How do you "shred" on guitar?

[Mikeman9412@gma]

Hey guys, I've heard these crazy improv/solos and i've wondered, what makes these distinctive? What modes are used? Just curious, Thanks!

[bluesking]

Which ones exactly?

Most "shred" stuff is a mixture of the typical rock stylings (minor pentatonic, blues scale, dorian/mixolydian hybrid - the "super-blues-scale" as I call it) mixed with some neo-classical (harmonic minor - specifically the phrygian dominant mode, lots of arpeggiation).

Now I don't consider myself a shredder, I sometimes wish I could though, yet I still use all of the above, from more of a blues/rock/jazz/funk perspective. So I don't think its the scale choice which determines whether someone is shredding.

The other aspects (and more charactaristic to me) are the focus on speed as a goal in itself, sweep picking, right hand tapping, whammy bar abuse and general virtuosity.

Unlike in other virtuosic fields, the harmonic and rhythmical structure is rather basic (normally its just 4 to the floor rock), with all focus being given to the solo.

Frankly, I don't care for most of it. I feel a lot of it involves pattern based playing, which can range between emotionless and downright unmusical. It seems to have more in common with the cult of personality than with any trully musical statement. The neo-classical angle seems to me to be a petty attempt at siezing some "highbrow" status but fails to impress both the kids (who still, to this day, only want to rock & roll!!!) and classical afficianados (who either find all "pop" music barbaric or find shred to be vacuous).

I have yet to meet a trully productive musician who needs the kind of ego-boost "shredding" provides. That said, I wish I could play as fast as some of those buggers :p . Only problem is, I doubt I could ever join another band in my life if I could. If you've ever auditioned a shredder for a group, you will understand why.

Right, now its time for me to duck. Half the forum will probably call for jihad on me.

[Mikeman9412@gma]

Yeah, I agree, I'm more into jazz and blues myself but I have a lot of people when I tell them I play guitar they say like wow! Play something! And for most of these people the only thing that will satisfy them is cheesy shredding. I really just want it more as a novelty than an actual technique, But heres my thing, I've tried playing real fast and using a TON! of whammy and bending strings but I really can't get that sound like I've heard

Take Steve Vai, Now I know he's a great guitarist but a lot of that stuff is just simple scales right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY8wyKuLY2k Like this video, What's he doing around 5:02 and up?

Thanks!

[Mikeman9412@gma]

Hey and one more question, This is extremely off topic and you don't have to answer if you don't want to because it's about theory again :) But what does it mean for a song to be in dorian or phrygian or any mode, Like I've read on Wikipedia that "smoke on the water" is in dorian or what ever, What does that mean? Thanks!

[fingerpikingood]

if you read this first i've answered this in your "i need help with this song" thread.

[fingerpikingood]

what i heard so far of the youtube thing, i would not consider is all simple scales.

shredding though is sometimes that, also i think they use arpeggios alot. i don't shred, but it would be cool to learn a bit of that, that's why this thread peaked my curiosity, but to me "just simple scales" is playing simply scales. i've seen people shredding that way, and find it fast but not so much musical really. like a poet just saying the alphabet real fast, or reading words in the dictionary real wuick without really saying anything.

to me, this youtube video of steve vai what i've seen so far, is much more than that.

music in the end is kind of all just scales in a distant way, but really what it is is the emotion and timing you play the notes, as well as the order you play them.

shredding is often just playing a scale quickly up and down or arpeggios up and down and the mixing of scales and arpeggios in this way.

but to me, music is much more than that, and steve vai was doing much more than that in this video.

but if he were to teach you, he'd probably start by telling you to learn the major scale.

[JonR]

Yeah, I agree, I'm more into jazz and blues myself but I have a lot of people when I tell them I play guitar they say like wow! Play something! And for most of these people the only thing that will satisfy them is cheesy shredding. I really just want it more as a novelty than an actual technique, But heres my thing, I've tried playing real fast and using a TON! of whammy and bending strings but I really can't get that sound like I've heard

Take Steve Vai, Now I know he's a great guitarist but a lot of that stuff is just simple scales right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY8wyKuLY2k Like this video, What's he doing around 5:02 and up?

Thanks!Yikes...

Well, he's making a lot of dumb faces for a start.... (and just using a 3-neck guitar like that ought to have got him laughed offstage at the start... Yes I know one neck is fretless and one is 12-string, but so what. Is he there to play music or demonstrate a product?)

I've analysed the first 20 seconds or so after 5:02, and I can tell you it's almost all C# minor pent, over a B major chord to start with, resolving to an F# major chord (5:16), followed by an E major chord at 5:23.
He bends alot of notes around of course, and there's a C natural he throws in at one point (about 5:13), which would be the blues b5 of the F# chord he's aiming at.

That's as much as I can face - I find this kind of thing terribly boring. I might open my mouth to go "wow" for a second or two, but it swiftly becomes a yawn and my brain switches off. (But hey, you don't want my opinion... :rolleyes: )

In short, there's nothing musically unusual (or indeed musically interesting), about that short excerpt at least. (There is a lot more musical stuff at the beginning - the opening 2 minutes or so is very nice. IMO. But only IMO.;))

[JonR]

Hey and one more question, This is extremely off topic and you don't have to answer if you don't want to because it's about theory again :) But what does it mean for a song to be in dorian or phrygian or any mode, Like I've read on Wikipedia that "smoke on the water" is in dorian or what ever, What does that mean? Thanks!Firstly, "smoke on the water" isn't dorian. It's mostly phrygian.

