I'm not going to rehash the picks, because their order really doesn't matter very much, other than to say there are certain names that pop up and always lead to sneering and derision. From the community's perspective, I understand why. From mine, I don't at all.
I like to draw a distinction between the terms 'guitar player' and 'guitarist'. We use them interchangeably, but I consider them very different takes on the same instrument. A guitar player is someone who plays the guitar, and can do amazing things from a technique and skill standpoint. A guitarist is someone who uses their guitar to make great music. You would think the music they play would obviously be a consideration, but I can't tell you how often I run across the attitude that chops and solos are all that matter when judging a guitar player.
Let's use a sports analogy here. Is the greatest quarterback the one who can throw the ball the hardest? Is the greatest golfer the one who can drive the ball the farthest? No, and no. Those are both skills, and they are impressive, but they aren't the point. There's a reason why home run derby and long drive competitions don't have regular, national television time-slots. They get boring very quickly, when you realize it's the same thing over and over again.
That is why I like to say something rather controversial; "___ is not a great guitarist." I usually fill that sentence in with Yngwie Malmsteen, but it can be any number of incredibly talented players. The reason I say that is because I have trouble saying people are good at what they do when they have never played a single note of music that has interested me. The point of music is not to be able to perform tricks with the fretboard, but to make good music. Isn't it?
I'm not sure if we can answer that question. There was a Steve Vai song that came out a while back, and after listening to it, I found it rather tuneless and just ok. In the guitar community, the video of him playing it on a multi-neck guitar in one take was a sensation, and it drove me absolutely crazy. If you have to watch someone play the music for it to be properly impressive, is the music actually impressive? I would say not. Music is not a visual art form, or at least it needs to be able to stand up as strictly audio, so those sorts of episodes make little sense to me.
Was it impressive to watch Vai play that song? Absolutely, it was. Would the actual song itself be any different if it was recorded in parts, and layered together in the studio? No, no it wouldn't.
And that's the problem with guitar playing. Ever since the glory days of classic rock, guitar players have been showmen who use their solos to try to rip attention away from the more obvious focal point at the front of the stage. We have always used solos as a shorthand for talent, with James Hetfield being perhaps the only player ever ranked so highly for his rhythm playing. That's only an entire side of guitar, and the side that allows for solos to even exist. Who needs that, right?
What I'm getting at is not a complaint over any of the people who are or aren't on the list, or where they rank. I really don't care enough to be outraged one way or the other. It's that when I see Kurt Cobain show up on a list like this, I completely understand it. What he has done with a guitar is more impressive than what Yngwie (Sorry, but I like beating up on the guy) has ever done; he's made people care. Writing memorable songs that have spoken to a generation of fans, songs that have stood the test of time, is a more important skill than sweep-picking or two-handed tapping.
If you want to prioritize technique and soloing when thinking about guitar players, go ahead. I'm not going to stop you, or tell you that you're wrong, but I would ask why writing songs is not the first and foremost thing that a guitarist should be known for. Music without music is what, exactly?
I like to think of the example of the novel, "Gadsby". It was written entirely without the letter 'e', and is a triumph of skill and determination as a writer. Does that make it any good, or the author a good writer? No, that fact is completely independent of its value as a work of art. Art is supposed to engage us, to make us feel something we can't get through any other means. A great story, or a great song, is able to do that. A parlor trick done with a guitar will not have that same impact, nor can it survive having the curtain pulled back on the illusion.
The point of all this is to say that people who are closest to something are often the worst judges of it. Musicians focus on aspects of music the majority of the audience can't even hear, and are amazed at the things they aren't able to do themselves, whether they even like the sound of them or not. There is an entire ecosystem of musicians who don't care about making music, but rather just the acts of making music, if that makes sense. There are so many guitar players who love playing guitar, but not playing music. I find myself wondering how their universe and mine can revolve around different centers.
Maybe I'm just a self-loathing guitarist, a guitar player who isn't impressed by guitar playing, because I know I'll never be able to play like that. I'm weird.
No comments:
Post a Comment