(Log in to disable ads.)

  • Lessons

  • Can YOU really become a great guitar player?

I have literally cut and pasted here from another website, so I take no credit for these words, though I FULLY support them and believe in them!

# Rule number 1: Don't try to learn on your own. Don't try to learn solely by looking for free tab or lessons on the internet! If that was all one needed to succeed, there would be thousands of new rock stars in the world today. Sure there are some really good web sites out there that do have real quality on them. Think of these things as aides, but understand that they can never be a true substitute for a great teacher.
# Rule number 2: Becoming a great player is a long term process that requires thousands of hours of your practice time and years of learning. It will take far too long to reach your goals without a teacher. A good teacher can/should save you years of aimless practicing, by teaching you HOW to reach your goals faster and better.
# Rule number 3: Besides working with a teacher. Know what steps you need take on your own to become the player you want (and can) be. I won't repeat all of those things here. Please read my article: Why Aren't You a Better Guitarist? It explains all the main things I believe every player should do to reach his/her full potential so if you have not read this one, do it now.
# Rule number 4: Do not lie to yourself. Don't tell yourself that you are really going to put in the time, effort and money to do this if you know really deep down that you won't. If/when you decide to invest in yourself and commit to reaching your goals, do it! See it all the way through until the goals are reached. Stay focused, motivated, disciplined and hungry!
# Rule number 5: Second only to "Fear", procrastination is the worst enemy to your moving forward to get the real results you want
    17 days later
    That was just what I needed to hear!!

    Thanks again Satriani ?
      7 days later
      Rule 6: Start young. I am having fun, but the reality is I have started way too late. Studies show that our brains get mapped to do certain things, and that mapping happens most easily when one is young.

      Rule 7: Have talent! You can become a good player by dint of rigour, but a great one? I could practice 10 hours a day or the next 10 years and I'd never give Jimmy Page or Joe Satriani or Tony Cox or {fill in the blank} sleepless nights.

      This is the same with most things. You can become a good cricketer, a good rugby player, a good racing driver, good painter etc etc with enough practice, but to become truly great you need something that only a few have.
        Bob Dubery wrote: Rule 6: Start young
        I have to disagree here. There are many examples I can point to from personal experience where some kids start TO young, and eventually lose interest. Secondly, I don't people who consider themselves NOT to be young (all in the mind imo) to read this and say, oh well...it's to late. Let me find something else to do.
          7 days later
          Hey thanks satriani, sometimes one needs to hear simple things such as these to continue playing and pushing forward ?
            Bob Dubery wrote:
            Rule 7: Have talent!
            afraid i hav 2 disagree there. vai openly admits not 2 possess ANY natural talent, there is no such thing as natural guitar talent according 2 him. it really does come down 2 religiously spending the 8hrs or more per day practising, and practising the rite stuff.
              the truth is that far too many people who have/think/recognise that they have talent, never actually achieve anything as they rely on their talent while those that feel they have no/little talent work their "butts" off and become great e.g Ivan Lendl, Steve Vai, Lance Armstrong etc. etc.

              Just my Opinion though - makes we feel good about why I was so lazy and didn't practise as hard as I should have - maybe 'cause I have talent ? ......NOT !!!!!
                Satriani wrote: Please read my article: Why Aren't You a Better Guitarist? It explains all the main things I believe every player should do to reach his/her full potential so if you have not read this one, do it now.
                Help - where is the article situated ?
                  The original article is by Tom Hess and is part of a syndicated series you can find on www.bothner.co.za/articles/index.shtml - look for the heading "Guitar School" - it's under there, along with other articles by Tom.
                    Thx - will check it out ( although I suspect I may already know why I am not a great guitarist ?)
                      Satriani wrote:
                      Bob Dubery wrote: Rule 6: Start young
                      I have to disagree here. There are many examples I can point to from personal experience where some kids start TO young, and eventually lose interest. Secondly, I don't people who consider themselves NOT to be young (all in the mind imo) to read this and say, oh well...it's to late. Let me find something else to do.
                      Sure. But you can start too late too. The brain adapts to new skills better up until the late teens. After that anything that requires dexterity, co-ordination between hands, hand-eye co-ordination is going to take you longer. Not that you can't, and not that you can't have fun, but starting too late is not going to increase your chances of becoming a great player.
                        lightspeedchili wrote:
                        Bob Dubery wrote:
                        Rule 7: Have talent!
                        afraid i hav 2 disagree there. vai openly admits not 2 possess ANY natural talent, there is no such thing as natural guitar talent according 2 him. it really does come down 2 religiously spending the 8hrs or more per day practising, and practising the rite stuff.
                        Disagree (and maybe Vai is being modest). You can become a great TECHNICIAN that way. Becoming a great MUSICIAN is another matter. There must be an element of instinct. a creative spark, an adventurous attitude.

