...and now, Overrated guitarists

[parrish]

So what is everyone's opinion? Who do you think's playing is overrated, over-awarded, over-noticed, etc.?

[Guitar Hero]

Kurt Cobain, on most of the top 100 lists, he's way up there, i'm gonna set the record straight, Kurt Cobain was a GREAT songwriter, not a great GUITARIST, don't get me wrong, Nirvana is one of my favorite bands, but Kurt Cobain was one of the innovators of the GRUNGE genre, GRUNGE being you don't know how to play guitar too good, Kurt Cobain, R.I.P.,

[Lone Ranger]

The Edge

Hey, I grew up worshipping U2 in the early 80s and have been very impressed with their staying power (30 years), but it's always kind of bugged me that The Edge has always been an almost automatic inclusion in any 'best of' list I've seen in the mainstream media.

Still, he did bring a unique sound to the table and became a guitar hero during the era of synth-pop, so I've got to give him his due, I just think he's been overly reliant on the same handful of tricks.

[parrish]

The Edge

but it's always kind of bugged me that The Edge has always been an almost automatic inclusion in any 'best of' list I've seen in the mainstream media.

Still, he did bring a unique sound to the table and became a guitar hero during the era of synth-pop, so I've got to give him his due, I just think he's been overly reliant on the same handful of tricks.

I agree with that. They write great songs and kept the guitar in during the synth pop years, but his playing never amazed me.

[mattx110]

The Edge

Hey, I grew up worshipping U2 in the early 80s and have been very impressed with their staying power (30 years), but it's always kind of bugged me that The Edge has always been an almost automatic inclusion in any 'best of' list I've seen in the mainstream media.

Still, he did bring a unique sound to the table and became a guitar hero during the era of synth-pop, so I've got to give him his due, I just think he's been overly reliant on the same handful of tricks.

he found his niche. andy summers's old job...

[SUPERECWFAN1]

This hurts me to say as a G'n'R fanatic. But Slash sometimes gets too much press over his playing. I think he's in the top 15 but he's no Clapton or Hendrix.

Not to take away because Slash could play walking guitar and kick ass as few can though.

[Spike-X]

Slash

Jonah! Somebody's hacked SUPER's account!!

[Ilash]

Every wanky metal or hard rock guitarist ever because boring ass guitar solos are simply not as much fun as these guys like to think.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Jonah! Somebody's hacked SUPER's account!!

No its me....I even shocked myself . :p

[the goddamn batman]

Kurt Cobain, on most of the top 100 lists, he's way up there, i'm gonna set the record straight, Kurt Cobain was a GREAT songwriter, not a great GUITARIST, don't get me wrong, Nirvana is one of my favorite bands, but Kurt Cobain was one of the innovators of the GRUNGE genre, GRUNGE being you don't know how to play guitar too good, Kurt Cobain, R.I.P.,

I'll agree that Kurt wasn't a great gutar player, but 'grunge' wasn't 'you don't know how to play too good'. Mike McCreedy and Stone Gossard from Pearl Jam are both great guitar players. Especially Mike.

[Spike-X]

I'll agree that Kurt wasn't a great gutar player, but 'grunge' wasn't 'you don't know how to play too good'.

I'm sure Kim Thayil would beg to differ with that also.








...and Soundgarden just popped up on my random playlist. That's spooky, that is!

[GreatLakesAvenger]

Speaking as a working guitarist, I submit the following...

Jimmy Page
Kurt Cobain
Eric Clapton
Mick Mars
C.C. Deville
Kenny Wayne Shepard
James Hetfield and Kirk Hammet
Pete Townsend
Buddy Guy


Just because you wrote lots of famous material, or were prominently featured in a number of hit singles, or were part of an influential group, does not automatically make you a great guitarist. I won't take anything away from Jimmy Page's contribution to Led Zeppelin's song craft, or from Hetfield and Hammet's innovative approach to metal arranging, or from Cobain's body of work as a songwriter, but evaluated strictly on the merits of their guitar playing, these guys are all hype.

For the record, I like a lot of what some of these guys have done. So it's not just a matter of personal musical tastes.

[howyadoin]

C.C. DevilleWouldn't people have to claim that he's good for him to be overrated?

[Ottmeister X]

Speaking as a working guitarist, I submit the following...

Jimmy Page
Kurt Cobain
Eric Clapton
Mick Mars
C.C. Deville
Kenny Wayne Shepard
James Hetfield and Kirk Hammet
Pete Townsend
Buddy Guy

I can see most of those guys being overrated. Page and Cobain are probably more influential than being known for technical chops. Mars and Deville I don't think have ever been claimed as being stellar. Hetfield and Hammet, sure, Hammet being the better of the two, of course. Townsend, good writer.

I think Clapton gets slammed too much. Probably doesn't help that he's a white guy. I've seen enough live footage to convince me that he can play. However, he wouldn't make my top 20.

I think Kenny Wayne grew up some with his last blues album. He may be overrated, but I think he's catching up to his status if he keeps recognizing the traditional blues.

Buddy Guy? Really? Hendrix worshipped Buddy, as well as Eddie VH.

[Guitar Hero]

I'll agree that Kurt wasn't a great gutar player, but 'grunge' wasn't 'you don't know how to play too good'. Mike McCreedy and Stone Gossard from Pearl Jam are both great guitar players. Especially Mike.

I agree with you 100% Mike and Stone are BIG exceptions, they are amazing guitar players!

[Guitar Hero]

What's wrong with all of you?! Jimmy Page is probably #2 (Jimi's #1) of all guitarists! Have any of you even heard his music? Live albums? He could improv for hours on end! It wasn't just noise! Do yourselves a favor, and don't insult a legend.

[Guitar Hero]

I'm sure Kim Thayil would beg to differ with that also.

Without Chris Cornell, Soundgarden would just be another grunge band, sorry Kim Thayil...

[Adam C]

Speaking as a working guitarist, I submit the following...

Jimmy Page
Kurt Cobain
Eric Clapton
Mick Mars
C.C. Deville
Kenny Wayne Shepard
James Hetfield and Kirk Hammet
Pete Townsend
Buddy Guy

...but evaluated strictly on the merits of their guitar playing, these guys are all hype.

I admit. As an amateur and beginning guitarist some of these choices just baffle me. Granted I don't know what standards you are applying here, and while Pete Townshend is not a skilled guitarist in his heyday he was a rather innovative guitarist both in his use of feedback and as an expressive rhythm player in rock music.

And I share Howy's sentiment on C.C. Deville. I think he's a subject of mockery even among the hard rock worshipping crowd at Guitar World. They once had a list of the worst solos of all time, complete with a series of symbols denoting elements common to bad solos. One of these was "involves C.C. Deville." (Don't know how Mick Mars is rated though.)

[GreatLakesAvenger]

What's wrong with all of you?! Jimmy Page is probably #2 (Jimi's #1) of all guitarists! Have any of you even heard his music? Live albums? He could improv for hours on end! It wasn't just noise! Do yourselves a favor, and don't insult a legend.

At one point or another, I have owned just about all of Led Zeppelin's albums. Just being able to improvise for a long time doesn't mean I want to hear it. Same reason I never got into Allman. But improv chops aside, look me in the eye and tell me that the a cappela solo in "Heartbreaker" isn't jam-packed with one flub after another. I always thought of him as being one brilliant member of a brilliant band, but not even close to my top ten as far as performance ability.



Buddy Guy? Really? Hendrix worshipped Buddy, as well as Eddie VH.


Yeah, and I really don't get where they're coming from. Maybe because rock guitarists from before the advent of Van Halen, Satch, Vai, etc. had fewer rock guitarists to look up to and figured blues is closer in spirit, never minding jazz, classical, bluegrass, folk, etc. Django Reinhardt, Doc Watson, Jim Hall, etc. can all play circles around the likes of Buddy Guy. I know it's not hip to disrespect the blues, but there's really not much going on there. Not that I don't have my own blues artists that I admire. In fact, I'll acknowledge that Buddy Guy is a fine blues guitarist. But the question wasn't "who isn't good?" but "who is overrated?" And Hendrix's, Clapton's, and Van Halen's idolization of Guy is something I never understood.

[Wenatchee the Hatchet]

GreatLakesAvenger

I think most of the people on your list are probably as famous for the songs they played or wrote as for the guitar chops. Page has always been sloppy and doesn't really pretend otherwise. Townshend has never really claimed to play anything particularly fancy (that I know of) but both of them worked on the song-writing end of things. There are different kinds of guitarists and while some of the guys on the list have been over-rated in terms of technique I think a lot of them make up for limitations in technique with other things. By contrast, John McLaughlin has indisputably incredible technique and I still can't help but hate anything he did that didn't have him taking orders from Miles Davis.

For Edge, he's more up the alley of using the few technical tricks he has well. For all we know he can play other stuff than what goes on U2 albums and he just prefers not to play that stuff because there's a sound that's his meal ticket. I know of a few classical guitarists who like playing non-classical stuff but you won't catch them playing the stuff on "official recordings".

[Adam C]

Kurt Cobain, on most of the top 100 lists, he's way up there, i'm gonna set the record straight, Kurt Cobain was a GREAT songwriter, not a great GUITARIST, don't get me wrong, Nirvana is one of my favorite bands, but Kurt Cobain was one of the innovators of the GRUNGE genre, GRUNGE being you don't know how to play guitar too good, Kurt Cobain, R.I.P.,

I have to agree, but not so much because Cobain wasn't a "good" (read technically skilled) player. It was that he wasn't a particularly innovative or interesting one. Nirvana's one of those legendary bands that never took for me and there's nothing in his playing that I hadn't heard Bob Mould of Husker Du or Joey Santiago and Frank Black of the Pixies do before, and better.

[Spike-X]

Jimmy Page...could improv for hours on end!

Yeah, smack'll do that.

[Spike-X]

Hendrix worshipped Buddy, as well as Eddie VH.

Hendrix worshipped Eddie Van Halen?

[howyadoin]

They once had a list of the worst solos of all time, complete with a series of symbols denoting elements common to bad solos. One of these was "involves C.C. Deville."Hah. Priceless.




I'm assuming the solo from "We're Not Gonna Take It" made the list, too.

[Adam C]

But improv chops aside, look me in the eye and tell me that the a cappela solo in "Heartbreaker" isn't jam-packed with one flub after another. I always thought of him as being one brilliant member of a brilliant band, but not even close to my top ten as far as performance ability.

Yeah, and I really don't get where they're coming from. Maybe because rock guitarists from before the advent of Van Halen, Satch, Vai, etc. had fewer rock guitarists to look up to and figured blues is closer in spirit, never minding jazz, classical, bluegrass, folk, etc. Django Reinhardt, Doc Watson, Jim Hall, etc. can all play circles around the likes of Buddy Guy.

Probably because technical ability isn't the sole criteria people use when judging the merits of a particular guitarist (or singer for that matter). Yeah Reinhardt, Watson, etc. could all play circles around Guy. And Yngwie Malmsteen could play circles around Tom Verlaine, but Tom Verlaine writes interesting music while Malmsteen uses his guitar to masturbate. Townshend is rated highly because he's an innovative and expressive rhythm player, and this is rock music so naturally it's roughshod and sloppy. Guy is admired by guys like Hendrix and such because he was an innovative and expressive blues guitar player who could make his guitar moan and scream well. Not because he could hit all the right notes.

And rock guitarists looked to the blues not because there were fewer rock guitarists to look up to. They looked to the blues because it was one of hte musical forms rock'n'roll came out of. And anyways rock'n'roll wasn't about technical ability. It was (originally) about kickin' up a bloody racket and getting people to shake their asses. (Which is what blues and jazz were orignally about too oddly enough.)

[Adam C]

Yeah, smack'll do that.

Man...that was just brilliant.

[the goddamn batman]

GreatLakesAvenger

I think most of the people on your list are probably as famous for the songs they played or wrote as for the guitar chops. Page has always been sloppy and doesn't really pretend otherwise. Townshend has never really claimed to play anything particularly fancy (that I know of) but both of them worked on the song-writing end of things. There are different kinds of guitarists and while some of the guys on the list have been over-rated in terms of technique I think a lot of them make up for limitations in technique with other things.

