web feature Whatever Happened To The Guitar Hero?

[Hat]

Matt is definitely in my top5 favorite guitarists today.

[pokemew]

for me, Matt is a guitar hero in the sense of the emotion he puts into playing the guitar live and makes it sound fun an amazing, even if it's simple... or at least he used to.

[cosmos]

There's several things at work - technical skill, musicianship, time and dedication, choice of influences, experimentation, and a 'feel' for music which is a little difficult to put ones finger on.

 

one definite help for excellent musicianship is physical - Matt has ideal hands for guitar and piano. Now, this isn't true for everyone - Segovia had sausages for fingers and he still played brilliantly. However, I have played classical guitar for a very long time, got not too shabby but my hands are small and fingers so short that some things are extremely difficult to play. Not a whole lot of time practicing will improve that unless I find a work-around. It's a bummer (a 3/4 classical guitar might be a solution but, geez, I learned to play on a full-size guitar that's really nice sounding)

 

I think Matt is blessed with a fantastic combination that enables him to do what he does. True, I think he would have benefited from classical training as a child - who knows what he'll be doing now but what happened, happened - and who's to say he won't just be doing the same thing he would anyway for piano or guitar -- just ten years later.

 

ok, enough of my rambling

[Saracene]

No, we are talking about playing Muses songs on guitar.

 

My reply was to the claim that anyone can be a great guitarist if they wanted to be.

[Triple C]

lol no

 

Uh. Actually I feel fairly confident that Matt is a better guitar player than the "average human being."

[Jyrgen]

ok, but not that many people have enough will power to keep at it, they give up when they think they fail at it. and to be really good, you need something more, like free spirit, good imagination and (if they play gigs) stage presence

 

You don't need any more willpower with getting to the level of playing Muse on guitar than with, say, exercising regularly. If you want to learn guitar you can, just like if you want to keep yourself fit, you can.

 

Oh, and my brother was trying to learn the guitar for a year, but found it impossibly hard to really progress because his fingers are too short and thick to do more complicated chord changes. Nevermind the talent, there are physical disadvantages to consider too.

 

Django Reinhardt, Tony Iommi

 

Uh. Actually I feel fairly confident that Matt is a better guitar player than the "average human being."

 

Yes he is, but his skill level is not beyond the reach of the average human being.

[Saracene]

You don't need any more willpower with getting to the level of playing Muse on guitar than with, say, exercising regularly.

 

Heh... That requires me an enormous amount of willpower

[haze015]

Oh, and my brother was trying to learn the guitar for a year, but found it impossibly hard to really progress because his fingers are too short and thick to do more complicated chord changes. Nevermind the talent, there are physical disadvantages to consider too.

 

There's no physical disadvantages, guitars come in all shapes & sizes and even then, people with massive fingers might still prefer playing Les Pauls and me with my little fingers prefer Fenders. And if you do struggle somewhere, it's rock'n'roll, make it part of your style, but even people with long skinny fingers will struggle with chord changes at first, I had to play an open E with a completely different shape to the standard one for months because it was too much for me at that point, it was only when I got the hang of barre chords I could do it.

 

I've been playing for around 9 years now I think.

 

 

The bassist in Melt Banana is like 4'3", if she can manage to play a full size bass...

[Triple C]

Yes he is, but his skill level is not beyond the reach of the average human being.

 

I think you're overestimating the average human being. Yes, most people can eventually learn to play the guitar. But considering that most never try, you're stepping out on a limb claiming that the average human being can learn to his skill level. How would you know that? Have you put a guitar in enough people's hands to have a legitimate sample size? While I can't say I know for certain the average person can't learn that level of skill, I do know that a vast element of the human population is tone deaf, has poor coordination, poor dexterity, and no sense of timing. Some of that can be changed via training/repetition, but not all of it. That's like saying any man can run a four-minute mile if he tries hard enough.

 

And let's just say, for argument's sake, that you're right, and everything Matt does is due only to the fact that he's worked at it a lot whereas the average person hasn't. That's still pretty goddamn admirable. It's either rare talent or rare work ethic. Either one's nothing to scoff at.

