I think we (guitarists) might have a skewed perspective on what makes someone an impressive guitarist.

119

You've pretty much described the difference between technical proficiency and creativity. Proficiency on its own is a parlor trick. Parlor tricks can be quite good, and impressive. But Proficiency + a point of view = art.

BTW sometimes the point of view rejects proficiency. See Punk Rock.

I love art/music that isn’t obsessed with proficiency. Actually sometimes a lot more than showy art. Fair point, though, because I don’t really know how I marry that with what I was saying.

SantaRosaJazz

Agreed. I gave up on virtuosity in my 30s… now it’s musicality I listen for.

shoepolishsmellngmf

Virtuosity also gets difficult as you get older. Good songs live long.

florkingarshole

Right there with you guys. Substance is great, but you have to add style to make great music that will be entertaining. If you're not playing to entertain, then you're playing to impress or just enjoying a hobby - not that there's anything wrong with that, that's probably most of us - I can be impressed by Yngwe, but I'm much more entertained by Kingfish.

cobra_mist

i like stuff where the guys are extremely talented but basically ignore the rules and do what they want.

OnlyFreshBrine

Malmsteen and Bonamassa = parlor tricks

AssGagger

Punk rock also rejects creativity

iPrefer2BAnon

I think people lost the plot of guitar a long time ago, the point of music is to make someone feel something, not show them you can play 200nps, I’ve been playing for 20 years and I’m quite skilled, and I can do a lot of those cool super fast techniques you see the pros doing but I don’t care about it, more specifically I don’t care about how fast I use those techniques, I can create something much more moving by playing it a bit slower than god tier shred mode most people think you have to do today, and honestly that’s what music is about, feeling something!

DrBlankslate

I read a response on Quora a few years back that asked why people had stopped playing guitar (this was before the pandemic). The respondent said guitar had been popular back when anyone could play it, and when the bands were playing mainly for the fans, but as we got into the 1960s and 1970s, guitar became more about guitarists showing off the cool new technical things they were doing with their guitars to other guitarists, as opposed to the fans picking up guitar because they liked what they heard on stage. The world of guitar became "technique professionals showing off to and geeking with other technique professionals," instead of performing for the fans. So people got discouraged, because they couldn't be showy and flashy, like the technique professionals were. Also, it made guitar less inclusive generally, because the focus was no longer on the fan experience but on "this cool pedal did this awesome weird thing!"

Wish I could find that post, but it's lost to the mists of time, unfortunately.

iPrefer2BAnon

I think the people who invented those tricks are pretty cool though, they helped make learning those techniques way easier now, but in all reality you don’t have to show off, you just have to write something authentically yours, and if people like it they like it, if not, oh well.

I personally understand how all those fast and flashy techniques work but I often find myself not playing blazingly fast because I don’t feel like I have too, for me it’s about a story, a journey if you will, if the story calls for fast I go fast, but more often than not, it doesn’t do much for me.

bootyholebrown69

The point of music is to do whatever you want and not worry about what others think. You can't decide how others view your music. Some people feel moved when listening to shredding and some feel moved when listening to open chords. It's not up to you to tell people how to feel. All that you can do is make the music that inspires you and make the thing you want to create. Guitar is just an instrument and it's only as good as what you make of it.

speed_of_chill

In summary, “Don’t play to the gallery…” - David Bowie

iPrefer2BAnon

Right I agree wholeheartedly put yourself into it 110% if others don’t like it oh well, but with that being said I learned that if you play something that makes you feel good, than chances are it will make others feel good as well, but you are right everyone has their own taste and you can’t realistically tailor it to fit everyone, but you can definitely tailor it too how you want to play and what you are trying to say when you play.

bootyholebrown69

I think playing vs listening is also a huge difference. I don't really love shreddy yngwei stuff but playing it is so fun, gives me a rush when I am able to pull it off. It feels really good on my fingers. I don't like country music but strumming cowboy chords is very relaxing and satisfying as well.

