"Theres no soul, no feel" What are your thoughts?

[wakjob]

On the edge of break-up blues players. With their hand wired bow-ty-Q amps and vintage guitars.

Or 8+-string guitars with the latest fake amp gizmo playing as fast and complicated as they possibly can. 10 finger tappings and whatnot.

Don't care about either... whatever tickles your pickle.

I listen for Uniqueness. Someone who's willing to challenge people's ears with something daring. Thinking WAY out side the box. I like to hear 'off' notes. Things that don't sound quite right the first time you hear it, but after a few listens... you get it.

 

[Demiurge]

Okay, this reminds me of a saying i've heard here many times. "Music is a language". And if music is a language, then wouldn't guitar wank be akin to those 14 year old kids who've just entered their phase of "throw in as many unneeded complex words as possible in order to sound smart"? If book writers are not conveying more meaning by adding more words to a sentence. Why should our perspective be any different when it comes to music and adding more notes to a melody then the rhythm and time signature calls for?

In a way. One can pepper their prose with Scrabble-champion level words and look like a total hack, but it's also possible to use a wide vocabulary and produce rich, expressive text. It's just that it's much harder to do the latter than the former.

In music, the "no soul, no feel" accusation probably comes from the many who attempt complexity & technicality and have failed to make compelling music... and with the prevailing culture in rock being informed by blues and punk/grunge/keep-it-simple ethos (where complexity is the enemy), people on the outside will gladly harp on those failures and paint complex and technical music with the same broad brush.

 

[Indigenous]

It's such a subjective thing. I feel like soul isn't necessarily something that even has a place in music, but instead a word we use to describe how it makes us feel. There are 12 notes, and an infinite number of ways to play them to create different sounds, and people associate different feelings with different sounds. What I think turns a lot of people off from metal in general is the distinct sort of sound a lot of it has, which is angry sounding (in their ears) riffs in harmonic minor, or phrygian, or some combination of the two. (I know I'm being overly general, but I feel like this is how much of this music is perceived).

I suppose what I'm trying to say in a very long winded manner is that there are only 12 notes, and those notes don't have "soul." They're just notes. Music doesn't have soul; it's just waves vibrating in the air. The soul comes from the listeners interpretation of those waves.

 

[fps]

I think there's a discussion to be had about the production values of modern metal recordings and what they have done to the feel of heavy music. If every note is being altered to a grid or played and replayed and comp'd and quantized then for sure the feel, and soul, of a player of any instrument is being obscured. Often this is because these things are lacking in the first place, and so the player's actual playing is being masked, in favour of comping together a miracle take. As with autotune, if this is the case, then it's not that there's no soul or feel, rather that both have been erased. Often it's for the best though, because the players are attempting to perform music in a way that is beyond their capabilities. THIS is the problem I have with a lot, mainly, of modern metal music production. There's no give or take between the band members, no communication, often it feels like everyone goes to a separate tiny room and plays to a click track. Which is actually what recording is I guess! But take the new Down record, that sounds like a BAND, that recorded an album TOGETHER. And that's much more fun to me.

People who think all of Petrucci's playing has no soul just have no idea what they're talking about, it's as close to being objectively wrong as someone can be.

 

[Dayn]

I think it's pretty objective, actually. There's no empirical evidence for souls.

Problem solved.

 

[CannibalKiller]

I couldn't sum up the way I feel about this. Devy to the rescue!

 

[fps]

I couldn't sum up the way I feel about this. Devy to the rescue!

Love this video!

 

[oompa]

I've thought a lot about this over the nearly 20 years I've played the guitar.
The most satisfying conclusion that I have stuck with for a while now though is this:

There is only one group of people who would say "yeah he is fast but it sucks because there is no feeling, this guy is slow but he is better bc more feel":

Players with shitty technique.

Many quality guitarists out there would argue that there is feely music that is extremely complex (tech death f.e.) and there is feely music that is extremely simple (blues i.e), and of course the other way around, the level of complexity has little to do with it, which to me is a sound way of looking at it.