 

I wouldn't claim Matt's a Hendrix or a Page. I don't care. I do know that thousands of people play guitar for a living, and many are very, very good ... but Matt's playing (along with is piano work and voice) singles itself out to me as something that inspires me and that I prefer to other artists. I don't really care if he's technically a "guitar hero" or whatnot or whether other people are capable of doing what he does. Even if they can do it, they aren't doing it. At least not in my plebeian ears ...

[haze015]

I think you're overestimating the average human being. Yes, most people can eventually learn to play the guitar. But considering that most never try, you're stepping out on a limb claiming that the average human being can learn to his skill level. How would you know that? Have you put a guitar in enough people's hands to have a legitimate sample size? While I can't say I know for certain the average person can't learn that level of skill, I do know that a vast element of the human population is tone deaf, has poor coordination, poor dexterity, and no sense of timing. Some of that can be changed via training/repetition, but not all of it. That's like saying any man can run a four-minute mile if he tries hard enough.

 

This is all stuff you learn, it's never there naturally.

[Triple C]

This is all stuff you learn, it's never there naturally.

 

You might want to publish a paper on that, because animal behaviorists and developmental psychologists and neuropsychologists have been debating it for decades. I'm sure they'd all be interested to read the definitive answer.

[haze015]

You might want to publish a paper on that, because animal behaviorists and developmental psychologists and neuropsychologists have been debating it for decades. I'm sure they'd all be interested to read the definitive answer.

 

Ok, I've been playing instruments since I was 10 years old and spend loads of time with musicians at all sorts of different levels.

 

If someone new to the drums could get on them and start playing in perfect time, I'd eat my own balls. If someone new to a guitar could tune it without requiring a tuner, I'd do the same again, same for a chord sequence and melody line. There's nothing natural about playing an instrument. Whenever I've shown someone new to guitar where to put their fingers to play a chord, they are always in pain (So was I when I started) because it's not natural to use your fingers in that way.

 

Not being tone deaf involves training your ears to know what you're looking for, everyone hears the world in the same way, just if you know what you're looking for...

[Triple C]

Ok, I've been playing instruments since I was 10 years old and spend loads of time with musicians at all sorts of different levels.

 

If someone new to the drums could get on them and start playing in perfect time, I'd eat my own balls. If someone new to a guitar could tune it without requiring a tuner, I'd do the same again, same for a chord sequence and melody line. There's nothing natural about playing an instrument. Whenever I've shown someone new to guitar where to put their fingers to play a chord, they are always in pain (So was I when I started) because it's not natural to use your fingers in that way.

 

Not being tone deaf involves training your ears to know what you're looking for, everyone hears the world in the same way, just if you know what you're looking for...

 

I didn't say that, at all. What I'm referring to is the predisposition to learn something better or faster or to a higher extent than another. I have zero experience teaching people to play instruments so I won't try to argue with you there and I trust your expertise on the matter. However, I have experience teaching other subjects (art) as well as coaching athletic events. Of course no one just naturally does these things without training (even if it's self-training, i.e., practice). But some people are more capable of learning than others, and most plateau at a certain point whereas the unusually talented do not. I have also studied animal behavior and developmental psychology as well as neuropsychology. Everyone and everything does not perceive the world the same way, nor do their neural pathways function in the same manner. Perception and reflexes do very much change and improve with practice or exposure, but they do so differently in different individuals. Neural pathways can change, but only so much, and over time become more crystallized.

Predisposition is really the bit I'm stressing. I'm not claiming playing an instrument is something you can either do or not do when you pop out of the uterus. The traits I mentioned in my previous, people don't have when they pop out of the uterus. So obviously learning/exposure/physical development plays a role. However, biological predisposition also plays a role. I.e., when you pop out of the uterus, you're programed to some extent with certain potential and certain limitations. Or at least nearly anyone who's studied this for a living would agree with that. Nature and Nurture (not or). The argument tends to be "which one plays a stronger role, and what's the ratio?"