"Dorian" means based on a minor scale with a major 6th. The scale structure works out like this:
HALF-STEPS: | | | | | | | | | | | | |
DORIAN MODE: 1 . 2 b3 . 4 . 5 . 6 b7 . 1
Phrygian in contrast looks like this:
HALF-STEPS: | | | | | | | | | | | | |
PHRYGIAN MODE: 1 b2 . b3 . 4 . 5 b6 . b7 . 1
These are both "minor modes" (meaning they have a b3 step), but we usually hear them in compasition to the more familiar natural minor, or aeolian mode:
HALF-STEPS: | | | | | | | | | | | | |
AEOLIAN MODE: 1 . 2 b3 . 4 . 5 b6 . b7 . 1You can see the difference is just one note in each case.
In comparison with Aeolian, Dorian has a raised (major) 6th, which makes it "brighter", while Phrygian has a lowered (minor) 2nd, making it "darker".

Here's the first part of the Smoke on the Water riff, notes shown above, scale degrees (relative to the G key) below:
G Bb C G Bb Db C
D F G D F Ab G
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
-0---3---5------0---3---6--5---------
-0---3---5------0---3---6--5---------
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
1 b3 4 1 b3 b5 4
5 b7 1 5 b7 b2 1It's not entirely from one single scale, because there are two Ds; D and Db.
The D/Db combo, with most of the other notes suggests a G blues scale (G Bb C Db D F), but the Ab is a strong and distinctive part of the riff, and suggests G phrygian (G Ab Bb C D Eb F).
The G phrygian vibe is confirmed in the chorus, which has C and Ab major chords. The C major suggests G dorian mode (because it has an E natural, the 6th of G dorian), but the Ab is a big phrygian signal, resolving back to the Gm home chord.
IOW the dorian element is a poor second to the phrygian one. But you can hear the difference (compared in each case with the preceding G minor key):
"Smoke--" (bright, powerful change) "on the waaa-ter" (dark, heavy change).

If you want to hear a more typical Dorian sound, try Santana's "Oye Como Va" (entirely in A dorian); the opening section of Pink Floyd's "Breathe" (E dorian); the opening vamp and verse of Van Morrison's "Moondance" (A dorian); or the solo section of the Doors "Light My Fire" (A dorian).

A typical Phrygian sound (much rarer) is Pink Floyd's "Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun" (mostly E phrygian).

[gersdal]

Hey guys, I've heard these crazy improv/solos and i've wondered, what makes these distinctive?
Shredding is IMHO more related to speed than scales. Whatever you find you can do in a fast tempo, is what you use. Melody and harmony is irrelevant.

[JonR]

Yeah, I agree, I'm more into jazz and blues myself but I have a lot of people when I tell them I play guitar they say like wow! Play something! And for most of these people the only thing that will satisfy them is cheesy shredding. I really just want it more as a novelty than an actual technique, But heres my thing, I've tried playing real fast and using a TON! of whammy and bending strings but I really can't get that sound like I've heardThe sound may be more to do with effects than speed or scales.
Use compression, distortion, reverb and/or a little delay. That should help.
Most people go "wow" when they hear anything with compression and delay - it sounds so smooth and lush. Big reverb sounds like you're in a cave or cathedral (automatic reverential atmosphere ;) ). Play fast (almost anything) and it sounds like you're soaring.

[metaljustice83]

JonR change your label from Registered user to theory guru.....seriously

[Mikeman9412@gma]

Fingerpickingood, I already know the major scale! :) I also know dorian, phrygian, lydian, mixolydian, aolean locrian :)

[fingerpikingood]

Fingerpickingood, I already know the major scale! :) I also know dorian, phrygian, lydian, mixolydian, aolean locrian :)
sweet, ya, as i was saying, everybody who knows the major scale already knows phrygian lydian mixolydian aeolian and locrian. they just might not know it yet.

but that's good. so all you need to do then is play those alot over music and learn the chords of songs name them and relate them to the key you're in.

you can do a hell of alot with just that. in fact that's almost all i do. although i don't stick to the scales religiously, they are the framework that allows me to access any note i want. more often than not anyways, sometimes i still make mistakes.

practice playing them faster and faster too.

if i would help you more than that, since you know your scales, I would need to hear you try to play something you want to play, and i might possibly need to see you try to play it too.

unless of course you have a specific question.

[Mikeman9412@gma]

So when you right a song in a certain mode are you going to go outside the key? To clear up let's say I have a song that's in C major and I have the Notes C D Eb F G A Bb that make up my main melody, then would the song be in dorian? How can you tell when you look at the music? And I know the key signature tells what key it's in so here's where I'm confused, If a song is in dorian, how is it different from the song just being in it's key signature?

[gersdal]

To clear up let's say I have a song that's in C major and I have the Notes C D Eb F G A Bb that make up my main melody, then would the song be in dorian? I hope you mean the song is in C minor :confused:

[JonR]

So when you right a song in a certain mode are you going to go outside the key? To clear up let's say I have a song that's in C major and I have the Notes C D Eb F G A Bb that make up my main melody, then would the song be in dorian?Yes. But the song would not be in "C major". If the keynote is C, then it's "in C dorian".
As gersdal says, most people would regard that as a kind of C minor key, because it has Eb, not E.
The normal C minor key has an Ab in it (not A), and would sometimes have B natural instead of Bb.
But C dorian sounds pretty close - still "minor" in overall character, but a little brighter because of that A natural.
How can you tell when you look at the music? And I know the key signature tells what key it's in so here's where I'm confused, If a song is in dorian, how is it different from the song just being in it's key signature?The key signature doesn't tell you the key! :rolleyes: (popular misconception ;) )
What a key sig tells you is how many (and which) notes in the piece are different from the natural series (ABCDEFG) - which have been sharpened or flattened. IOW, it tells you the scale used, but not which note is keynote.
So the key sig for your C dorian piece would have 2 flats (on B and E).