                        There's technique and then there's art. I think you can have loads of technique but still not create anything lasting or interesting. I'm less sure about the opposite - I think you can have things to say and artistic urges without good technical skills, but at some point the lack of skills will constrain the expression.
                          Bob Dubery wrote: There's technique and then there's art. I think you can have loads of technique but still not create anything lasting or interesting. I'm less sure about the opposite - I think you can have things to say and artistic urges without good technical skills, but at some point the lack of skills will constrain the expression.

                          Yeah i think the whole point is that technique is actually suppose to open you up so you can be creative....

                            DNC wrote:
                            Bob Dubery wrote: There's technique and then there's art. I think you can have loads of technique but still not create anything lasting or interesting. I'm less sure about the opposite - I think you can have things to say and artistic urges without good technical skills, but at some point the lack of skills will constrain the expression.

                            Yeah i think the whole point is that technique is actually suppose to open you up so you can be creative....
                            Years ago I read an interview with Robert Fripp where he touched on this. He talked about technique as "vocabulary". He was quite self effacing, saying that he thought that he himself had a large vocabulary but not an awful lot to say. He went on to say that Hendrix was the opposite - a man who did not have enough words in his vocabulary to portray what he was feeling or wanted to say.

                            So there are the two things - what you have to say, and the vocabulary (thanks Mr Fripp) that you have to say it with. Different artists have these in different ratios. The worst, IMO, comes when you have lots of words and nothing to say. Those with lots to say but insufficient words/colors in their palette to express it also run into problems.

                            Vocabulary provides a vehicle for the expression of creatitivity, but I don't think that it makes one creative. There will always be people with loads of words but nothing worth saying, or who can play fantastic numbers of notes a minute and have mastered modes and scales and stretches and physical techniques beyond most of us but who still do not make compelling art.
                              Bob Dubery wrote:
                              DNC wrote:
                              Bob Dubery wrote: There's technique and then there's art. I think you can have loads of technique but still not create anything lasting or interesting. I'm less sure about the opposite - I think you can have things to say and artistic urges without good technical skills, but at some point the lack of skills will constrain the expression.

                              Yeah i think the whole point is that technique is actually suppose to open you up so you can be creative....
                              Years ago I read an interview with Robert Fripp where he touched on this. He talked about technique as "vocabulary". He was quite self effacing, saying that he thought that he himself had a large vocabulary but not an awful lot to say. He went on to say that Hendrix was the opposite - a man who did not have enough words in his vocabulary to portray what he was feeling or wanted to say.

                              So there are the two things - what you have to say, and the vocabulary (thanks Mr Fripp) that you have to say it with. Different artists have these in different ratios. The worst, IMO, comes when you have lots of words and nothing to say. Those with lots to say but insufficient words/colors in their palette to express it also run into problems.

                              Vocabulary provides a vehicle for the expression of creatitivity, but I don't think that it makes one creative. There will always be people with loads of words but nothing worth saying, or who can play fantastic numbers of notes a minute and have mastered modes and scales and stretches and physical techniques beyond most of us but who still do not make compelling art.
                              This very true... you need balance... You need to learn and then apply...but compelling art is a very relative concept... A flurry of tapped notes might sound like art to me be but not to everyone...

                              I was once told along time ago by somebody who was a painter, that a good painting is when somebody can relate to the feeling they had while they were painting it. And so that is my definion of compelling art if some moves you soul... its art....wheter it be a flurry of notes or an old building. And Of course you own personal perception of the changes as you youself change an grow older... but you always gonna try and make music to move people...
                                Bob Dubery wrote:
                                DNC wrote:
                                Bob Dubery wrote: There's technique and then there's art. I think you can have loads of technique but still not create anything lasting or interesting. I'm less sure about the opposite - I think you can have things to say and artistic urges without good technical skills, but at some point the lack of skills will constrain the expression.

