Just read a great article in Guitar Jam Daily entitled: Industry Insider: The Cobain Backlash and it got me thinking about what really makes a guitarist great. I know, this is such a subjective thing that if you ask ten different people, you’ll get ten different answers. But I’d like to posit an idea about what makes a guitarist great. The idea hit me because of its simplicity, and it’s simply this: Musicality. I know, rather nebulous but – at least in my opinion – it’s the one word that truly captures the many facets of a guitarist’s greatness. It’s also a term that isn’t limited by style or genre.
I began thinking about musicality being the key to measuring guitar prowess several months ago after reading an interview in Guitar Player with Ana Vidovic, THE babe of classical guitar. In that piece she talked about really focusing on her musicality, and got me thinking about my own musicality, which then lead me to thinking about musicality being the true measure of a guitarist’s greatness.
So what’s musicality? To put it simply, musicality is the relationship between instrumental technique and musical expression. Achieving a close relationship between the two requires a certain level of virtuosity in the instrument you’re playing and also a thorough understanding of the music being played: Where volume or rhythmic or expression characteristics can be applied within the body of a song. A truly musical musician will add subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) nuances to the things they’re playing; and while quantifying musicality can be a difficult thing, it’s very easy to discern between a musician with a high degree of musicality and someone who isn’t quite as musical.
Unfortunately, many of the guitar magazines out there seem to focus on shredders, so it has warped a lot of people’s views on who would or could be a great guitarist. In their view, the faster you play the better. But speed doesn’t mean at thing as far as musicality is concerned. But as long as we’re talking about speed, let’s look at a couple of pure, lightspeed-quick shredders: Yngvie Malmstein and Herman Li of Dragonforce. Herman Li is incredibly fast and he has tons of tricks up his sleeve. But listen to a few Dragonforce songs, and you realize that he’s using the same licks in practically every song. Where’s the musicality in that. On the other hand, Yngvie has so much more control not only over his speed and dynamics but also the tonal characteristics of the various phrases within his leads. So where Herman is a super great guitar technician, Yngvie is a true maestro.
But let’s not just look at shredders. Remember, musicality is not genre specific. What’s important is the relationship a guitarist builds between his or her guitar with the songs they play. From that perspective, let me list just a few of my favorite great guitarists:
- James Taylor
- Albert King
- Elliot Smith
- Joaquin Lievano
- Neal Schon
This by no means is a complete list. I listed guitarists from different genres. None of them were the fastest, and in Elliot Smith’s case, not necessarily a real technician per se, but each brought a very definite musicality to the table in all the songs they play(ed).
So next time you want to compare what guitarist is better, you might think about comparing them on a different level other than speed and technique and ask, “Just how musical is this player?”
Guitar Gear 
Judging by the picture, cleavage seems to help.
I agree that you cant judge a guitar player against another fairly. each brings a unique aspect to their art. but if I had to, this would be a few cage matches I pay to see:
Niel Schon vs. Lukether for Style and Lick-ability (That’s not a typo)
or maybe
Elliot Smith vs Elliot Easton for a couple guys named Elliot
But if I had to choose a best all around…J.T. gets my vote for longevity, voice, technique, songwriting, and all around showmanship.
Cleavage certainly doesn’t hurt, but she’s also a very gifted guitarist. I wonder what it is about beautiful women who play guitar… Nancy Wilson… In her day, Emmylou Harris… Jewel… sweet, sweet.
But as far as JT is concerned, I’d definitely have to agree with you. He and his music are timeless. I’ve seen him in concert a few times and he’s got the whole package.
Jewel, Nancy, both bring up the cleavage aspect again. You’re starting to sound a little like IG here
I realized that right after I pressed the submit button. 🙂 Yeah, it was rather Ig-like, but at least I don’t have the Tal fetish. HA!
BTW, have you finished the guitar yet?
too busy being busy. I posted an update:
http://ericmakesmusic.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/stuck-on-deck/
I agree, GDawg, and wish it would be part of public school curriculum, just like you wrote it here:
For certain, I have been in mourning for a decade as the public schools have summarily removed arts and music from the once musical halls of childhood.
For instance: Mrs. Michaels, my 2nd grade teacher at West University Elem started me and my chums on the appreciation of music… she had a piano in the room and played it for us daily. Lights were low and we sang. So much so, In third grade I started clarinet, and can rootatoot on sight, still.
