My opinion on shredding

[ReinierK]

Hiya,

I might not make friends with this post, but it's not an attack, just an opinion ;)

I personally admire people who can rip solo's out like it's a piece of cake, honoustly. BUT, I always miss something with big solo players... I always miss some kind of emotion (it's not that they don't play with emotion, it's just an other type of emotion).

I personally admire Matthew Bellamy of MUSE. And I actually don't even know why :) He has a horrible technique (like barré fretting chords with his pinky and stuff ;)), but he puts a rather nice amount of emotion in his playing. He might not be any good at playing 'solo's', but he always has catchy riffs, even some very uptempo one's.

I don't know, I rather be playing like that, then playing like EVH... Anyone agree, or do I just have to hide from now on? :D

Cheers!

B.t.w.: it might be the singing too... I sing too, and I feel much more free while singen than playing guitar, this might be an explanation why I don't really like shredding.

[Cuno]

Hi!

This matter has been discussed very thoroughlly here on the forums, search for 'emotion shred' or something and you might find some interesting viewpoints.

Ok, it may be easy to forget about the 'art' of music when you're up to your ears in theory and/or technique. Perspective is a good thing. So is tolerance. And even technical abilites. And food and stuff...but i digress ;) Search the forums.

[debaser]

I think Matt Bellamy is a really talented guy. He obviously has a really strong background in theory to be able to come up with those arrangements and chord progressions. Also, I don't think he has really shown what he's capable of on guitar yet. "Stockholm Syndrome," has some pretty cool guitar playing in it, even if it's not that technically difficult.

Having said all that, it's pretty obvious that Muse are a song-oriented band. I think that makes a comparison between Bellamy and Vai, or whoever, kind of pointless. They aren't really shooting for the same thing, and that goes for any band - Johnny Greenwood, Adam Jones, Billy Corgan, Dave Navarro, Mike Einziger et al are not out to achieve the same thing that a shredder is going for, which is the deepest exploration of their instrument possible - they are supporting songs. Both perspectives have value, and I don't think that they are necessarily in oposition to one another.

[shred4Him]

You are correct when you say that some shredding is pretty emotionless. Then again, there are tons of songs without solos that are emotionless. What makes a song good depends totally on what the listener values. I love VanHalen. Not huge Vai fan. Love Satriani. Not a big Yngwie fan. There are some shredders that I love, and others I am not really big on. That is not to say that one is better than another, just that some have what I value and others don't really have much of what I am looking for. My favorite guitarists are Andy Timmons, Nuno Bettencourt, Reb Beach, Richie Kotzen. Reb Beach isn't up to the technical abilities of the others I mentioned, but he is really good and has that "something" that makes him stand out to me. I used to be a huge John Petrucci fan, but as I change so do my tastes(I won't call it maturing since that would be disrespectful to what Petrucci does). He is still a favorite, but he has slipped a little as my tastes change. I guess I am more into melodic playing that has a strong blues influence. Others may not be able to stand these players. That is why there are so many types of music. Not everybody likes the same things. No big deal. Get what you like and play what you like. There is an audience out there for it so do it.

[UltimaRage]

Probably the most emotional shredders I've listened to would probably have to be Greg Howe, Jason Becker, Richie Kotzen and most definately Tony Macalpine.

[wild_child]

i think that matt bellamy's playing is overrated. good nonetheless, but magazines like kerrang! are marketing him as some sort of technical master which he is not, he uses far too many effects for my tastes, his guitar often sounds like a synthesyser.
i must agree that he is talented - i mean he is a good pianist as well and has a pretty impressive vocal range (although why does he put distortion behind his voice..? i think thats cheating a bit)
but now people keep asking me stuff like 'play some muse, their stuff is so hard to do' and i'm just thinking 'who told them that?' well its the media obviously. you know, the amount of muse i have seen on tv in the past 6 months is rediculous.. but i guess its whats in demand so thats what i'll get.
however who i think is underrated is muse's bassist! he is the backbone, playing all the hooks and stuff while matt goes off on a synth bender. oh well, thats the way theyre marketed so thats the way people will see them i guess.

i saw deicide on scuzz the other day though, that i was very happy about, the song 'scars of the crucifix' i think it was. that song has it all; tapping, sweeping etc, maybe now the kids will see what it is to be a technical master of their guitar - whether they like it or not is up to them (or up to what the tv tells them)

but anyway yes; technical skill and musical talent are two very different things, but you gotta agree that one compliments the other and the same the other way round.
the simplest idea is equally good as the most complex, but without feeling both are meaningless.