                                Yeah i think the whole point is that technique is actually suppose to open you up so you can be creative....
                                Years ago I read an interview with Robert Fripp where he touched on this. He talked about technique as "vocabulary". He was quite self effacing, saying that he thought that he himself had a large vocabulary but not an awful lot to say. He went on to say that Hendrix was the opposite - a man who did not have enough words in his vocabulary to portray what he was feeling or wanted to say.

                                So there are the two things - what you have to say, and the vocabulary (thanks Mr Fripp) that you have to say it with. Different artists have these in different ratios. The worst, IMO, comes when you have lots of words and nothing to say. Those with lots to say but insufficient words/colors in their palette to express it also run into problems.

                                Vocabulary provides a vehicle for the expression of creatitivity, but I don't think that it makes one creative. There will always be people with loads of words but nothing worth saying, or who can play fantastic numbers of notes a minute and have mastered modes and scales and stretches and physical techniques beyond most of us but who still do not make compelling art.
                                yeah i agree, there is a big diff between the "technician" and artist. my creativity tends to get drained after slaving for hours on tech. actually cant really think why i'm still playing. frustration got the better of me long ago


                                creativity or technique?egg or chicken? klippies or coke?

                                i'll go so far as to say u can develop creativity just like technique, even tho i risk gettin my head bitten off. its just an application of what makes ur brain tick, soul move, heart stop etc.

                                  lightspeedchili wrote: i'll go so far as to say u can develop creativity just like technique, even tho i risk gettin my head bitten off. its just an application of what makes ur brain tick, soul move, heart stop etc.
                                  I agree the concept behind innovation can be learned, but you have to think in a totally new way...
                                    @DNC - exactly, its messed up. like my creative influences wud b different now compared to when i started playin and the songs i wanted to write then. it makes little difference now as to how artistic i was back then
                                      lightspeedchili wrote: @DNC - exactly, its messed up. like my creative influences wud b different now compared to when i started playin and the songs i wanted to write then. it makes little difference now as to how artistic i was back then
                                      Jip, its messed up... But change is also wat makes you a better player I believe.... classical and prog music has totally chenged the why I now approuch something like blues or rock and roll.... It's what makes you playing different from all the other guys, that just play SRv licks...
                                        Bob Dubery wrote:
                                        DNC wrote:
                                        Bob Dubery wrote: There's technique and then there's art. I think you can have loads of technique but still not create anything lasting or interesting. I'm less sure about the opposite - I think you can have things to say and artistic urges without good technical skills, but at some point the lack of skills will constrain the expression.

                                        Yeah i think the whole point is that technique is actually suppose to open you up so you can be creative....
                                        Years ago I read an interview with Robert Fripp where he touched on this. He talked about technique as "vocabulary". He was quite self effacing, saying that he thought that he himself had a large vocabulary but not an awful lot to say. He went on to say that Hendrix was the opposite - a man who did not have enough words in his vocabulary to portray what he was feeling or wanted to say.

                                        So there are the two things - what you have to say, and the vocabulary (thanks Mr Fripp) that you have to say it with. Different artists have these in different ratios. The worst, IMO, comes when you have lots of words and nothing to say. Those with lots to say but insufficient words/colors in their palette to express it also run into problems.

                                        Vocabulary provides a vehicle for the expression of creatitivity, but I don't think that it makes one creative. There will always be people with loads of words but nothing worth saying, or who can play fantastic numbers of notes a minute and have mastered modes and scales and stretches and physical techniques beyond most of us but who still do not make compelling art.
                                        Very well said, and i agree completely.

                                        But i have wondered about this for years. It's never been clear to me exactly what generates a talent. Part of me has come to the conclusion it is more a natural function of our personalities than anything else. We are naturally inclined to be better at some things rather than others because our particular personality traits produce emphasis which could be called strengths and weaknesses.

                                        I think the saying, "perception is reality" is probably the best way to look at it. i've found that how you view something decides how you will choose to interact with it, and it is this play out of our choices which generate the results.

                                        You will notice people who are good at certain things generally approach their problem in a similar way, or alteast, they "are" a certain way in their minds. With this in mind i think if you can get into the mind of someone, and try and view things from their perspective, and thus attack the problem with their view and approach, you will generally pick up many of their strengths and weaknesses, and thus what potentially could be viewed as their talents.

                                        Obviously, this is lmited, but i think what i am saying hold many truths.

                                        Being a Christian means i believe the bible is an impeccable source of knowledge for the "nature of thigns". There is alot in there i have yet to explore, and i think it will provide a definite answer for what a talent is. Maybe my views on what a talent is will change after a study, i'm not sure.