Joined: 10 Sep 2004 Posts: 2783 Location: Chino, CA
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 2:09 am Post subject: "Player" vs. "Musician"
The recent thread about guitar influences got me thinking about this debate that often comes up in various guitar-related forums. As guitar music fans and just general music fans (music that's not dominated by great guitar playing or has no guitar in it at all), we are often exposed to great guitar players whose music we don't really care for or outright dislike (btw, let's not use the term "hate," please). Obviously, musical taste is a very subjective thing, but most of us can objectively say a piece of music is good or not good in many cases and that wouldn't be a stretch.
For me, when it comes to Guthrie, it has always been about the music and his choice of notes that I found the most appealing - not the obvious factors like great technique, versatility, and other things like that. I also think that's why I've dug Satch and Vai as long as I have despite new great players constantly coming up with, arguably, superior technique. Also, when it comes to the term "musicianship," it can cover the technical aspects like sense of time, melodic flair, harmonic inventiveness, compositional complexity, improvisational creativity, etc. It goes without saying that one does need good musicianship to become a good guitar player.
But what I'm getting at here is the broader aspect of musicianship and about musicality that sets a player apart from the rest. For instance, there are some highly-regarded guitar players who have great physical technique and musicianship but I don't find them to be "musical" or their music interesting to listen to. Even their guitar playing leaves me cold. I suppose it's all subjective, but there'd often be some sort of a loose "consensus" amongst other guitar music fans as well. It's a hard thing to define or explain and it varies from player to player.
Some players strike me as technically amazing on the guitar but quite mediocre or outright bad on songwriting or arranging and things like that. They still have great musicianship, but their music isn't that good. Then there are many players who aren't technical wizards (both from physical technique to technical "musicianship") but write good music and play very "musically," for lack of a better term. You see this type of argument being waged on all these forums and you do know that it goes somewhat beyond mere subjectivity. But how do we objectively define that or should we even try when there's a good possibility that doing so will offend someone?
What I do know is that I have to like the music (even if it features a lot of long guitar improvisations and solos) before I can even get interested in the guitar playing, no matter how good the playing is. And I do believe that the ones who are considered to be great musicians, as opposed to just great players, are the ones who will stand the test of time and be recognized and respected by non-guitar players (i.e., other musicians and general music fans). When piano and sax players like certain guitar players, you know they only care about what they're listening to, not what the guitar players' fingers are doing on the fingerboard.
And a great "musician" doesn't necessarily mean that he/she is a great songwriter or a composer either. Jeff Beck is certainly a great player and a great musician but has never really wrote anything worthy of note. You can say a lot of classical concert pianists and violinists or jazz improvisors are great technical virtuosos and musicians but most of them haven't wrote or composed a piece of music that'd be considered great or even decent. For me, someone like Pat Metheny is like the total package in that he has it all - technical virtuosity, superb all-around musicianship, and the ability to compose simple memorable melodies to complex classical-like compositions with extensive and advanced improvisations thrown in that are recognized and admired by mainstream music fans, critics, and his peers alike.
I guess what I'm getting at here is: is Guthrie more of a "player" or a well-rounded "musician" who happens to play the guitar? To me, the answer is the latter by a large margin. And he plays good music with the notes he chooses to play. Being that a lot of the tunes on 'EC' are fairly old (although with updated arrangements and modern production values), I think we can realistically expect even better tunes in the future and that he'll continue to improve in the writing area. Ultimately, it would seem that the tunes will decide the longevity of an artist and widespread recognition - both in the marketplace and within the music community. But then, that's a simplistic way of looking at things as well...
For instance, let's look at some titans of guitar-based fusion: Holdsworth, Gambale, and DiMeola - three very distinctive artists who've all had tremendous influence in the world of the guitar. But, the way I see it, they haven't had much of an impact outside of the narrow world of technique-oriented guitar circles. One is known primarily as the master of fluid legato, one for unparalleled sweep picking technique, and one for being the "best" at rapid-fire staccato alternate-picking technique. Outside of their hardcore fan base, their music is rarely discussed or referred to. In guitar-oriented forums, people will only talk about their technique or the solos. And, for me, all that stuff is just secondary because as much as I admire and respect these players' technique and musicianship, I just don't care for their music. Out of the three, Allan is probably the only one I'd want to really listen to every now and then because I think there's a deep musicality in what he does and I find his music more interesting.