Now, a 2-flat key sig is most commonly used for the major key of Bb - hence most people will call it a "Bb key sig"; but it's also commonly used for the key of G minor.
IOW, as I say, the key sig alone won't tell you the actual key for definite. You need to look at the music as see which note or chord seems to be the "home" chord: the one the music ends on, and most likely (tho not always) starts on.
In a C dorian piece, you will see a Cm chord all over the place, and definitely as a final chord. You won't see many Bbs (they might be there, but only briefly).

Just to underline: for your piece to be in C dorian mode, it's not enough to just use the notes you mention. It has to have C as its tonal focus, "its gravitational centre", its clear "home" note. Easiest way to do that is just use a Cm chord as much as you can, and end your phrases on C.

[Aresius]

I have to say that nothing is more than annoying than the term "shredding" or "learning to shred" or "how to shred". What is this mysterious "shredding" that makes every aspiring young guitarist give up playing in desperation? There is not such thing as "learning to shred"!!!!! You don't magically earn some kind of special skill that allows you to play fast. By practicing good technique, you can execute fast musical lines easier. It's that simple. There is slow music and there is fast music.

I think that this "shredding" thing is only a problem to us guitarists. Do violinists, pianists, drummers, vocalists, bassists, keyboardists, sax players, cellists get labelled shredders? There's a lot of fast material, for example, in classical music and no one complains just because they play them fast. But when a electric guitar player plays fast, why does s/he get labelled as a non-musical brainless wanker who has absolutely none musical talent? And when a violinist plays a presto section of some solo sonata, everyone praises him. Why is it this way? Is it because that there are a lot of non-musical monkeys that just vomit their Yngwie- and Gilbert-licks in E minor as fast as they can? Is it possible for a guitarist to earn other musicians respect again by playing musically, no matter what the tempo? I think these people, who play music and not licks and do it musically in any musical situation, are a rare breed. And now I'm talking about guitarists. To me, these kind of people include Paul Gilbert, Michael Romeo (Symphony X), Greg Howe, Steve Vai, George Benson, Kiko Loureiro (from a band called Angra, also solo), Nuno Bettencourt, Matias Kupiainen (nowadays the guitarist for Stratovarius, also has some solo material and a crazy metal band called Fist In Fetus), Joscho Stephan, Yngwie (to some extent, tends to wank too much), John Petrucci (especially on earlier records, live and later records gone too Formula 1) and such.

EDIT: And of course, the ultimate guitarist Guthrie Govan!

[tedmaul]

I think that this "shredding" thing is only a problem to us guitarists. Do violinists, pianists, drummers, vocalists, bassists, keyboardists, sax players, cellists get labelled shredders? There's a lot of fast material, for example, in classical music and no one complains just because they play them fast. But when a electric guitar player plays fast, why does s/he get labelled as a non-musical brainless wanker who has absolutely none musical talent? And when a violinist plays a presto section of some solo sonata, everyone praises him. Why is it this way? Is it because that there are a lot of non-musical monkeys that just vomit their Yngwie- and Gilbert-licks in E minor as fast as they can?

Good post. Regarding the bit i've quoted:

I think this is down to attitude as much as anything else. I mean, some guitarists that play fast seem to see that as a means to an end in itself, rather than part of a wider musical goal. Fast playing should just be one small thing in your wider set of techniques you use to express yourself.

It almost becomes 'guitar as sport' at times - how many bpm can i play these quintuplets at so i'm better than the other guy. And then you add to that the fact that you tend to have a lot of almost 'macho posturing' going along with it, which really came to the fore in the 80s, and i think that puts a lot of people off guitarists that can play fast. When a guitarist plays something for people and it seems to be more like 'look at how fast i can play' rather than 'listen to this composition i've written for you' then i think folk just don't see much merit in it.

It's a real shame, because a lot of amazing guitarists that can play fast but don't see it in that way get thrown into the 'shredder' bucket and dismissed.

I mean, i'm sure we've all met players (or encountered them on the internet a lot!) that can fly through scales at 100mph but can't compose a simple tune over a basic chord progression. Or who try and play someone elses piece and get so obsessed with racing through the fast parts (usually in quite a sloppy fashion) but when they have to play a slower melodic section have no sense of rhythm, phrasing or dynamics. I think that when that happens something has gone wrong with the way you've approached the instrument - and having worked and studied with a lot of classical and jazz musicians it's something peculiar to electric guitarists.

[Mikeman9412@gma]

No I meant C major, So I guess I'm wrong some where LOL :D so heres my question, Let's say a song is written in Dorian, What does that mean, What would the key be, Why don't you just say it's written in the certain key? Why say dorian? If it's in dorian are there any accidentals?

[ChainsawGuitar]

No I meant C major, So I guess I'm wrong some where LOL :D so heres my question, Let's say a song is written in Dorian, What does that mean, What would the key be, Why don't you just say it's written in the certain key? Why say dorian? If it's in dorian are there any accidentals?

They are saying its in a certain key, its in dorian. Thats as opposed to Ionian, Aeolian, Lydian etc...

Thats the key. You would normally also say "C Dorian" or "E Dorian"- its just that when you say "C" on its own, you imply that its in "C Ionian", or when you say "C minor" you usually imply that its in "C Aeolian".

There would be accidentals if it was anything other than "D Dorian", as D dorian is a scale from D without accidentals. The key is never "dorian" on its own.

[bluesking]

See my post in your other thread titled "What does it mean by a song being in a certain mode?"

