Stop saying, "X guitarist has great technique but no feeling" or "Y guitarist can shred, but s/he has zero feeling". What you're saying may be true, but saying that technique and feeling are not linked is stupid (which is what you're implying when you say "great technique...no feeling"). Technique should be viewed as an avenue by which you achieve certain musical feelings.
To see what inspired this blurb I just wrote, read this:
adamgur96 wrote on Nov 1st, 2012 at 7:22am : I would just like to add, you can say "I don't feel this music/guitarist/artist/etc", but don't you dare to tell anyone else how they should feel about something.
Alot of people say they don't feel any emotion from Jeff Loomis's playing (for example), but I do feel it, if you can't feel emotion in music it doesn't mean it's not there.
And there's always someone to find a certain song/piece of music emotional, even if it's just the composser/player.
This is all very true. Just because some people don't relate to the particular emotions of a piece doesn't mean the piece has no emotion.
I don't usually relate to the emotions of "pop music", but a lot of people find it to be rather fun music. Likewise, many young teens don't relate to the emotions of "classical music"; but if they say it has no emotion, then they're ignorant. Emotion is subjective to each person. Therefore, one song may make one person feel one way, and another feel the complete opposite.
"Technique should be viewed as an avenue by which you achieve certain musical feelings." This is exactly true. However, some guitarists obtain and use very skilled guitar techniques (ie: scales, and fast alternative picking and legato while shredding) but do not use these tools very well to express emotion but largely only use these techniques to make music that looks/sounds fast and technically expressive, but is actually devoid of a lot of feeling, musicality, and good songwriting. As its been said, sweep-picking and doing legato very fast a bunch of scales sounds cool and is impressive, but this doesn't mean it goes well with a song or makes a good song it itself, or has any "feeling" other than being technically impressive. Technique should be a means to an end, not an end in itself
Personally, prog guys like Ygnwie Malmsteen and John Petrucci etc. are impressive technically but I find they are more concerned with either showing off their technical prowess.
Barricade_28 wrote on Mar 26th, 2013 at 6:35pm : Personally, prog guys like Ygnwie Malmsteen and John Petrucci etc. are impressive technically but I find they are more concerned with either showing off their technical prowess.
I would agree when it comes to Malmsteen (although I would never call him Prog), since imho his songwriting skills are lacking. Malmsteen songs might as well be backing tracks with solos on them.
As for Petrucci, he has had a huge hand in writing every Dream Theater song, and therefore I would NOT say that his only concern is showing his technical prowess. In fact, I would say that technical prowess comes secondary. The song is always first served.
Also, I've heard a few bands that do sweep picking, legato, etc. quite well within the context of the song. Nonetheless, I agree that technique is a means to an end and that the song should always come first.
That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with technical songs. (I love Death Metal and Thrash, which, if well executed, is technical.) I also love composers like Bach or Beethoven, both of whom have written pieces that still challenge musicians today.