Sane and reasonable take. The hell are you doing here? I would only add that you make what you want to create, and also don't rush to ascribe someone else's distate for that thing to their lack or skill or jealousy. Maybe they just don't like it.

metalspider1

its the old "feel" vs "technique" argument. a lot of players get caught up in the technique part forgetting its the creativity and "feel" that makes music interesting to begin with.
me i like a good mix of both but if i feel like the player is going fast just for the sake of going fast and not because it flows with the melody then i get bored of it real quick

AdemsanArifi

It's a coping mechanism for guitarists who are too lazy to practice. And there's no such thing as "going fast for the sake of going fast". Shredders don't learn to play chromatic runs as fast as possible, they learn to produce good musical pieces that require skill.

The guitar world is the only one where this feel/technique cope exists. In classical and most genres of music virtuosos are very appreciated and sought after. When a violonist or a pianist plays a hard piece to perfection, nobody goes "yeah, but he has no feel".

This is decidedly not true. The same shredder versus feel argument happens in the classical world and with classical repertoire all the time. Paganini iwas popular but aso deeply criticized for his soulless virtuosity and focus on speed and technique over intonation and bowing. Even today debates rage about whether his music more than a novelty. And the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II of the Hapsburgs told Mozart his opera had "too many notes" which was, at the time, the equivalent of "I get tired of listening to Polyphia after 5 minutes."

ebitdangit

There is absolutely going fast for the sake of going fast. I've heard people annihilate scales at warp speed, but with nothing musically interesting happening.

I do think that a lot of musicians focus on playing "impressive" things without focusing on creative & musically moving pieces. The moment technique becomes the end rather than the means is when you cross over to parlor tricks.

Before you say it, no I don't hate fast playing. Andy Timmons, Mateus Asato, Tim Henson/Scott Lepage, Eric Johnson, and Steve Vai are all technique monsters who create unique, creative, and moving pieces of music. On the other hand, Jimmy Vaughan is a classic "feels" guy who is so poor technically I can't stand listening to him.

Wild-Climate3428

While he [Yo Yo Ma] once reached for perfection, it did not fulfill him. This realization changed his trajectory; he began focusing on human connection instead of human perfection.

I think there exists for each person a balance between perfection and connection.

D4ggerh4nd

Finally, someone who gets it.

Violinists were the first people I thought of when comparing perspectives. Professional violinists’ practice regimens tend to be very specific, and technique is just one part of it. An important part, no doubt, but just one part.

This all being said, I didn’t want to make the comparison and I’m only interested in discussing this because you brought it up. Guitar is not violin, and they should be thought of as the unique butterfly snowflakes that they are without comparison to one another. They tend to be used in pretty different contexts, and being a professional violinist tends to be a very different experience from being a professional guitarist in terms of what you do with your skill.

I’m very happy with the level of skill that I have, and I listen to very technical guitarists. While I agree that nobody learns how to do light speed chromatic runs just to be masturbatory, I do think that technique is nothing without temperament, and vice versa, and if one is lacking then it can’t be made up for with the other.

Edit: oh and pianists talk about “playing musically” all the time. There’s a great video on YouTube where a guy asks a bunch of high level piano players to play with as little musicality as possible, and it’s pretty remarkable how different it is. They play all the notes in the song correctly, but it’s like watching an actor read lines as opposed to acting the part.

AdemsanArifi

Nothing to argue about. I'm just gonna add that "playing musically" is part of technique. It's not a metaphysical property of a player. It's something that people learn and hone over the years and where some are more talented than others.

The main difference between guitar and violin is the former has an overwhelming majority of an amateur players while violin has mostly academically trained musicians. For instance, the feel/technique debate is marginal in the classical guitar community. They all know that being more technically proficient opens the door to more options. If you know how to play fast, you can play slow, but not the opposite.

Dirks_Knee

Technical proficiency is impressive no matter what. Suggesting it's just practice is extremely minimizing things because the amount of practice it takes to be able to flawlessly execute complex technique takes a huge amount of discipline and time. In fact, I'd argue making it look easy to a non musician is 100% the point of reaching a certain level of technical ability. Just like the average person is never going to look like a bodybuilder (even the natty guys) no matter how much they think they are working out because those guys are taking it way, way beyond what a normal person considers a lot of work. Same with guitar. Just because it's possible for anyone to achieve something doesn't make it less impressive when someone actually does achieve it.