[ChainsawGuitar]

Bluesking, I can see your point from a practical point of view- I.E. when actually implementing modes in soloing. I can see why it works for you to think like that because thats what you are trying to do- solo and create melody.

However, in a purely theoretical sense, modes are keys. A chord progression can be rooted in a mode just as much as a melody can.

I don't dissagree with what you are saying though, I just wanted to point out the other side to it :)

[bluesking]

Bluesking, I can see your point from a practical point of view- I.E. when actually implementing modes in soloing. I can see why it works for you to think like that because thats what you are trying to do- solo and create melody.

However, in a purely theoretical sense, modes are keys. A chord progression can be rooted in a mode just as much as a melody can.

I don't dissagree with what you are saying though, I just wanted to point out the other side to it :)

Absolutely agree. Purely abstract discussions of theory are great for you and I (and many others here). That said, I for one have a huge pile of ironing to deal with, plus I havn't done my practice today, so maybe they are not so great for me :D

Mike is a really keen and nice guy, but he is not at the point where he should be thinking about relaxing and chilling over a hot cup of theory.

I would rather give him advice which is useful than correct! I was stuck for years in this loop of looking for sense in modal keys. Every guitarist who has access to the internet goes through this stage. It is hard to watch someone trapped in the same cage you were in for (in my case) 5 years and not try to shake him out of it.

[ChainsawGuitar]

Hehe yeh you're right.

Theory has never been a problem for me, just one of those things that always made sense- sometimes I tend to forget that its not the same for everyone!

Its so easy to accidently end up just talking theory when its just a forum. Alot different to having a guitar in front of you- when you can actually demonstrate :)

Sorry if thats what was I was doing. Although anyone else reading this thread may learn differently, so I think its valid to have different explanations- even if just for the benifit of others.

[bluesking]

Sorry if thats what was I was doing. Although anyone else reading this thread may learn differently, so I think its valid to have different explanations- even if just for the benifit of others.

No need to appologise, I'm not criticising your post, just trying to set a context for our points of view. I think we have exactly the same outlook here. ;)

[Mikeman9412@gma]

Thanks for all the help! I agree, Once I'm get a bit better I can really get into theory and it will probably make more sense because I know a lot it's just a little disorganized so how long do you think I should wait before I should get back into theory? And also does this mean I shouldn't write songs now? Thanks!

[bluesking]

Thanks for all the help! I agree, Once I'm get a bit better I can really get into theory and it will probably make more sense because I know a lot it's just a little disorganized so how long do you think I should wait before I should get back into theory? And also does this mean I shouldn't write songs now? Thanks!

I don't think you need to wait on learning theory. You just need to focus on the theory which is useful to you right now. Learn chord progressions and scale choices. Learn about key changes. Apply everything you learn, which leads to the next point:

No, you shouldn't avoid writing songs. Thats a great way to help your learning. Invaluable I would say.

[Mikeman9412@gma]

OK sweet, I'll try to get a band going, Play some cover stuff, Write some stuff and if I have questions that relate to what I'm writing come back here, Sound good? :D

[JonR]

OK sweet, I'll try to get a band going, Play some cover stuff, Write some stuff and if I have questions that relate to what I'm writing come back here, Sound good? :DSounds excellent. See you in a couple of years...
;)

[All_¥our_Bass]

Also, shred is not just about being able to playing fast, but being able to play fast with control and not sounding like a sonic "mess" and not being limited in your technique so that you can play exactly want you want to play how you want to play it.

And the shred guys that do just speed are not really what it is about, speed is only one part of the equation.

Here is a list of shredders who I think are good:
Muhammed Suiçmez
John Petrucci
Jeff Loomis

Now as for technique, you should be putting absolutely minimal PHYSICAL effort into everything your playing (play in a relaxed manner), slamming the strings with your pick wastes energy and impedes speed.

Your fretting should be as "clean" as possible (minimal string noise, buzzing, etc.), and remember to always warm up and stretch before playing, and if something starts to hurt whenever you play a particular way it (usually) means your doing something wrong that could hurt you.

When alternate picking make sure you are using minimal arm movement-you should be picking mostly from the wrist-or in the case of circular picking, from the index and thumb.

Use a metronome, it's no use being able to play fast and cleanly without strain if your timing is sloppy. Get used to that irritating click!! :D

...Or if you can't get used to that, you can use a drum machine or a programmed beat, but it must be something very simple and minimal-bass drum, snare, and hi-hat should be all you need.

[ragasaraswati]

Shredding without some pauses and sustained notes is very tasteless. Consider a person that talks all the time.

For me the most attacking tone , and for me at least, appropriate tone for shredding is an overdriven tone, maybe even distorted but not saturated to the point that it has lost dynamics.
And also picking more and legato-ing less gives this rythmic, relentless, feel that is part of -successfull- shredding.

[Raven]

Hey guys, shredding is cool! Yeah i know that it can sound mindless and boring, but there are guys out there that really know how to do it well with perfect note selection in mind. Try learning your harmonic minor modes, those really sound cool. And try and stay away from writing an entire solo in 16ths at 160 bpm. Its all about dynamics! Try listening to greg howe, i think he has the right idea.

[JonR]

Hey guys, shredding is cool! Yeah i know that it can sound mindless and boring, but there are guys out there that really know how to do it well with perfect note selection in mind. Try learning your harmonic minor modes, those really sound cool. And try and stay away from writing an entire solo in 16ths at 160 bpm. Its all about dynamics! Try listening to greg howe, i think he has the right idea.I agree. I'm no shred fan, but greg howe has some great lessons on youtube - such as:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEcKlKyYz08
- he talks about (and demonstrates) exactly what matters in improvisation. And that's in ALL kinds of improvisation, not just shred.

