How to be a good guitarist

In another thread:

OilCityPickups said:

In order to be a halfway good guitarist you need to get used to an instrument and learn everything you can get out of it... 

I challenge anyone to disagree.

Would that be the five minute argument, or the course of six?

Roland said:

In another thread:

OilCityPickups said:

In order to be a halfway good guitarist you need to get used to an instrument and learn everything you can get out of it... 

I challenge anyone to disagree.

 Doesn't that mean that nobody can ever be a good guitarist, because it's impossible to know everything you can get out of it, as it's a continuous learning process :)

Just being pedantic, I see your point.

It is more important to be a good musician than a good guitarist. It is possible, rare though this is, to be both. 

Rocker said:

It is more important to be a good musician than a good guitarist. It is possible, rare though this is, to be both. 

I’m definitely not a “good” guitarist no matter how many people I can convince otherwise. I’d like to think I’m a decent musician. -Probably this is where the idea of a good guitarist can be interpreted to be technical skill. 

Without defining what “good” is, and how it would be measured, there’s no way of proving it true.

Similar with a vague term like “get used to” - how do you measure that?

As I understand bert jansch got really fairly good at the guitar without actually owning one...

Benm39 said:

Would that be the five minute argument, or the course of six?

I'm arguing in my spare time

MikeP said:

As I understand bert jansch got really fairly good at the guitar without actually owning one...

Did he just borrow guitars from his mates then?
(I did this with basses tbh) 

slacker said:

Benm39 said:

Would that be the five minute argument, or the course of six?

I'm arguing in my spare time

No you're not. 

I think the context of the quote is a bit different to the way the responders are perceiving it. 

Rocker said:

It is more important to be a good musician than a good guitarist. It is possible, rare though this is, to be both. 

I like good musicians.

I'd argue that for a guitarist to be any good, they need to be a somewhat good musician too. 
There's not much to discuss on that; in my mind, at least, I know this to be true. 
What makes a musician good OTOH.. loads to argue there ;-)

In matters relating to music, goodness is in the ear of the beholder.

When it came to me, I thought that it might be original. But, when I Googled it to check , I discovered that Noel Gallagher has already said something similar :)

https://www.socratic-method.com/quote-meanings/noel-gallagher-great-music-is-in-the-ear-of-the-beholder?utm_content=cmp-true

OilCityPickups said:
I have never understood this constant guitar flipping. In order to be a halfway good guitarist you need to get used to an instrument and learn everything you can get out of it. I worked out ages ago that many folks actually don't want to improve as musicians, the just want to collect shiny things that remind them of a past youth. 
Get a reasonable amp, guitar, effects to taste - then play them. Jam with like minded people, even ... lordy help us gig! It's way more fun being in a group of musicians enjoying each other's playing and the banter of playing music with real people than sitting at home polishing your expensive musical ornaments alone. 

I fully agree with that statement.  When I was first learning the guitar I was side tracked by eagerly wanting to learn how to play other instruments.  I bought some blues harmonicas and tried to learn from books and a VHS tape.  I bought a cheap ukulele because I wanted to play that and thought perhaps that it might lead me into being able to play a banjo in the future, which was rather misguided.  I was simultaneously trying to learn the penny whistle and I also had a cheap electric bass.  I also bought a couple of slides and decided to try my hand at open tunings and slide guitar, all before I had even got part of the way to becoming acomplished playing a 6-string guitar in standard tuning.  All this did was to spread my concentration too widely and I only really managed to get maybe a sixteenth of the way good - on any of those instruments.

After I ditched the idea of becoming the next Roy Wood or Mike Oldfield and just concentrated on playing the guitar I improved much more quickly to the level of being halfway good.  I am not saying that it is impossible to learn several instruments simultaneously, because somebody with a great musical aptitude and dedication can do so, but for the average person it's not the ideal way to become accomplished in a single instrument.

If the statement was with regard to a specific guitar rather than different types of instruments, then I don't fully agree with the statement.  When learning how to play an acoustic guitar well, I would say that the more time you spend playing one or more acoustic guitars rather than switching from electric to acoustic will most likely lead to becoming more accomplished on an acoustic even though they both have six metal strings tuned the same.  Spending a lot more time on an electric than on an acoustic will, in my opinion, allow somebody to become more accomplished with the nuances of electric guitar playing to the detriment of skills on the acoustic guitar.