That's pretty much what he said to begin with. They're not bad guitar players, but they're considered to be some of 'the BEST' around, when in fact, from a technical standpoint, they really aren't.

All those guys are famous for a reason. Be it great songwriters, or innovative guitar playing, they are not the best technical guitarists around.

And, I've played guitar for 16 years, so this isn't about taste.

[Patriot07]

Great Lake Avenger mentioned Malmsteen, Vai, and Satriani. The only one out of that group is Satch. The other two really are just about wankrey. I've been taking music classes for well over three years and the one thing I can say for sure is that music is about expression, not about hitting the right notes. Yes it takes a little of both, but the most important part is creating a mood and almost all of the guitarists he mentioned do exactly that.

[the goddamn batman]

Great Lake Avenger mentioned Malmsteen, Vai, and Satriani. The only one out of that group is Satch. The other two really are just about wankrey. I've been taking music classes for well over three years and the one thing I can say for sure is that music is about expression, not about hitting the right notes. Yes it takes a little of both, but the most important part is creating a mood and almost all of the guitarists he mentioned do exactly that.

Actually, playing the wrong notes is bound to ruin the mood.

Vai, Satriani, and Malmsteen are known for their technical ability... in which they are very proficient. I wouldn't say they're overrated.

[Ilash]

A few thoughts on some of the guitarists mentioned:

Jimmy Page: I was thinking of mentioning him myself but I do actually rather like his guitar playing on the Zep albums. Actually, I hold the opposite opinion to GreatLakesAvenger in that I think his playing on the albums is far stronger than the songcraft, which has never in my opinion been Zeppelin's strength - at least not on a songwriting level. I haven't heard much of Zeppelin's live stuff stuff but I've heard that Page's work on the studio albums is heavily overdubbed and his live work does reflect that. Is there any truth to that?

GreatLakesAvenger also mentioned the Allman Brothers and while I too don't have much patience for their really long jams, I take it no one calls Duane Allman, one of the true giants of rock and roll guitar, overrated. Right?

Eric Clapton. Again, I'm going to have to defend the guy. Truth is, that while I agree that his solo career is frequently dissapointing, a large part of that has to do with his apparent refusal to really play the guitar on anything but some blues albums and some of his live stuff. Measuring Clapton's worth as a guitarist should be done by his work with Cream, The bluesbreakers, the Dominoes, some of his live stuff and the blues albums he has released and NOT on the guitar-light soft rock that he so often released throughout his career.

Townshend ain't overrated at all, in my opinion. No, he isn't the most technically proficient (from what I can tell) soloist but he's an incredible rhythm guitarist, one of the great innovators of feedback and there's a power and an intensity to his playing that leaves everyone, bar Hendrix perhaps, in the shade. I don't know how anyone could listen to his work on Live at Leeds, which is a pretty magnificent display of all the above traits, and not be bowled over. Unless, of course, they just can't tare their attention away from Entwistle's jaw-dropping bass playing, which is pretty damn understandable.

[Dennis K]

All of them, every last stinking one of them. They're only musicians for God's sake.

[parrish]

Vai, Satriani, and Malmsteen are known for their technical ability... in which they are very proficient. I wouldn't say they're overrated.

I don't think so either. I would imagine that most people that buy their albums, go to their concerts, etc. are musicians.

[Adam C]

Actually, playing the wrong notes is bound to ruin the mood.

Possibly, though it hasn't stopped large numbers of people from enjoying Zeppelin's music as the swaggering expression of male sexuality that it is. Yes people are going "ooh-aah" over Pages' solos, but they also appreciate it because of the crazed, swaggering energy it invokes. Pages' flubs, whatever they might be, haven't ruined my mood while listening to Led Zeppelin.

And what about guitarists like Keith Richards or Ron Asheton, who are less technically able (and Ron is far less technically able than Keef), but work simply because their playing suits the respective bands they are in?

(Of course when people use the term "hit all the right notes" they're using it as a figurative term for technical ability rather than a strictly literal sense.)

Vai, Satriani, and Malmsteen are known for their technical ability... in which they are very proficient. I wouldn't say they're overrated.

It's been awhile since I listened to Vai so I can't comment. I may agree on Satriani, but not Malmsteen. Everything I've heard by Malmsteen is the same overblown neo-classical metal solos with very little to make them stand out from one another. It's technique devoted to the demonstration of technique without any emotion or ideas whatsoever. Satch on the other hand actually has stylistic range and some emotional depth. He can actually make his display of technique meaningful by attaching his playing to a good melody like he did on "Starry Night."

[Adam C]

All of them, every last stinking one of them. They're only musicians for God's sake.

That's probably the best take I've heard on this subject yet.

[Adam C]

And now my list...

Eric Clapton - See Rob's earlier comments (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=4963877&postcount=77) on the matter. He sums up the why's and how's nice and succintly.

Granted even Clapton's heyday I vastly prefer Michael Bloomfield as a blues guitarist.

B.B. King - Tried to get into his stuff. Wanted to get into his stuff. Oh lord I could not get into his stuff. Even his fifties work did little for me. It was too mannered and polite. His stuff after that just increasingly devolves into the same cliches that has made blues suit-and-tie dinner music for yuppies* when maudlin lounge jazz is seen as too polite.

* That's when it's not trite historical recreationism or silly guitar wank. Granted there's the rare exceptions like...the Fat Possum stable, that make it dirty, ass-shaking fun.

Eddie Van Halen - Okay "Eruption" was kind of neat, but his guitar shredding is pretty much a stylistic dead-on where the guitarists do nothing but compare their manhood in testosterone fueled displays of technical proficiency. *Yawn*

Stevie Ray Vaughan - Interestingly enough, I actually have a higher opinion of SRV now having seen some live footage of him than I did awhile back listening to his first two albums. There's a lot more fun and energy in his playing than Texas Flood and Couldn't Stand the Weather indicate.

On the other hand I'm left wondering what makes him so special as a guitarist that he regularly attracts godlike adulation. I mean it's good stuff, but it also strikes me as not being particularly innovative or different than a lot of blues and blues rock that came before it. So what's the big deal?

[b]Jimmy Page, Jeff Beck, Duane Allman, Ritchie Blackmore...[./b] and just about every other hard rock guitarist that regularly makes the top ranks of these best guitarists lists, except for Jimi Hendrix. I mean I love Page, Beck, and Allman (not so much Blackmore) but there is more to the world of guitar than just blues-based rock soloing, as anyone who has heard Django Reinhardt or Grant Green will attest. Hell there's more to rock guitar than just that, whether it's Kevin Shield's explorations of atmosphere and texture with My Bloody Valentine or Tom Verlaine's weirdly minimal instumental explorations (http://www.thrilljockey.com/catalog/index.html?id=100255). And besides it's been done.

To death.

[Patriot07]

And now my list...

Eric Clapton - See Rob's earlier comments (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=4963877&postcount=77) on the matter. He sums up the why's and how's nice and succintly.

Granted even Clapton's heyday I vastly prefer Michael Bloomfield as a blues guitarist.

B.B. King - Tried to get into his stuff. Wanted to get into his stuff. Oh lord I could not get into his stuff. Even his fifties work did little for me. It was too mannered and polite. His stuff after that just increasingly devolves into the same cliches that has made blues suit-and-tie dinner music for yuppies* when maudlin lounge jazz is seen as too polite.

* That's when it's not trite historical recreationism or silly guitar wank. Granted there's the rare exceptions like...the Fat Possum stable, that make it dirty, ass-shaking fun.

Eddie Van Halen - Okay "Eruption" was kind of neat, but his guitar shredding is pretty much a stylistic dead-on where the guitarists do nothing but compare their manhood in testosterone fueled displays of technical proficiency. *Yawn*

Stevie Ray Vaughan - Interestingly enough, I actually have a higher opinion of SRV now having seen some live footage of him than I did awhile back listening to his first two albums. There's a lot more fun and energy in his playing than Texas Flood and Couldn't Stand the Weather indicate.

On the other hand I'm left wondering what makes him so special as a guitarist that he regularly attracts godlike adulation. I mean it's good stuff, but it also strikes me as not being particularly innovative or different than a lot of blues and blues rock that came before it. So what's the big deal?

[b]Jimmy Page, Jeff Beck, Duane Allman, Ritchie Blackmore...[./b] and just about every other hard rock guitarist that regularly makes the top ranks of these best guitarists lists, except for Jimi Hendrix. I mean I love Page, Beck, and Allman (not so much Blackmore) but there is more to the world of guitar than just blues-based rock soloing, as anyone who has heard Django Reinhardt or Grant Green will attest. Hell there's more to rock guitar than just that, whether it's Kevin Shield's explorations of atmosphere and texture with My Bloody Valentine or Tom Verlaine's weirdly minimal instumental explorations (http://www.thrilljockey.com/catalog/index.html?id=100255). And besides it's been done.

To death.

I don't think that Duane is reveared for his blues based soloign. To me, it's about his amazingly smooth slide sound. No one that I can think of can make a slide guitar sound like that. And saying there's more than just blues in Rock and Roll is kind of an odd statement. Rock and Roll is a derivitive form of music. A lot of his comes from blues, so it's not odd that rock solos are based off of blues. Even a lot of Eddie Van Halen's solos are based around the pentatonic scales.

[Ilash]

I agree. Duane Allman's slide guitar playing is what really stands out and I certainly like him more than the other three, who do seem to be more acclaimed. I also would have liked to have more acoustic work from him because Little Martha contains both a beautiful melody and some truly exemplary acoustic guitar dueling between Duane and Dicky.

[DonC]

Every wanky metal or hard rock guitarist ever because boring ass guitar solos are simply not as much fun as these guys like to think.


Allow me to introduce you to Yngwie (http://youtube.com/watch?v=4oL_TvwHjk8&mode=related&search=) Malmsteen. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=9cVIOuvDUGE&mode=related&search=)

[Rattlehead]

[b]Jimmy Page, Jeff Beck, Duane Allman, Ritchie Blackmore...[./b] and just about every other hard rock guitarist that regularly makes the top ranks of these best guitarists lists, except for Jimi Hendrix. I mean I love Page, Beck, and Allman (not so much Blackmore) but there is more to the world of guitar than just blues-based rock soloing, as anyone who has heard Django Reinhardt or Grant Green will attest. Hell there's more to rock guitar than just that, whether it's Kevin Shield's explorations of atmosphere and texture with My Bloody Valentine or Tom Verlaine's weirdly minimal instumental explorations (http://www.thrilljockey.com/catalog/index.html?id=100255). And besides it's been done.

To death.

You're forgetting that Ritchie Blackmore hasn't played Rock Music in years though. He plays medieval Renassaince music these days and does a pretty damn good job of it. I think he's at least proven that he has versatility.

As for Jimmy Page, I love Zeppelin, but let's face it. They should give all of their money back to all of those old Blues artists that they basically bent over and raped. Jimmy Page lifted a lot of riffs.

[TheLazy]

This hurts me to say as a G'n'R fanatic. But Slash sometimes gets too much press over his playing. I think he's in the top 15 but he's no Clapton or Hendrix.

Not to take away because Slash could play walking guitar and kick ass as few can though.

He isn't rubish, but he isn't even 15th best guitarist in the world. He has afew good licks, but after 2 decent songs on Appitite he went up his own ass just like Axl.

Every wanky metal or hard rock guitarist ever because boring ass guitar solos are simply not as much fun as these guys like to think.

I agree for the most part, guitar wank is over saturated, but there are exceptions to the rule like Dimebag or Ywngie Malsteen

Speaking as a working guitarist, I submit the following...

Jimmy Page
Kurt Cobain
Eric Clapton
Mick Mars
C.C. Deville
Kenny Wayne Shepard
James Hetfield and Kirk Hammet
Pete Townsend
Buddy Guy


Just because you wrote lots of famous material, or were prominently featured in a number of hit singles, or were part of an influential group, does not automatically make you a great guitarist. I won't take anything away from Jimmy Page's contribution to Led Zeppelin's song craft, or from Hetfield and Hammet's innovative approach to metal arranging, or from Cobain's body of work as a songwriter, but evaluated strictly on the merits of their guitar playing, these guys are all hype.