Shred - seems to me - is characterised by distorted tone and extremely fast playing; but if it's ONLY that, then it's very dull.
It is a lot more difficult to play fast with distortion AND to keep it tasteful and musical. So in a sense shred is more challenging than normal rock/blues playing. (Tho still less challenging than jazz, because shred normally uses a very simple harmonic context. You can play faster because you're not having to think about the chords...)

The other problem with shred (why so many people hate it) is that the distorted tone typically used allows for no dynamic variation, no variation in timbre or tone colour. (This applies to all distorted styles, of course, not just shred.)
Greg Howe is a great player (and an intelligent guy) but his playing is still one-dimensional in terms of dynamics and tone quality. In a sense, that's not a problem because it's part of what defines the genre.

IOW, when shred is good, it's good for the same reasons any kind of music is good. When it's bad, it's when it ignores the things that make any kind of music good. (Structure, rhythm, melodic phrasing, dynamic and tonal variety.)

[curiousgeorge]

I agree. I'm no shred fan, but greg howe has some great lessons on youtube - such as:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEcKlKyYz08
- he talks about (and demonstrates) exactly what matters in improvisation. And that's in ALL kinds of improvisation, not just shred.

Shred - seems to me - is characterised by distorted tone and extremely fast playing; but if it's ONLY that, then it's very dull.
It is a lot more difficult to play fast with distortion AND to keep it tasteful and musical. So in a sense shred is more challenging than normal rock/blues playing. (Tho still less challenging than jazz, because shred normally uses a very simple harmonic context. You can play faster because you're not having to think about the chords...)

The other problem with shred (why so many people hate it) is that the distorted tone typically used allows for no dynamic variation, no variation in timbre or tone colour. (This applies to all distorted styles, of course, not just shred.)
Greg Howe is a great player (and an intelligent guy) but his playing is still one-dimensional in terms of dynamics and tone quality. In a sense, that's not a problem because it's part of what defines the genre.

IOW, when shred is good, it's good for the same reasons any kind of music is good. When it's bad, it's when it ignores the things that make any kind of music good. (Structure, rhythm, melodic phrasing, dynamic and tonal variety.)

There are way too many cheesy instrumental fusion shredders these days who just sit there and "shred" mindlessly over a backing track. No melody, no feeling, no respect to the background rhythm. They should be banned from posting Youtube videos. Sure Greg Howe is a great player, but you're right, he's one dimensional. Can't get into it...

[bluesking]

There are way too many cheesy instrumental fusion shredders these days who just sit there and "shred" mindlessly over a backing track. No melody, no feeling, no respect to the background rhythm. They should be banned from posting Youtube videos. Sure Greg Howe is a great player, but you're right, he's one dimensional. Can't get into it...

If guitar playing is like speaking, shredding is like shouting directly in someone's ear at point blank range. Sometimes you need to shout to make your point but if you feel the need to shout all the time because you aren't getting the attention you feel you deserve you'll find yourself very lonely very quickly.

[curiousgeorge]

If guitar playing is like speaking, shredding is like shouting directly in someone's ear at point blank range. Sometimes you need to shout to make your point but if you feel the need to shout all the time because you aren't getting the attention you feel you deserve you'll find yourself very lonely very quickly.

Good point. I found that out the hard way at my first few open jam nights years ago. Also, at some point, shredders have to realize that they have to learn rhythm, and that's what they'll be playing most of the time if they ever want to play to a crowd.

[bluesking]

Good point. I found that out the hard way at my first few open jam nights years ago. Also, at some point, shredders have to realize that they have to learn rhythm, and that's what they'll be playing most of the time if they ever want to play to a crowd.

Yes, not many of us have the luxury of a band of musicians who play purely passive instrumental back-up so we can solo over the top of it indeffinitely! Personally, I'm lucky if I get 16 bars per song, but thats probably because I run out of ideas and start playing "outside" just for the fun of it if I am allowed any more :D

Thats why so many of those youtube shredders use so much in the way of MIDI backing tracks. Who is going to hang around for 256 bars playing an E5 chord?

[Blutwulf]

The rise of Shredding is the expected result of scale-oriented guitar education. That is, the last million or so guitarists learning to play probably went through the current standard of "okay, this is the chord progression, this is the key, so play this scale here. Stay on those black dots, and you won't be off-key."

It is a worthy pursuit, of course, and I am in awe of some of those guys. I am not denigrating it any more than I'd denigrate any other sub-genre.

However, the end result of shredding is this... Imagine hitting speeds too fast for the ear to pick out (ain't gonna happen... I am just giving an example, here...). Imagine shredding so fast, with no dynamism to timbre, etc., that it all becomes a single drone-like pitch to the ear. Over the chord progression you'll simply hear the root note of the key center. (Play your 33's on 78 if you still have vinyl and an old enough turntable to see what I mean.)

Well, most shred is already like that for me, even though nobody has hit those speeds, yet. When I hear it, I only hear the key center with little or no variance. Amazing skill set and phenomenally practiced fingers, but unenjoyable to listen to (unless I too were a shredder). The speeds have already gotten to the point that players routinely include off-key notes for ease of fingering, and the pitches are lost in the mud; it is all one big glissando.

[JonR]

The rise of Shredding is the expected result of scale-oriented guitar education. That is, the last million or so guitarists learning to play probably went through the current standard of "okay, this is the chord progression, this is the key, so play this scale here. Stay on those black dots, and you won't be off-key."

It is a worthy pursuit, of course, and I am in awe of some of those guys. I am not denigrating it any more than I'd denigrate any other sub-genre.