While you can’t pick up too many nubiles with a clarinet, musicality in the soul, is worth two bushes in the hand. And I emphasize using your argument again GDawg… using this plum:
If you don’t get it, put away the guitar.
A-men!!!
I’ve been mentoring a kid on guitar for a few months. I don’t teach him any technique at all, though I point him to resources. When he first came to me, he started noodling a bunch blues riffs – they were actually really nice. But after he was done, I said, “Great imitation of John Mayer. Now show me what YOU got.” And we’ve been working on that since. He’s become a much better _musician_ as a result.
The great maestro Pavarotti said something in an interview that has stuck with me for 20 years: “Many people come to me to train them, but I have only one requirement: That they have heart. Technique I can teach, but I can’t teach heart. And I ask them if the don’t have the heart to sing, why bother singing?”
To me, that sums up musicality. Musical expression has its roots in passion. You have to have the heart to REALLY play an instrument. An old friend of mine and I had a discussion about that interview with the maestro, and my friend being a very accomplished pianist and orchestral conductor said, “That’s really what separates the players from the wankers.” Funny but true.
You are certainly right that musicality is most important, and I would gather from Pavarotti that his “passion” is essentially the same as “musicality” as discussed in your exchanges here. But on the other hand, I would caution that if a survey were to be made of what is the commonest approach to “musicality” in the music world today the problem is not lack of passion, but way too much passion. Passion run amok is easy. Restraint is hard. Sublimity is to be found in the balance between the two, but in the music scene, from classical to rock, the balance is skewed way too much to the “passion” side, which reduces it to bathos.
Ted, nice response, and you’re absolutely right. Anything run amock will only serve to degrade rather than enhance.
I’m not 100% on the guy’s history. I was there at the time, and GnR was not really in-line with the Charvel-and-Spandex glam metal of their time. I won’t say that the alternative music trend wouldn’t have gone anywhere without GnR and their Aerosmith-but-harder sound, but they were part of the trend away from Poison and Whitesnake. But anyway….
I am more and more down on the cult of virtuosity as days go by. For example, is Steve Vai a better guitarist, more of a virtuoso, than Neil Young? Clearly. Am I moved more by Vai than Young? No.
(Am I moved more by Vai than anything Malmsteen’s done in the last 20 years? Yeah. Is Vai better than Malmsteen? That’s debatable, with good arguments on both sides, and ultimately, it doesn’t matter. And at any rate, I’d admit that I need to give Vai more of a listen.)
The key is that Vai, Young, Cobain, Robert DeNiro and Larry the Cable Guy all have one job title. Entertainer. The key to Cobain’s entertainment is that he was a songwriter first, and a singer and guitarist and performer only enough to put out his songs. Listen to Leonard Cohen’s albums (I’d say, for this argument, to start with I’m Your Man) and you hear a good lyricist with a decent and cool voice working with the cheesiest of 80s synth tech. He makes that old-school song structures and Casiotastic keyboard and drum machine work because of the strength of the rest of it. Neil Young makes a one-note solo work in “Cinnamon Girl”.
Cobain’s Nevermind was one of the of the most memorable albums of it’s time. Would it be more memorable if Cobain was a better player, if he felt he could or even should open up the songs to show his lead style more? If he decided to “achieve” more with them? I doubt it.
One day in 1984, I went to the record shop and bought three albums. The This Is Spinal Tap soundtrack, Hanoi Rocks’ Two Steps To The Move and Rising Force, Malmsteen’s first solo album. There’s a precision and a delicacy (the state of being delicate, not a weird food from another country) to pieces like “Far Beyond The Sun” and “Dark Star” that were not common at that time. It was his style, more than his speed and fluidity (although that, clearly, was part of it) that attracted his first audience. His second and third album did not approach his first, and I stopped waiting for him to get there again.
In conclusion, a guitarist’s greatness is connected to a lot of elements beyond what we normally consider virtuosity. Which is the long-way to saying “I agree”.
🙂 Hey! It was a great analysis nonetheless! Thanks for the contribution!
[…] I couldn’t figure out why this was because if I do a search on Google or Bing, the link to the article that wrote about her doesn’t show up for several pages. But then I clicked on the search engines’ […]
Realmente genial. Ana se mueve en la guitarra como el viento en las altas cumbres: con plena libertad. Dios la guarde.