[Alan(Lost)]

Originally posted by debaser
I think Matt Bellamy is a really talented guy. He obviously has a really strong background in theory to be able to come up with those arrangements and chord progressions.

Go and get yourself a recording of Rachmaninov's Piano Concerto No.3 in D minor, and listen to the first theme in the first movement. Then go and listen to "Megalomania" (final track on Origin Of Symmetry). You might be pleasantly surprised (in Homer Simpson voice!).

Then go and listen a bit further into that first movement, and you'll hear something which reminds you of Space Dementia for some mysterious unknown reason.

And the thing that pisses me off about all that is I've only discovered Rachmaninov's music after hearing copied bits in Muse music, which I got to love.

M.B. is not technically a great guitarist. As he said himself "I gave up doing exercises when I was 16 or something" and "I'm good at some things, pretty crap at others".

He can do fancy crossover arpeggios on piano, but the "fancy" list pretty much ends there!. It's all he does really.


Liking Shred is just a taste. I would choose Muse music over it anyday. I only listen to Paul Gilbert and Malmsteen because I want to see what's possible because I want to be able to do all that stuff, regardless of whether I'll use it or not (with my band). But I'm focusing on technical playing, not speed playing. Speed is technical, but technical is not speed. Slow(ish) arpeggios are technical on guitar, because it's a specific technique. And it's something I'm striving to do; fuse technical playing with standard UK rock music (it's an ongoing problem with my band that we're compared to Muse, mainly because of my classical influences, and we also like heavy riffs!).
Shred is just a tiny aspect of the whole musical spectrum, which is why it tires out pretty quickly.

[Alan(Lost)]

And about Chris Wolstenholme; he's a superb bassist, and really underated. When they played here in Dublin last week he was doing some great basswork, including a solo bit with tapping and stuff.

In general he's a solid bassist. I saw a little clip of the recording of their song "Falling Away With You" (also here in Ireland!), and he plays an arpeggio bit in the choruses, playing with total ease and fluency.

And also, I can't bop my head for 5 seconds without getting a headache. He does it for the whole damn 90+ minutes of thier gigs!

[fret70]

I'd like to put in my 2 cents. I was watching the latest G3 Denver Concert and I while i found myself in awe with the proficiency and technical abilities of Yngwie, I quickly became bored with his playing. I will never be able to play that fast, but I don't desire to because it sounds repetitious(meaning-he knows just one speed-ULTRAFAST). On the other hand Satriani and Vai showed much more of a varied style and shredded only when the time was right for it.
I think that emotion is relative to the listener. Any artist who truly can be characterized as a "shredder" has an emotional level we mortals will never reach because we don't spend 12+ hours a day practicing our chops-thats emotion. However, the effects and imagery impressed upon the listeners ear plays a big part in determining how "emotional" a player "sounds" and not necessarily "is".

[fret70]

I'd like to put in my 2 cents. I was watching the latest G3 Denver Concert and I while i found myself in awe with the proficiency and technical abilities of Yngwie, I quickly became bored with his playing. I will never be able to play that fast, but I don't desire to because it sounds repetitious(meaning-he knows just one speed-ULTRAFAST). On the other hand Satriani and Vai showed much more of a varied style and shredded only when the time was right for it.
I think that emotion is relative to the listener. Any artist who truly can be characterized as a "shredder" has an emotional level we mortals will never reach because we don't spend 12+ hours a day practicing our chops-thats emotion. However, the effects and imagery impressed upon the listeners ear plays a big part in determining how "emotional" a player "sounds" and not necessarily "is".

[ReinierK]

I think you guys are pretty right about the classical 'copying' of Matthew, but he does far more than just that ;)

Especially on the new album he has some serious piano going on...

And for the distortion behind his voice part: he only does it on some songs (and even then, not always)... He has a magnificent range (read: into the high notes), but he kinda lacks the low notes...