However if your technique is so bad that you are limited to your 3 chord camp fire songs and frown at players like Loomis because "he is all speed and Bob Dylan is the bestest guitarist", you are simply too bad at the instrument to get it. You have never understood the work they put in, you don't get why this sweep is extremely difficult and that other one takes 10 mins to learn LOL. Or you just might not get why that chord progression is sexier than a rap video because for all they know there exist only the three chords A D and G and that would be about it?

Sorry, what I mean to say is just that I have concluded that the only people I hear complaining or even having an opinion about the lack of feel in technical music are people who have really bad technique themselves.

"music is about expressing yourself - not a technique contest" they say.

well if you have heard 200 million clowns express themselves about their teenage crush (which is perfectly unique from all the other 200 billion teenage crushes mankind has had between them the past 100.000 years), with C, D and G chords, you might want to look around to see what else there is to do with this plank with strings on it. Not everyone wants more and that's fine, but I and many others do

"So you think this 3-chord Led Zeppelin song is crap LOL" they say.

No Led Zepplin is one of my top 5 bands of all time, there are many brilliant 3 chord songs out there, that does not mean that a completely mind-blowing phrygian-lydian alternating passage over scarily dissonant chords this weird band plays does not tingle my spine. That for me can be just as sexy. But alas, they will never understand.

They'll walk away thinking I misunderstood the beauty of music which is just open expression of your soul through C, D and G or maybe a minor scale if the Gods will it, and I walk away drawing parallels to that guy who questioned the point of ever hearing a new joke when he already knew one that was funny.

 

[Duelbart]

It's quite simple - if you express something by music, it has soul. If you play for the sake of using your fingers or for practice it doesn't have soul.


Unfortunately, only the composers know if they created a music piece with an idea or an emotion to express, so judging anyone else's music in terms of feeling is stupid and pointless.

 

[Kurkkuviipale]

^I wouldn't say its the composer who is always right here. If some people like to hear that flight of the bumblebee at 1000bmp what does it take away from the ones listening to it at the speed it was originally played. It's all subjective and any sound created anywhere may sound music to someone and they might feel some serious emotions trough it. Please, never take the right to it away from them. It would make me a sad panda.

 

[vampiregenocide]

Depends on the context of the music. Sometimes playing works if it sounds cold and calculated, and sometimes it needs a bit of feel to it. Both styles are tools to be used when needed.

 

[fps]

I've thought a lot about this over the nearly 20 years I've played the guitar.
The most satisfying conclusion that I have stuck with for a while now though is this:

There is only one group of people who would say "yeah he is fast but it sucks because there is no feeling, this guy is slow but he is better bc more feel":

Players with shitty technique.

Many quality guitarists out there would argue that there is feely music that is extremely complex (tech death f.e.) and there is feely music that is extremely simple (blues i.e), and of course the other way around, the level of complexity has little to do with it, which to me is a sound way of looking at it.

However if your technique is so bad that you are limited to your 3 chord camp fire songs and frown at players like Loomis because "he is all speed and Bob Dylan is the bestest guitarist", you are simply too bad at the instrument to get it. You have never understood the work they put in, you don't get why this sweep is extremely difficult and that other one takes 10 mins to learn LOL. Or you just might not get why that chord progression is sexier than a rap video because for all they know there exist only the three chords A D and G and that would be about it?

Sorry, what I mean to say is just that I have concluded that the only people I hear complaining or even having an opinion about the lack of feel in technical music are people who have really bad technique themselves.

"music is about expressing yourself - not a technique contest" they say.

well if you have heard 200 million clowns express themselves about their teenage crush (which is perfectly unique from all the other 200 billion teenage crushes mankind has had between them the past 100.000 years), with C, D and G chords, you might want to look around to see what else there is to do with this plank with strings on it. Not everyone wants more and that's fine, but I and many others do

"So you think this 3-chord Led Zeppelin song is crap LOL" they say.

No Led Zepplin is one of my top 5 bands of all time, there are many brilliant 3 chord songs out there, that does not mean that a completely mind-blowing phrygian-lydian alternating passage over scarily dissonant chords this weird band plays does not tingle my spine. That for me can be just as sexy. But alas, they will never understand.