But you are really talking about 2 different things as there's technical execution and then there's how it's applied. I listen to primarily all instrumental guitar music and there's guys who have a sense of melody and arrangement that I enjoy way, way more than other guys. Taste in music is subjective. Always has been always will be.

bootyholebrown69

None of this matters at all. Play what makes you happy. Listen to what makes you happy. Sometimes those will align and sometimes they won't. It's really not that hard.

Worrying about how others view your music is pointless. Some people get moved by shredding and others get moved by open chords. Maybe I like to shred because it just feels thrilling to pull it off and feels good on my fingers. Maybe I like to listen to open chords because it's calming and makes me relaxed. Maybe I like to listen to technical death metal cause it gets me hype. Who cares? There's no such thing as a good or bad guitarist. There's only people who are willing to play what they like and people who only want to get validation from others.

SambaLando

No we don't.

Alright. Guess that’s settled then.

wilhelmkidxx

I didn’t read it but I’m sure posts like this is why r/guitarcirclejerk exist

May I ask you to read it and then see if you still feel that way?

Adept_Feed_1430

I mean, posts like this might be why that shit sub exists, but making declarations like that without actually reading the post might also be why it exists.

xarafus75

If I can liken it to a piece of writing, scientific journals are very important and technical. I have a Masters in Engineering and find the this technical writing enormously important. However, I would rather read a comic book. This is how I feel with guitarists. There are important, technical virtuosos that never fail to impress with their skill, but it can be lifeless and boring. There are other guitarists that can strum one chord for 5 minutes that can make me cry like a baby with emotion. I’m not one for arguments of SRV or Steve Vai or Satriani or whomever else vs anyone far less technical, I just like the overall space that is created to take me somewhere, I don’t care what they are doing.

Uptown2dloo

I don’t think there’s anything curmudgeonly about it at all. Pick any influential musician, people that had a real impact, and sometimes their chops that are part of what makes that impact, but it’s far from the only thing that matters. Van Halen’s chops without his tone and his whole “falling down the stairs, landing on your feet” vibe would not have had the same impact. And you could make a case that the Edge single-handedly influenced one way of approaching guitar, because you can hear echoes of that in VERY skilled players.

Personally, I think art is in how you use what you have. And I say that is someone who took the time to develop chops because I do think they matter - but OPs suggestion that a lot of the online guitar universe misses the point is right on IMO.

This to me sounds like a way to minimize the skills of others. I find this usually comes from a place of insecurity, to try and bring people who out perform you down to your level.

Care to show us your own playing so we can see how its really done?

SantaRosaJazz

Insecurity? Bull. I made a living as a musician for most of my career (now retired), and I’m completely secure in my abilities. I just don’t like that kind of OMG playing because it’s not usually very musical, so I get bored. My idea of a player who straddles technique and “soul” is Robben Ford.

I dont listen to shredders but I also dont write posts about how they arent good either. Your opinion of what makes a good musician is just that, your opinion. People who love shredders have just as legitimate of an opinion.

I dont like Djent, I dont listen to it at all or relate to it. But a lot of people do so I dont go around telling people how unimpressive it is, how it lacks soul. Thats being negative for the sake of being negative. I think the same when Tim Henson says stupid stuff like "boomer bends." Art is subjective and trying to minimize an artform that others love is just being a hater.

wvmitchell51

Talk about someone coming from a place of insecurity.

How is it insecure to say minimizing other people's skills is a bad thing to do?

Well it isn’t, but I in no way was trying to do that, so I’m hoping we can kind of go from here based on what I was actually saying. I apologize if I said something offensive due to a lack of nuance.

It quite literally is that when you say a professional musician with advanced technique isnt actually impressive without meeting your standard of creativity. Thats why I asked you to show us your playing because if you want to argue professional musicians who spend their lives mastering their craft arent that impressive I think you should qualify that opinion by showing us your own approach to guitar.

A lot of my music is on my instagram and you’re welcome to check it out. I should say, though, that although I listen to very technical music, I don’t play it and I don’t have an interest in doing so. The technical musicians that I listen to appeal to me in ways that other technical musicians don’t, so you and I might be in slightly different boats regarding what we see as “good”, which is fine!

I’m not of the belief that anyone needs to do something better than someone else in order to not like it, or even criticize it. I’m happy with my level of proficiency and I would be happy to introduce you to the type of technical musicians I do like. It could very well just be a difference in what connects with our ears and brains.

Whats your ig?

It’s in my profile here on Reddit. There’s a Linktree. Sorry I’m not right around it right now but it’s easy to access.

wvmitchell51

I listened, I liked 👍

Thank you!

it's the presumption that that's what's happening that's weirdly insecure. why can't someone just not like the same thing.

OP literally made an entite post about how pros with advanced technique arent impressive. Me calling that out isnt insecure, that is just deflection.

feels like pedantic parsing. The post says technical skills are impressive, and probably to a point necessary, but table stakes. What's more impressive is pairing that with a point of view.

Dude. Again. Not what I said.

Let me put it differently. Do you prefer music that has blatant time changes, or music that has time changes that you didn’t realize it had until you tried to learn it because it was so subtle and natural?

I wouldnt make a definitive statement either way. It depends on the context. Only a Sith deals in absolutes

Only a Sith deals in absolutes is an absolute statement itself.

Clever girl

Nah. Higher technical skill does not equal "outperforming."

All OP is saying is that what's more impressive than technical skill alone (which itself can be quite impressive) is some combination of proficiency and having your own spin on things. And that's a pretty uncontroversial point of view. There's a reason Beethoven > Paganini.

Speaking in broad generalizations, shredders often seem proactively insecure that the thing they're good at isn't valued by the "feel" crowd. The shredder needs an explanation for why someone would say the thing they love makes others say "not for me" or "I can't listen to that."

And that explanation is usually something like yours: "They're just jealous they can't do what I can do." This has always struck me as a strange leap of logic. If that were the case we'd all only like the things we can do and dislike the things we can't, which obviously isn't true.

You say that OP's argument sounds like a way to "minimize the skills of others" as if OP has some premeditated plan to make people feel bad. That feels really defensive in regard to a post that just says there's more to guitar than technical proficiency, an idea so basic and true that it feels almost weird to have to say it. Even amongst shredders--and there's a vibrant community of such players who, like you, value technical proficiency as a primary source of enjoyment--it would be hard to argue that your favorite player is the one who runs the scales the fastest.

Finally, you challenge OP to post their playing, which feels like you're trying to create an environment in which you do exactly what you accuse them of doing: finding a "way to minimize the skills of others."

I guess the big question is why care whether someone else values what you do if you value it. The most rock and roll thing is not giving a flying fuck what anyone else thinks and doing your thing. There doesn't have to be a good guy and a bad guy. An insecure one and a superior one. Different people like different things. Thank god.

Im not a shredder nor do I listen to that music, I even said this so dont say that is my primary source of enjoyment. But someone with more facility on their instrument is outperforming those with inferior technique, in atleast that aspect of playing. The ability to physically navigate and execute on your instrument is extremely important. People who knock this I just assume play sloppily and cant be bothered to practice a fundamental skill.

Obviously there is more to playing than technique alone. But technique is not about just playing fast but playing consistently, accurately, controlled with good time. Not working on that is a fundamental weakness as a player. And having inferior technique doesnt make you more creative. That in itself is an absurd idea yet many promote it on this very thread.

That's where I see a disconnect. I haven't read every comment but I have seen anyone advocating for not trying to be technically proficient. As if it's some badge of honor. Inferior technique doesn't make you more creative (and it also doesn't preclude creativity), but I haven't seen that argued. That would be dumb. That's like the "theory ruins creativity" thing which I never have subscribed to. I see this weird leap of logic where we go from "technical playing is something but not everything" to "people who can't shred are jealous" which I just don't see as following.

CommunicationTime265

To me, a good guitarist is someone who can play their parts well and has experience, whether it be rhythm or lead. Like, hey that guy who just plays chords in a wedding band but has a great understanding of his instrument and performs well....well that's a good guitarist to me. It's like how you would think of anyone in a profession. You can be good at your job in many different ways.

meatballfreeak

At the end of the day I put on JJ Cale and think he has got the greatest feel for what can come out of a guitar with no tricks or elaborate technique, now that to me is a real skill.

Boris19490000

My bad. I'm a boomer and all you post 60s cats are confusing. You're correct. I'm thinking about the plaid shirt wearing man bun crowd.

The point remains, however. Usually the critics of musicians are either paid hacks or non-players. Best guitarist. Best guitar. Martins rule. Yeah, but my Collings etc etc etc. You get the picture

Guitar ain't easy. Select an instrument that plays only one note at a time if you want easIER. Still ain't easy even then.

dcamnc4143

I couldn’t care less about technique if the song/song section doesn’t sound good.

The_Last_radio

Guitar is whatever you want it to be. If sitting there and shredding is fulfilling to you, then it has achieved what’s it’s meant to.

Music is a form of art and art is self expression, there is no right or wrong way to display art. Nothing is better, nothing is worst, it’s just different, arguments about this or classifying styles of guitar to argue about whatever is counter productive to all of this.

Berbigs_

If you haven’t already, I highly recommend checking out Eric Haugen’s YouTube channel. He has a lot of videos that focus on this exact topic.

TheHelpfulOtter

Epiphone

People like what they like...unfortunately when they verbalize that, others feel the need to get argumentative or down vote or the like.

Them not agreeing with your likes doesn't make you wrong.

xxxlun4icexxx

I gotta be honest I don’t think I’ve ever thought a “creative/individual” spin on something was impressive. And if I did it was just because it was a byproduct of some crazy technique they’re doing. The technical skill at elite levels is what always has me going “even if I practice x hours could I actually reach that? Or is it x hours + a lot of natural talent”

sectachrome

As with skateboarding - style is everything

D4ggerh4nd

Seems an odd notion. To me, it's impressive that someone had the dedication to gain technical proficiency at a skill. Much in the same way writing an emotional song requires proficiency in songwriting. This is all the result of practice... Be that in technique, songwriting, whatever. Agreed, it's the most impressive people that do both. But "Just practicing" takes a lot of sacrifice and dedication. I would say that level devotion to one's craft is deserving of admiration.

Familiar-Can-8057

I feel like this position is a bit of a strawman. I don't think there are actual musical performers who just play stuff that is technically challenging without regard for its musicality. "Musicality" is pretty hard to nail down anyway.

dlnmtchll

Creativity is a skill that can be improved by practice just like sweeping or shredding. So should we not consider someone who composes well a good guitarist either? Feel like this is just a thread to try and get one over on proficient players or something, kinda like the biweekly polyphia trashing threads

cobra_mist

there’s also the hockey “200 foot player” a guy that can cover everything on the ice

you can play sick leads, but can you groove too?

Hefty-Collection-638

At the end of the day, liking a guitarist or finding them impressive is a subjective experience. What you find impressive may not be the same as someone else. Thusly, trying to discover the objective secret sauce to impressive guitar playing is a fruitless experience.

EyeAskQuestions

I think once you get to a certain level, it's about using the proficiency/skill to CREATE
It's awesome! Amazing even! When someone can play arpeggios at 150+bpms but without a musical context where it serve a musical purpose, it's just a technical exercise at that point.

It makes for great tiktok reels and youtube tutorials but matters little in the sum total of being a great guitarist.

I'm also kind of a geek for harmony so I think that stuff is way cool and see what someone can do with interesting voicings and chord progressions moves me way more.

I think this is why I really dig St. Vincent and Unknown Mortal Orchestra.

SpacemanBatman

BB King>>>> Tim Henson

Moderator removed comment

AutoModerator

It looks like you are posting from an account with negative karma. As part of a measure we're taking to combat trolling and spam, to post in /r/Guitar, your account must not have negative comment karma. DO NOT CONTACT MODS ABOUT BYPASSING THIS. Please see rule #2 of our posting guidelines.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Odimorsus

The Great Southern AxePimp

For me, it’s like anything else. The “why.” An action movie with the most insane stunts and explosions but what makes it exciting is when I care about what’s exploding or who’s being shot in the face and why. Every song I enjoy and write serves some kind of thematic or subjective purpose, as does the instrumentation.

I’m not against pulling out some advanced guitar techniques, nor do I believe it’s antithetical to “emotion” so long as it’s appropriate. Sometimes a song with an explosive absolutely calls for shredding like your life depends on it. Early Megadeth are absolute masters of this.

I find now that I’m older and have more experience, I let loose more sparingly so it’s more of a surprise and more special to the listener than if they came to expect sweep picking and 200bpm 16th staccato runs in every single song.

Ramble_On_79

The stuff George Harrison and Keith Richards came up with still blows my mind. Making music that's simple and beautiful is masterful.

billitorussolini

I grew up listening to a lot of 70's rock and 00's pop punk. Fairly easy stuff. I thought I'd never be as good as those guys when I was starting out. Many years later, I've surpassed all my childhood heroes, and I still don't feel like I'm good enough. It's nice to remind myself of my mindset when I was starting out.

CommodoreKrusty

Three things I learned from other players:

Yngwie was the most technically flawless player I ever heard and I could only stand listening to him for about 5 minutes.

After hearing Jason Becker I thought following the trail this guy was blazing was a waste of time.

No matter who you/they are you're/they're not Shawn Lane.

Being technically proficient is great but my goal wasn't to be the technically greatest, fastest or whatever but rather to make every note I played sound as good as possible and to focus as much as I could on composition.

-1

Technique and songwriting are different things, thanks for the millionth fucking thread giving this "revelation". No shit they're different things, you can tell because they're literally different things with different words that describe different actions.

This is such an obvious point and everyone who makes it acts like having the most surface-level observation is genius shit.. The grass is green, the sky is blue, and two different things are actually different, what an amazing discovery.

I didn’t consider it a revelation. Who has time to read every single post? Sorry it bothered you this much. I was hoping to just have conversations about it.

Why the ad hominem attack. Why not just skip the post?

-5

A lot more people need to be exposed to this point of view. We still have people flexing their technical ability to impress with no regard for music

-1

We still have people like you that think if someone can competently do an arpeggio then they must not be able to play sensitively or write well.

This sub is filled with mediocre players with shit technique projecting about how other people with better technique are actually worse musicians. Blues dads who haven't played a single interesting, original, or passionate note in their entire lives will talk about how anything above their skill level is unmusical trash without feeling, unlike the brainless blues cliches and the cheesy, overdone bends they play. People that are shitty at playing love to project about how people that are good at playing are bad and it's pathetic and kind of hilarious.

I never said they were bad. Thats an extreme that I tried hard to actively not say.

-2

You're right, you just strongly implied it.

Same shit post, different day.

I’m fine with people disagreeing with me but it seems like not only do you disagree (which again, is fine, not that you need my permission to) but also you disagree with me for saying something that I really didn’t say, and since I didn’t say it I don’t feel a very strong urge to defend… not having said it. So I guess that I just kind of wish this whole interaction was different from the foundation up so that we could talk about this based on what I actually did say.

This is the defensiveness I just don't get.

Where in OP or any other reply here has anyone claimed someone who's technically proficient is a worse musician? I've never seen that sentiment in this sub ever. Why do you use ad hominen attacks ("blues dads") to make your point? Who gets to decide what's "interesting" "original" or "passionate"? Who said anything about "unmusical trash without feeling"? How do you define "shitty at playing"? Was Woody Guthrie shitty because he couldn't tap?

I've no idea who you are but I can guarantee you you are 1,000 times the player I am. Technically, I will never be able to do what you can. I know that. And I'm not at all jealous and I don't think what you do is shitty. I'm super impressed by fast playing and tapping and all the rest.

And I still don't love that style of playing. And that's okay. Different people like different things.

Honestly it's like there's a boogey man you've created in your mind who's out to get you and your playing style and this is you fighting him off with false equivalencies and imagined transgressions.

Because this shit is boring and its subjective and "writing music isn't just technique, you also have to be good at writing music, have you tried being better at writing music?" isn't useful advice.

I get nothing, and I mean zero emotional value out of listening to SRV. If I pay attention, I can of course recognize a great amount of skill and technique, but I don't think that (for my tastes) it's interesting or emotional or anything other than flat and neutral to listen to. On the other hand, I love the technical death metal band Nile. I think the music is extremely interesting, I love the atmospheres, and I get a ton of enjoyment out of listening to it.

So the moral of this story is don't focus just on technique like Stevie Ray Vaughan, you have to really put something unique and interesting into it like Nile does.

Or maybe it's just that people like wildly different things and OP's post of "hey you should write music that is good that people like instead of music that's bad that people don't like" doesn't really add anything to that.

In no way shape or form did I ever imply someone being good makes them a poor writer. You made a good refutation to a point I never made.

No, I said there are plenty of people who still learn more “difficult/impressive” things in a “my dick is bigger than yours” way, like a guy buying a flashy sportscar. Many of them play guitar to impress others, not for even musicality. And also, some people think they learn a technique and that will make their song or riff better. I’ve seen this in musicians around me my whole life.

It’s a pervasive mindset that needs to be dispelled, and for you to shame the person who wrote this is wrong. It’s clear the OP’s perspective isn’t widely shared, and many could benefit from it.

If you’re going to bother responding, please respond to what I actually say.

I said there are plenty of people who still learn more “difficult/impressive” things in a “my dick is bigger than yours” way

99% of this shit is completely made up fantasies by insecure people in this sub. Most people that play difficult music aren't doing it to flex on your tiny dick, they're doing it because the enjoy it, and people with tiny dicks think it's a personal attack on them. Players like this are way rarer than people on reddit act like. Most of the guitarists here have never met a guitarist like this and don't even know that many musicians because most people here are hobbyists that don't know any super good musicians at all. People just project by making up stories about how people that are really good and like playing difficult music are massive narcissists doing it as an insult to them.

My dick is actually about average for my height, which might make it above average overall but honestly it feels stubby in my hand when I hold it.

You gotta lose height bro, your dick will look huuuuuuuuuuge and I highly recommend it

This is by far the best advice I’ve ever received.

You must not be able to read people well, not talk with them on a friendly level, or both. “99% is made up fantasies of the insecure” is such a bogus claim.

No, it’s incredibly pervasive, amongst large portions of guitarists I’ve met, known, as well as taught. Perhaps rather than everyone being an insecure liar, you’re simply missing something. Because I know good amounts of these people IRL.

Boris19490000

-3

I think something is getting lost here. Technique requires study and a lot of practice. A guitarist who progresses from one level of competence to another deserves admiration and respect, not a yawn followed by "Big Whoop".

It is a big deal. It's a craft. It requires devotion and commitment.

Sorry but the OP's observations sound awful Yuppie to me.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by yuppie?

Boris19490000

-1

Yeah. Not entirely negative, but there was an attitude that existed 10 or 20 years ago (particularly from the ManBun group) that knocked down others to either promote themselves or their favorite bands over all others. Or wine. Or artists.

There are a million guitarists out there and I'm thankful for all of them. Their work in bringing music....any kind of music...into the world is good on some level. Even genres and artists I despise are worthwhile.

That's not at all what a yuppie is. Yuppies are a post-hippie 1980s thing, the YUP in yuppie stands for Young Urban Professional. A yuppie would be a 1980s younger person in an upwardly mobile professional class job in a major population center. Typical dress would be "preppy" – business casual, polo shirts, boat shoes on the weekend, tennis sweater draped over your shoulder, that kind of thing. Yuppies were frequently associated with the pursuit of materialism and embrace of Reagan-era capitalism.

How you got from that to early 2010s hipsters that talk shit about other bands is beyond me.

SantaRosaJazz

This post says more about you than it does “Yuppies.”

-1

Deserves admiration and respect? Context matters. What opportunity cost. You sound Yuppie to me, and like an entitled technician