Like, I can almost sing as high as him, but I can sing almost an octave lower than him...

Well... I still adore the technicians as much as the 'talented' guys... Just wished I was one of them ;)

[debaser]

Yeah, I'm familiar with Rachmaninov's piano concerto No. 3. I got interested in it after seeing that movie "Shine," about the pianist David Helfgott. I never made the Muse connection, maybe because the chord progressions that they use seem to show up in much more modern contexts than Rachmaninov(ie. Radiohead songs). Nonetheless, it does take a solid understanding of chord resolution to steal something like that, as opposed to a Nirvana song.

When thinking about guitarists who play for the band, particularly from the UK, I can't help thinking that Brian May is the perfect example of someone how blends virtuosic technique with a strong(read: unbelievable) sense of melody. He's not a shredder per se, but he also never reveals his limitations, while still producing some pretty impressive stuff on occasion.

I'm also not sure that we know how low Matthew Bellamy can sing, to say for sure that someone can sing a whole octave below him. Just a thought.

[nate]

I love shredding and I think it can be quite emotional, and I also think Yngwie is one of the most emotional of the technically fluent
guitarists and not not all of his work is blazing with speed, some of it is slow, emotional and very melodic like Overture 1383 and I forgot to mention Randy Rhoads, he is just as emotional as slash
in most of his work while still retaining a technical aspect to his playing.

[Alan(Lost)]

But the Rachmaninov chord progression AND melody from that first movement IS copied by Matt Bellamy and used in their song "Megalomania". Of course there's no way to prove it, but what is proof? There are far far too many variables for it to be a coincidence.

About the Rachmaninov style progression used in Radiohead songs (and others), this isn't true at all. What makes it a "Rachmaninov" style progression is use of inversions, diminished chords, chromatic basslines, extended chords...etc. Radiohead songs are mainly just plain old rock basic chords. Sure, there are some inversions etc. in Radiohead songs, but it's just not part of their style and music, probably because they run into it by chance.

[Oliver Maison]

Regarding Rachmaninov and other classical composer/performers, it seems to me that the only instrument to be attack as being 'flash' is the electric guitar I've rarely heard it about other instruments (I have obviosly heard it just not as often).

Violinist can do some crazy things and no one seems to mind, same with Saxaphone, have you ever accused a Sax player to showing off? Piano is the only other one I find gets a lot of stick.

But why? I mean is there somthing wrong with playing well, Sure you might not like it but and thats ok but when people (Not saying any one here is) start saying it's pointless or emiontless weirds me out a bit, The listner may not think it is, but thats just taste, like I think custard is horrible, does'nt means it pointless.

When I'm sitting around playing the Piano, and peopel are standing around I always like to play the best I can. And when someone say "Show off" it really annyes me, "Sorry do you want me to play badly?".

I'm not sure what my point is and I'm taking a long time explain it but it's strange.

Alot of the time people are focused on streotype, such as if I play Blues I'll be more emotional, or if I play punk I'll be more fun and aggresive, And they don't focus on actually being emoitional and/or aggresive. Mozart is very technical yet boring, Tchaicovsky is very technical and I think he playing is beutiful, and aggresive. Also bands like Led zeppelin were'nt really clever, Some of there songs were, but compared to say Yes or ELP there were'nt but they still rocked, There solos were really amazing amazing either. Then bands like Bon jovi and Euopre etc were playing big flash solos and people now a days say oh Zepplin rock way harder than Jovi, which is true but they think it has, in part, to do with flash solos. I think thats wrong not having solos does'nt make your band good, being good does. If Page had played like Vai they would still rule, and same goes if had played like any of us.It is is'nt about that they were flash or not flash either way they would have been great, so having a flashness does'nt make you bad either.

Sorry this has taking alot of space but I'm a little bored.

Still the question remains "Can we Rock 'and' Think and the same time?

[Alan(Lost)]

If you're playing an instrument and an observer comments "show off" or whatever, this is a complex held with the observer. This person is never someone who can play the same, otherwise they wouldn't make the comment. Unless they say "show off" in a joking manner, it is out of discomfort; they want you to stop, they are uncomfortable with the attention it bring to you and not to them, and there's nothing they can do about it except make abusive comments.