For the record, I like a lot of what some of these guys have done. So it's not just a matter of personal musical tastes.

I agree with the rest of your list, but none of them compae to the hyperbole that is Slash. Hell even the name is stupid, it makes me think of bing pissed and needing a slash. At least The Edge has a kind of cool name. Jameshetfield invented a style of rhythm work which 99% of ALL metal playing is based on, I'd say that puts him in the Top20 from an objection point of view at least.

:)

[Ilash]

Allow me to introduce you to Yngwie (http://youtube.com/watch?v=4oL_TvwHjk8&mode=related&search=) Malmsteen. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=9cVIOuvDUGE&mode=related&search=)

I don't know. The guy plays like a demon, no doubt about that. I'm just not convinced I would actually like to listen to this stuff all that much. Again, my problem with these guys isn't technical skill but their inability to truly engage me with their guitar playing for numerous reasons.

[Patriot07]

I agree. Duane Allman's slide guitar playing is what really stands out and I certainly like him more than the other three, who do seem to be more acclaimed. I also would have liked to have more acoustic work from him because Little Martha contains both a beautiful melody and some truly exemplary acoustic guitar dueling between Duane and Dicky.

I would have liked to see a lot from Allman. He was taken long before his potential was realized.

[Ilash]

I would have liked to see a lot from Allman. He was taken long before his potential was realized.

Can't argue with that.

[Adam C]

I don't think that Duane is reveared for his blues based soloign. To me, it's about his amazingly smooth slide sound. No one that I can think of can make a slide guitar sound like that. And saying there's more than just blues in Rock and Roll is kind of an odd statement. Rock and Roll is a derivitive form of music. A lot of his comes from blues, so it's not odd that rock solos are based off of blues. Even a lot of Eddie Van Halen's solos are based around the pentatonic scales.

Yes, but why is it whenever a discussion of the top guitarists out there it always comes down to a.) 60s-70s blues rockers or b.) the usual hard-rock and metal suspects near the top with anything else shoved further and further down the list? And I love many of the guys I just listed, particularly Duane Allman. But can we really say that Duane and EVH is the one of the greatest guitarists over say...Merle Travis whose playing blended country and jazz and in the process influenced Chet Atkins, Scotty Moore, Link Wray, and defined guitar playing in country music as a whole?

(And while rock'n'roll is a amalgmation of country, blues, and rhythm & blues, after 1966 it becomes increasingly hard to talk about it in those terms as various artists begin to look outside of those traditions for their ideas. Hence why some people distinguish between "rock'n'roll" and "rock.")

((And pentatonic scales are also used heavily in jazz, country, folk, and Indonesian gamelan music.))

You're forgetting that Ritchie Blackmore hasn't played Rock Music in years though. He plays medieval Renassaince music these days and does a pretty damn good job of it. I think he's at least proven that he has versatility.

I know, though his reputation still mostly rests on his Deep Purple/Rainbow work.

[Ilash]

Yes, but why is it whenever a discussion of the top guitarists out there it always comes down to a.) 60s-70s blues rockers or b.) the usual hard-rock and metal suspects near the top with anything else shoved further and further down the list? And I love many of the guys I just listed, particularly Duane Allman. But can we really say that Duane and EVH is the one of the greatest guitarists over say...Merle Travis whose playing blended country and jazz and in the process influenced Chet Atkins, Scotty Moore, Link Wray, and defined guitar playing in country music as a whole?

(And while rock'n'roll is a amalgmation of country, blues, and rhythm & blues, after 1966 it becomes increasingly hard to talk about it in those terms as various artists begin to look outside of those traditions for their ideas. Hence why some people distinguish between "rock'n'roll" and "rock.")

((And pentatonic scales are also used heavily in jazz, country, folk, and Indonesian gamelan music.))



I know, though his reputation still mostly rests on his Deep Purple/Rainbow work.


I agree with most of this actually. Only I don't really see these rock guitarists as being overrated as much as non-rock guitarists underrated. Rock is the popular music of our time (excluding hip hop, I mean) so it is understandable that people generally think of rock - and its related genres - guitarists but it is a disservice to those who work outside the genre.

[leonaozaki]

Jameshetfield invented a style of rhythm work which 99% of ALL metal playing is based on, I'd say that puts him in the Top20 from an objection point of view at least.

:)

Agreed. Most of the time when I'm listening to the local hard rock station, I think, "Hmm...this sounds an awful lot like a Metallica song, only without good lyrics, real vocals, or a real drummer."

rob

[leonaozaki]

And now my list...

Granted even Clapton's heyday I vastly prefer Michael Bloomfield as a blues guitarist.



Oh, my God, Bloomfield is the real deal. Have you heard Super Sessions?

rob

[Sanagi]

((And pentatonic scales are also used heavily in jazz, country, folk, and Indonesian gamelan music.))
Gamelan? Not really. People sometimes refer to the slendro scale as pentatonic simply because it consists of five tones, but the tuning is very different.

[the goddamn batman]

Agreed. Most of the time when I'm listening to the local hard rock station, I think, "Hmm...this sounds an awful lot like a Metallica song, only without good lyrics, real vocals, or a real drummer."

When you say 'real' do you mean, always in the key of E because he can't really sing in any other key?


YYYYEEEEEEEEEAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!:D

[jesse_custer]

Every wanky metal or hard rock guitarist ever because boring ass guitar solos are simply not as much fun as these guys like to think.

Guitar playing not being "fun" is hardly a good indicator of quality. If that were true, we would be overlooking a lot of great work.

I disagree about Jimmy Page. This guy deserves pretty much all the praise he gets, much like Hendrix and McLaughlin. He came up with countless memorable riffs, wasn't afraid to go from acoustic to electric in a heartbeat, and showed a nice range of playing, from his fingerstyle "Black Mountain Side" to his incomprehensible "Heartbreaker" to his mystical "Battle of Evermore." He's one of the only rock musicians who really strives to improvise, a jazz-like quality that more guitarists need. Yeah, he's sloppy. But I'll be damned if anyone else playing sloppy can sound just as good. And most of the time, his sloppiness is better than other people's perfection. Hell, McLaughlin was sloppy from time to time on A Tribute to Jack Johnson, and that was brilliant, unparalleled guitar wankery.

I agree about Eddie Van Halen. I really like his playing, but he gets way too much credit for fingertapping. First, Billy Gibbons and Jeff Beck did it before him. Second, the technique is best used sparingly. Otherwise, you're looking at too much style and little substance. Plus, it's just an easy way out most of the time.

I also agree about The Edge, who just hits two notes every five seconds or strums one chord for five hours. Great. Whoever said he came from Andy Summers was wrong. Summers did way more fingerbending than that hat-wearing bastard will ever muster.

I'll just disregard the fact that someone said Stevie Ray Vaughn. This man made blues interesting. You always hear how great B.B. King and these other older blues guitarists are. Then you listen to their music and it's about as fascinating as swatting flies for a living (I strike Robert Johnson from this list because his playing was innovative and threatening). Vaughn was total energy, ready and willing to explode during every song, and still able to lay back and write beautiful pieces like "Lenny."

[Jonathan Bogart]

I'll just disregard the fact that someone said Stevie Ray Vaughn. This man made blues interesting. You always hear how great B.B. King and these other older blues guitarists are. Then you listen to their music and it's about as fascinating as swatting flies for a living (I strike Robert Johnson from this list because his playing was innovative and threatening). Vaughn was total energy, ready and willing to explode during every song, and still able to lay back and write beautiful pieces like "Lenny."
Oh, for... Do you think Eminem, Joe Cocker, and Benny Goodman made rap, soul, and jazz interesting too?

All that says to me is that you haven't heard enough proper blues. B. B. King has dueted with Clapton, which says all that needs to be said about him; Crocker is right that he did as much as any white man to "tastefully" water down the popular image of the blues. Listen to Muddy Waters, John Lee Hooker, Lightnin' Hopkins, Jerry Reed, Earl Hooker, Albert Collins and Freddie King for some real electric blues.

[jesse_custer]

First, your rhetorical question was not a good one because there is no comparison between the talents of those guys and Vaughn's. Also, blues is naturally more boring than rap, soul, and jazz.

Next, I have listened to the guitarists you've mentioned, and again, I don't find them that interesting at all. Sure, I guess it's real, but so is garbage collecting. It's not that exciting, impressive, or stimulating, though. As far as I'm concerned, Robert Johnson is better than all of the guys you mentioned. Furthermore, just because someone duetted with Clapton doesn't automatically entail that they're good. What if Britney Spears sang with the Rolling Stones? I guess then she would be a rock legend.

Finally, I'm not denying that these blues guitarists were important in the sense that they inspired and influenced countless guitarists and riffs. However, if you carefully analyze their playing, it's pretty easy to tell that they were amateurs for the most part.

[Spike-X]

Eddie Van Halen - Okay "Eruption" was kind of neat, but his guitar shredding is pretty much a stylistic dead-on where the guitarists do nothing but compare their manhood in testosterone fueled displays of technical proficiency. *Yawn*


I can understand why his solos might not do anything for you, but check out his rhythm playing. On some songs, it's like he's playing the piano on the guitar (which is understandable, since he started learning classical piano before weitching to guitar).

[Spike-X]

Allow me to introduce you to Yngwie (http://youtube.com/watch?v=4oL_TvwHjk8&mode=related&search=) Malmsteen. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=9cVIOuvDUGE&mode=related&search=)
My God, that's bloody awful.

Turn off the distortion and echo, slow the fuck down, and play me some music, not just a bunch of notes as fast as you can.

[Spike-X]

...if you carefully analyze their playing...

...then you're missing the entire bloody point of their music.

[Jonathan Bogart]

Furthermore, just because someone duetted with Clapton doesn't automatically entail that they're good.
I meant the opposite, actually.

[TheLazy]

Guitar playing not being "fun" is hardly a good indicator of quality. If that were true, we would be overlooking a lot of great work.


I consider the main convention of great music to be memorability. That usually implies fun, but this is not exclusive. Whilst being a big metal head I've got to agree with Ilash here, most metal solo's are a million notes a second. Everyone knows the solo from stairway to heaven, people would be challenged to remember the one from my apocalypse.

Metal needs to move away from technicality to progress.

The problem with defining fun is that its subjective. So the traditional way of assertaining a players ability is techincality, but then we have people like Chuck Berry who would be ripped apart by say Eddie Van Halen. I'd still rather listen to Berry though.

:)

[Ilash]

I'll just disregard the fact that someone said Stevie Ray Vaughn. This man made blues interesting. You always hear how great B.B. King and these other older blues guitarists are. Then you listen to their music and it's about as fascinating as swatting flies for a living (I strike Robert Johnson from this list because his playing was innovative and threatening). Vaughn was total energy, ready and willing to explode during every song, and still able to lay back and write beautiful pieces like "Lenny."

Words cannot describe how much I disagree with you here. SRV is a very good guitarist but to me, he made blues less interesting than the old blues masters - and indeed less interesting than some other rock and roll guitarists too (Jimmy Page, Keith Richards, Hendrix, The Allmans etc.). The guitar work by guys like Muddy Waters, Big Bill Broonzy, John Lee Hooker and T-Bone Walker ranks among the very best guitar playing I have ever had the pleasure to hear. However much I may concede to a certain amount of stylistic limitedness as far as these blues giants go, the expression and sheer emotionalism of their music is second to none. Vaughn simply doesn't resonate with me on the same level at all.

[Ilash]

I consider the main convention of great music to be memorability. That usually implies fun, but this is not exclusive. Whilst being a big metal head I've got to agree with Ilash here, most metal solo's are a million notes a second. Everyone knows the solo from stairway to heaven, people would be challenged to remember the one from my apocalypse.

Metal needs to move away from technicality to progress.

The problem with defining fun is that its subjective. So the traditional way of assertaining a players ability is techincality, but then we have people like Chuck Berry who would be ripped apart by say Eddie Van Halen. I'd still rather listen to Berry though.

