yes but dont sell yourself short. You are creating a classic internet thread just by natural ability!
Me? im just a failed player that lucked into this thread
1 Like
This whole thing is pretty pointless as nobody is likely to change what they do anyway!! Haha! My view is (not that anyone cares - I’m just waiting for dinner to cook and I’m bored) as follows
Songs are fun and most players enjoy playing them! Learning songs will help your playing if you learn new (and more challenging) ones regularly. Also, for a lot of players this is the only paid work they have through the guitar - respect should be given for having a strong and varied repertoire. It can also communicate to other musicians what your playing ability is.
Exercises are great because you can repeat the difficult technique multiple times in short succession and are tailor made to deal with that difficulty.
Playing your own songs can lead you to creating your own sound and can force you to learn new technical levels in order to express your musical ideas.
So you pick which one you need at the time - that’s it… end of… that simple. There is no witchcraft involved.
And finally, the only failed guitarists are the ones that doesn’t play any more.
Rock on mofos!!!
2 Likes
Over the last day or two, it’s been like watching a car crash in slow motion.
The main thing that comes to mind for me as I read this is Albert Lee’s suggestion (paraphrasing), that if you want to sound “musical” (however you define that), spend time playing things that sound “musical” to you. That in itself does not rule out any entire category of practice activity (playing “exercises”, playing free-form, playing cover songs, playing songs of your own composition, learning “licks”, lick-oriented “improvisation” over backing tracks (or with other live musicians), attempts at “lick-free” improvisation, etc. etc. etc.) There’s also the question of being “creative” versus being “musical”. And at the risk of side-stepping the question of how much “creativity” is involved in the interpretation of classical music by classical musicians, I’d argue that by and large, most classical musicians are not “creative” in the improvisational or compositional sense to the kind of standard people hold guitar players to in these kinds of “what does it mean to be a musician?” debates. Some of the criticisms of rock guitar players that come about in these sorts of discussions would be equally valid if they were applied to professional classical musicians, but I doubt there are very many people who would seriously entertain the idea that it means those people aren’t “artists” or “musicians” or “creative”.
3 Likes
Haha, classic. The only upsetting part about that is that it also sounds like my life!
reminds me of this massive flame war I accidentally found myself in the middle of…concerning modes. I had no idea it was such a minefield. There were a couple of jazz guys that had a semester or two of music theory so they proceeded to tell me that I was clueless in my usage of the word “modes”
They were using a super strict definition of the word, relating it to functional harmony and Arnold Schoenberg books etc etc. It went on for pages and pages and of course got a bit personal. That kept me off of forums for several years actually. Lifes too short.
We got to comparing actual skills etc and it turns out that they frankly werent that accomplished and that I myself had actually written modal music over 20 years before the conversation lol. Im talking modal by THEIR definition! Super classic internet stuff! I had already DONE it while they were busy arguing over what to call it
I think the above exchange gets to the heart of why this thread seems to keep going in circles. There are plenty of people who do not define “success” as “showing the ability to conquer songs.”
I have no axe to grind here; there is no single definition I want or hope people will consider “the proper definition of a successful musician.” So, I’m going to provide a couple examples from completely different sources to show that while some people view success for a musician as being able to play other people’s songs, not everyone looks at being able to play other people’s songs as success or even particularly impressive.
I have been watching the show “Nashville” which, as you might guess is about country musicians. In an episode I watched earlier this week, one musician stated “I’m not an artist; I’m a performer. I only sing other people’s songs.”
I was at a Henry Rollins (Black Flag, Rollins Band) spoken word performance and he was talking about a musician he had recently met. “This guy’s goal was to be in a cover band. That’s about as low an aspiration as a musician can have.”
If you can conquer the most difficult songs in your genre, you have learned the lessons you need to write and perform your own songs. If you have absolutely zero creativity, you still have some value as a musician.
We are talking about the best way to learn. Not what you do with it once you have learned.
Just trying to caution against getting caught in the wasteland of “creativity” without paying your dues.