I think JustinGuitar is wrong about playing slowly to get faster

Tannin

A good post @Bidley, but I don't agree. The thing is, 4 times out of 5, players who put the hours in to play really fast wind up shredding at every opportunity. For the listener, it rapidly gets really boring. There are players who have the ability but retain the good taste and discipline to use it sparingly, but they are rather rare.

I'm not being holier-than-thou here. I'm no speed demon with a pick (I don't use one at all, I play with fingers) but I've always been good at left hand trills and flourishes. That's my "acoustic shredding" if you like. And I always, always battle to do less of it. Yes, it looks impressive and it's heaps of fun to play, but if it's not done very sparingly, it just sounds like the same-old, same-old before the listener gets half-way through the second song.

So the point is that speed generally does turn into speed for speed's sake. And we have all heard the result - mindless shredding covering every damn tune with a pile of lead guitar spaghetti-wank. 

Bidley

Tannin said:

For the listener, it rapidly gets really boring.

You've just proven my point. Not everyone likes what you do, and people learning something that you don't like is ok. You don't need all these mental gymnastics to somehow prove that your preferences and taste is the only, righteous approach to playing guitar.

Discouraging people from learning something, purely because you don't like it is pretty sad.

Danny1969

What I like to do is first try and play a piece as fast as possible.At this point I know it's messy but what I'm looking for is any problems that might arise at full speed that aren't apparent when you play the piece slowly. So when I started trying to do Eugenes trick bag I found issues with the voicing / fretting positions other players were using and worked out by own positions by see'ing which ones had the least obstacles at full speed. Then once I found that I just kept playing it as fast as possible and it just got cleaner as time went by. 

One of the most important things that you can do is actually take the time to examine your own technique and work out what works most effectively for you, because no one else can do that for you really and I say that as a guitar teacher.  Over the years I found I was most effective as a hybrid picker with a lot of legato amongst the picked notes to create the effect of very fast picking ... check out EVH's Spanish Fly to see what I mean ... 3 legato notes then 3 picked notes gives the impression all 6 were picked. 

Dave_Mc

Philly_Q said:

Dave_Mc said:

Philly_Q said:

Honestly, I've never practiced hard enough to have a strong opinion on this, but I've read the thread with interest.

It seems to me that both sides are really saying the same thing, but with different emphasis.

No-one who recommends learning a phrase slowly says you should play it slowly forever - they're just saying make sure you learn the part first, then push it, try to play it faster.  From the other side, presumably no-one's suggesting you should jump straight in at 240bpm and keep plugging away until you get it right.  That will just lead to frustration.

Yeah probably. I also think it depends on how fast you want to get... "pretty fast for a layperson" (that's where I'm aiming, probably still not there yet!) or "hardcore shredder professional". You may have examine every minute movement under a microscope to get to serious speed...

Like this guy?

Don't laugh, but I think I actually do that! (I didn't copy that video, though.)

Greatape said:

Am curious - what % of practice time do people spend on accompaniment, rhythm, general musicianship etc and what % on single note technique? 

Practice?

PetGerbil said:

Dave_Mc said:

PetGerbil said:

p90fool said:

Rocker said:

Why the obsession with speed?  It is music not Olympic sprinting so put your heart into your playing. 

Careful, the fastest typists are the best novelists around here...

I never understand why people type with more than two fingers ? It's the story that's important! touch typing is a fad that young people get obsessed with...

My mum was a typing teacher. I don't think it's a modern fad... it's very useful, or at least it was pre-computers. Granted, you don't need it as much now (and she had to convert to teaching word processing, lol).

Heh, yeah. I was just sarcasting. I agree it is a very useful skill.

LOL no worries, I do that all the time (sarcasm, not typing... well, I guess typing too considering how much I post on here, but I never actually learned properly!).

CoffeeAndTV said:

What I always say about anything fast, is it will sound faster if played in time. 

That's a very good point, agreed.

Bigsby

Bidley said:

I think this image needs to be the banner for the forum.

An image of someone being silenced as the forum banner?

Perhaps we should just add a 'no posting' rule - it would put an end to all those Harley Benton topics and endless relic debates.  

Kilgore

Tannin said:

A good post @Bidley, but I don't agree. The thing is, 4 times out of 5, players who put the hours in to play really fast wind up shredding at every opportunity. For the listener, it rapidly gets really boring. There are players who have the ability but retain the good taste and discipline to use it sparingly, but they are rather rare.

I'm not being holier-than-thou here. I'm no speed demon with a pick (I don't use one at all, I play with fingers) but I've always been good at left hand trills and flourishes. That's my "acoustic shredding" if you like. And I always, always battle to do less of it. Yes, it looks impressive and it's heaps of fun to play, but if it's not done very sparingly, it just sounds like the same-old, same-old before the listener gets half-way through the second song.