:)

I agree with this. To me, great guitar playing has to do with how well it fits into the following criteria: Does it resonate with me? Does it keep my interest throughout? Is it memorable? Does it enhance or detract from the music that the artist is trying to create?

[parrish]

I agree with this. To me, great guitar playing has to do with how well it fits into the following criteria: Does it resonate with me? Does it keep my interest throughout? Is it memorable? Does it enhance or detract from the music that the artist is trying to create?

I think an addition to that would be "Do they know when not to play a flying solo?"

[Slam_Bradley]

Also, blues is naturally more boring than rap, soul, and jazz.



This statement alone invalidates anything that is said afterward.

[JeffreyWKramer]

This statement alone invalidates anything that is said afterward.

Yeah, it is hard to imagine any statement that is more wrong ever being uttered or written with serious intent.

[jessecuster3]

Just for the record, I do not know this new iteration and have nothing to do with him.

[Ilash]

I think an addition to that would be "Do they know when not to play a flying solo?"

Absolutely. That should definitely be in there.

[Adam C]

Guitar playing not being "fun" is hardly a good indicator of quality. If that were true, we would be overlooking a lot of great work.

Then what's the point of listening to it though? Speaking for myself I just can't approach music as a dull, dry academic exercise. I listen to stuff like Grant Green, John Coltrane, the Black Dice, Tom Verlaine's instrumental work, Bill Frisell, Albert Ayler, Henry Kaiser, John Cage, etc. etc. because on some level I find it fun. The sounds, ideas, and emotions expressed engage me in some way, and spoke to me on some level...and I don't have much musical or training. These are sounds that I find "fun." (Consequently, with the exception of "Smoke on the Water" I cannot enjoy Deep Purple because they sound to me like dull, leadened hard rock without much to grab my interest.)

Anyways, what examples would you provide of guitar playing that is not "fun" but of great quality?

I disagree about Jimmy Page. This guy deserves pretty much all the praise he gets...

I'd have to disagree with you here. I actually love Page's guitar playing and think he's a great pioneer as a hard rock guitarist. On the other hand he's got a dodgy record of plagarism and ripping off other people's material. Such as...

...from his fingerstyle "Black Mountain Side"...

Shamelessly ripped off note-for-note from his idol Bert Jansch's rendition of "Black Waterside" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp-CkH56G34) a traditional folk song Jansch had been playing for years and recorded in the mid 60s. See also Perfect Sound Forever's article on the matter. (http://www.furious.com/perfect/jimmypage.html)

He's one of the only rock musicians who really strives to improvise, a jazz-like quality that more guitarists need.

Only? What about Jimi Hendrix, Tom Verlaine, Carlos Santana (back when he was good), Robert Fripp, Fred Frith, Joe Satriani, Michael Bloomfield (on East-West by the Paul Butterfield Blues Band and The Super Session which he cut with Al Kooper), and Frank Zappa?

(note: this is leaving out fusion guitarists who come from the more jazz side of things like Coyrell.)

Second, the technique is best used sparingly. Otherwise, you're looking at too much style and little substance. Plus, it's just an easy way out most of the time.

This I actually agree with you on. I don't have a problem with Roy Buchanan's forays into "shredding" because he doesn't deploy the technique all the time when he plays and only for very specific purposes - namely to create dissonance.

[mattx110]

1. musicality is not an opposite of technicality. otherwise we wouldn't give a damn about vivaldi, chopin, liszt, beethoven, or bach who wrote more than one piece that he was probably among a handful of people in europe at the time that could actually play it.
2. the melody can be memorable while being dressed up substantially. jazz improvisation started by using chromatic approach notes and trills to dress up a melody. fugues are entirely based on a single melody.
3. if blues is so much more boring than jazz, listen to kenny burrell, wes montgomery, rev. gary davis, and any other musician that broke down the lines between the two, and watch out for the gospel thrown in there too.

SRV's most memorable stuff, like Lenny, is when he broke down genre barriers, and played a ballad, or a pop song with that same energy he brings to his blues/rock playing. if you really love music, i think you'll find a lot of your favorite works by blues and rock artists are when they break down conventions.

umm i'm gonna ditch the numbering cause it's getting annoying. but chuck berry is what we call an exception. there are better singers, and better guitarists, but so many play guitar how they do because of how he played. people sing songs because of how he sung them. he'll never be a classical great, but he has a niche that only he could fill, and i don't think that is because he wasn't a "technical guitarist". but he found something in rock music that he could pretty much call his own. double-stops have existed since instruments could play 2 notes, pentatonics have existed longer, but put em together in a shuffle and it felt fresh and new.

fast isn't a bad thing. there's a level and a certain tone (which i don't understand why they use it) where some metal guitarists sound like they're playing a video game, but between guthrie covan, paul gilbert, jason becker and marty friedman, there's enough actual music out there in metal guitarplaying. anyway maybe it's just me, but i'd rather listen to a flashy musician play silly music than a bad musician try it because at least there is something to enjoy.

[Adam C]

Also, blues is naturally more boring than rap, soul, and jazz.

I heard the same arguments about hip-hop in regards to rock, et. al. It's still unconvincing.

Sure, I guess it's real, but so is garbage collecting. It's not that exciting, impressive, or stimulating, though.

No one made arguments about whether it's "real" or not. (What is 'real' supposed to mean anyways?) It was simply argued that blues was plenty interesting and SRV didn't add much to it in the first place.

However, if you carefully analyze their playing, it's pretty easy to tell that they were amateurs for the most part.

If I do. But I don't carefully analyse their playing. I have neither the tools to do so nor the inclination. I just sit back and enjoy it. Granted just by listening I can tell that John Lee Hooker, Jimmy Reed, Willie Johnson, and Hubert Sumelin are total amateurs. What's more, I like it. I like it when blues is a big, nasty mess of stomping primitive noise. That's why I find RL Burnside and Junior Kimborough so appealing. Their work eschews a lot of the soloing and cliches associated with the genre since the sixties and focuses on laying down a dirty, droning groove.

Of course if we are carefully analysing their playing, wouldn't it become apparent that SRV doesn't do anything new with the genre and simply adds more soloing on top?

[leonaozaki]

I'll just disregard the fact that someone said Stevie Ray Vaughn. This man made blues interesting. You always hear how great B.B. King and these other older blues guitarists are. Then you listen to their music and it's about as fascinating as swatting flies for a living (I strike Robert Johnson from this list because his playing was innovative and threatening). Vaughn was total energy, ready and willing to explode during every song, and still able to lay back and write beautiful pieces like "Lenny."

SRV made the blues boring to me, which is a pretty neat feat considering that it's one of my favorite genres. I mean, have you not heard Lightnin' Hopkins do "Baby Please Don't Go?" Oh, and Hopkins an amateur? Indeed.

rob

[Adam C]

1. musicality is not an opposite of technicality. otherwise we wouldn't give a damn about vivaldi, chopin, liszt, beethoven, or bach who wrote more than one piece that he was probably among a handful of people in europe at the time that could actually play it.
2. the melody can be memorable while being dressed up substantially. jazz improvisation started by using chromatic approach notes and trills to dress up a melody. fugues are entirely based on a single melody.

Yet no one has actually argued musicality and technicality are opposite. The main argument being put forth is the idea that technicality in itself is interesting and music is only worthwhile if it is technically sophisticated (which seems to be what GreatLakesAvenger was arguing). Malmsteen is castigated percisely because his technical skill does nothing interesting musically...as opposed to Kenny Burrell.

3. if blues is so much more boring than jazz, listen to kenny burrell, wes montgomery, rev. gary davis, and any other musician that broke down the lines between the two, and watch out for the gospel thrown in there too.

What's problematic about this list in terms of judging blues though is that Kenny Burrell and Wes Montgomery are primarily jazz guitarists. Only the Reverend Gary Davis is a blues guitarist.

SRV's most memorable stuff, like Lenny, is when he broke down genre barriers, and played a ballad, or a pop song with that same energy he brings to his blues/rock playing. if you really love music, i think you'll find a lot of your favorite works by blues and rock artists are when they break down conventions.

This is true. Marquee Moon brought the art-garage rock of the Velvet Underground together with improvisation of jazz musicians like Coltrane.

Keep in mind my assessment of SRV is based largely on his blues based stuff and I have never even heard of "Lenny" until now. So I'll seek out a rendition of it and give the song a listen.

[jesse_custer]

I meant the opposite, actually.

Sorry for the misinterpretation. I wasn't familiar with your stance on Eric Clapton, which I wholeheartedly agree with.

This statement alone invalidates anything that is said afterward.

Poisoning the well. I'd be willing to discuss my viewpoint otherwise.

...then you're missing the entire bloody point of their music.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the whole point of any music is to listen to it. And if what I'm listening to isn't as impressive as other efforts, then there's no point in me trying to dress it up in subjective terms such as "real blues playing," etc.

I consider the main convention of great music to be memorability.

That isn't really a viable indicator. Pop "musicians" such as the Backstreet Boys are very memorable, for their craft is overtly simple--therefore, likely to be hummed--and overplayed.

Just for the record, I do not know this new iteration and have nothing to do with him.

As if anyone assumed otherwise, old iteration.

Yeah, it is hard to imagine any statement that is more wrong ever being uttered or written with serious intent.

Is it so hard to accept that people are serious about different opinions?

Anyways, what examples would you provide of guitar playing that is not "fun" but of great quality?

Plenty. One example would be David Gilmour's guitar rage during the "battle" in "A Saucerful of Secrets." In fact, none of the instrumentation--guitar playing, drumming, piano playing, etc.--is very "fun" on that part of the song at all. However, it achieves its purpose: to create a feeling of disarray, of brazen quality, as what would be associated with wartime.

To me, great guitar playing doesn't come down to what I subjectively feel is "fun" or "full of emotion." It is an aggregate of technical skill, creativity, the fit to a certain theme, tone, improvisation, and theory. I will admit that the aforementioned subjective quality does come into play; however, I don't give it as much weight.

Shamelessly ripped off note-for-note from his idol Bert Jansch's rendition of "Black Waterside" a traditional folk song Jansch had been playing for years and recorded in the mid 60s.

I am fully aware of Page's masquerading. All I'm saying is that it shows that he can play different things.

Only?

I said "one of the only." Also, Page improvises considerably more--and in more original ways, implying that I'm tired of the Carlos Santana Secret Chord Progression, as Zappa once jested--than a few of your choices.

I heard the same arguments about hip-hop in regards to rock, et. al. It's still unconvincing.

There's no reason to assume that I would argue with the same reasoning and biased, often racist fervor that those other debaters employed.

No one made arguments about whether it's "real" or not. (What is 'real' supposed to mean anyways?)

I was replying to someone who used that word in a certain context. So don't ask me.

Of course if we are carefully analysing their playing, wouldn't it become apparent that SRV doesn't do anything new with the genre and simply adds more soloing on top?

He adds more technical ability, creativity, and improvisation to the genre that has been desperately needed.

[ImpulseUCF]

A lot of this debate is absurd because there is no absolute, objective set of critera for evaluating guitar-playing. Some people seem to place greater emphasis on technical proficiency and others on the invocation of emotion, or feeling, of the music. Both are valid. I think it's a matter of left brain versus right brain here and which you prefer.

Personally, I think technical proficiency, notes, styles,etc. are simply tools to be used in crafting music. Without a melody, mood, emotion or purpose, if you will, it's just a bunch of raw materials.

The classic blues guys were by no means the best technical performers, yet they wrote some of the most moving, compelling music ever to come from a guitar that just resonates with the listener and invokes emotion. To call them rank ametuers is absurd simply because they excel at their purpose. Someone who can tap out 1,000 notes per second doesn't necessarily have the abliity to craft music or evoke an emotional reaction. It can come off as cold and sterile, empty without a "soul." If Muddy Waters can get a stronger reaction by bending the shit out of 3 notes than someone who can tap out a dozen notes, who's really more effective?

Jimmy Page...did he steal stuff? Sure. Was he sloppy? Yeah, all of Zeppelin were sloppy and that was part of the appeal. The overall effect, though, it was exuded raw energy. Their music is sexy, powerful, incredibly gripping and moving. It just resonates with me and I get this joyous, exuberant feeling and am just sucked in, I feel it down to the bone. To me, Zeppelin's early stuff, particularly live, is untouchable. I'll take that over 30-notes-per-second gutiar masturbators any day of the week.