[haze015]

I didn't say that, at all. What I'm referring to is the predisposition to learn something better or faster or to a higher extent than another. I have zero experience teaching people to play instruments so I won't try to argue with you there and I trust your expertise on the matter. However, I have experience teaching other subjects (art) as well as coaching athletic events. Of course no one just naturally does these things without training (even if it's self-training, i.e., practice). But some people are more capable of learning than others, and most plateau at a certain point whereas the unusually talented do not. I have also studied animal behavior and developmental psychology as well as neuropsychology. Everyone and everything does not perceive the world the same way, nor do their neural pathways function in the same manner. Perception and reflexes do very much change and improve with practice or exposure, but they do so differently in different individuals. Neural pathways can change, but only so much, and over time become more crystallized.

Predisposition is really the bit I'm stressing. I'm not claiming playing an instrument is something you can either do or not do when you pop out of the uterus. The traits I mentioned in my previous, people don't have when they pop out of the uterus. So obviously learning/exposure/physical development plays a role. However, biological predisposition also plays a role. I.e., when you pop out of the uterus, you're programed to some extent with certain potential and certain limitations. Or at least nearly anyone who's studied this for a living would agree with that. Nature and Nurture (not or). The argument tends to be "which one plays a stronger role, and what's the ratio?"

 

You're just leading it round in circles then!

 

As for nature over nurture, it always depends on what it is you're doing. Athletics and sport in general has an emphasis on nature, whereas music is more about nurture.

 

But putting musicians on godlike pedestals suits the industry and building up the mythology makes it more exciting to the "average person" than what it is.

 

It's not like a handful of people can play instruments well, make great music or unique. Might not be a big star touring the world, but that doesn't correlate with how good someone is at what they do.

[Triple C]

But putting musicians on godlike pedestals suits the industry and building up the mythology makes it more exciting to the "average person" than what it is.

 

It's not like a handful of people can play instruments well, make great music or unique. Might not be a big star touring the world, but that doesn't correlate with how good someone is at what they do.

 

Agree with this completely. And that's actually another interesting sidebar of psychology, the proclivity for hero worship and how bizarre it's become in some cultures (and bizarre historically, too).

 

However, I do think some musicians and artists have a certain touch that makes them more fun to watch. Maybe "skill" isn't the right term. And music and art are certainly different than sport in that you can't line up two guitarists and see which one gets to the finish line first and say "Yeah, he's the best." The description of Matt that started this thread may have been a little over-the-top, but I don't think there's anything wrong with me saying Matt is my favorite guitarist or that he inspires me. Like I said before, whether it's skill or work ethic or creativity, something sets him apart in my eyes (well, ears). If the average person did the same, I guess I'd get rather bored with it, eh?

 

Sorry if I went around in circles a lot, but that's really the way it goes in that field of study (development & psychology). Whether you agree with it or not, it's interesting to go look at some of the studies published on music learning and learning capacity. There are many, and they'll take you around in more circles than I ever could. Some will certainly back up what you're saying, but there's some that suggest what I'm saying too. Or something in between.

[haze015]

However, I do think some musicians and artists have a certain touch that makes them more fun to watch. Maybe "skill" isn't the right term. And music and art are certainly different than sport in that you can't line up two guitarists and see which one gets to the finish line first and say "Yeah, he's the best." The description of Matt that started this thread may have been a little over-the-top, but I don't think there's anything wrong with me saying Matt is my favorite guitarist or that he inspires me. Like I said before, whether it's skill or work ethic or creativity, something sets him apart in my eyes (well, ears). If the average person did the same, I guess I'd get rather bored with it, eh?

 

Well yeah, but my whole point was any "average" person could pick up a guitar and if they work at it, could do what any great guitarist does, it's proven because that's exactly what every great guitarist is, an average person.

 

I was never getting into whether Matt is a good guitarist or not, as I picked up a guitar because of OOS. I didn't think I need to be this or that physically, just "I want to do that".

 

I'd also like to be a rugby player, but could never do it because I'm not physically built for it

[Triple C]

Well yeah, but my whole point was any "average" person could pick up a guitar and if they work at it, could do what any great guitarist does, it's proven because that's exactly what every great guitarist is, an average person.

 

I was never getting into whether Matt is a good guitarist or not, as I picked up a guitar because of OOS. I didn't think I need to be this or that physically, just "I want to do that".

