What affects sound is how good of a guitarist you are. What determines how good of a guitarist you are is how much control you have in your playing. Things like how you position your hand on the fretboard affect your ability to attain proper control.
::::::::::THEREFORE, DUE TO MY INSANE SKILLS AS A THEORIST::::::::::::
How you position your hand on the fretboard affects sound.
I disagree that what determines how good of a guitarist you are is how much control you have in your playing. All of the control in the world won't compose music for you. Yes, good technique can help, and I never said having good technique was a bad thing, but unless you only want to play what others have written, composition is an important aspect for a guitarist as well. And because of this, I personally believe that the focus should not be on technique! (As I've said many times already)
Think about many of the revolutionary guitarists. For example, Hendrix by no means had "proper" technique, but he is still recognized as an amazing guitarist because being a good guitarist is more than just positioning your hands in the "right way" in order to have control of your playing. Furthermore, this is all assuming that having the "perfect technique" (ex. fingers parallel to frets, not anchoring, etc.) is the only way to be in control of the guitar when really, it's not!
Maybe this "perfect technique" is the most optimized, efficient way of playing the guitar, but let me state it again:
the focus should not be on the technique! and just because someone uses a different technique doesn't mean they are somehow an inferior guitarist because they can't "maintain control" as your statement suggests.
As far as the statement "How you position your hand on the fretboard affects sound" I disagree here too. Using different notes, durations of notes, note sequences (phrasing) affects the sound much more than the position of your hand on the fretboard, bringing me back to my original point: the focus should not be on technique!
so all this was an argument over the definition of "technique". (olol why does this seem so familiar Michael?)
So Fret, for you the definition of "technique" = taking a shit. No wonder we disagreed so much
Not really sure what you're talking about here. I made that logic statement to prove that your determination of what defines an aspect of music is flawed. If I can insert the statement "taking a shit" in replacement of "technique" have the first 2 statements still be true and come to the conclusion "taking a shit is an aspect of music" then there's obviously something flawed with the logic being used. I'm actually kind of baffled how you missed this, unless you're now just joking around or something?
With all of this said, I'm not responding to any more posts about this in the tab thread. If one of you wants to talk about it more, you can PM me. A video was posted, and almost every comment about it (myself included) deals with technique: something that should not be the focus of attention! I only brought it up because I wanted to prove a point that guitar players shouldn't focus so much on technique rather than composition! In the end, nobody will remember a perfect cover, but everyone will remember a sloppy but amazing composition (not to say amazing compositions can't have good technique, remember it's about focus). Wow, can't believe I wrote this much...
.