However, the end result of shredding is this... Imagine hitting speeds too fast for the ear to pick out (ain't gonna happen... I am just giving an example, here...). Imagine shredding so fast, with no dynamism to timbre, etc., that it all becomes a single drone-like pitch to the ear. Over the chord progression you'll simply hear the root note of the key center. (Play your 33's on 78 if you still have vinyl and an old enough turntable to see what I mean.)

Well, most shred is already like that for me, even though nobody has hit those speeds, yet. When I hear it, I only hear the key center with little or no variance. Amazing skill set and phenomenally practiced fingers, but unenjoyable to listen to (unless I too were a shredder). The speeds have already gotten to the point that players routinely include off-key notes for ease of fingering, and the pitches are lost in the mud; it is all one big glissando.I agree.
But what scares me is this all sounds like "tch, you call that noise music??!"
I think I'm turning into my dad... :( (Mind you, at 60 years of age it's probably about time :rolleyes: )

I have to keep remembering Duke's aphorism: "there's only two kinds of music: good and bad. I like both kinds." Shred is making it tough, that's all...

[Blutwulf]

Well, non-representational abstract art isn't bad art, so you don't have to feel old, Jon. It is an exhibition of technique prowess rather than artistic expression. It is a study in methods and technique. It is intended to be admired by other painters, and be inarticulately appealing to a few non-painters. Sculptors have their own version.

Oh, wait... we're talking music...

Well, shred isn't bad music, so you don't have to feel old, Jon. It is an exhibition of technique prowess rather than musical expression. It is a study in methods and technique. It is intended to be admired by other guitarists, and be inarticulately appealing to a few non-guitarists. Pianists have their own version.

[JonR]

Well, non-representational abstract art isn't bad art, so you don't have to feel old, Jon. It is an exhibition of technique prowess rather than artistic expression. It is a study in methods and technique. It is intended to be admired by other painters, and be inarticulately appealing to a few non-painters. Sculptors have their own version.Well, I differ there, but maybe because I'm a trained artist...
Eg, I don't think Rothko's paintings are about "technical prowess". They are artistic expression par excellence, heavy with emotional impact.
Unlike most bad representational art, which IS pure "technical prowess" (imitating a camera).
Otherwise, I agree the general point about artists talking to artists, an inward-turned elite.

Anyway (yes) we digress...

Oh, wait... we're talking music...Yes. And you can make the same observation about "technical prowess", intended to impress fellow artists, about bebop jazz. That was all about turning away from populism (dance music) and displaying chops...

Well, shred isn't bad music, so you don't have to feel old, Jon. It is an exhibition of technique prowess rather than musical expression. It is a study in methods and technique. It is intended to be admired by other guitarists, and be inarticulately appealing to a few non-guitarists. Pianists have their own version.Yes, I agree more here (obviously), although I can see the parallel.
You could still argue that shred (outside of any musical content) IS an artistic expression of a kind. It communicates - to me - a special kind of fury or anxiety, a hollow desperation. Or the familiar air of melancholy or pathos exuded when a man attempts to act like a machine. Mastery of the physical world taken to ridiculous extremes. I'd liken it to mountain climbing, or circus tricks, rather than abstract art. "Why do you want to play 16ths at 300 bpm?" "Because they're there! Because no one else has (yet)..."
Of course, it's debatable whether we can categorize it as "art" if that effect of furious desperation (or pathetic melancholy) is unintended. Which I guess it is...

Anyway, who cares if it's art or not! What's "art" ever had to do with popular music? (discuss, using both sides of the paper, with hand gestures if necessary.)
Like all popular music genres, shred performs a function for a specific target audience. Which ain't you or me, clearly. :)
But as long as it's popular with that audience, it can be classed as "good" (fit for purpose). It works. No other observation required.
(And I'm aware that an "audience" is not necessarily a discrete bunch of people. I can be an "audience" for many disparate kinds of music, at different times, whose other fans may not share my tastes at all. I'll bet many shred fans are also fans of very different kinds of music, at other times or in other moods.)

[Blutwulf]

Rothko's main body of work was "artistic expression par excellence, heavy with emotional impact?" He was actually one of the guys I had in mind as an example for studies in methods and technique.

I'll cheerfully argue with you about this through e-mail if you like. (jreedo@yahoo.com) I'd say we'd bore the others pretty fast otherwise...

[Mikeman9412@gma]

Hey guys, I've gotten so many replies I'm going to look them all over to it might take me a bit to get back to everyone, Thanks!

[Blutwulf]

The only one that matters is where JonR said that shred sucks and isn't really music.

:D

[ChrisJ]

I grew up playing guitar in the 70s, sort of in the cracks of the 60s blues generation (Hendrix, Clapton, Page, etc..) and the 80s shred generation (Van Halen, Ingwie, etc..) There were a few famous guitarists in the cracks of the two generations, like Frank Marino and Uli Roth. When I heard them I was thrilled with their chops. Same when I heard Eddie, his chops and tone amazed me. Unfortunately the spark they created, led to complete overkill. Before the influx of shred, I decided I would become the king of shred, the modern day Paganini. When I went to LA in 87, I realized that it would be fruitless to use virtuosity as a method to gain notoriety in the music business, The reason was simply because everybody and their mother had turned into Paganini at the expense of good writing and tone. So I decided to become well rounded instead.

I think the newer generation of shred is even less interesting, simply because it doesn't have have interesting chord changes and for the life of me, I can't distinguish who is who anymore, everyone for the most part having an unidentifiable, undynamic tone. The guitarists that people rave about these days, and I won't mention their names because I work with many of them here and there, pretty much bore me for their simple lack of individuality. I'm glad that I was at one point seduced by shred, only because it left me with chops, but I'm equally glad that I decided not to pursue it as it would have ended my career.