So the point is that speed generally does turn into speed for speed's sake. And we have all heard the result - mindless shredding covering every damn tune with a pile of lead guitar spaghetti-wank. 

What's the big deal? Nobody is forcing you to listen to it.  Some like it some don't. Personally, it's not my cup of tea either.

"I'm not being holier- than - thou here."

I must have missed the "thou shalt not shred" commandment. Is it sinfull or something? 

Tannin

Bidley said:

Tannin said:

For the listener, it rapidly gets really boring.

You've just proven my point. Not everyone likes what you do, and people learning something that you don't like is ok. You don't need all these mental gymnastics to somehow prove that your preferences and taste is the only, righteous approach to playing guitar.

Discouraging people from learning something, purely because you don't like it is pretty sad.

Nonsense, and bordering on offensive. No-one can learn how to play everything and master every technique. We all have to be selective. Spending massive amounts of time and energy learning a not-very-useful technique is a good thing to discourage when there are so many other, more useful things to learn - particularly remembering that anyone who really wants to do it will do it anyway. No-one is stopping anyone. 

Bidley

Tannin said:

Spending massive amounts of time and energy learning a not-very-useful technique is a good thing to discourage when there are so many other, more useful things to learn

Again, not-very-useful perhaps for you, and for what you want to play. But again, not everyone wants to play like you or for you.

p90fool

Bidley said:

Tannin said:

Spending massive amounts of time and energy learning a not-very-useful technique is a good thing to discourage when there are so many other, more useful things to learn

Again, not-very-useful perhaps for you, and for what you want to play. But again, not everyone wants to play like you or for you.

Of course not, and as a musician I can admire fabulous technique in any genre, but I think the point that @Tannin and I are making is that in the world of popular music guitar is absolutely everywhere, but a style which seems to hold a huge percentage of guitarists in its thrall is almost invisible to "civilians".

It's not a question of taste or who should or shouldn't play whatever they like, to me it's just a curious and incredibly heavily weighted imbalance towards a style which almost nobody else cares about. 

Honestly, it's all good, but it's also just a bit weird. 

Bidley

p90fool said:

Bidley said:

Tannin said:

Spending massive amounts of time and energy learning a not-very-useful technique is a good thing to discourage when there are so many other, more useful things to learn

Again, not-very-useful perhaps for you, and for what you want to play. But again, not everyone wants to play like you or for you.

Of course not, and as a musician I can admire fabulous technique in any genre, but I think the point that @Tannin and I are making is that in the world of popular music guitar is absolutely everywhere, but a style which seems to hold a huge percentage of guitarists in its thrall is almost invisible to "civilians".

It's not a question of taste or who should or shouldn't play whatever they like, to me it's just a curious and incredibly heavily weighted imbalance towards a style which almost nobody else cares about. 

Honestly, it's all good, but it's also just a bit weird. 

I'm not seeing that weighted imbalance, certainly not on this forum. On the rare occasion someone posts something a little bit technical, the hoardes descend and explain how it's objectively rubbish, no "feel" or "taste" or not "musical". Of course stuff like Wet Leg got similar treatment, but only after the 8th or 9th thread about them

On other guitar forums you will have more people posting about technical guitar playing, because the people who like that are generally going to nerd out on a guitarist's forum about it.

I've no problem with not liking shreddy stuff, I don't really like most of the Youtube shredfests we see these days. But most of the music I listen to has fast lead passages, and I'd like to play something similar to the things I like to listen to, like most other people. To be told I shouldn't learn it because it's not useful, musical, or has no taste or feel when it absolutely has all those things to my ears does begin to grate.

digitalkettle

Playing fast, clean, and efficiently != shredding.

I don't think I ever 'shred'...I don't think I can.

However, here are some guitar related things that I do which are not on the healthy guitarist activities list but I find enjoyable nonetheless:

• 'collect' guitars/amps/pedals
• 'fettle' guitars/amps/pedals
• build/re-build over-elaborate pedalboards
• trying to make fast and intricate picking exercises work...it's like problem solving or a daily brain-training app...I know I'm not really going to use it explicitly...I just enjoy making a bit of progress. To be honest, it's similar to playing a fingerstyle/classical piece where you're really thinking about voice duration and stopping bass notes...it's just technical stuff

Kilgore

p90fool said:

Bidley said:

Tannin said:

Spending massive amounts of time and energy learning a not-very-useful technique is a good thing to discourage when there are so many other, more useful things to learn

Again, not-very-useful perhaps for you, and for what you want to play. But again, not everyone wants to play like you or for you.

Of course not, and as a musician I can admire fabulous technique in any genre, but I think the point that @Tannin and I are making is that in the world of popular music guitar is absolutely everywhere, but a style which seems to hold a huge percentage of guitarists in its thrall is almost invisible to "civilians".

It's not a question of taste or who should or shouldn't play whatever they like, to me it's just a curious and incredibly heavily weighted imbalance towards a style which almost nobody else cares about. 