I know this because I've had lots of it in the past, in lots of different situations with people who I know the personalities of, so I can understand why they feel the need to make comments like "show off".

We played a gig with a band a couple of weeks ago, and the guitarist out of the band was a serious shredder with superb Gilbert-like technical skill. I didn't like it, and always avoid shred in our songs. But I didn't think "uh, show-off, grr", even though he was probably technically better than me. I just though "hmm, I don't like this,....but damn he's good technically", as I always have respect for talent, whether it's technical, or compositional, or whatever.

[debaser]

I know this is off-topic, but I don't agree with your observations about the chords that Radiohead uses. Of course, I'm not talking about "Karma Police," or "Creep." HOwever, the album Amnesiac has a lot of chord progressions that are far from standard rock chords. In general, I would stand by my original statement that Muse uses nearly identical resolutions in more than half of their songs.

To get back on topic, it is true that people don't accuse of sax players and violinists of being emotionless. That's an interesting point. On the other hand, I don't think that anyone here could argue that Michael Angelo's playing is even close to the level of musicality that you hear in John Coltrane, Charlie Parker, or Itzhak Perlman. People also don't generally accuse John Mclaughlin of playing too fast, because he is never strictly running scales and apreggios - it all serves a purpose, which may be the dividing line, I think.

[Bongo Boy]

Originally posted by Oliver Maison
I think custard is horrible, [but that] doesn't mean it's pointless.That's a great way of putting it...I hope you don't mind me paraphrasing. This is clearly an emotional topic...but it really is a personal preference thing. I personally see a big difference between technically proficient and musically proficient, and I think there's a lot of overlap.

If you find it enjoyable (or way more than enjoyable), then it has a point--regardless of what it is. Once again, there is the music, there is the performer, then there is the performance itself. Folks enjoy seeing the performance just as much as they do hearing the performance. Stage theatrics ARE showing off, to a degree, and it's part of the whole experience.

One defining aspect of this site is that, while most folks here know that I (for example) don't enjoy any aspect of the shred thing, everyone here still helps me & puts up with my sluggish brain. We should all appreciate this aspect of the site.

As long as I respect other people's skills, talents and tastes--respect musicians, guitarists and other instrumentalists--I'll be welcome here, and THAT's why the site is a Special Case of the applied internet.

The most recent issue of Guitar Player had the usual Letter to the Editor with a complaint about a guy who was on the cover of the previous issue. The complaint? The writer acknowledged that the guy on the cover was 'probably a great guitarist', but felt he shouldn't have been featured on the cover because he was more interested in a music career in pop than in his craft of guitarism.

I HAVE heard stupider comments, but it's rare.

[wild_child]

the interview with Zakk Wylde in TG this month applies really well to this thread. I'll quote a few bits of what he says:

If you can play fast it just shows youre dedicated to the instrument and you practice. Whenever they say a guy doesn't have any feel, all they have to do is listen to his vibrato and you know what the ****'s going on.

Those late 80's metal guys were ****in' terrible: it's fast just for the sake of it. And the tone would be ****ty. Its like a chick giving you a ****in' blow job, and instead of her slowing down its like 'what are you trying to do, rip that thing the **** off? You're giving me rug burns down there, man.' Your cock has, like, three layers of skin ripped off.

and my favorite :D

Listen, you lazy mother****er, if you ****in' practiced then maybe you'd be able to play fast!

Zakk IS the man :cool:

[debaser]

He's a great guitar player, but I can't get behind the whole blow-job analogy no matter how much I agree with what he's trying to say.

[RandyEllefson]

Respecting something we don't particularly like is the key, but too often someone has to flame the style they don't like. I remember a guy in high school always telling me Kirk Hammett of Metallica sucked and that I should listen to Rush, and Alex Lifeson. His approach hardly made me want to listen to them, you know? I still remember that every time I hear a Rush song.

"Can't we all just get along?"