I am not so sure how much of a detrimental effect, if any, switching between different styles of guitar of the same type (acoustic or electric) might have in becoming halfway decent on that type of instrument though.  I can understand the idea that when you get to know one thing (i.e. one guitar) inside and out you may be better equipped to advance and become very accomplished because you aren't constantly twiddling with controls or getting used to a different feel and can just play the thing.  I suppose it's a bit like being able to handle one car exceptionally safely and well without having to think as much after you have driven it continuously for a while.

stratman3142 said:

In matters relating to music, goodness is in the ear of the beholder.

When it came to me, I thought that it might be original. But, when I Googled it to check , I discovered that Noel Gallagher has already said something similar :)

https://www.socratic-method.com/quote-meanings/noel-gallagher-great-music-is-in-the-ear-of-the-beholder?utm_content=cmp-true

Very much so, I think.

Nobody can judge what constitutes "good" for others.

In order to become a good guitarist, you have to play the thing. A lot. Or at least as much as your circumstances allow (jobs, partners, kids, dogs etc...).

I think the original sentence puts too much emphasis on the gear. Sure ... if you're constantly on the hunt for King Arthur's sword then inevitably it's gonna mean less playing time - but at the end of the day if somebody hands me a strat I know roughly what I can do with it and work the controls, adjust playing technique for the neck etc...(though I'm no Jeff Beck).

If you can - join a band. There's no better shortcut to getting better I think. And it gives you a reason to play. I absolutely believe that a lot of people have no idea what to do with an electric guitar after the original buzz of purchase / shiny stuff wears off.

Roland said:

In another thread:

OilCityPickups said:

In order to be a halfway good guitarist you need to get used to an instrument and learn everything you can get out of it... 

I challenge anyone to disagree.

I don't believe you can ever get everything out of any instrument - there is always more to find in any decent guitar

I also believe you can split time between more than one guitar and still get really great. 

But what you really need to do is spend a shitload of time playing guitar, and crucially that time needs to be spent thinking analytically about what you're doing and pushing to learn to do new things. And to do that means by definition you aren't spending more than 20% of your time fucking out with new gear all the time because that's a distraction almost all the time. 

In that process you will eventually achieve the suggested aim, but imo it's a byproduct not the task itself. 

I'm not sure I even understand it!

Does "an instrument" mean the guitar? Or does it mean a specific guitar? 


To do anything well you need to get used to doing it.

Okay ... by 'good' guitarist I mean one who both satisfies their own expectations of what they 'want' to play (that's really important to be a fulfilled musician who is happy his or her skin), and are if they choose to play with other musicians, also useful rounded guitarists in a band setting. Contributing complimentary guitar to make the audience's experience more than a sum of the parts. To that end, taking out the variables of constantly chopping and changing equipment and concentrating on the skill and performance aspects will make you 'better'. 

Surely the equation is increasing % time of deliberate practice vs playing the same riffs?

I spent 5 years with that imbalance when I had one guitar & no amp. Nothing to do with buying too much gear. I am absolutely guilty of it right now because I’m forever a/b testing new pedals, although I try and do 10 mins scales/technical stuff & 10 mins learning riffs most days if I can, on top of any pissing about I do. That’s way more than I ever used to play when I was touring & recording. 

The problem I encounter with a huge number of guitarists is not the quantity of practise time, but the quality of it. To my way of thinking - and the way I always taught my students when I was giving lessons regularly - practise without a specific goal will always wander off into pointless noodling. 
I break learning anything down into aims, stages goals and motivations. 

Aims are what they say, they are your general aims or reasons for learning this new 'thing'. I used to get my students to write out a mission statement ... that included concrete and abstract.

Abstract: I want to learn the guitar because I think I will have fun doing it, I think it will improve my recreation time etc. 

Concrete: I want to learn guitar to gig with a band, play at my local church etc etc  

Stages are the building blocks of learning ... making a reliable F chord, learning the fingerboard and some basic theory, learning scales. they are all stages and each of these stages will have a goal ... for example making a reliable F chord so I can play a particular favorite song. 