Honestly, it's all good, but it's also just a bit weird. 

Isn't this the case with many styles?

I'm a one trick pony who plays 90% fingerstyle blues. I spend a lot of time on the relevant techniques, especially thumb and finger coordination with my right hand. But the people who are interested in this style are usually other people who play it, not many "civilians". 

Lestratcaster

I'm a teacher and can relate to this. When doing a technique based exercise (i.e learning a scale) I do slow it down first but always use a metronome so they can have a rhythmical framework to play with e.g quarter notes 1 note per click etc.

If teaching a song though I feel sometimes if you slow it down too much you lose the feel of the music, so if the song was 140bpm and you half it then it stops sounding like the song anymore with its original groove if its riff based.

People are different though some will stumble through it at full speed and force their fingers to click with their brain. Others beg for no metronome or backing as it "messes them up" and don't establish any sense of timing but if they're not playing it properly in the first place then how is it the metronome's fault? I think a series of repetitions with it sounding awful to start with is a good place to learn and getting the rhythm right.

PetGerbil

Master of Puppets is at the minute number 22 in the "Charts."

220 Bpm...

A human problem is sticking where we're comfortable, a lot of people can "play" Master of puppets" but how many go the extra mile(s) and learn to play it at 220Bpm, properly downpicking.

I could do that by working up the tempo... or I could learn something else.

There is the argument that continually learning it slow is effectively practising a mistake. You just get better at learning it slow.

But what do i know ? My pickings more "Sooty" than "Sweep"

Vibetronic

It’s a bit of everything in the end I think. Playing slowly and accurately, bringing the speed up, but also trying it the fastest you can and pushing it to the limit and then cleaning it up as has been said many times. Sometimes if you can play something at say 140-160 bpm, but then slow the tempo down to a medium pace, it becomes a lot more difficult and inaccuracies start to show/timing goes to pot. That's where the hard work starts, and when you can get it sounding good at those speeds, at the higher speeds it'll start sounding much better. Most of all it's just months/years of hard work if you want to do it.

I just do it because it sounds cool (to me) and it's really satisfying to play. It's also another tool you can pull out now and again when needed. My favourite solo I did with my last band on the album we recorded was a slow one (no 'shred' whatsoever)...but the funnest ones to play were the quicker ones. I think it just gets the endorphins going much like strenuous exercise does for some people. 

Blueingreen

I suspect that playing guitar fast is pretty much like running fast. You won't get there without hard work, but your limitations will be far more to do with innate ability than method.  Most players will never be able to play like the real speed merchants, any more than most of us would have been able to run like Usain Bolt.

Philly_Q

Blueingreen said:

I suspect that playing guitar fast is pretty much like running fast. You won't get there without hard work, but your limitations will be far more to do with innate ability than method.  Most players will never be able to play like the real speed merchants, any more than most of us would have been able to run like Usain Bolt.

To use that analogy in a different way though, it would be nice to have that turn of speed in reserve.  I haven't tried to run fast for about 30 years - not that I ever could run fast - but if I tried now I suspect all my bones would fall to pieces.  Whereas if I'd run every day, my top speed might be laughably low but at least I'd be capable of running.

allen

Well this thread was a bit busier than my usual threads.

I want to do an experiment and learn 2 new fast-ish extracts of music.

Can I have your suggestions please

Piece A - learn via the perfect at slow speed and then speed up gradually every day.
Piece B - learn via the 'just go at it at speed' and then work out mistakes later.

I'm a very 'intermediate' player so no way of learning a whole thing or anything properly difficult. Preferably south of fret 15 too.

I think I'm looking for 2 bars of 16th notes at about 120bpm. Nothing too technical in terms of other techniques, just picking and no stretches beyond 4 frets.
Hopefully it's a bit of enjoyable music.

Suggestions Please

How about the run up in 'Black Betty'? something from Santana? Gary Moore? Basically some classic rock or pop. 

I'll get 2 target exercises and then give it a try this week and record the results.

I'll also post this in the technique area as it might get a bit more traffic there.

CoffeeAndTV

Blueingreen said:

I suspect that playing guitar fast is pretty much like running fast. You won't get there without hard work, but your limitations will be far more to do with innate ability than method.  Most players will never be able to play like the real speed merchants, any more than most of us would have been able to run like Usain Bolt.

No, I think it’s obtainable for most if not all, but it’s work to get there and more work to maintain. 

The technical aspect is just about prioritising which elements are important to you.  I can pick fast and have reasonably good legato, but since I’ve concentrated on jazz I cannot play bendy blues or rock licks because I’ve little interest in that. 

digitalkettle

allen said:

...
I want to do an experiment and learn 2 new fast-ish extracts of music.

Can I have your suggestions please
...
Suggestions Please

How about the run up in 'Black Betty'? something from Santana? Gary Moore? Basically some classic rock or pop. 
...

https://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/comment/3177749/#Comment_3177749