To sum up: To me, it's far more important what the guitar says than that is says it fast or how it says it. I listen for the mood, the feeing, the emotino and ambience.

[mattx110]

technical ability will never take away from emotional content. it will always add to it. singing while playing (even relatively simple things) is a skill. blues works through empathy, and the use of certain skills from a folk music tradition. if you can't empathise, blues is boring. instrumental music, without a voice or words to latch onto maybe harder to be affected by, but certain musicians, like bill frisell and glenn gould regardless of genre made sure you felt the music, and were really hit by the motional content. and you can hear the technical content. the harmonic knowledge.
out of tune, really fast repetitive lines don't show technical ability, but limitations. ear training is a technical skill. for 98% of us, perfect pitch is a myth to make musicians seem more amazing.
these seem like random senences, but i am just responding to random posts and adding some ideas.

also, people like personalities. that helps you empahise with a musician, even if they aren't incredible musicians. you feel a connection. howling wolf has a really distinctive voice, that you may not be able to turn off once you hear a bit of it.

[Patriot07]

Playing guitar or any music really is about saying something and making some sort of statement. Now, this doesn't have to be a huge earth shattering statement, but it has to be there. Technical skill cannot make up for the statement. It can help you make the statement in the way that you want to, but it cannot make it for you. "I'm awesome at guitar" isn't a statement worth listening to. There's nothing behind that besides self-wankery.

Now, here's the important part about saying something with your playing. It needs to have a melody, emotion, and power behind it. You can suck at guitar completely, but if I get your message and it moves me, your technical skill doesn't matter.

[Adam C]

technical ability will never take away from emotional content. it will always add to it.

I would argue otherwise. Yngwie Malmsteen is at least proof that technical ability does not always add to emotional content, mostly because he has little emotional content to add to his technique

That said technical ability can and does help a great deal in finding ways to express yourself on an instrument.

(And I love Bill Frisell too.)

these seem like random senences, but i am just responding to random posts and adding some ideas.

Nah, they make perfect sense in the context of what has gone on before.

And jesse, I have a response in the pipes, but I have to get ready for work now so that will have to wait til tomorrow.

The one point I will deal with for now though is...how are the Backstreet Boys in anyway memorable? They might be hummable, but being annoyingly catchy does not add up to being memorable. The Four Seasons had somewhat catchy songs and were one of the top selling acts of the 1960s. How well remembered are they now?

[Jonathan Bogart]

The Four Seasons had somewhat catchy songs and were one of the top selling acts of the 1960s. How well remembered are they now?
Less well than they deserve. But they're still mainstays of oldies radio.

[Ilash]

technical ability will never take away from emotional content. it will always add to it.

And this right here is the crux of the argument. It's not that I think it's not true, it's that it isn't necessarily true. In some cases what you say is absolutely right on the money but there are plenty of cases where the musicianship is technically immaculate but entirely devoid of soul and emotion. Your statement is every bit the baseless generalization that its inverse would be.

[jesse_custer]

The one point I will deal with for now though is...how are the Backstreet Boys in anyway memorable? They might be hummable, but being annoyingly catchy does not add up to being memorable.

If you remember something because of any of its qualities--good or bad--then it's memorable.

But my point wasn't really to talk about the specific memorability of the Backstreet Boys. That example was to serve as the basis for this argument: that "memorable" isn't a good--or the best--indicator of quality. As I pointed out, one reason for something being memorable could be its hummable simplicity or the fact that it's overplayed. Another reason could be that someone has a very good memory in general. Do you see what I mean? It's better to judge guitar playing by its merits alone and not by a function of someone's brain.

[ImpulseUCF]

Memorability is intended to carry a positive connotation, at least in the way it's being used.

I agree that technical ability certainly has tremendous potential to add to the impact of any piece of music, but it is certainly not guaranteed to do so. Ity can be jarring, a mismatch or ill fit to the tune, or just carry on too long. Have you ever found yourself bored, waiting for the song to jsut freakin' end but the gutiar players have to do 19 solos for an extra 5 minutes??? Ugh.

I think it's how the guitar is used that determines how great it is, and thus rating for orverrated or underrated. Al Pitreli is pretty commonly known as a very precise, technical rock guitar soloist, but his shit bores me to tears and does nothing for me. NOthing.

Compare that with Dave Mustaine, who's frantic, organized-chaos approach just resonates with me, or Jimmy Page's older blues playing that is just unbelievably charged with energy. Sloppy as hell, but it MOVES me. It get's me going.

There are plenty of great jazz guitarists, but very few keep my interest.

Technical skills are tools that greatly enhance the ability to work effectively with your music but can't do the job alone. It's like a summer flick with beautiful special effects, great acting and flawless production but with a shitty plot or flat characters. Meh.

[mattx110]

Memorability is intended to carry a positive connotation, at least in the way it's being used.

I agree that technical ability certainly has tremendous potential to add to the impact of any piece of music, but it is certainly not guaranteed to do so. Ity can be jarring, a mismatch or ill fit to the tune, or just carry on too long. Have you ever found yourself bored, waiting for the song to jsut freakin' end but the gutiar players have to do 19 solos for an extra 5 minutes??? Ugh.

I think it's how the guitar is used that determines how great it is, and thus rating for orverrated or underrated. Al Pitreli is pretty commonly known as a very precise, technical rock guitar soloist, but his shit bores me to tears and does nothing for me. NOthing.

Compare that with Dave Mustaine, who's frantic, organized-chaos approach just resonates with me, or Jimmy Page's older blues playing that is just unbelievably charged with energy. Sloppy as hell, but it MOVES me. It get's me going.

There are plenty of great jazz guitarists, but very few keep my interest.

Technical skills are tools that greatly enhance the ability to work effectively with your music but can't do the job alone. It's like a summer flick with beautiful special effects, great acting and flawless production but with a shitty plot or flat characters. Meh.

and the guy who can't really play might have the imagination of a jackrabbit, but he's gonna make a movie more unwatchable that anything, and it won't even be pretty to look at.
and technically proficient, doesn't always mean immaculate. barney kessel was incredible, and sometimes his ideas were coming so fast his hands could barely keep up with them. you can swing, or hit off-color notes to keep things interesting without being sloppy, but a sloppy guitarist isn't going to start being precise without a lot of work.

never listened to al pitreli but i like his name. and 5 minute rock guitar solos is something you're either into or not. they go over really well in japan for some reason. and in jazz, improvisation, whether soloing or reharmonizing is almost necessary. it's ok to like pop music. there's good stuff in the mess.

[P-Man]

Jameshetfield invented a style of rhythm work which 99% of ALL metal playing is based on, I'd say that puts him in the Top20 from an objection point of view at least.

:)

You're horribly wrong.

Metallica is rooted in NWOBHM, Motorhead, and Dave Mustaine. They had their own style, they left their own touches on the genre, but Hetfield didn't invent shit. They're a huge influence in metal, but less than Maiden, Sabbath, and Priest, and just as much as Slayer and Megadeth. Just because a bunch of shitty American rock bands all wanted to sound like the black album doesn't make Hetfield any better. Hell, it makes him worse.

As far as Hammet, 80% of his solos are garbage. Interchangable, unmelodic, unineresting. Fast, sure, but who cares? He's not too bad for a slow melodic lead here and there, and his solo in Outlaw Torn is some great stuff, but still mostly crap.



Anyways, on a different note:

I understand hating on guys like Yngwie, I understand hating solos that are based on speed and not much else. Hell, I just bashed Hammet for it. Why is it everyone bashes metal and rock guys for musical masturbation, but when Jazz guys do it it gets glowing reviews on NPR? Seems like there's some snobbishness going on here.

[mattx110]

I understand hating on guys like Yngwie, I understand hating solos that are based on speed and not much else. Hell, I just bashed Hammet for it. Why is it everyone bashes metal and rock guys for musical masturbation, but when Jazz guys do it it gets glowing reviews on NPR? Seems like there's some snobbishness going on here.

cause jazz is about swinging, and harmonic exploration. metal is about making your parents think you worship the devil. playing changes is different from picking a key and saying go. oh, and people don't have the balls to care about decent guitar solos. they like that preppy, wimpy, whiny stuff.

[P-Man]

cause jazz is about swinging, and harmonic exploration. metal is about making your parents think you worship the devil. playing changes is different from picking a key and saying go. oh, and people don't have the balls to care about decent guitar solos. they like that preppy, wimpy, whiny stuff.

One guy pats themselves on the back because they play appregios really fast. One guy pats themselves on the back because they broke out some really obscure shit they learned in music school. I fail to see how one is better than the other.

[Adam C]

I understand hating on guys like Yngwie, I understand hating solos that are based on speed and not much else. Hell, I just bashed Hammet for it. Why is it everyone bashes metal and rock guys for musical masturbation, but when Jazz guys do it it gets glowing reviews on NPR? Seems like there's some snobbishness going on here.

Probably because I haven't heard jazz guitarists masturbating musically. My experience with the likes of Wes Montgomery, Django Reinhardt, Grant Green, etc. is that they actually have both the imagination and proper understanding of music to attach their improvisations to actual musical ideas. Guys like Yngwie and Michael Angelo Batio all sound like kids with ADHD showing off. Most jazz guitarists I've heard manage a clear sense of direction, melody, space, and pacing that I see absent most in rock guitar shredding. (I'm referring to the specific style pioneered by EVH.)

Okay...I just found an exception (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yI-1sq5dFD4) to what I just posted. And the worst part is that Joe Pass knows better than that. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWa6aChSf1w)

[P-Man]

Probably because I haven't heard jazz guitarists masturbating musically. My experience with the likes of Wes Montgomery, Django Reinhardt, Grant Green, etc. is that they actually have both the imagination and proper understanding of music to attach their improvisations to actual musical ideas. Guys like Yngwie and Michael Angelo Batio all sound like kids with ADHD showing off. Most jazz guitarists I've heard manage a clear sense of direction, melody, space, and pacing that I see absent most in rock guitar shredding. (I'm referring to the specific style pioneered by EVH.)


I think you're being unfair. You're listing guys that are considered greats. I'm not talking about the great Jazz players, I'm talking about the guys NPR reviews that come out with new material. (I'm mentioning NPR alot because NPR loves them some Jazz, and I'm not a fan so that's where most of my exposure comes from). I'm no talking about Django Reinhardt, I'm talking about those generic guys that always sound like they're trying to throw in random key changes and as many odd scales as possible. Comparing Jazz greats to Yngwie is unfair. I more apt comparison would be to Randy Rhoads.

Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm not just thinking about Jazz guitarists, I'm thinking about Jazz artists in general. Now that I think about it, I've heard a lot more crappy trumpet players than anything. Sometimes I think they don't even hear the rythym. They just keep up with key changes and such and wander off in their own little world.

[the goddamn batman]

One guy pats themselves on the back because they play appregios really fast. One guy pats themselves on the back because they broke out some really obscure shit they learned in music school. I fail to see how one is better than the other.

That statement really answers itself.;)

[Adam C]

I am fully aware of Page's masquerading. All I'm saying is that it shows that he can play different things.

But does he deserve every ounce of praise that you claimed he did?

I said "one of the only." Also, Page improvises considerably more--and in more original ways, implying that I'm tired of the Carlos Santana Secret Chord Progression, as Zappa once jested--than a few of your choices.

And "one of the only" says that's a very few selection of players that bring jazz improv to rock. But I even left out Allan Holdsworth, Duane Allman and Dicky Betts, Steve Howe, Captain Beefheart's various guitarists, Steve Vai, Eric Johnson, etc. Bringing jazz based improvisation to rock isn't as uncommon as you make it out to be.

(Note inclusion on this list does not imply endorsement. I've found Holdsworth to be sterile, Steve Howe to be "meh", and Vai to be...um. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1VjwciFLAg))

So in the interest of percision and furthering more nerdish bickering, besides Santana, whom else from my original list are you referring to in this regard and how is Page more original in his improvisations?

[Adam C]

I think you're being unfair. You're listing guys that are considered greats. I'm not talking about the great Jazz players, I'm talking about the guys NPR reviews that come out with new material. (I'm mentioning NPR alot because NPR loves them some Jazz, and I'm not a fan so that's where most of my exposure comes from). I'm no talking about Django Reinhardt, I'm talking about those generic guys that always sound like they're trying to throw in random key changes and as many odd scales as possible. Comparing Jazz greats to Yngwie is unfair. I more apt comparison would be to Randy Rhoads.

Ah, well there's my problem. I don't listen to NPR and stick close to the good shit...alot of which has been left unexplored so I may never get to the new guy wanking on his trumpet.

[TheLazy]

That isn't really a viable indicator. Pop "musicians" such as the Backstreet Boys are very memorable, for their craft is overtly simple--therefore, likely to be hummed--and overplayed.


Memorability and catchiness aren't the same thing. I can turn on Box right now and hear the single of the month, which will proabably be catchy, in 10 years time no one will remember it.

The one point I will deal with for now though is...how are the Backstreet Boys in anyway memorable? They might be hummable, but being annoyingly catchy does not add up to being memorable. The Four Seasons had somewhat catchy songs and were one of the top selling acts of the 1960s. How well remembered are they now?

Damn, beaten to the punch;)

If you remember something because of any of its qualities--good or bad--then it's memorable.

But my point wasn't really to talk about the specific memorability of the Backstreet Boys. That example was to serve as the basis for this argument: that "memorable" isn't a good--or the best--indicator of quality. As I pointed out, one reason for something being memorable could be its hummable simplicity or the fact that it's overplayed. Another reason could be that someone has a very good memory in general. Do you see what I mean? It's better to judge guitar playing by its merits alone and not by a function of someone's brain.

Listen to some Tool or Isis. They aren't in any way simple, but they are memorable. If I heard a melody from another room I'd reconized it. Hell, Bach had some complicated shizzle, yet people would reconized it when heard. memorbalility is quite simply something you can remember easily, it doesn't have to be simple, it just has to click, and that's where each sides argue falls down, because what I remember easily will sound like noise to you and vice versa.

You're horribly wrong.

Metallica is rooted in NWOBHM, Motorhead, and Dave Mustaine. They had their own style, they left their own touches on the genre, but Hetfield didn't invent shit. They're a huge influence in metal, but less than Maiden, Sabbath, and Priest, and just as much as Slayer and Megadeth. Just because a bunch of shitty American rock bands all wanted to sound like the black album doesn't make Hetfield any better. Hell, it makes him worse.

As far as Hammet, 80% of his solos are garbage. Interchangable, unmelodic, unineresting. Fast, sure, but who cares? He's not too bad for a slow melodic lead here and there, and his solo in Outlaw Torn is some great stuff, but still mostly crap.
.

Yes, Hammet is overrated, and they should have stuck with Mustain, even if he had problems, but Hetfield left just as much of a mark as Gorham and Robertson, Smith and Murrey, or Iommi. I don't rate Judas Preach. There were better bands comming out of Britian at the timethat did more for the genre musically, but hey, they didn't have th image so Preist got the attenion.


Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm not just thinking about Jazz guitarists, I'm thinking about Jazz artists in general. Now that I think about it, I've heard a lot more crappy trumpet players than anything. Sometimes I think they don't even hear the rythym. They just keep up with key changes and such and wander off in their own little world.

Listen to Mastodons drummer, Brann Dailor. People say that he's I jazz drummer, but I think he surpasses a genre, he completly reinvents the idea rhythm. If you don't like wankery you wont like it though, but it works within the context of the music.

:)

[jesse_custer]

But does he deserve every ounce of praise that you claimed he did?

Well, if we really wanted to be honest and accurate, there's probably not a guitarist--or musician--on the face of this planet that deserves every ounce of praise he gets. Having said that, I disagree with the general notion that Page is overrated. Because in many circles, his greatness isn't recognized, and second, he's just an amazing guitarist in his own right.

Bringing jazz based improvisation to rock isn't as uncommon as you make it out to be.

Think of every rock guitarist who actually improvises in enough doses for you to notice. Now think of every rock guitarist who doesn't. The latter group far outweights the former.

So in the interest of percision and furthering more nerdish bickering, besides Santana, whom else from my original list are you referring to in this regard and how is Page more original in his improvisations?

I think I was mainly referring to Santana about Page being more original. But in general, and this is probably due to sloppiness, Page improvises more and in more unexpected places than most other guitarists. So I guess what I'm saying is that maybe it's not innovation that separates him from the pack. It's just unpredictability. Half the time he probably doesn't know what's going on.

Memorability and catchiness aren't the same thing. I can turn on Box right now and hear the single of the month, which will proabably be catchy, in 10 years time no one will remember it.

I didn't say they were the same thing. I implied that catchiness can play a factor in something being easily remembered.

Listen to some Tool or Isis. They aren't in any way simple, but they are memorable. If I heard a melody from another room I'd reconized it. Hell, Bach had some complicated shizzle, yet people would reconized it when heard. memorbalility is quite simply something you can remember easily, it doesn't have to be simple, it just has to click, and that's where each sides argue falls down, because what I remember easily will sound like noise to you and vice versa.

And that's the point I've been making over and over again, a point that for reason hasn't been addressed: memorability is a function of each individual's brain and therefore should be left out of serious critiques of guitar playing.

[Jonathan Bogart]

And that's the point I've been making over and over again, a point that for reason hasn't been addressed: memorability is a function of each individual's brain and therefore should be left out of serious critiques of guitar playing.
Okay, I'll adress it. The only tool any of us have to seriously critique guitar playing is our individual brains, and the memories, information, and emotions contained therein. Those of us who don't have (or choose not to give weight to) formal training in music theory can only rely on our individual reactions to the sounds we hear. Personally, I value texture over Western notational conceits, so that so-called "sloppy" playing is, if it uses sufficiently ear-bleeding tones, frequently more interesting than playing that remains boringly in key.

[TheLazy]

And that's the point I've been making over and over again, a point that for reason hasn't been addressed: memorability is a function of each individual's brain and therefore should be left out of serious critiques of guitar playing.

But I don' think it should, because you could argue the same for everything else. Hell, even technique is subjective, becausre one person considering Malmsteen tecnical would be countered by another considering him a showboat, same could be said for bach, same could be said for Dr Dre. Too much technique is bad, and what is too much is always a matter of taste.

On that grounds, I'm sticking with the memorability as a key factor of a great song/riff/beat/ect. Then again, what I consider great, others don't.

Okay, I'll adress it. The only tool any of us have to seriously critique guitar playing is our individual brains, and the memories, information, and emotions contained therein. Those of us who don't have (or choose not to give weight to) formal training in music theory can only rely on our individual reactions to the sounds we hear. Personally, I value texture over Western notational conceits, so that so-called "sloppy" playing is, if it uses sufficiently ear-bleeding tones, frequently more interesting than playing that remains boringly in key.

Agreed.

I'm a strong advocate of the idea that music should only be analysed in the context of influecing more creation. Music shouldfirst and foremost be listened to, and as such, if someone wants to break a classical rule and create a I-II harmonic line, then I'm all for it if it sounds nice.

:)

[jesse_custer]

The only tool any of us have to seriously critique guitar playing is our individual brains, and the memories, information, and emotions contained therein.

This is all true, but there is a difference between citing your personal remembrance of a piece and citing specific, articulated examples from that piece that EVERYONE can share. In other words, you can be on more common ground by discussing what anyone with ears can discuss rather than what you personally remember. For instace, there could be a great piece of guitar playing out there that maybe an individual(s) just forgot about. And going by the argument that memorability is a strong indicator of quality, we would have to assume that the great guitar playing really isn't that great because some people couldn't remember it. Not only that, but because memorability is such a varied and abstract concept compared to recognition of tone and improvisation, for example, it takes us farther away from what we're trying to achieve: indicating quality guitar playing. Admittedly, our opinions about tone and improvisation will vary as well; but at least we can analyze the very piece in question rather than declare intellectual victory because of a certain person's memory.

Those of us who don't have (or choose not to give weight to) formal training in music theory can only rely on our individual reactions to the sounds we hear.

I disagree with this strongly. In fact, I think the above quote limits the intelligence of those who haven't had formal training. After years of listening to guitar music, a normal individual can recognize everything a trained individual can recognize, albeit without all the terminology and specificity that the trained individual could indicate.

[Adam C]

Personally, I value texture over Western notational conceits, so that so-called "sloppy" playing is, if it uses sufficiently ear-bleeding tones, frequently more interesting than playing that remains boringly in key.

Interestingly enough, I'm listening to my 'Robert Quine' playlist on my Ipod right now. And not any of the Voidoids' stuff. It's all tracks from his instrumental ablum - Basic - with Fred Maher, his work on John Zorn's soundtracks, and his collaboration with Ikue Mori and Marc Ribot.

This actually brings up something that's been going through my head throughout this discussion. I enjoy jazz guitar plenty, but the fleet fingered soloing I see in jazz music never translates as well for me in a rock context. I often find that those soloists I like the most are those that recognise the textural qualities of the sustain and distortion afforded by electric guitar equipment, such as Quine, Hendrix, Buchanan, and Tom Verlaine. Also might explain my love for "jazz" guitarist Bill Frisell who works within the texture of the guitar by treating it as a reeded instrument in which you squeeze out the notes and let them breath. This performance of "Shenadoah" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svzv-YkUzdk) provides a half decent example of what I am talking about. (Though the version he does on East West does it much better.)

[Adam C]

I disagree with this strongly. In fact, I think the above quote limits the intelligence of those who haven't had formal training. After years of listening to guitar music, a normal individual can recognize everything a trained individual can recognize, albeit without all the terminology and specificity that the trained individual could indicate.

Considering the sharp disagreements that many rather experienced listeners have had with your statements on the blues, I'd say that his quote doesn't. It merely describes observed reality.

[Dennis K]

As much as it pains me to say it, Mike Bloomfield.

[mattx110]

nobody will tell a mathematician "you suck" while looking at their work. nobody will tell a linguist "you don't understand language" because they don't have the context to properly judge the work.
why is it ok to say "you suck" to a real musician and think of (insert your favorite rock band) as the be all and end all of music?
you can train your ear, but not learning music history and having a theoretical background, not learning these things is an unneccesary handicap for a listener.

people don't like to hear that the music they like is simple or easy, because there's this "magic celebrity" personality cult type thing going on. musicians are people too, they aren't special.
the fact is a great philisophical mind is worth nothing to his peers if he doesn't know his history and the proper terminology, but since music is mass-entertainment a random person on the street is allowed to judge the life's work of a musician in two words even if he has no idea what he's talking about.

the fact is, we need to hold younger musicians to a higher standard than jimmy page and blues greats, because the resources are there that we can't say "he's sloppy now, but he's usually good" or "he's got great feel, too bad he can't play for his life". crappy musicians are worshipped for playing easy music, it's always gonna happen, but fight the trend. the new punk is knowing how to fricken play.

and p-man, since i dunno, miles davis, a lot of musicians, especially drummers like to go in and out of the beat. there's also the whole thing that well... in the 80s, certain guitarists were huge and sold billions of albums, and since 1960... no jazz album can reach that level. plus, jazz values technical ability. there's a certain level where you aren't considered a jazz musician if you don't know what you're doing. for some reason, a lot of people think rock music has to be slick simple popy stuff to be good and that it's impossible to have emotions of you play fast.

[jesse_custer]

Considering the sharp disagreements that many rather experienced listeners have had with your statements on the blues, I'd say that his quote doesn't. It merely describes observed reality.

Maybe you should elaborate on this point because I'm unclear as to what you're implying.

[Adam C]

Maybe you should elaborate on this point because I'm unclear as to what you're implying.

Point is that I don't see how Jon is limiting the intelligence of the listeners. He's simply describing what he has observed in himself and other music fans. Based on the discussion of this thread and what I've seen elsewhere, people generally do go by their by the specificities of their individual brain rather than a rigorous technical criteria. Even if they are experienced listeners.


you can train your ear, but not learning music history and having a theoretical background, not learning these things is an unneccesary handicap for a listener.