 

I'd also like to be a rugby player, but could never do it because I'm not physically built for it

 

Personally, I would say it's a combination of both desire and predisposed skill. But I'll agree there are a lot of people with the predisposed skill or capability who don't have the desire (or maybe don't have the means, to be fair) to optimize it. That's somewhat true of sports, too, although the physical element is obviously much more limiting in that realm. I'm also one who learned real fast that I wasn't going to be a great athlete. Although I did do quite well for myself as a distance runner through a lot of hard work ... but did hit that plateau where there was no way in hell I was ever going to keep up with some people.

 

You're making me want to attempt learning guitar again ...

[Saracene]

Well yeah, but my whole point was any "average" person could pick up a guitar and if they work at it, could do what any great guitarist does, it's proven because that's exactly what every great guitarist is, an average person.

 

I think the only way to prove it would be to pick, say, twenty random people off the street and get them to work at playing guitar and see if every one of them could, in their own time, do what any great guitarist can do.

 

Because people often tend to gravitate to doing what they naturally can do well. If you spend lots of time around musicians, you're probably spending time not with "average" people, but people with natural inclination/talent towards music.

 

But yes, I'd probably agree with the point that there are many people who can do what great guitarists can do and who simply haven't built a name for themselves.

[Triple C]

Because people often tend to gravitate to doing what they naturally can do well. If you spend lots of time around musicians, you're probably spending time not with "average" people, but people with natural inclination/talent towards music.

 

A very good point. I never got around to adding that, but the sample a music specialist sees is usually not a good representation of the general population (unless of course one is teaching a mandatory course in a general-education school or camp). Most people who elect to take music lessons have a general interest in music, and people with some musical inclination are more likely to enjoy and value music (not always the case, but in general). They've also likely been exposed to music throughout their lives. Sad to say, but a lot of kids never get to listen to much music and as such are probably a bit "musical handicapped" as adults.

 

I'm really not expert on the matter, so I don't want to overstep my knowledge. But I always thought this sort of study was interesting, and I read a lot of psychology journals back in the day. Before I chose a less-glorious profession and got mired in correcting people's grammar for a living.

[haze015]

I think the only way to prove it would be to pick, say, twenty random people off the street and get them to work at playing guitar and see if every one of them could, in their own time, do what any great guitarist can do.

 

Because people often tend to gravitate to doing what they naturally can do well. If you spend lots of time around musicians, you're probably spending time not with "average" people, but people with natural inclination/talent towards music.

 

But yes, I'd probably agree with the point that there are many people who can do what great guitarists can do and who simply haven't built a name for themselves.

 

What I mean is there's no such thing as a natural talent towards music. Couldn't isolate a child from all music, hand them an instrument and one day they'll be Hendrix (Although Aphex Twin likes to pretty much claim this, but he's a bigger bullshitter than Bellamy and likes to add to the "mystique" surrounding him).

 

Musicians are people who love music and want to play and possibly create it, it's the love for it that drives them, not something they are born with over everyone else

[fuesch]

What I mean is there's no such thing as a natural talent towards music. Couldn't isolate a child from all music, hand them an instrument and one day they'll be Hendrix (Although Aphex Twin likes to pretty much claim this, but he's a bigger bullshitter than Bellamy and likes to add to the "mystique" surrounding him).

 

Musicians are people who love music and want to play and possibly create it, it's the love for it that drives them, not something they are born with over everyone else

 

You know, I think the fact that there's music at all, means that there is something like talent. You just seem to understand talent in a different way.

[Hat]

You know, I think the fact that there's music at all, means that there is something like talent. You just seem to understand talent in a different way.

Wait, what? How does that make sense?

 

Music is part of human nature, loud and complex noises are exciting to us. But picking up and learning an instrument like the guitar is not

Indeed

[haze015]

You know, I think the fact that there's music at all, means that there is something like talent. You just seem to understand talent in a different way.

 

Music is part of human nature, loud and complex noises are exciting to us. But picking up and learning an instrument like the guitar is not

[Jyrgen]

You're making me want to attempt learning guitar again ...

 

Do it, then you'll see