Not to say there aren't guitarists with incredible chops because there is. They are not categorized as shred though. Alan Holdsworth and Pat Metheny comes to mind. But I think that the music they write is too complex for many to appreciate.

As Jon said, I might be getting old as well. I'm more interested in musical expression through other means than technique, although I do agree that there is a place for virtuosity but not at the expense of the other aspects of music.

[seventhson]

i look at this way. there's an analogy between playing the guitar and conversing. there are auctioneers that can talk a mile a minute and they might provide the wow factor for a few seconds, but you would not want to listen to them the whole evening like that. then there are the good conversationalists who are gifted at telling a story. now if the good conversationalist had the opportunity to embellish his story by imitating an auctioneer and was able to pull it off, then he's probably going to be the life of the party.

[JonR]

Rothko's main body of work was "artistic expression par excellence, heavy with emotional impact?" He was actually one of the guys I had in mind as an example for studies in methods and technique.I think you're in a minority there. But maybe - like I say - that's because I come from an artistic background (tho I'm not a painter), where his paintings really do mean something beyond technique to a lot of people (not just other artists). They are mood paintings, basically. OK, on one level they're colour exercises, graphic designs - not really technically impressive at all! anyone can slap on a couple of squares of colour... They can be dismissed in those terms. (The old "a child of 6 could do it" non-criticism.;)) But you can't appreciate them on a page or screen. You need to see the real things, dominating a space.
But yeah, OK, I'm in the minority, not you... ;)
(That will do for me, as an argument, so I'm happy to leave it there :) )

[JonR]

The only one that matters is where JonR said that shred sucks and isn't really music.

:DHey now! I didn't say that!. Must have been you...
;)

[Raven]

Yeah i was also seduced by shred, but in my honest opinion i do still think some shred guitar solos are beautiful and beauty is why i started playing in the first place! But i play in a metal band and when we recorded, i couldnt help but keep it slow and concenrate more on tensions and feel, because at that time i just got into meshugga. But my neo-classical shred guitar producer insisted that they were not solos they were melodies. I just dont understand why some people only consider fast playing to be a solo.

[JonR]

i look at this way. there's an analogy between playing the guitar and conversing. there are auctioneers that can talk a mile a minute and they might provide the wow factor for a few seconds, but you would not want to listen to them the whole evening like that. then there are the good conversationalists who are gifted at telling a story. now if the good conversationalist had the opportunity to embellish his story by imitating an auctioneer and was able to pull it off, then he's probably going to be the life of the party.Yes, if he didn't talk so fast you couldn't make out the words. And only if the speed had a relevance to the story - maybe in a short section of it, for contrast or drama, or to make a particular point. Not all the way through, for no reason. (He would get people going "wow" or clapping, or laughing, but they wouldn't have any idea what he'd been saying.)

After all, most pro jazz players (or orchestral players) can play at shred speed if they want to. They just choose not to, most of the time. They save it for when it matters, for when they want the particular impact it will have.

Speed is one tool in the bag, for the real musician. It's not the only one.

Shred demonstrates technical mastery. That's all it does. Technical mastery is only the beginning. It's how you use it that matters. Just demonstrating it is meaningless. That's no better than circus tricks. A high-wire act is impressive, maybe awe-inspiring. But it isn't art.
Of course, circuses are enough for some folk... ;)

[All_¥our_Bass]

It's like anything else there are good and bad ways to use it. Some ways are tasteful and musical whilst others are not.

[fingerpikingood]

Hey now! I didn't say that!. Must have been you...
;)
imo how good music is has nothing to do with the style of technique you use and nothing to do with how fast you play, and nothing to do with the chord progressions you use, and nothing to so with the style of music you play either.

music is either good or bad in an artistic way that cannot be measured nor can it be defined in any type of theoretical way. that's why it is so valuable. if this were not the case than anyone could be a great musician if they read the right book.

iow, shredding doesn't suck. it just depends on who's doing the shredding.

but there is something to be said that some might think that by virtue of playing quickly they are good, and many are dazzled by quick play as well. but truly you cannot say music is good just because it is fast, but conversly i think you can't say it is bad just because it is fast either.

although i must say, for my taste, a tune or a solo that is strictly shredding is not so hot just because it has little in terms of being rhythmically interesting. but throw in some shredding as part of your music and i find it can be very good indeed.

it's just some are so cocky about being able to play quickly and all they do is mix and match arpeggios and scales in super quick 16ths and think they are really good, and others listening think so as well.

but music is much more than that. and in actual fact doing nothing more than that is really "easy". it's tough to gain that level of agility, but anyone can with enough practice.

it's like the difference between a speed skater and a hockey player. one is just fast and nothing else and the other is creative, which to me, is the essential beauty of music.

so shredding in itself doesn't suck, but many who shred do, cause that's all they do, and they are often the style to covet speed and think that's the goal of great musicianship.

but imo if you can't play slow and stand out from the rest, then a great musician you are not. but fast is a sometimes a real nice sound too, shred is sometimes a real nice sound too, it just isn't the be all end all.

whoever metnionned greg howe though, i think they made a good example from the youtube clip i dled. he does some shred in there but he's not just a simple pure shred.

by that same token also though, i find some musicians think that playing unpredictably and nothing but is great. using exotic scales and stuff like that, creating long complex chord progressions. or some scoff at 3 chord chord progressions. but truly nothing matters about theory when it comes to music. and judging music in that way i think is missing the point of music completely. that's why theory is kind of an illusion. people think it will show you how to play, tell you when to play what. but it doesn't any more than dictionnaries and grammar books teach you how to write great poetry.

but still, dictionnaires and grammar books are far from useless when it comes to writing poetry, although great poetry usually also mispells and make grammatical "errors" for effect, but if you put too much of those in there, your poetry just doesn't make any sense. although some do think that poetry that doesn't make sense is great in kind of emperor's new clothes kind of way. under the guise of "it's deep, but the meaning is lost on most people". and although that happens sometimes that poetry is hard to get, it also happens that it is just nonesense.