Sez who? Mathemathics and linguistics are sciences. In our society formal academic disciplines are generally seen as the field of experts and knowledgeable. However, music is art, and quite often art serves as popular entertainment. So of course people will say "you suck!" to 'real' musicians if they find that their work does not engage them. They don't care about the ins and outs of musical theory the same way they don't care about the ins and outs of literary theory or filmography. Even myself who will listen to art music like Miles Davis, Derek Bailey, John Cage, etc. is looking for sounds that will interest myself on some visceral, rather than techical level.

people don't like to hear that the music they like is simple or easy, because there's this "magic celebrity" personality cult type thing going on.

Possibly, but most of the people in this thread who responded to GreatLakesAvenger and Jesse Custer acknowledged that Townshend and various blues artists were simple or not that technical. They simply liked them anyways because their work was considered expressive and entertaining. (And they were innovators even if they weren't technically sophisticated.)

And I'd like to see more rock musicians learn how to play if only to break up the raft of hard rock and post-grunge cliches accumulating all over the genre. (Though rock is in its decadent phase now and hip-hop is the new rock - just like where jazz was when it was being supplanted by rock'n'roll.) On the other hand I still stand by claims that technical ability in itself won't produce meaningful works. Malmsteen being the most flagrant case, but also a great deal of seventies progressive rock which featured pointless noodling that went nowhere. Now it's a small niche genre, and punk ended up forming the underpinning of the best post-seventies rock music.

Anyways I KNOW that the seventies punk I love is simple and easy. And it doesn't bother me one bit. Ron Asheton's textured, molten metal riffing on Funhouse is more meaningful to me than all the Joe Satrianis in the world. (Yes, and I actually like what I've heard of Satrianis work.)

[mattx110]

for the real quote read above please, i'm trying to cut down on my post size, but well, discussion over messageboards are tricky

if you don't like guitarists playing violin-type solos then malmsteen won't be your thing. i tend to prefer guitarist who treat the guitar more like a guitar. use it's strenghths. we've got 6 notes we can play simultaneously. harmonics that aren't on other instruments. there are things we can do that no other instrument can.

and i think the word "Technical" is really not the proper adjective. technique is necessary. a higher level means you are less limited. but when you're working in a genre based on doing fun over-the-top lightning fast runs, you're more likely to get noticed for your technical ability. technique is necessary to translate emotion, and the better the technique, the more able the musician is to do this. sometimes though, the personality really comes through in the playing and singing, and the full package works better than the sum of it's parts.
but saying "that's fast and is emotionless" is just wrong. something can have a different emotional impact on everyone that hears it. maybe you need something hummable to maintain your interest, but there's no such thing as "emotionless technicality" unless your watching Yngvie malmsteen tune up and play a couple scales.
and that "pointless noodling that went nowhere" wasn't pointless. maybe it feels out of place to you, but what makes playing a few chords any less pointless than playing a solo? a solo break serves a song as well as chords, and given how common certain chord progressions are, may be a defining characteristic to the song. personally, i think the ultra-tight pants, neon lights, and joel shumacher choreography is what made the late 70s and 80s rock music feel off.

and art is a science. music is a science, every physics student learns about fundamentals and harmonics. every music student should too. if you want to say how music affects you, ok, you don't need a PHD for that. but there are things that you need experience and knowledge in to form an opinion. music is more than entertainment. it seems like film score composer is the only job in mass-media left for musicians.

some of this is directed at you and the thread-contributors. some of it is directed at annoying 12 year old girls who buy every crap album out there and whine about how any decent music is for old people.

i think it comes down to, some people look for a message, or a personality thing in the music and musician.
i don't care about that unless the musician is good at what he does. of course the best of both worlds is that great musician who brings in a bit of a rock n' roll type edge. i guess jeff buckley with gods and monsters would be a good example.

and remember that most older blues guitarplayers used to have to sing, so we get a fuller package than just the guitarplaying. you get the way they work together with their bandmates. there's more to technique than playing fast. and i mean, some of these guys used whatever guitars they could find, not what the luthier provided for ease of playing. plus, singing from the throat, even if its stupid and harmful down the line, sounds pretty damn good.

[TheLazy]

[QUOTE=Adam C;4995259
Sez who? Mathemathics and linguistics are sciences. In our society formal academic disciplines are generally seen as the field of experts and knowledgeable. However, music is art, and quite often art serves as popular entertainment. So of course people will say "you suck!" to 'real' musicians if they find that their work does not engage them. They don't care about the ins and outs of musical theory the same way they don't care about the ins and outs of literary theory or filmography. Even myself who will listen to art music like Miles Davis, Derek Bailey, John Cage, etc. is looking for sounds that will interest myself on some visceral, rather than techical level.
[/QUOTE]

Not to be nit picky, but linguistics is formally an art. Maths is a science though.

Music i formally an art, even though there is an overlap with science, like the one between science and technology.

:)

[jesse_custer]

Point is that I don't see how Jon is limiting the intelligence of the listeners. He's simply describing what he has observed in himself and other music fans. Based on the discussion of this thread and what I've seen elsewhere, people generally do go by their by the specificities of their individual brain rather than a rigorous technical criteria. Even if they are experienced listeners.

I kind of doubt that what you and Jon observed applies to all experienced listeners, but point taken. However, I merely propose that with a conscious attempt, an experienced listener can do that which I described.

[the goddamn batman]

I disagree with this strongly. In fact, I think the above quote limits the intelligence of those who haven't had formal training.

Not being an educated musician does in fact, limit your intelligence about music. Not an insult, just a fact.


After years of listening to guitar music, a normal individual can recognize everything a trained individual can recognize, albeit without all the terminology and specificity that the trained individual could indicate.

Really? So, you could listen to a sing that had some crazy music theory involved in the guitar work, and despite knowing nothing about music theory, let alone how to recognise something truely interesting being done with it, you could recognize it and comment on it... without the terminology?

I don't think so.

IF you don't know what a polyrythm is, how would you recognize one?

[Jonathan Bogart]

Not to be nit picky, but linguistics is formally an art.
Never tell a linguist that. All the linguists I know consider themselves scientists, and are ruthless about applying scientific method to their (and others') work.

Back to music:

Like Adam, I'm interested in music almost entirely on a visceral level, as pop rather than as a series of harmonic structures. And I believe that every kind of music has something to offer the pop method of listening, from rock & roll to dance-pop to third-stream jazz to the contemporary avant-garde to Baroque. But pop listening always implies a context, and the cultural and personal contexts of the composition, the performer, the performance, the genre, and my own preconceptions and obsessions matter as much to me as the notes played. This is why I like to write about music; if I can get people to place a piece in a new context, or to understand more fully the cultural contexts I bring to bear it, and change their understanding of the piece, that's the coolest thing ever. Well, aside from actually making music.

Common politeness has prevented posters like mattx110 and jesse_custer from saying that this way of being interested in music is less correct than theirs, but in a thread "about" good and bad guitar playing, can it be surprising that subjectivity wins out? No words, after all, are more subject to individual interpretation than "good" and "bad."

[jesse_custer]

Really? So, you could listen to a sing that had some crazy music theory involved in the guitar work, and despite knowing nothing about music theory, let alone how to recognise something truely interesting being done with it, you could recognize it and comment on it... without the terminology?

Why not? Having no knowledge of the sloth in South America and the lexicon of animal biology in general, could you not observe a sloth for extended periods of time and describe what it is and what it does in words outside of the biological dictionary?

[Adam C]

Not to be nit picky, but linguistics is formally an art. Maths is a science though.

Are you certain about that?

http://www.lsadc.org/index.cfm

The Linguistic Society of America (LSA) was founded in 1924 to advance the scientific study of language. Linguistics has developed dramatically in the intervening years, greatly expanding the understanding of human language.

Music i formally an art, even though there is an overlap with science, like the one between science and technology.

Well there's also some math involved in harmony, or so I heard.

[mattx110]

Not to be nit picky, but linguistics is formally an art. Maths is a science though.

Music i formally an art, even though there is an overlap with science, like the one between science and technology.

:)

lol. and remember, you as a music major you can get a BA or a BM depending on your concentration.
anyway, art and science mix well. there is no such thing as something completely devoid of relationship with arts and sciences.

and regarding jesse and jon and batman, listening is part of it. but there's this thing called "active listening" that is largely a marketing term for educational products. but it means doing more than just listening. you won't learn everything by filtration or diffusion or whatever. ear training comes naturally by exposure. that's true. but you need more than casual listening, and usually to play an instrument or at least be able to recognize intervals. which requires training and practice.
maybe you can recognize Amin6/9 without knowing what it's called, what's the point? music at it's foundation, is about communication. the same cantata JS bach wrote and played for his buddy steve is the same one some kid in india is enjoying right now.
and
education level and intelligence potential are not the same thing. and ignorance isn't always an insult, even if it sounds like it. even IQ tests are based on learned principles, not innate intelligence.

[Adam C]

but saying "that's fast and is emotionless" is just wrong. something can have a different emotional impact on everyone that hears it. [...] and that "pointless noodling that went nowhere" wasn't pointless. maybe it feels out of place to you, but what makes playing a few chords any less pointless than playing a solo?

Saying that a piece is fast and emotionless is not wrong. If I find that it leaves me could emotionally, then it is emotionless to me. And given the response to Malmsteen's stuff so far on this board I'm not the only one he has the same effect on.

(Yes and then I will fight tooth and nail with someone over the playing of a guitarist I like...I'm so inconsistent... :) )

As to what makes playing a few chords any less pointless than playing a solo, nothing really. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that Malmsteen, for all his vaunted technique, fails to do anything worthwhile with it. All of this stuff sounds virtually identical and I find no variation in mood or form between any of it. I find the guitar solos of guys like Grant Green and Django Reinhardt perfectly worth my while though. Or Joe Satriani doing Always With Me Always With You (http://youtube.com/watch?v=6yc8xyL0Xxo). He doesn't play at such blinding speed that he chokes out the notes over his echo and distortion. Instead he gives space to build and develop the piece and allow those notes to breath. (Which is very important when working with any level of distortion.)

And as for forming an opinion on music, well, see Jon's point. I'm into music as pop, not as a formal study. Even if I would like to learn music theory in the process of learning how to play...

it seems like film score composer is the only job in mass-media left for musicians.

Anyone who plays music is a musician from the classical violinist to the acoustic busker on the street. Also...

some of this is directed at you and the thread-contributors. some of it is directed at annoying 12 year old girls who buy every crap album out there and whine about how any decent music is for old people.

I didn't even have any taste when I was 14 and even at 21 it was questionable. What's the point of getting worked up over what kids like anyways?

[the goddamn batman]

Why not? Having no knowledge of the sloth in South America and the lexicon of animal biology in general, could you not observe a sloth for extended periods of time and describe what it is and what it does in words outside of the biological dictionary?


I think your statement proves my point for me. You have ZERO knowledge about music theory. IF you did, you'd understand what it is that I'm saying, instead of trying to refute it.

Now, you can enjoy music until the cows come home and you can think that those chords sound great together, but you don't understand WHY they sound great together... beyond the fact that they do.

Pick a chord, andy chord. Then pick three more at random, can you tell me WHY they do or don't work together? See, I can and that's the difference.

[Spike-X]

"Because they sound good"?

[the goddamn batman]

"Because they sound good"?

Are you trying to give me a headache? It's like being asked why the US flag has 50 stars and saying "because it does.".

There are REASONS that they sound good or don't sound good together. If you don't have an education in music theory, chances are that you won't know what those reasons are... other than, because they do/don't... which isn't a real answer. And certainly wouldn't fly in a music theory class.

[mattx110]

Saying that a piece is fast and emotionless is not wrong. If I find that it leaves me could emotionally, then it is emotionless to me. And given the response to Malmsteen's stuff so far on this board I'm not the only one he has the same effect on.

