quality is
>    in the ear of the beholder, so to speak.  Just because you don't
>    like Al DiMeola doesn't mean that everyone else must not like him,
>    too.  Areas of personal taste are wide open for bitter arguement.
>    You say tomato, and I say tomahto.  
>... Anyway, I'm sure that the guitarists you mentioned feel that they
>    are very musical in terms of their technique.  And, just because
>    I don't like Eddie Van Halen doesn't mean that the rest of the world
>    should hate him, too.  It just means that my personal taste doesn't
>    drift down the same river.    

	I  never  suggested  all  personal  taste  should flow down the
	river.  I am  always  amazed  that  whenever  a  discussion  of
	aesthetics  gets started on the USENET or in a notesfile, there
	is always someone who says, "How  can  you  say  that  everyone
	should  think  like you?"  or "I'm sure that no matter what you
	think of performer  X,  he  sincerely  believes  in  what  he's
	doing."   The  intent  of  criticism  is not to deny that.  The
	worst  thing you can say about somebody is "they mean well.";^)
	Seriously,  I'm  taking  as  a  given  that  these  are only my
	opinions -- what else could they be?  Does somebody think  that
	maybe  I'm  cheating  and  looking  at  the  answers in the the
	Teacher's Guide? ;^)

>    Also interesting that you use non-guitarists, Cole Porter and Kurt
>    Weill, as support in your arguements.  Kurt Weill is one of my hero's
>    and I don't dispute his musicallity in your arguement but he was
>    not a guitar player.  Django Reinhardt was a guitarist.  And, he
>    used speed in his technique.  Not merely as a means to an end but
>    as a form of interpretation.  
 
	Quite  a  few  guitarists  draw their some of their inspiration
	from non-guitarists -- Charlie Parker and  John  Coltrane  have
	frequently   been   cited  as  influential  by  guitarists.   I
	mentioned Django to show that I  was  not  "Anti-technique"  or
	some silly thing.  I would just like to see more discussions of
	guitarists that are driven  to  a  different  viewpoint  (e.g.,
	Robert Fripp, Fred Frith)

				Penn Jacobs

      Steve Vai's 5 good reasons not to practice:
    
    1.  There 
    
    2.   is 
    
    3.   no
    
    4.  good
    
    5. reason!