[oRg]

To me it's a matter of expression. If a guitarist is really good he can really put his emotion through his solo. Sometimes it's a fast-pased solo with loads of harmonics and other things. But most solos/shred is basically based on classical music and classical phrases. There are some with blues. I tend to be able to hear the "soul" of blues solos more than I do of classical. It's all a matter of taste. There's an old latin proverb that goes "De gustibus non est dispuntandum" and it means "tastes are not to be argued". Which in lamens means everyone has a different opinion and thus has different tastes of music, food, etc etc. Not all good guitarists are super-fast shredders. Look at Zakk Wylde. He can play some really slow and awesome music. Even when he plays his stuff he's not playing as fast as he could. He knows full well how to do alot of the tapping and sweeping that EVH and JS do, but it's just not his taste. He respects and admires them but those techniques are there's not his.

[steffyweffy777]

But why? I mean is there something wrong with playing well, Sure you might not like it but and thats ok but when people (Not saying any one here is) start saying it's pointless or emiontless weirds me out a bit, The listner may not think it is, but thats just taste, like I think custard is horrible, does'nt means it pointless........

Also bands like Led zeppelin were'nt really clever, Some of there songs were, but compared to say Yes or ELP there were'nt but they still rocked, There solos were really amazing amazing either. Then bands like Bon jovi and Euopre etc were playing big flash solos and people now a days say oh Zepplin rock way harder than Jovi, which is true but they think it has, in part, to do with flash solos. I think thats wrong not having solos does'nt make your band good, being good does. If Page had played like Vai they would still rule, and same goes if had played like any of us.It is is'nt about that they were flash or not flash either way they would have been great, so having a flashness does'nt make you bad either.


I disagree, I say a solo is very important as it is where the song is elading upto and the emotional melody contained within the solo at that point has to 'hti the nail on the nead' to really complete that section.

Vai would have ruined Led Zeppelin if eh was in it, as he is so clinical that it sounds bad. Jimmy Page was abit rusty as you can hear from his playing at times, and I ahve seen some tributes to Led Zeppelin, which are note perfect but sound lacking, because I guess the irony is, Jimmy Page's tight but loose technique meant it always had something to it, and it's odd, as i am no Jimmy page, but because I am so rusty all the time as I am abit like page in that i dissapear into some quest to find some ancient secret or something, it means I am nto always playing and have that loose feel like Pagey has....though i can't play like him....but even so he would make the playing easier for himself if he could by changing tunings....why not !

John Paul Jones once told some guitarist who was worried about wanting to be as good as Pagey, "Not taking anything away from jimmy's ability, but if Jimmy can play it, so can you..." which basically means anyone who can learn guitar well can learn zeppelin songs, but their songs are not simple or not so clever as you put it Oliver, but accessible....you see, i don't like the way you said led Zeppelin's songs 'weren't clever'.

sure a beginner can strum Tangerine, but that's the genius, it's simple but nobody else thought of it, and it's an amazingly beautiful song.
Jimmy page is a genius of composition and production, and this makes them still the best ever metal rock act by which every band compares themselves against, as they could do what was needed to make amazing rock songs. They may not be complex as Rachmaninov or Malmsteen, but maybe that's because Jimmy wasn't like Vai, but lets say Vai was a good as Jimmy at composing and happened to make the same compositions but with more complexity, I guess led Zeppelin may have still kept their tight but loose feel, or lost it, but the music wouldhave been amazing justt he same, mayeb a few more notes inbetween the solos and so, but yeah i can say they would have been as good, but maybe not, if the feel of that looseness wasn't there, and also because music is aboutt he gaps and what you don't play, maybe led Zeppelin wouldn't have been as good if the style was more complex for that reason.....

To say that led Zeppelin 'weren't clever' because the complexity you talk of was lacked, implies that only technical virtuosity is what makes a band more clever ! but this is nonsense, as even if Jimmy could play like Vai or Malmsteen, he would be clever enough to realise that that sort of playing and speed would not work for the songs he wrote, so he would not play it.
The songs did the job intended, and 'Stairway To Heaven' cannot sound better, and no other song carries the feel it does.
So much so people thought and still think led Zeppelin are so good at writing a magical song that they invented rumours claiming they sold their souls to the devil etc, just because people couldn't just accept they were a decent band of guys who could write amazing music, and many bands come and go trying to unlock this 'secret' !!

Shred has it's place, just short snippets interspered here and there in a song when needed, but an album of shred can feel like eating an entire box of belgium chocolates, so rich and refined that after the 10th chocolate till the 20th, you start to feel nausea and sick !!!!