Motivations - they tie in heavily with aims, but I tend to see motivations as the more material ways we have of motivating ourselves ...
I'm doing that at the moment with my double bass playing. I want to buy a £170 Shadow preamp, and I currently don't possess my own personal bass amp. However I have made 'reliably slapping triplets' along with Bill Black's bass lines in early Sun recordings my motivation ... untill I can do that ... no shiny thing.
Now I could justify the shiny thing in that I will need it to gig the bass ... but if I can't slap triplets I won't be gigging so it's the ideal carrot. 

Human beings are odd re motivation  

OilCityPickups said:

The problem I encounter with a huge number of guitarists is not the quantity of practise time, but the quality of it.

Absolutely this. A lot of people "practice" by repeating mistakes over and over until they're really well established and much harder to solve. My cello teacher gives me some really odd exercises to do, but having done them my playing is much better than if I'd just played. 

Sporky said:

OilCityPickups said:

The problem I encounter with a huge number of guitarists is not the quantity of practise time, but the quality of it.

Absolutely this. A lot of people "practice" by repeating mistakes over and over until they're really well established and much harder to solve. My cello teacher gives me some really odd exercises to do, but having done them my playing is much better than if I'd just played. 

I think a lot of folks have a bit of an allergy to doing stuff they think is boring - they want to get on to the fun stuff, and play their hero's licks before they have good technique to act as a foundation. 

It's a fault of modern society I think that everything is advertised as 'simple', 'made easy', 'special secret shortcut'. 

We live in an instant gratification culture, where if things are hard we lose interest ... well unfortunately playing a musical instrument is not, cannot be, and never will be 'easy'.  As with all creative enterprises it involves dedication, perhaps a little pain and a whole lot of self sacrifice. 
Guitarists constantly look outside themselves for reasons why they can't play as well as they want to: 'my amp/guitar/pedal board etc isn't good enough, I'm being held back'. In truth what usually holds us back is a constant 'taking of the easy option' to buy more gear to be better. It doesn't work. 
At the risk of getting all Buddhist on your asses ... you need to first change yourself to change the world. 

Do you view changing pickups as something people do to avoid doing the hard work of learning?

I don't think you have to know everything about a guitar to be a good guitarist. 

I've known a few who never come off the bridge pickup or use the volume or tone and are great players. 

That said constantly flipping gear does impact your ability to get good and you tend to spend your time A/Bing and playing with settings rather than improving technique. 

I think a specific goal is the most important factor. I think the only time I've actually improved at guitar in the last five years was a few weeks ago when I did the cover challenge and had to learn a Maiden solo. 

Practicing is probably the thing I love the most.  I love working and reworking ideas, revisiting tunes and changing them.  Lifting lines, playing to a metronome, and after years of playing I’m still making a measurable improvement on my playing. 

There seems to be a bit of an assumption that everyone that wants to play guitar wants to be some kind of session guitarist or super efficient professional musician.

"Pointless noodling" is my favourite thing to do with a guitar!  =)


Saying that I'm not into flipping gear either.





...have I got the right forum?

Revolutions said:

Do you view changing pickups as something people do to avoid doing the hard work of learning?

I think what sometimes happens is some people just really like *guitars*, but practicing all the time is boring so they develop other interests that involve them.

As I say, not everyone wants to be a professional musician. 
Some people just like pissing about with guitars. 
Plus there's a whole spectrum between. 
I'm sure that for some "pub" bands it's more a social thing than anything else. An excuse to get together with mates. 

People used to own instruments like a piano just for the sake of it. The odd sing along, or whatever. Family, an/or personal, entertainment. 
A guitar for people to play rather than watching TV.


Nothing wrong with that, surely? 

OilCityPickups said:

We live in an instant gratification culture, where if things are hard we lose interest ... well unfortunately playing a musical instrument is not, cannot be, and never will be 'easy'.  As with all creative enterprises it involves dedication, perhaps a little pain and a whole lot of self sacrifice. 

There’s a flip side though …. Just about any compelling artist I can think of feels empowered to disregard that which does not move them. For all the distraction that the internet provides, it also exposes the motivated/studious player to a lot of pressure to learn things they “ought” to (‘You NEEEED these sweep patterns’, ‘Here’s why your legato SUCKS’ etc). As if somehow not being a musical polymath is a problem. Meanwhile the styles of most of the guitar greats are heavily formed by either trying to sound like their heroes, finding they can’t and thus adapting the essence of said heroes, or simply picking out things they like and trying to work them into their sound somehow.