Well, I'm not sure myself where I'm going with all this except to say that music is what matters - not how well one plays. Both of the terms "music" and "playing" are broad and it's difficult to define what makes good or great music, especially since it all becomes a matter of taste and subjectivity and because we also end up comparing apples to oranges. You just wonder sometimes if guitar music fans are really listening to the music being played. You read some of the comments on YT or on other guitar geek forums and it's clear that quite a few of them aren't. They're just watching or imagining what the fingers are doing or simply admiring what's being done on the guitar. And that's not a bad thing; I just find it so limited in the scope of what music is all about. _________________ Ed Yoon
Certified Guthrie Fan-atic
BOING Music LLC - Managing Partner
.strandberg* Guitars USA
Ed Yoon Consulting & Management
Guitar Center Inc.
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 Posts: 50 Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 11:48 am Post subject:
completely agree with everything you just said... and i believe a lot of guitar players would benefit from listening to some non guitar music... I mean for a lot (well some anyway) of guitar players it is hard to imagine music without guitars in it... and there is so music music out there that you can draw from and incorporate into your guitar playing... and i totally agree about Pat Metheny's awsomeness, defiantly one of my top 3 guitarists ... as for Guthrie i think he is equally as good a 'player' as he is a 'musician' (i mean he is one of the most technically able players in the world) but it is defiantly his musicality and mental chops that make him my musical and six stringed hero
... in the end the moral of the story is there is more than one element to music and awesome musicians like Guthrie, Metheny etc have mastered many strings to the funky ol' bow of musical goodness!! _________________ "Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
Joined: 17 Feb 2009 Posts: 40 Location: Peterborough, UK
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 2:04 pm Post subject:
Take the guitarist (carefully avoiding use of both terms in the title) away from his instrument and can he still make music? Or can he transcend the instrument to achieve musical rather than technical recognition?
Then he's a musician, not a player
Having the mechanical apptitude to operate that instrument called a guitar doesn't equate in any with with musical apptitude and its immediately obvious when a musician manages to create real music rather than a series of vamps to simply solo over, no matter how good the solos actually are. Don't misunderstand me - players like GG "say" more with their instruments than 99% of the other playesr out there and I view them as musicians even while composing in a guitar-dominated format but succinctly its the difference between Zappa (who described himself as a musician able to operate a guitar) and Rusty who's very much a guitar player (and a very good one at that).
Quite frankly I don't really care if my opinions offend people which is why I frequent more adult forums like this - an opinion is merely treated as such rather than a direct attack on everything that someone with a diametric opinion might hold dear and as you say the bottom line is that if the music is worth listening as a complete composition rather than some interesting licks I've personally defined my criteria.
I think the fact that Guthrie reads and writes music - he mentions in the notes to Erotic Cakes that some times his compositional process is reduced to sitting staring at manuscript paper - is a sure sign of musicality.
Because of course in that case you're thinking about the notes, not what the fingers are doing.
Joined: 22 Feb 2005 Posts: 570 Location: gothenburg, sweden
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:10 pm Post subject:
i see your point, and mostly i agree. but i don't think the distinction is productive. there are more aspects to it ... it's more of a cluster of different aspects that goes with different musical practices, and the distinction both narrows down and separates.
and the different aspects of music practice are not given, but always changing, and (at best) contested.
so are we talking craftsman or artist? handicraft or art? are they excluding? does composition, playing, interpretation, execution, improvising, etc, belong to one or the other 'side'?
etc ...
just implying stuff. i'm at work so we'll see. it's a potentially good thread, and perhaps revealing ...
Joined: 17 Feb 2009 Posts: 40 Location: Peterborough, UK
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 3:09 pm Post subject:
I think the distinction is relevant from a muso's point of view - if nothing more we can satisfy our definitions of criteria in light of the two classifications....but I don't think we need go much further than realising for the most part a lot of our criteria are applicable to both schools of thought which makes distinction quite difficult at the least
Quote:
does composition, playing, interpretation, execution, improvising, etc, belong to one or the other 'side'?
Both. That is most of the issue here - both players and musicians compose, play, interpret, and improvise...but I can definately hear the difference between someone improvising musical phrases over a vamp (and in fact someone musically comping rather than playing chords in the right places) compared to someone playing the right scales/arpeggios without much thought.
Quote:
It's a hard thing to define or explain and it varies from player to player.
Indeed. Being asked to sit down and enumerate all the differences from my point of view isn't going to satisfy 100% (or even 25%) of guitar players and of course my perception of one player is going to differ from yours - at the end of the day if its something I can listen to repeatedly without growing tired of the same track there's generally a decent level of musicianship there and thats enough for me.