Remember, what is clever is how good a song sounds....and good musicianship isn't about how complex or fast you can play, but how creative you are and if you can convey that creativity....

people criticise shredders not because they are jealous or because they play well, because whether you play like Muse or Malmsteen, it's all about if a song sounds good. Sure you can play like punks or shredders, and either willhave good or bad songs, but i think the reason people criticise shredders is becasue wehn someone like Kurt Cobain comes along and changes the world's music and plays some amazing songs, Malmsteen gets annoyed and criticises him saying he should first learn to play guitar before forming a band......

This has created a gap where alot of people learn shredd to 'show off' to imply that they are more talented because they can play drills at 1000bps etc, but the whole question is not about this, as anyone who has musical ability or not, can with the neccesary time and patience, play like Malmsteen if they want to spend their lives in their bedroom and be lucky enough to never need to go to work and do anything else with their lives and just spend all their living hours on this stuff.
Sure, some can do this only playing 4 hours a day, but you know, i think the problem is that alot of people know they could shredd but prefer to spoend their time writing good songs which may haev less notes and still be amazing, or may think a shredd solo sounds abit excessive where a bluesrock lick might just do the job !

I guess guitarists who are frustrated and bored of being called 'crap' get annoyed with shredders who claim they are no good simply because they would rather spend time on songwriting than scales.
Guess it's the fear of being considered elss talented than shredders which people hate, as it always makes them feel they have to prove they are any good as guitarists !

The reality is most guitarists could play like any shredder as it's just all about time and practice, but they might not want to.....so shredders should stop trying to label non-shredders as inadequate.

My cousin is better than malmsteen, he taught himself clasisc rock songs before he was a teen, and plays like malmsteen and Van halen, and Greg Howe, and is no only 18 !!!!!!!
But now he refuses to play shredd saying it's tasteless, and when i force him to play, he looks at me in disgust and criticises his playing style, and then stops and plays some jazz, and funky stuff which is complex but not always so embellished, and even favours some fingerstyle and strummed stuff, but if he didn't know how to shredd, (and says he is not as good at it as he won't play it anymore ) people would say he wasn't as technical or as 'good' as...whoever !!!!

I say this, i love all music aslong as it does the job.....personally i think if you want complex and technical but creatively inspiring then RUSH's Alex Lifeson, and Triumph's Rik Emmet, are fantastic....

Nuno bettencourt in Extreme was the best form of shred and songwriting, as the stuff is amaizng and never ages, unlike other stuff during that era.

[TMV]

On this subject< I think I might have studied longer than most others. When the guitar became king in the fifties and sixties, it was not all that uncommon to hear a player go into a lead that was not even part of the original album. That was because they were more interested in playing in co-ordination and in concert with other musician's. In fact, they thought nothing of a screw up left on their album. They just looked at it as a part of the creation process.They weren't stuck on being technically perfect for the entertainment of the fan's. They were concerned with making their kind of music more vital because of the humanity played in the music. They looked at each other as a building organism of the music. And that the mistakes are what brought life to the music.

It wasn't debilitating to play with other musicians and bring others into the group. And they would feed the music as it flowed from on eto the other. It was group participation!

Now the musicians are as concerned with the technical process once again. Every note has to be perfect on and off the stage. It's defined as professionalism. And in that professionalism some have begun to feed on their emotions by introverting their music. In doing such, the sweet undulations of a lengthy note are considered by some as deep emotions. But saying that "Shredding carries no emotion is the same as saying that regular musician's don't have the serious dedication of a "thrasher".

It's a simple divergence in isolationism, as different as the form's are, they do meet as well. Thrash works through an indulgence in testosterone. the faster you work the more fury and dominance is felt through the frantic desperation of feeding on music! And then, through the average form, the adrenaline is tasted on like wine. Slowly and lovingly. I do so hope that nobody gets the wrong idea here, Both forms have a great demand on their emotions through testosterone. And yes, women feed on testosterone as well. One is demanding and one is nuturing upon the same needs. Just like the people in the world. There is always emotion in music. The question isn't, "how come they don't feel emotion?" But, "what kind of person feels the emotion that comes!" So it isn't that one or the other becomes distant from the passion, but just how we all suckle at the passion that we feel!