They'll walk away thinking I misunderstood the beauty of music which is just open expression of your soul through C, D and G or maybe a minor scale if the Gods will it, and I walk away drawing parallels to that guy who questioned the point of ever hearing a new joke when he already knew one that was funny.

I don't know about this, you're lumping all players who have technical ability into the same boat, when every player is different.

 

[CannibalKiller]

There is a fine line between Jeff Loomis and Viraemia. Jeff Loomis has the ability to portray emotions through technical playing, whereas Viraemia is just endless sweeps on a 10 string bass.

 

[Sinborn]

this is like people hating on Nickelback or Godsmack for being too simple. Like the old MMO phrase goes: "if you play more than me, you have no life. if you play less, then you are a noob"

 

[skisgaar]

It's just people trying to justify a distaste for music, or the fact they can't play it. I will happily admit, I am not a big fan of Reflections, but I am seriously envious of their skill. It's not my cup of tea, and to be in the position I'm on on guitar, and where they are, that distaste turns into a dysfunctional argument. It's only human, but that doesn't mean it's right, and so on videos like that, I keep my fucking mouth shut.

 

[Duelbart]

^I wouldn't say its the composer who is always right here. If some people like to hear that flight of the bumblebee at 1000bmp what does it take away from the ones listening to it at the speed it was originally played. It's all subjective and any sound created anywhere may sound music to someone and they might feel some serious emotions trough it. Please, never take the right to it away from them. It would make me a sad panda.

What I meant has nothing to do with taste. My point was that an artist either has something to say through a medium and it has soul or feeling or whatever you want to call it, or it's practicing scales in different neck positions.

Now, you may love his Emaj runs and find his other work that he's put a lot of soul and emotion into horrible, tasteless, emotionless, banal etc., but you can't judge whether he put his expressive powers into what sound to you like random scale wankery or cohesive and beautiful chord progressions (he may have just slapped some chords for practice after all).

That's my point, to judge "soulness" of art is like... I don't know. I have no comparison. It's just wrong.

 

[Ben.Last]

It is absolutely not always a case of musicians being bitter about not being able to play as good as these guitarists. That's incredibly naive. The pov wouldn't be so pervasive if that was all it was. This is as concept that even non-musicians have. There IS a tipping point between art and obsession with technique. A perfectly played sweep exercise does not a song make. That exercise extended out to 5 minutes still does not a song make.

 

[slowro]

just means the person complaining is not into that music.
some guy mashing their way through a pentatonic box is not the be all and end all of "feel"

 

[TreWatson]

i put it like this, fast leads aren't bad (they're most definitely impressive technique-wise), but they're not inventive, and they're HARDLY what i'd call interesting.

playing jazz leads in school taught me one thing if nothing else: it's called a lead becase it is supposed to pull your attention to it, and hold it.

maybe its just me, but if a solo has interesting content, i pay attention, whereas if someone just goes shred-mode the whole way through, i'm not really listening for the notes and how it drives the actual music being performed.

or simply put, no one finishes hearing a solo and says to their friend "man, i love how he played that one lydian flat-fifth flat-9th scale REALLLY fast."

 

[oompa]

I don't know about this, you're lumping all players who have technical ability into the same boat, when every player is different.

You are right, and I think you misunderstood me because I just didn't explain myself very well

I meant to say that I don't really care about how good the technique of a player is if I'm asked to have an opinion on how well I feel the guy playing.

Hell some of the punk bands have the crappiest technique known to man but boy do they mean it when they play that A5. And I love it.

I am not trying to speak for all the players who have decent technique to some degree.

I am just claiming my right to provide one argument, which should be as good as anyone else's (my right that is), to why feel has little to do with technique and that is this:

People who hide behind the argument that you have to choose between technique and feel because you can't have both are people who themselves only have one, and it isn't technique.

I wish they would realize that just because they learn a tad bit of theory or clean up their picking does not mean they automatically lost their soul in the process