[JonR]

I think we're all in approximate agreement about this issue.

Maybe what annoys the people who say they hate shred is the attitude of some shred fans, who seem to appreciate nothing but the speed.
IOW, shred players are often great musicians as well as technically skilled. But the way they play appeals to a certain kind of mindset which is not interested in other aspects of music - they just want that "hit" of speed. (Anybody mention drugs? not me...)
When other musicians see that attitude, they despair of audiences appreciating "real" music, as if shred represents a dumbing down of musical appreciation. (Not the direct fault of the players, maybe, unless they do make a virtue of speed alone.)
(In a way, its a bit like a pop band being sold on their looks, because that's what girlie fans are supposed to go for - the music gets relegated, under-appreciated. Looking good; playing fast - both rather shallow aspects of entertainment.)

At the same time, beginner musicians can be blown away by sheer speed, in awe of technique, because they envy the skill not as a goal in itself but as a necessary step to achieve the goals they want to beyond that. ("Damn, if I had those chops, think of all the amazing music I'd be able to make")
In that sense i envy shred players as much as anyone. I wish I had that fluency.
At the same time, it's not a desperate desire. I can play fast enough (just about) to achieve all the effects I want, even though my max may be half that of the average shredder. I don't feel a need to impress audiences with my speed.
But maybe it's no better to feel a need to impress an audience with clever chord sequences, beautiful melodies, or expressive solos? Do we need to impress? Or do we need to express? Do they need us to express anything?

This touches on the reasons why any of us play music, or even listen to music, in the first place. Big questions! (and no "right" or "wrong" answers, as I think we all agree.)

[bluesking]

But maybe it's no better to feel a need to impress an audience with clever chord sequences, beautiful melodies, or expressive solos? Do we need to impress? Or do we need to express? Do they need us to express anything?


Very deep and philosophical musings. I think we all (to a certain & variable extent) seek to impress. Otherwise our expression will be met unfavourably and thats like a negative apraisal of self. No one can cope with that, surely? Even very abstract, avant-garde music seeks to impress a target audience, no matter how small or elite.

Still:
I hinkt sherd iz 4 n00bz, l0l! (ulnes its teh brootalz]! ...roflmaowpiahb... coz eye no all teh stRictest voice l33ding.

[fingerpikingood]

i'm not sure all music seeks audiences, but rather all audiences seek music. to me seeking an audience is artistic prostitution.

I personally play music only to please myself, only because it feels right. only to "impress" myself i guess. it's just pure honesty, not caring about what others might think of me. just saying what i wish to say.

I don't care what style i play, i don't care what sorts of social stigmas certain types of music have. i'll just play what i feel like at the time.

it's great when other people like the result though. they can share with me the same kind of pleasure. when i make music it sort of happens to me, so it's almost exactly as entertaining to me as it is for any audience, except i get a split second preview and sometimes saw some of the cut scenes.

i'm still trying to get faster. i find speed is great at times, basically my goal musically is to be able to play anything i can imagine.

i'd like to shred, but there are others things i'd like to do first too. plus i play acoustic so the term shred i don't find would the sound i would get as well really, but i could probably find fun ways to use that technique.

i don't find any technique can be for noobs. only what the technique is used for.

[bluesking]

i don't find any technique can be for noobs. only what the technique is used for.

Just my attempt at humour, good fellow....

Anyway, are you calling me a prostitute because I don't like to gig to an empty room? I've played gigs where the band outnumbers the audience. It is not a pleasant experience. I am glad your natural artistic streak attracts the whole world effortlessly to you whilst you can sit back and claim that any affirmation you receive is strictly unwelcome (or perhaps I should say irrelevant). To me it seems churlish to say to your audience (whoever they are in your case) that you simply don't care what they think.

[gersdal]

I've played gigs where the band outnumbers the audience. It is not a pleasant experience. But all too common... :mad: :D

[bluesking]

But all too common... :mad: :D

Its been a long time since I had one. The Canes have a good local following. Yeah, we play popular music. Some of it is a bit cheesy. But its all original and we have a lot of fun. We get the crowds in, they buy beer. We are happy, the crowds are happy, the pubs & club owners are happy. We even make enough cash to get into the studio at least once a year.

We played a festival a couple of weeks ago which was a bit depressing. The police were searching everyone for drugs, delaying everyone from getting in. Because we were the first on stage very few people had been let in yet. So there was probably only about 30-40 people there. Bit of a shame because we were hoping to get an audience of at least 300.

Anyway, what does it matter? I'm a prostitute.

[ChainsawGuitar]

Woah! I've only just looked back at this thread and it seems to be talking about just what I've been writing about.

In case you've wondered where I've been, I've been writing a series of blog posts on just the "shred vs melody" topic. Starting with this article:


How to Shred like a Pro in 3 Months (http://chainsawmaniac.blogspot.com/2009/09/how-to-shred-like-pro-in-3-months.html)

Total coincidence that this subject is also being discussed here -last I saw it was about modes... but then I suppose it's quite an important subject when it comes to music. I think I agree with most of the posts here aswell, especially the conversation analogy. Conversations, like music, have to convey meaning and aren't just about speed and impressiveness! However, that doesn't mean you can't say something impressive...

[Chim_Chim]

How do you "shred" on guitar?Slowly,accurately, and musically first. Then once you can do that, try speeding things up a bit.