(Yes and then I will fight tooth and nail with someone over the playing of a guitarist I like...I'm so inconsistent... :) )

As to what makes playing a few chords any less pointless than playing a solo, nothing really. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that Malmsteen, for all his vaunted technique, fails to do anything worthwhile with it. All of this stuff sounds virtually identical and I find no variation in mood or form between any of it. I find the guitar solos of guys like Grant Green and Django Reinhardt perfectly worth my while though. Or Joe Satriani doing Always With Me Always With You (http://youtube.com/watch?v=6yc8xyL0Xxo). He doesn't play at such blinding speed that he chokes out the notes over his echo and distortion. Instead he gives space to build and develop the piece and allow those notes to breath. (Which is very important when working with any level of distortion.)

And as for forming an opinion on music, well, see Jon's point. I'm into music as pop, not as a formal study. Even if I would like to learn music theory in the process of learning how to play...



Anyone who plays music is a musician from the classical violinist to the acoustic busker on the street. Also...



I didn't even have any taste when I was 14 and even at 21 it was questionable. What's the point of getting worked up over what kids like anyways?
well, rather than call forum members little girls, i thought i'd just blame it on the little girls, when i was really talking about society as a larger entity... i'm dissapointed in the world. the fact is, people, have pretty much the same taste as those 12 year old girls, they just don't realize it.
and emotional content is subjective. fast does not equate to emotionless. someting can affect you differently from someone else. sales on "the thing" prove the internet is not a cross-section of society. yngvies music can affect you one way, but i have a friend who is so completely into yngvies music whose opinion is worth as much as yours.
saying "nothing he does is worthwhile" is actually kind of offensive. you can say "i'm not a fan" all you like, but devaluing the merit of what a man has devoted a good portion of his life to...
and not everything malmsteen does sounds the same. you may have to immerse yourself deeper into music that you don't really enjoy to realize that. and while not a waste of your time, there are better uses of your time, like rockin out to richard thompson. i also recomend you avoid any band that has between 1 and 5 adjectives before the word "metal" in their self-proclaimed genre. once they care that much about what to call themselves, everything they release has to sound the same from a marketing point of view.
ummm, but do listen to pantera. surprisingly versatile. darrell was a country guitarist at heart.

and regarding studying the sloth. maybe 50 years ago, someone made that same study, but because you don't know what your doing and don't have the historical context, you A, wind up doing extra work, and B, have a chance of not being organized well to the point where communicating your findings is needlessly difficult. music terms are there to help, education is helpful. it lets you skip to the good stuff cause you already moved past the "yankee doodle went to town" part of music. from where you are, the "music establishment" might seem like a snotty club, but it's all about building and using tools for communication.

[Jonathan Bogart]

Are you trying to give me a headache? It's like being asked why the US flag has 50 stars and saying "because it does.".
Actually, it's closer to asking why the square root of 3,2251,041 is 5,679 and receiving the answer "because it is." The answer that the math teacher wants -- that 5,679 x 5,679 = 3,2251,041 -- only describes the same principle in a different way, and doesn't address the profound philosophical question of WHY at all.

[Jonathan Bogart]

and emotional content is subjective. fast does not equate to emotionless.
Nobody said it did. That "and" was linking two separate properties of Malmsteen's music, not conflating them. Fast playing in general -- if the dynamics are right -- is meant to evoke an emotional crescendo. That it fails to do so in the interstice between Malmsteen's playing and Adam's ears was (I take it) his point.

If you're going to use language to talk about music, paying attention to the formal properties of language helps with communication too.

[Adam C]

and emotional content is subjective. fast does not equate to emotionless.

And I have continually pointed out that I said no such thing. What I have been saying is that Malmsteen's playing was emotionless, and listed why I thought so.

And how does "If I find that it leaves me could emotionally, then it is emotionless to me," not acknowledge that emotional content is subjective?

[jesse_custer]

I think your statement proves my point for me. You have ZERO knowledge about music theory. IF you did, you'd understand what it is that I'm saying, instead of trying to refute it.

Actually, I have studied theory. But I'm not so arrogant and close-minded to assume that experienced listeners couldn't possibly identify what music theorists can with enough listening and analysis (how do you think theory come about? Or did it simply exist forever?). Furthermore, you didn't even address my analogy. Consider my discussion with you over.

[Sanagi]

This is the second time in one evening I've observed that people who consider themselves experts in music will fervently protest anyone telling them otherwise... Trouble is, music is a collision of heart and brain, and it's almost a hopeless cause to try to expand an adult's horizons.

[leonaozaki]

So on this thread, we've witnessed (a) someone calling Lightnin' Hopkins an amateur, and (b) someone arguing that Malmsteen's music is worthwhile.

Yikes.

rob

[TheLazy]

Are you certain about that?

http://www.lsadc.org/index.cfm



So some group decided to make scientific investigions into langauge, so what?
Languge is a form of expression, expression is an art. There is overlap but I'll think you'll find that atoms don't express, and when cells metabolise they aren't expressing anything, neither is 3 to the power 4. When someone says 'get me the drink' or 'Thoust needeth a beverage' they are expressing something.


Well there's also some math involved in harmony, or so I heard.

Harmonics are science, as is the audio frequencies that define tone, and several other things.

Are you trying to give me a headache? It's like being asked why the US flag has 50 stars and saying "because it does.".

There are REASONS that they sound good or don't sound good together. If you don't have an education in music theory, chances are that you won't know what those reasons are... other than, because they do/don't... which isn't a real answer. And certainly wouldn't fly in a music theory class.

Sure there are reasons why thinks sound nice, but that isn't definate, otherwise jazz wouldn't exist.;)

:)

[mattx110]

Nobody said it did. That "and" was linking two separate properties of Malmsteen's music, not conflating them. Fast playing in general -- if the dynamics are right -- is meant to evoke an emotional crescendo. That it fails to do so in the interstice between Malmsteen's playing and Adam's ears was (I take it) his point.

If you're going to use language to talk about music, paying attention to the formal properties of language helps with communication too.
edit: i may have been answering leonaozaki who just implied yngvie's work was worthless and you took up the defensive. i am replying to multiple posts at the same time. anyway... :end edit
umm the "Fast and emotionless" you're referencing was something i said. he was the one that linked "Technical" to "cold". and ummm... what you wrote about "emotional crescendo" is either wrong or superfluous in this discussion. a section speeding up might be meant to create a more intense mood. that's decided by the context of the music.

there's a difference between saying "That doesn't affect me" and saying everything he does is worthless because it's emotionless technicality.
technical ability is necessary for music. a lower level is necessary for playing a few chords in a pop song. i like pop songs by people with a higher level of ability, because they can bring something new in, rather than retread the same steps.

if you're gonna comment on what adam said, you should probably read his posts and not y'know, use a quote from my post to demonstrate his position.

anyway, jesse_custer, it's arrogant to assume you can figure out the same things that generations of musicians discovered after years of dedicated work. it's an un-necessary handicap for a listener to ignore that work. you can be one of those "i don't understand it, it's magic to me" people that enjoys music, but all that means is that the real magic in music is going to go right over your head. don't let that happen.
and i addressed your analogy in a previous post, and you're still wrong. sorry.

and arguing about what is science and art is probably not going to go anywhere, but i won't stop it. everything uses scientific principles or it wouldn't exist. that's all i can say about that without another 500000 word post.

[Adam C]

So some group decided to make scientific investigions into langauge, so what?

The Linguistic Society of America is the major professional organisation for Linguists in North America, analogous to the American Pyschological Association in regards to its respective field. You can't simply say that it is "some group" and write it off as unrepresentative of how the field of linguistics is treated.

edit: i may have been answering leonaozaki who just implied yngvie's work was worthless and you took up the defensive.

Nope. That came out of comments I made. The discussion was entirely between yourself and myself.

if you're gonna comment on what adam said, you should probably read his posts and not y'know, use a quote from my post to demonstrate his position.

He's clarifying my position for you since you somehow continually misconstrue what I am actually saying despite my repeating the point over and over again.

[mattx110]

He's clarifying my position for you since you somehow continually misconstrue what I am actually saying despite my repeating the point over and over again.

wrong. he used a direct quote from my post to represent your position.
some direct quotes from you.

"Yngwie Malmsteen is at least proof that technical ability does not always add to emotional content, mostly because he has little emotional content to add to his technique

Malmsteen is castigated percisely because his technical skill does nothing interesting musically

It's technique devoted to the demonstration of technique without any emotion or ideas whatsoever."
the last one is especially pertinent. the fact is, there is "emotional content" in his music and there is no reliable way of evaluating "emotional content".


oh, and i was semi-responding to you and everyone else who said yngvie was a cold technician or anythign to that affect. you weren't the only one. but back to you,saying he has no ideas is just inaccurate. i'm not telling you to like him, but he's put a lot of himself into his music, and to say there are no worthwhile ideas there is just plain wrong.

the fact is, and i believe you agree with me on this, or you wouldn't try to ignore your previous statements, is that emotional content is completely subjective, and someone can be playing their heart out, and have someone say "that's just emotionless technical stuff". you may be equating emotion with rests where you expect them, and a certain type of phrasing. but someone with poor technique is going to have a lot more trouble translating their emotion into song . this is made evident by the lack of emotional range in grunge music. pearl jam had capable guitarists, so it was able to step out of that little area of music. you might "feel" grunge music more easily, but listen to a hans zimmer film score or porgy and bess and track the different emotions you feel, and tell me any of the musicians were sloppy.

better yet, listen to tommy emmanuel. the man is a technical monster, and by the end of the ballads he's practically crying.

[leonaozaki]

wrong. he used a direct quote from my post to represent your position.

And now we're arguing about the argument, instead of arguing. All hail the internet!

Moreover, having listened to too much of Malmsteen's work, to my ears it is worthless, for all the reasons everybody else has stated.

rob

[Adam C]

And now we're arguing about the argument, instead of arguing. All hail the internet!

Indeed, and it's obvious that he's playing runaround so my argument with him ends here.

[mattx110]

Indeed, and it's obvious that he's playing runaround so my argument with him ends here.

yes, exact quotes is playing run-around... can we go back to saying how awesome bill frisell is?

anyway, as for over-rated guitarists...
ummm did anyone say tom morello yet? he makes noises that anyone with a guitar can make, and that's his niche? seems kinda odd to me.

[Adam C]

Now back to some real discussion...

As much as it pains me to say it, Mike Bloomfield.

Okay, cough it up, why is he overrated?

And none of this "he's a musician" line you've been pedaling. That's just sissy talk!

[the goddamn batman]

anyway, as for over-rated guitarists...
ummm did anyone say tom morello yet? he makes noises that anyone with a guitar can make, and that's his niche? seems kinda odd to me.

Agreed. I've always hated that guy... well. all of Rage really.

Oh wow, aren't we so anti-establishment being signed to a label owned by SONY? Isn't it awesome how EVERY song we play relies on half time for impact? Not tired of it yet? Awesome! Here's some more! Tom, quick, make some noises!

[TheLazy]

yes, exact quotes is playing run-around... can we go back to saying how awesome bill frisell is?

anyway, as for over-rated guitarists...
ummm did anyone say tom morello yet? he makes noises that anyone with a guitar can make, and that's his niche? seems kinda odd to me.

His lead is over rated, he has a god handle of rhythm though.;)

Agreed. I've always hated that guy... well. all of Rage really.

Oh wow, aren't we so anti-establishment being signed to a label owned by SONY? Isn't it awesome how EVERY song we play relies on half time for impact? Not tired of it yet? Awesome! Here's some more! Tom, quick, make some noises!

Actually I believe they are big because almost no one before them mixed rock and hip-hop, especially in such juxtaposed ways. Almost every metal band on earth uses half time as well, the same way almost every jazz band on earth use spontinuity, its what works.

:)

[the goddamn batman]

Almost every metal band on earth uses half time as well, the same way almost every jazz band on earth use spontinuity, its what works.

:)

THere's nothing wrong with using half time... except when you do it in EVERY FUCKING SONG EVER!

Half time is a great dynamic, but like everything, over using it ruins the effect.;)

[mattx110]

THere's nothing wrong with using half time... except when you do it in EVERY FUCKING SONG EVER!

Half time is a great dynamic, but like everything, over using it ruins the effect.;)

it makes them sound hip-hop?

my friend lent me an audioslave cd. i'm gonna give ol' tom another try soon.