Quote:
time, melodic flair, harmonic inventiveness, compositional complexity, improvisational creativity
Predictabillity versus originallity, or at least some sort of musical intellect beyond the usual approaches - its just very hard to quantify (for me at least) without coming off as a total snob
Joined: 22 Feb 2005 Posts: 570 Location: gothenburg, sweden
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 3:25 pm Post subject:
[quote="ShadyDavey"]
Quote:
does composition, playing, interpretation, execution, improvising, etc, belong to one or the other 'side'?
Both. That is most of the issue here - both players and musicians compose, play, interpret, and improvise...but I can definately hear the difference between someone improvising musical phrases over a vamp (and in fact someone musically comping rather than playing chords in the right places) compared to someone playing the right scales/arpeggios without much thought.
[quote]
yes. and my question was rhetorical. that's where to start.
Joined: 17 Feb 2009 Posts: 40 Location: Peterborough, UK
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 3:55 pm Post subject:
No real need to start in my opinion - there's a great interview with Scott Henderson just been posted up on Youtube which addresses this subject very well (or at least, he does in part 3/3):
Its the difference between knowing all the right notes (being a schooled player) and actually being able to play them well (being a musician). Its hard to attribute the difference to one particular criteria as it does encompass timing, creativity, feel, tone, harmonic vocabulary etc etc but I could definately sumarise it as "anything that doesn't sound like mechanical shit" because the player has taken the time to listen to the notes he's producing, rather than how to produce them.
There's more to it than that of course (and I know what rhetorical questions are lol) but honestly asking me to intellectualise something I would rather feel and hear just means that you can arrive at an answer specific to me so I'll go with brevity as my watchword and simply stick to a definition as above
Joined: 10 Sep 2004 Posts: 2783 Location: Chino, CA
Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:07 am Post subject:
Well, what I do know is that I don't consider myself a "musician" but I can tell people I play some guitar as a hobbyist. To me, a true "musician" is someone who is completely absorbed in every aspect of music and is interacting with other musicians. But then, I suppose that can apply to the weekend warrior doing covers in the local bar or the worship band lead guitar player playing at the church services on Sundays. It is a difficult thing to quantify but I think most of you guys know what I'm getting at.
The thing is that you start reading or hearing comments about some great players being more than just "players" and that they're great "musicians" who happen to play the guitar. You hear such comments being made by great players and/or musicians about other great players and/or musicians. They often talk about a certain player having "musicality" or that his phrasing and playing in general is very "musical." So if we expand this discussion a bit more, what constitutes being "musical" and not? _________________ Ed Yoon
Certified Guthrie Fan-atic
BOING Music LLC - Managing Partner
.strandberg* Guitars USA
Ed Yoon Consulting & Management
Guitar Center Inc.
Joined: 22 Feb 2005 Posts: 570 Location: gothenburg, sweden
Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:24 am Post subject:
alexkhan wrote:
The thing is that you start reading or hearing comments about some great players being more than just "players" and that they're great "musicians" who happen to play the guitar. You hear such comments being made by great players and/or musicians about other great players and/or musicians. They often talk about a certain player having "musicality" or that his phrasing and playing in general is very "musical." So if we expand this discussion a bit more, what constitutes being "musical" and not?
well yeah, one has to differentiate
your comment here shows
1) there is a need to talk about what transcends 'mere' playing and repeatability. i.e. the creative and artistic content of a musical practice.
2) that the distinction between player and musician still is a bad one in THIS respect. anyone making noise on a suhr is making music, even if most of us are humble enough to prefer to call us 'players'. but these words dodge the heart of what i think you want to get to.
when people give praise to somene by differentiating that person as a (real) 'musician', it's basically the same as denouncing someone else as a 'non-musician' ...
i mean, the only way we can agree about that word would be that someone who WORKS as a player, or is accomplished at a certain level (doesn't have to be a pro), then we can agree it's a musician. whereas a guy who only knows how to repeat this one sweep arpeggio (and who might be happy with that) would be a player.
personally, when i use the word "musicality" to describe a certain quality of someones playing, it's very much in line with scott hendersons usage. and i think that's a pretty uncontroversial use ... (jeff sipe and wayne krantz are musical, francesco fareri is ... not). scott's right on the mark as far as i am concerned.
now, what complicates stuff is when you try to make a certain style, aspect, tecnhique, application, temperament, approach, dress code or whatever, musical.
an Eb flat is just that, Eb. (rock) guitar players are as we all know stupid. greg howe's article explains why. among which other musicians (players?) can you find people who'd denounce or praise a specific technique or harmonic approach as such. who gives if a note is sweeped or tapped or if the guitar is peed on (that would be frankus' shur, not mine )?
so to open it up for the next guy, and to paraphrase scott h: musicality cannot be analyzed in specific formal terms (i.e. certain rhythms, harmonies or techiques).
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum