I focus moast of my practicing schedule on technique exercises, theory and making my own music, but i also love playing coversongs and do that for an hour at the end of each practice session just becasue it's fun. My problem is that i don't exactly know what i learn from playing coversongs, i know i get inspired by playing coversongs, but i also get inspired by making music my self and practicing technique.
I try to pick coversongs from bands like F.eks Dream Theater and Opeth because i belive i will get a lot of Rythm training and also technique.
it is when i play songs by band like f.eks Bloodbath, Lamb of god, Sepultura and Gojira i feel a little guilty i guess, becasue i could use the time practicing techniques or theory insted, because that is what makes me a better guitar player.
This is just the thoughts i get when i maybe end the practice session a little early to play some coversongs insted:)
I understand ofcourse that it is not a completely waste of time, and i think i will continue playing Coversongs, i am just interested in hearing your experiences and thoughts about this.

Rock on:)

Well, depends on your level really... I take it you've been playing for a while now since you are asking yourself this question. It's of course the only way for beginners to explore the instrument's range.. so that's your answer I guess
Opeth are very interesting if you take their chords and acoustic passages. (I really recommend playing songs from their Damnation album !)

You get guilty because you don't practice technique instead of your favorite songs ? There are bunch of good and difficult songs out there lol

Written by ylside on 18.04.2009 at 01:35

Well, depends on your level really... I take it you've been playing for a while now since you are asking yourself this question. It's of course the only way for beginners to explore the instrument's range.. so that's your answer I guess
Opeth are very interesting if you take their chords and acoustic passages. (I really recommend playing songs from their Damnation album !)

You get guilty because you don't practice technique instead of your favorite songs ? There are bunch of good and difficult songs out there lol

Yes i have been playing for a long time:) and you are right about beginners, i learnd playing guitar by playing Metallica and Pantera songs. But i am not a beginner any more so i don't know what i get from playing coversongs exept what i said in the first post.
I think i will take your tips and learn a song from Damnation:)
Yes there are a lot of difficult songs and those are the ones i try to pic like Dream theater and Opeth songs, but it's when i play songs By riff oriented bands like Lamb of god i feel guilty becasue i don't see what i could possible learn from just playing other peoples riffs:)

For the beginner it's essential to play cover songs, how else do you build up the stamina to play for 5, 10, 15, 40 minutes with few and short pauses?

Written by Valentin B on 18.04.2009 at 14:53

For the beginner it's essential to play cover songs, how else do you build up the stamina to play for 5, 10, 15, 40 minutes with few and short pauses?

That is true, but I am not interesded what a beginner learn from playing coversongs, what do advanced guitar players learn from playing coversongs is what i'm talking about

You learn technique. If you intend to become a good metal musician, you have to realize that technique does not mean a lot. But everyone has to start with playing covers.

I agree with the technique thing. i'm no musician, but i'd guess that if you start playing songs from bands that have 'difficult' techniques and really demanding stuff to be able to play them, then those techniques will hlp to improve one self at your instrument as well as broadening your view on all that you can do with your instrument. besides, like it says on the first post, it might be really fun. i'd really like if iwere able to play the songs i like, from the bands i like on the instruments i like. sadly i never had the discipline, hehe

Written by Smurfophagist on 27.04.2009 at 22:20

You learn technique. If you intend to become a good metal musician, you have to realize that technique does not mean a lot. But everyone has to start with playing covers.

Are you saying that you technique don't mean alot if you want to become a great metal musician? if that is what you are saying you couldn't be more wrong

Written by RockeRoy on 28.04.2009 at 17:50

Written by Smurfophagist on 27.04.2009 at 22:20

You learn technique. If you intend to become a good metal musician, you have to realize that technique does not mean a lot. But everyone has to start with playing covers.

Are you saying that you technique don't mean alot if you want to become a great metal musician? if that is what you are saying you couldn't be more wrong

I'm afraid that you are wrong.
You have to get your technique to a certain level to even call yourself a musician. Let's use Chuck Schuldiner as an example. His technique was good, it wasn't too much (if you compare him to Michael Romeo, Malmsteen etc.), but it was just enough. There are also bands like Bathory. That's not very technical shit. But it's good shit. I mean, compare it to Yngwie Malmsteen or Michael Anglelo Batio. I mean what the fuck is that. Those two guys suck. You turn on a song played by those guys and what do you do? You can't headbang to it, you can't admire the beauty of the melodies cuz they're all ripoffs from classical musicians, and their own stuff borders with cheesy Power metal. You can have all the technique in the world and still suck major ass, while on the other hand, you can be like Quorthon and express true emotion through your music. When a normal guy listens to a song he doesn't say:' wow those sweep arpeggios in the phrygian scale really impressed me.' Hell no! He says: 'that's a sweet riff I'm gonna headbang to it.' That's what counts. I mean face it: the only people interested in stuff like technical DM or those crazy neoclassical shredders, are mostly guitar players (or whatever) themselves, and they only listen to that stuff to improve their technique. I'm saying that technique doesn't mean so much because it often becomes it's own purpose, so your music is not about music it's about technique. Stop looking at music as a goddamn sports discipline, and start looking at it as a form of art.

Written by Smurfophagist on 29.04.2009 at 00:28

Written by RockeRoy on 28.04.2009 at 17:50

Written by Smurfophagist on 27.04.2009 at 22:20

You learn technique. If you intend to become a good metal musician, you have to realize that technique does not mean a lot. But everyone has to start with playing covers.

Are you saying that you technique don't mean alot if you want to become a great metal musician? if that is what you are saying you couldn't be more wrong

I'm afraid that you are wrong.
You have to get your technique to a certain level to even call yourself a musician. Let's use Chuck Schuldiner as an example. His technique was good, it wasn't too much (if you compare him to Michael Romeo, Malmsteen etc.), but it was just enough. There are also bands like Bathory. That's not very technical shit. But it's good shit. I mean, compare it to Yngwie Malmsteen or Michael Anglelo Batio. I mean what the fuck is that. Those two guys suck. You turn on a song played by those guys and what do you do? You can't headbang to it, you can't admire the beauty of the melodies cuz they're all ripoffs from classical musicians, and their own stuff borders with cheesy Power metal. You can have all the technique in the world and still suck major ass, while on the other hand, you can be like Quorthon and express true emotion through your music. When a normal guy listens to a song he doesn't say:' wow those sweep arpeggios in the phrygian scale really impressed me.' Hell no! He says: 'that's a sweet riff I'm gonna headbang to it.' That's what counts. I mean face it: the only people interested in stuff like technical DM or those crazy neoclassical shredders, are mostly guitar players (or whatever) themselves, and they only listen to that stuff to improve their technique. I'm saying that technique doesn't mean so much because it often becomes it's own purpose, so your music is not about music it's about technique. Stop looking at music as a goddamn sports discipline, and start looking at it as a form of art.

yeah,,, no that is the dumbest thing i ever heard in my life are you saying that buckethead ALSO sucks because you cant headbang to it??

I think in a band setting covers are essential to see how people play together with each other. in a non band setting, you learn new techniques and styles depending on the styles of music you play.

I dont give a fuck about what i learn from playing coversongs.....I know that after each play you become better than the last time you've played....

Quote:
I'm afraid that you are wrong.
You have to get your technique to a certain level to even call yourself a musician. Let's use Chuck Schuldiner as an example. His technique was good, it wasn't too much (if you compare him to Michael Romeo, Malmsteen etc.), but it was just enough. There are also bands like Bathory. That's not very technical shit. But it's good shit. I mean, compare it to Yngwie Malmsteen or Michael Anglelo Batio. I mean what the fuck is that. Those two guys suck. You turn on a song played by those guys and what do you do? You can't headbang to it, you can't admire the beauty of the melodies cuz they're all ripoffs from classical musicians, and their own stuff borders with cheesy Power metal. You can have all the technique in the world and still suck major ass, while on the other hand, you can be like Quorthon and express true emotion through your music. When a normal guy listens to a song he doesn't say:' wow those sweep arpeggios in the phrygian scale really impressed me.' Hell no! He says: 'that's a sweet riff I'm gonna headbang to it.' That's what counts. I mean face it: the only people interested in stuff like technical DM or those crazy neoclassical shredders, are mostly guitar players (or whatever) themselves, and they only listen to that stuff to improve their technique. I'm saying that technique doesn't mean so much because it often becomes it's own purpose, so your music is not about music it's about technique. Stop looking at music as a goddamn sports discipline, and start looking at it as a form of art.

well i agree with you that there are musicians that are technicaly amaizing, but don't have the best songwriting skills, and there are musicians that have great songwriting skills but are not that good on their instruments. But those two are just extremities. what you are talking about is just a matter of taste, there is a lot of people who love yngwie malmsteen's songwriting, and there are alot of people that don't like Bathory, you say Quorthon express true emotion.....ok maybe they do, but So does Cannibal Corps... Cannibal corps is emotional music and Anger is a true emotion.(People seem to forget that sometimes)
The way i see it there is one man(if we talk guitar players here) that are both technicaly amaizing and have superb songwriting skills and that man is John Petrucci from Dream Theater. But in between your extremities and John Petrucci:) the majority of metal bands out there that have a fairly large fanbase have tallented musicians that have good technique.i have to say that my favorit genres to listen to and to play are Progressive and technical metal. And there is ALOT of sweet riffs to headbang to in those genres. So why be satisfied with where you are technicaly in your guitar playing, there is never a a bad thing to get better. If you have good songwriting skills you will be able to use them full out the better you are on your guitar/instrument. imagen that you get an idea in your head when you walk home from somewhere, and when you come home you try to figure it out on your instrument, but you don't have the Skills ore musical understanding to get it out of your head down to your fingers.... Then imagine that you had the skills to do that... how cool isn't that:)
Music is the finest kind of art there is in my opinion. but to compare it to another form of art, I personaly like the pictures of Leonardo da Vinci and Rembrandt better than The picures In Donald Duck.

Written by ANGEL REAPER on 29.04.2009 at 12:13

I dont give a fuck about what i learn from playing coversongs.....I know that after each play you become better than the last time you've played....

You get better on playing that particular song but you do not get that much better a guitar player, it just feels like it. But if you are a beginner i think you get better after each play.

Written by kkktookmybaby on 29.04.2009 at 04:35

Written by Smurfophagist on 29.04.2009 at 00:28

Written by RockeRoy on 28.04.2009 at 17:50

Written by Smurfophagist on 27.04.2009 at 22:20

You learn technique. If you intend to become a good metal musician, you have to realize that technique does not mean a lot. But everyone has to start with playing covers.

Are you saying that you technique don't mean alot if you want to become a great metal musician? if that is what you are saying you couldn't be more wrong

I'm afraid that you are wrong.
You have to get your technique to a certain level to even call yourself a musician. Let's use Chuck Schuldiner as an example. His technique was good, it wasn't too much (if you compare him to Michael Romeo, Malmsteen etc.), but it was just enough. There are also bands like Bathory. That's not very technical shit. But it's good shit. I mean, compare it to Yngwie Malmsteen or Michael Anglelo Batio. I mean what the fuck is that. Those two guys suck. You turn on a song played by those guys and what do you do? You can't headbang to it, you can't admire the beauty of the melodies cuz they're all ripoffs from classical musicians, and their own stuff borders with cheesy Power metal. You can have all the technique in the world and still suck major ass, while on the other hand, you can be like Quorthon and express true emotion through your music. When a normal guy listens to a song he doesn't say:' wow those sweep arpeggios in the phrygian scale really impressed me.' Hell no! He says: 'that's a sweet riff I'm gonna headbang to it.' That's what counts. I mean face it: the only people interested in stuff like technical DM or those crazy neoclassical shredders, are mostly guitar players (or whatever) themselves, and they only listen to that stuff to improve their technique. I'm saying that technique doesn't mean so much because it often becomes it's own purpose, so your music is not about music it's about technique. Stop looking at music as a goddamn sports discipline, and start looking at it as a form of art.

yeah,,, no that is the dumbest thing i ever heard in my life are you saying that buckethead ALSO sucks because you cant headbang to it??

Buckethead sucks ass beyond no other

For me, I play cover songs on a whim. Me being a bassplayer and also having a more rhythmic approach to music, it doesn't take much effort for me to pick up the bass and play a line to a song I hear. However, I find more purpose in learning to tab down a song because it hones your listening skills. So, I'm more in support of the act of learning a song then playing them.

But in a band setting its different, it is indeed important sometimes to see how people in your band play together. Though, I'm usually more of a person to improvise with people then to play specific songs, I find it much more challenging too.

Quote:

Written by RockeRoy on 29.04.2009 at 17:28

I'm afraid that you are wrong.
You have to get your technique to a certain level to even call yourself a musician. Let's use Chuck Schuldiner as an example. His technique was good, it wasn't too much (if you compare him to Michael Romeo, Malmsteen etc.), but it was just enough. There are also bands like Bathory. That's not very technical shit. But it's good shit. I mean, compare it to Yngwie Malmsteen or Michael Anglelo Batio. I mean what the fuck is that. Those two guys suck. You turn on a song played by those guys and what do you do? You can't headbang to it, you can't admire the beauty of the melodies cuz they're all ripoffs from classical musicians, and their own stuff borders with cheesy Power metal. You can have all the technique in the world and still suck major ass, while on the other hand, you can be like Quorthon and express true emotion through your music. When a normal guy listens to a song he doesn't say:' wow those sweep arpeggios in the phrygian scale really impressed me.' Hell no! He says: 'that's a sweet riff I'm gonna headbang to it.' That's what counts. I mean face it: the only people interested in stuff like technical DM or those crazy neoclassical shredders, are mostly guitar players (or whatever) themselves, and they only listen to that stuff to improve their technique. I'm saying that technique doesn't mean so much because it often becomes it's own purpose, so your music is not about music it's about technique. Stop looking at music as a goddamn sports discipline, and start looking at it as a form of art.

well i agree with you that there are musicians that are technicaly amaizing, but don't have the best songwriting skills, and there are musicians that have great songwriting skills but are not that good on their instruments. But those two are just extremities. what you are talking about is just a matter of taste, there is a lot of people who love yngwie malmsteen's songwriting, and there are alot of people that don't like Bathory, you say Quorthon express true emotion.....ok maybe they do, but So does Cannibal Corps... Cannibal corps is emotional music and Anger is a true emotion.(People seem to forget that sometimes)
The way i see it there is one man(if we talk guitar players here) that are both technicaly amaizing and have superb songwriting skills and that man is John Petrucci from Dream Theater. But in between your extremities and John Petrucci:) the majority of metal bands out there that have a fairly large fanbase have tallented musicians that have good technique.i have to say that my favorit genres to listen to and to play are Progressive and technical metal. And there is ALOT of sweet riffs to headbang to in those genres. So why be satisfied with where you are technicaly in your guitar playing, there is never a a bad thing to get better. If you have good songwriting skills you will be able to use them full out the better you are on your guitar/instrument. imagen that you get an idea in your head when you walk home from somewhere, and when you come home you try to figure it out on your instrument, but you don't have the Skills ore musical understanding to get it out of your head down to your fingers.... Then imagine that you had the skills to do that... how cool isn't that:)
Music is the finest kind of art there is in my opinion. but to compare it to another form of art, I personaly like the pictures of Leonardo da Vinci and Rembrandt better than The picures In Donald Duck.

Yes, but in the end it all comes down to being a good songwriter. I didn't say I have anything against Cannibal Corpse. But I'm sure that for them their songwriting is more important than their technique. Who gives a fuck if you can play the melodic g minor 25000000 bpm if you are going to spend your life playing coversongs.

Quote:

Written by Smurfophagist on 29.04.2009 at 22:34

Written by RockeRoy on 29.04.2009 at 17:28

I'm afraid that you are wrong.
You have to get your technique to a certain level to even call yourself a musician. Let's use Chuck Schuldiner as an example. His technique was good, it wasn't too much (if you compare him to Michael Romeo, Malmsteen etc.), but it was just enough. There are also bands like Bathory. That's not very technical shit. But it's good shit. I mean, compare it to Yngwie Malmsteen or Michael Anglelo Batio. I mean what the fuck is that. Those two guys suck. You turn on a song played by those guys and what do you do? You can't headbang to it, you can't admire the beauty of the melodies cuz they're all ripoffs from classical musicians, and their own stuff borders with cheesy Power metal. You can have all the technique in the world and still suck major ass, while on the other hand, you can be like Quorthon and express true emotion through your music. When a normal guy listens to a song he doesn't say:' wow those sweep arpeggios in the phrygian scale really impressed me.' Hell no! He says: 'that's a sweet riff I'm gonna headbang to it.' That's what counts. I mean face it: the only people interested in stuff like technical DM or those crazy neoclassical shredders, are mostly guitar players (or whatever) themselves, and they only listen to that stuff to improve their technique. I'm saying that technique doesn't mean so much because it often becomes it's own purpose, so your music is not about music it's about technique. Stop looking at music as a goddamn sports discipline, and start looking at it as a form of art.

well i agree with you that there are musicians that are technicaly amaizing, but don't have the best songwriting skills, and there are musicians that have great songwriting skills but are not that good on their instruments. But those two are just extremities. what you are talking about is just a matter of taste, there is a lot of people who love yngwie malmsteen's songwriting, and there are alot of people that don't like Bathory, you say Quorthon express true emotion.....ok maybe they do, but So does Cannibal Corps... Cannibal corps is emotional music and Anger is a true emotion.(People seem to forget that sometimes)
The way i see it there is one man(if we talk guitar players here) that are both technicaly amaizing and have superb songwriting skills and that man is John Petrucci from Dream Theater. But in between your extremities and John Petrucci:) the majority of metal bands out there that have a fairly large fanbase have tallented musicians that have good technique.i have to say that my favorit genres to listen to and to play are Progressive and technical metal. And there is ALOT of sweet riffs to headbang to in those genres. So why be satisfied with where you are technicaly in your guitar playing, there is never a a bad thing to get better. If you have good songwriting skills you will be able to use them full out the better you are on your guitar/instrument. imagen that you get an idea in your head when you walk home from somewhere, and when you come home you try to figure it out on your instrument, but you don't have the Skills ore musical understanding to get it out of your head down to your fingers.... Then imagine that you had the skills to do that... how cool isn't that:)
Music is the finest kind of art there is in my opinion. but to compare it to another form of art, I personaly like the pictures of Leonardo da Vinci and Rembrandt better than The picures In Donald Duck.

Yes, but in the end it all comes down to being a good songwriter. I didn't say I have anything against Cannibal Corpse. But I'm sure that for them their songwriting is more important than their technique. Who gives a fuck if you can play the melodic g minor 25000000 bpm if you are going to spend your life playing coversongs.

Dude you don't get it do you? of course songwriting skills are moast important, but if you take two musicians with equal songwriting skills, but one of them is also technicaly good and has a great understanding of musical theory, who would you think will be able to get the moast out of their songwriting?
It's the same way if it where two painters, and one of them had all the colors to use and the other had only one.
And for your last comment, why i made this topic is becasue i don't spend my life on playing coversongs, but i like to add learning a coversongs at the end of my pracise and songwriting sessions and i feel a little guilty on my self becasue i could have used that time to make my own music, practiced techinique ore read theory.

Written by Smurfophagist on 29.04.2009 at 20:20

Written by kkktookmybaby on 29.04.2009 at 04:35

Written by Smurfophagist on 29.04.2009 at 00:28

Written by RockeRoy on 28.04.2009 at 17:50

Written by Smurfophagist on 27.04.2009 at 22:20

You learn technique. If you intend to become a good metal musician, you have to realize that technique does not mean a lot. But everyone has to start with playing covers.

Are you saying that you technique don't mean alot if you want to become a great metal musician? if that is what you are saying you couldn't be more wrong

I'm afraid that you are wrong.
You have to get your technique to a certain level to even call yourself a musician. Let's use Chuck Schuldiner as an example. His technique was good, it wasn't too much (if you compare him to Michael Romeo, Malmsteen etc.), but it was just enough. There are also bands like Bathory. That's not very technical shit. But it's good shit. I mean, compare it to Yngwie Malmsteen or Michael Anglelo Batio. I mean what the fuck is that. Those two guys suck. You turn on a song played by those guys and what do you do? You can't headbang to it, you can't admire the beauty of the melodies cuz they're all ripoffs from classical musicians, and their own stuff borders with cheesy Power metal. You can have all the technique in the world and still suck major ass, while on the other hand, you can be like Quorthon and express true emotion through your music. When a normal guy listens to a song he doesn't say:' wow those sweep arpeggios in the phrygian scale really impressed me.' Hell no! He says: 'that's a sweet riff I'm gonna headbang to it.' That's what counts. I mean face it: the only people interested in stuff like technical DM or those crazy neoclassical shredders, are mostly guitar players (or whatever) themselves, and they only listen to that stuff to improve their technique. I'm saying that technique doesn't mean so much because it often becomes it's own purpose, so your music is not about music it's about technique. Stop looking at music as a goddamn sports discipline, and start looking at it as a form of art.

yeah,,, no that is the dumbest thing i ever heard in my life are you saying that buckethead ALSO sucks because you cant headbang to it??

Buckethead sucks ass beyond no other

im sorry but buckethead is one of the greatest MUSICIANS ever theres no denying that at all .. i bet even those guys you mention cant talk shit about buckethead, Malmsteen, or Batio

Written by RockeRoy on 29.04.2009 at 17:34

Written by ANGEL REAPER on 29.04.2009 at 12:13

I dont give a fuck about what i learn from playing coversongs.....I know that after each play you become better than the last time you've played....

You get better on playing that particular song but you do not get that much better a guitar player, it just feels like it. But if you are a beginner i think you get better after each play.

Each play is an exercise ,each exercise make you better....isn't it?

Written by ANGEL REAPER on 30.04.2009 at 22:00

Written by RockeRoy on 29.04.2009 at 17:34

Written by ANGEL REAPER on 29.04.2009 at 12:13

I dont give a fuck about what i learn from playing coversongs.....I know that after each play you become better than the last time you've played....

You get better on playing that particular song but you do not get that much better a guitar player, it just feels like it. But if you are a beginner i think you get better after each play.

Each play is an exercise ,each exercise make you better....isn't it?

Well it doesn't make you worse, but when you have played for many years and become an advanced guitar player you don't get much better just by practicing coversongs over and over.

I completely agree with you.furthermore i meant that playing any shit as exercise is making you better player..Coversongs are great in the beginning, because you practice and learning the way how remarkable songs are created.And you can show off with friends...

Written by kkktookmybaby on 30.04.2009 at 05:34

Written by Smurfophagist on 29.04.2009 at 20:20

Written by kkktookmybaby on 29.04.2009 at 04:35

Written by Smurfophagist on 29.04.2009 at 00:28

Written by RockeRoy on 28.04.2009 at 17:50

Written by Smurfophagist on 27.04.2009 at 22:20

You learn technique. If you intend to become a good metal musician, you have to realize that technique does not mean a lot. But everyone has to start with playing covers.

Are you saying that you technique don't mean alot if you want to become a great metal musician? if that is what you are saying you couldn't be more wrong

I'm afraid that you are wrong.
You have to get your technique to a certain level to even call yourself a musician. Let's use Chuck Schuldiner as an example. His technique was good, it wasn't too much (if you compare him to Michael Romeo, Malmsteen etc.), but it was just enough. There are also bands like Bathory. That's not very technical shit. But it's good shit. I mean, compare it to Yngwie Malmsteen or Michael Anglelo Batio. I mean what the fuck is that. Those two guys suck. You turn on a song played by those guys and what do you do? You can't headbang to it, you can't admire the beauty of the melodies cuz they're all ripoffs from classical musicians, and their own stuff borders with cheesy Power metal. You can have all the technique in the world and still suck major ass, while on the other hand, you can be like Quorthon and express true emotion through your music. When a normal guy listens to a song he doesn't say:' wow those sweep arpeggios in the phrygian scale really impressed me.' Hell no! He says: 'that's a sweet riff I'm gonna headbang to it.' That's what counts. I mean face it: the only people interested in stuff like technical DM or those crazy neoclassical shredders, are mostly guitar players (or whatever) themselves, and they only listen to that stuff to improve their technique. I'm saying that technique doesn't mean so much because it often becomes it's own purpose, so your music is not about music it's about technique. Stop looking at music as a goddamn sports discipline, and start looking at it as a form of art.

yeah,,, no that is the dumbest thing i ever heard in my life are you saying that buckethead ALSO sucks because you cant headbang to it??

Buckethead sucks ass beyond no other

im sorry but buckethead is one of the greatest MUSICIANS ever theres no denying that at all .. i bet even those guys you mention cant talk shit about buckethead, Malmsteen, or Batio

No one says he's a bad guitar player. I'm just saying that he has no songwriting skills and thus his songs are bad.

Quote:

Written by RockeRoy on 30.04.2009 at 00:20

Written by Smurfophagist on 29.04.2009 at 22:34

Written by RockeRoy on 29.04.2009 at 17:28

I'm afraid that you are wrong.
You have to get your technique to a certain level to even call yourself a musician. Let's use Chuck Schuldiner as an example. His technique was good, it wasn't too much (if you compare him to Michael Romeo, Malmsteen etc.), but it was just enough. There are also bands like Bathory. That's not very technical shit. But it's good shit. I mean, compare it to Yngwie Malmsteen or Michael Anglelo Batio. I mean what the fuck is that. Those two guys suck. You turn on a song played by those guys and what do you do? You can't headbang to it, you can't admire the beauty of the melodies cuz they're all ripoffs from classical musicians, and their own stuff borders with cheesy Power metal. You can have all the technique in the world and still suck major ass, while on the other hand, you can be like Quorthon and express true emotion through your music. When a normal guy listens to a song he doesn't say:' wow those sweep arpeggios in the phrygian scale really impressed me.' Hell no! He says: 'that's a sweet riff I'm gonna headbang to it.' That's what counts. I mean face it: the only people interested in stuff like technical DM or those crazy neoclassical shredders, are mostly guitar players (or whatever) themselves, and they only listen to that stuff to improve their technique. I'm saying that technique doesn't mean so much because it often becomes it's own purpose, so your music is not about music it's about technique. Stop looking at music as a goddamn sports discipline, and start looking at it as a form of art.

well i agree with you that there are musicians that are technicaly amaizing, but don't have the best songwriting skills, and there are musicians that have great songwriting skills but are not that good on their instruments. But those two are just extremities. what you are talking about is just a matter of taste, there is a lot of people who love yngwie malmsteen's songwriting, and there are alot of people that don't like Bathory, you say Quorthon express true emotion.....ok maybe they do, but So does Cannibal Corps... Cannibal corps is emotional music and Anger is a true emotion.(People seem to forget that sometimes)
The way i see it there is one man(if we talk guitar players here) that are both technicaly amaizing and have superb songwriting skills and that man is John Petrucci from Dream Theater. But in between your extremities and John Petrucci:) the majority of metal bands out there that have a fairly large fanbase have tallented musicians that have good technique.i have to say that my favorit genres to listen to and to play are Progressive and technical metal. And there is ALOT of sweet riffs to headbang to in those genres. So why be satisfied with where you are technicaly in your guitar playing, there is never a a bad thing to get better. If you have good songwriting skills you will be able to use them full out the better you are on your guitar/instrument. imagen that you get an idea in your head when you walk home from somewhere, and when you come home you try to figure it out on your instrument, but you don't have the Skills ore musical understanding to get it out of your head down to your fingers.... Then imagine that you had the skills to do that... how cool isn't that:)
Music is the finest kind of art there is in my opinion. but to compare it to another form of art, I personaly like the pictures of Leonardo da Vinci and Rembrandt better than The picures In Donald Duck.

Yes, but in the end it all comes down to being a good songwriter. I didn't say I have anything against Cannibal Corpse. But I'm sure that for them their songwriting is more important than their technique. Who gives a fuck if you can play the melodic g minor 25000000 bpm if you are going to spend your life playing coversongs.

Dude you don't get it do you? of course songwriting skills are moast important, but if you take two musicians with equal songwriting skills, but one of them is also technicaly good and has a great understanding of musical theory, who would you think will be able to get the moast out of their songwriting?
It's the same way if it where two painters, and one of them had all the colors to use and the other had only one.
And for your last comment, why i made this topic is becasue i don't spend my life on playing coversongs, but i like to add learning a coversongs at the end of my pracise and songwriting sessions and i feel a little guilty on my self becasue i could have used that time to make my own music, practiced techinique ore read theory.

So basically you just admitted that I was right all along. I was trying to say that technique isn't the most important thing and in your last post you agreed. So where's this discussion going?
I get what you're trying to say. I know at least something about that stuff, I have 6 years of musical education. I have won many awards in classical guitar competitions. I know musical theory, at music school they also taught me the piano etc. Even in classical music you can see that technique only means everything if you are a classical musician who reproduces music. Being a musician who's main ambition is to reproduce music in metal is mostly pointless. Crazy John Petrucci-like technique comes in handy only if you are a good songwriter. But good songwriters can manege great without it.

Written by Smurfophagist on 30.04.2009 at 22:50

Written by kkktookmybaby on 30.04.2009 at 05:34

Written by Smurfophagist on 29.04.2009 at 20:20

Written by kkktookmybaby on 29.04.2009 at 04:35

Written by Smurfophagist on 29.04.2009 at 00:28

Written by RockeRoy on 28.04.2009 at 17:50

Written by Smurfophagist on 27.04.2009 at 22:20

You learn technique. If you intend to become a good metal musician, you have to realize that technique does not mean a lot. But everyone has to start with playing covers.

Are you saying that you technique don't mean alot if you want to become a great metal musician? if that is what you are saying you couldn't be more wrong

I'm afraid that you are wrong.
You have to get your technique to a certain level to even call yourself a musician. Let's use Chuck Schuldiner as an example. His technique was good, it wasn't too much (if you compare him to Michael Romeo, Malmsteen etc.), but it was just enough. There are also bands like Bathory. That's not very technical shit. But it's good shit. I mean, compare it to Yngwie Malmsteen or Michael Anglelo Batio. I mean what the fuck is that. Those two guys suck. You turn on a song played by those guys and what do you do? You can't headbang to it, you can't admire the beauty of the melodies cuz they're all ripoffs from classical musicians, and their own stuff borders with cheesy Power metal. You can have all the technique in the world and still suck major ass, while on the other hand, you can be like Quorthon and express true emotion through your music. When a normal guy listens to a song he doesn't say:' wow those sweep arpeggios in the phrygian scale really impressed me.' Hell no! He says: 'that's a sweet riff I'm gonna headbang to it.' That's what counts. I mean face it: the only people interested in stuff like technical DM or those crazy neoclassical shredders, are mostly guitar players (or whatever) themselves, and they only listen to that stuff to improve their technique. I'm saying that technique doesn't mean so much because it often becomes it's own purpose, so your music is not about music it's about technique. Stop looking at music as a goddamn sports discipline, and start looking at it as a form of art.

yeah,,, no that is the dumbest thing i ever heard in my life are you saying that buckethead ALSO sucks because you cant headbang to it??

Buckethead sucks ass beyond no other

im sorry but buckethead is one of the greatest MUSICIANS ever theres no denying that at all .. i bet even those guys you mention cant talk shit about buckethead, Malmsteen, or Batio

No one says he's a bad guitar player. I'm just saying that he has no songwriting skills and thus his songs are bad.

So your opinion defines Bucketheads Songwriting and songs??? You should realy try to keep yourself on your side of the net. it is an honest opionion If you say that you don't like his songwriting and songs, but you can't say that he have bad songs, becasue that is a matter of opinion. I can say that i think Amon Amarth and Burzum sucks in my ears, but i can't say that they HAVE bad songs period.

Written by RockeRoy on 30.04.2009 at 23:13

Written by Smurfophagist on 30.04.2009 at 22:50

Written by kkktookmybaby on 30.04.2009 at 05:34

Written by Smurfophagist on 29.04.2009 at 20:20

Written by kkktookmybaby on 29.04.2009 at 04:35

Written by Smurfophagist on 29.04.2009 at 00:28

Written by RockeRoy on 28.04.2009 at 17:50

Written by Smurfophagist on 27.04.2009 at 22:20

You learn technique. If you intend to become a good metal musician, you have to realize that technique does not mean a lot. But everyone has to start with playing covers.

Are you saying that you technique don't mean alot if you want to become a great metal musician? if that is what you are saying you couldn't be more wrong

I'm afraid that you are wrong.
You have to get your technique to a certain level to even call yourself a musician. Let's use Chuck Schuldiner as an example. His technique was good, it wasn't too much (if you compare him to Michael Romeo, Malmsteen etc.), but it was just enough. There are also bands like Bathory. That's not very technical shit. But it's good shit. I mean, compare it to Yngwie Malmsteen or Michael Anglelo Batio. I mean what the fuck is that. Those two guys suck. You turn on a song played by those guys and what do you do? You can't headbang to it, you can't admire the beauty of the melodies cuz they're all ripoffs from classical musicians, and their own stuff borders with cheesy Power metal. You can have all the technique in the world and still suck major ass, while on the other hand, you can be like Quorthon and express true emotion through your music. When a normal guy listens to a song he doesn't say:' wow those sweep arpeggios in the phrygian scale really impressed me.' Hell no! He says: 'that's a sweet riff I'm gonna headbang to it.' That's what counts. I mean face it: the only people interested in stuff like technical DM or those crazy neoclassical shredders, are mostly guitar players (or whatever) themselves, and they only listen to that stuff to improve their technique. I'm saying that technique doesn't mean so much because it often becomes it's own purpose, so your music is not about music it's about technique. Stop looking at music as a goddamn sports discipline, and start looking at it as a form of art.

yeah,,, no that is the dumbest thing i ever heard in my life are you saying that buckethead ALSO sucks because you cant headbang to it??

Buckethead sucks ass beyond no other

im sorry but buckethead is one of the greatest MUSICIANS ever theres no denying that at all .. i bet even those guys you mention cant talk shit about buckethead, Malmsteen, or Batio

No one says he's a bad guitar player. I'm just saying that he has no songwriting skills and thus his songs are bad.

So your opinion defines Bucketheads Songwriting and songs??? You should realy try to keep yourself on your side of the net. it is an honest opionion If you say that you don't like his songwriting and songs, but you can't say that he have bad songs, becasue that is a matter of opinion. I can say that i think Amon Amarth and Burzum sucks in my ears, but i can't say that they HAVE bad songs period.

You can say whatever you want.
Find me someone who listens to buckethead and isn't a guitar player himself who is fascinated by his technique. Find me someone who likes Buckethead's songs because he likes their sound and not the frets he hits. It's a tough assignment.

Quote:

Written by Smurfophagist on 30.04.2009 at 23:05

Written by RockeRoy on 30.04.2009 at 00:20

Written by Smurfophagist on 29.04.2009 at 22:34

Written by RockeRoy on 29.04.2009 at 17:28

I'm afraid that you are wrong.
You have to get your technique to a certain level to even call yourself a musician. Let's use Chuck Schuldiner as an example. His technique was good, it wasn't too much (if you compare him to Michael Romeo, Malmsteen etc.), but it was just enough. There are also bands like Bathory. That's not very technical shit. But it's good shit. I mean, compare it to Yngwie Malmsteen or Michael Anglelo Batio. I mean what the fuck is that. Those two guys suck. You turn on a song played by those guys and what do you do? You can't headbang to it, you can't admire the beauty of the melodies cuz they're all ripoffs from classical musicians, and their own stuff borders with cheesy Power metal. You can have all the technique in the world and still suck major ass, while on the other hand, you can be like Quorthon and express true emotion through your music. When a normal guy listens to a song he doesn't say:' wow those sweep arpeggios in the phrygian scale really impressed me.' Hell no! He says: 'that's a sweet riff I'm gonna headbang to it.' That's what counts. I mean face it: the only people interested in stuff like technical DM or those crazy neoclassical shredders, are mostly guitar players (or whatever) themselves, and they only listen to that stuff to improve their technique. I'm saying that technique doesn't mean so much because it often becomes it's own purpose, so your music is not about music it's about technique. Stop looking at music as a goddamn sports discipline, and start looking at it as a form of art.

well i agree with you that there are musicians that are technicaly amaizing, but don't have the best songwriting skills, and there are musicians that have great songwriting skills but are not that good on their instruments. But those two are just extremities. what you are talking about is just a matter of taste, there is a lot of people who love yngwie malmsteen's songwriting, and there are alot of people that don't like Bathory, you say Quorthon express true emotion.....ok maybe they do, but So does Cannibal Corps... Cannibal corps is emotional music and Anger is a true emotion.(People seem to forget that sometimes)
The way i see it there is one man(if we talk guitar players here) that are both technicaly amaizing and have superb songwriting skills and that man is John Petrucci from Dream Theater. But in between your extremities and John Petrucci:) the majority of metal bands out there that have a fairly large fanbase have tallented musicians that have good technique.i have to say that my favorit genres to listen to and to play are Progressive and technical metal. And there is ALOT of sweet riffs to headbang to in those genres. So why be satisfied with where you are technicaly in your guitar playing, there is never a a bad thing to get better. If you have good songwriting skills you will be able to use them full out the better you are on your guitar/instrument. imagen that you get an idea in your head when you walk home from somewhere, and when you come home you try to figure it out on your instrument, but you don't have the Skills ore musical understanding to get it out of your head down to your fingers.... Then imagine that you had the skills to do that... how cool isn't that:)
Music is the finest kind of art there is in my opinion. but to compare it to another form of art, I personaly like the pictures of Leonardo da Vinci and Rembrandt better than The picures In Donald Duck.

Yes, but in the end it all comes down to being a good songwriter. I didn't say I have anything against Cannibal Corpse. But I'm sure that for them their songwriting is more important than their technique. Who gives a fuck if you can play the melodic g minor 25000000 bpm if you are going to spend your life playing coversongs.

Dude you don't get it do you? of course songwriting skills are moast important, but if you take two musicians with equal songwriting skills, but one of them is also technicaly good and has a great understanding of musical theory, who would you think will be able to get the moast out of their songwriting?
It's the same way if it where two painters, and one of them had all the colors to use and the other had only one.
And for your last comment, why i made this topic is becasue i don't spend my life on playing coversongs, but i like to add learning a coversongs at the end of my pracise and songwriting sessions and i feel a little guilty on my self becasue i could have used that time to make my own music, practiced techinique ore read theory.

So basically you just admitted that I was right all along. I was trying to say that technique isn't the most important thing and in your last post you agreed. So where's this discussion going?
I get what you're trying to say. I know at least something about that stuff, I have 6 years of musical education. I have won many awards in classical guitar competitions. I know musical theory, at music school they also taught me the piano etc. Even in classical music you can see that technique only means everything if you are a classical musician who reproduces music. Being a musician who's main ambition is to reproduce music in metal is mostly pointless. Crazy John Petrucci-like technique comes in handy only if you are a good songwriter. But good songwriters can manege great without it.

Dude i don't know where you got it from that i think Technique is more important that songwriting skills? all i say is that the better your technique are the more you can get out of your songwriting skills.
And when you are saying that Crazy John Petrucci-like technique comes in handy only if you are a good songwriter, you are basicaly saying what i have said all along... And my personal opinion is that technique and musical understanding is extremely important, but without songwriting skills you will not have much use for them. so both is extremely importent, but the only thing that can be measured is technique, songwriting is a matter of personal taste and you seem to forget that.
And why are you braging about that you are so good in classical guitar playing when that is what you are saying that sucks?

Quote:
You can say whatever you want.
Find me someone who listens to buckethead and isn't a guitar player himself who is fascinated by his technique. Find me someone who likes Buckethead's songs because he likes their sound and not the frets he hits. It's a tough assignment.

well i don't think there is so many people that don't play guitar that listen to buckethead , but i am sure there are many guitarplayers that listens to Buckethead because they like his sound to.

Quote:

Written by RockeRoy on 30.04.2009 at 23:59

You can say whatever you want.
Find me someone who listens to buckethead and isn't a guitar player himself who is fascinated by his technique. Find me someone who likes Buckethead's songs because he likes their sound and not the frets he hits. It's a tough assignment.

well i don't think there is so many people that don't play guitar that listen to buckethead , but i am sure there are many guitarplayers that listens to Buckethead because they like his sound to.

I don't think so. they might assure you they like it because it moves them, but it's really technique that got them into that. I think you also know that is the case.

Quote:

Written by Smurfophagist on 01.05.2009 at 00:02

Written by RockeRoy on 30.04.2009 at 23:59

You can say whatever you want.
Find me someone who listens to buckethead and isn't a guitar player himself who is fascinated by his technique. Find me someone who likes Buckethead's songs because he likes their sound and not the frets he hits. It's a tough assignment.

well i don't think there is so many people that don't play guitar that listen to buckethead , but i am sure there are many guitarplayers that listens to Buckethead because they like his sound to.

I don't think so. they might assure you they like it because it moves them, but it's really technique that got them into that. I think you also know that is the case.

Okay so you say you like Burzum because his music realy moves you? not because it is kind of cool to say that you are a burzum fan and because he is so legendary and have done all this crazy things???