SustainerPlayer
Hero Member
- Messages
- 2,702
The unfair life of guitarists
- Thread starter SustainerPlayer
- Start date
Graffiti62
Hero Member
- Messages
- 654
tfarny said:
This is the reason I have always hated Dave Matthews. Being unplugged is one thing, but having a band where your key demographic consists solely of stoned posers and sounding like a singing auctioneer is just not my thing!
SustainerPlayer
Hero Member
- Messages
- 2,702
I once saw a hot chick to a Vai concert.
Or it could have been a real good looking guy. :icon_jokercolor:
Or it could have been a real good looking guy. :icon_jokercolor:
Cagey
Mythical Status
- Messages
- 24,425
SustainerPlayer said:
I once took a hot chick to a Satriani concert. Definitely a hot chick.
But, it turned out she was agoraphobic. Had a helluva time with her until we finally had to just leave. Practically had to handcuff her just to get her home. On the plus side, home turned out to be a lot more fun.
SustainerPlayer
Hero Member
- Messages
- 2,702
Erik Z said:Unless of course you're John Mayer.
Because then you are the hot chick? :icon_scratch: :icon_jokercolor:
Torment Leaves Scars
Hero Member
- Messages
- 1,343
Gotta say, I can appreciate talent, technique, technical playing, etc., but listening to it bores me to death.
I used to love Dream Theater, but their last 2 or 3 albums just sound really stale to me. As for Steve Vai, he's undoubtedly very talented, but his music does absolutely nothing to stir my soul. The same goes for Yngwie, John 5, Buckethead, etc.
In 1997, I saw Joe Satriani for free. Yes, that's right, FREE. He was playing SummerFest in Milwaukee, WI, and I believe the entrance "fee" was 2 lids to ice cream containers. :icon_scratch: Now, that was a show to behold! I think my jaw hit the ground and stayed there for the show. He was downright amazing.
That being said, I'm sure these guys would be amazing to watch live, but I'm just saying I can't sit there and listen to an entire record of it.
I'd rather listen to something basic that has some feeling behind it than to someone shredding it up and doing "party tricks," only to have no emotion behind his/her playing.
I used to love Dream Theater, but their last 2 or 3 albums just sound really stale to me. As for Steve Vai, he's undoubtedly very talented, but his music does absolutely nothing to stir my soul. The same goes for Yngwie, John 5, Buckethead, etc.
In 1997, I saw Joe Satriani for free. Yes, that's right, FREE. He was playing SummerFest in Milwaukee, WI, and I believe the entrance "fee" was 2 lids to ice cream containers. :icon_scratch: Now, that was a show to behold! I think my jaw hit the ground and stayed there for the show. He was downright amazing.
That being said, I'm sure these guys would be amazing to watch live, but I'm just saying I can't sit there and listen to an entire record of it.
I'd rather listen to something basic that has some feeling behind it than to someone shredding it up and doing "party tricks," only to have no emotion behind his/her playing.
Nightclub Dwight
Hero Member
- Messages
- 689
On House the other night, one of the doctors said something to the effect that "technique isn't everything," to which House said "thats right, just look at Yngwie Malmsteen as a case in point."
Torment Leaves Scars
Hero Member
- Messages
- 1,343
Nightclub Dwight said:
He's exactly right, too. Check out a YouTube video called "Yngwie Blues," or something like that. It's very "case in point."
Sure, Yngwie has talent and he's a tour de force when it comes to theory and technique, but where's the emotion behind his playing? I'm much more impressed with a basic guitar solo from Mick Mars than a full-on shred from Yngwie.
I'm most impressed with people who can apply a high level of passion through a very well-developed technical ability, and they're out there.
1) The problem with "technique" is when it's separated from "musicality."
2) The problem with misinterpreting this to think that good technical command of your instrument means that you can't have passion is called "punk rock."
None of this is new - anywhere from the mid-70's on, you could go to Berklee School of Music and come out as essentially a typist - but I've never met a real musician who didn't want to and try to get better. I've read an interview with John McLaughlin in the mid-80's where he complained that being on tour kept him from playing enough, as his "normal" practice routine was six-to-seven hours a day. And this is after he'd helped invent two previously non-existent genres of music, not just sprinkled some hot licks about for a few years. Coltrane used to wander off the bandstand still playing when it was time for someone else's solo, and abandon the rest of the band at the bar at a show's end to go back to the hotel - to practice all night, trying to refine ideas that had occurred to him during the night's show.
Of course people like that know exactly what they want to practice, because they have the easy stuff already loaded up. It's safe to say that anybody at the top of a real peer's poll has gone through several years of practicing eight or more hours a day, usually more like twelve to sixteen* - you just can't make the neural connections any other way. I've heard it said that there really aren't lazy musicians, but there's a ton of lazy instrument owners. Which is usually the impetus behind the "too much technique..." kinds of mewling. Look at David Gilmour - god, he used to suck in the early years of Pink Floyd, and his famous solos nowadays are all from the 90's on. He cared enough to keep getting better.
*(there is some evidence that one year of playing sixteen hours a day is better for your skills than two years of playing eight hours a day.)
1) The problem with "technique" is when it's separated from "musicality."
2) The problem with misinterpreting this to think that good technical command of your instrument means that you can't have passion is called "punk rock."
None of this is new - anywhere from the mid-70's on, you could go to Berklee School of Music and come out as essentially a typist - but I've never met a real musician who didn't want to and try to get better. I've read an interview with John McLaughlin in the mid-80's where he complained that being on tour kept him from playing enough, as his "normal" practice routine was six-to-seven hours a day. And this is after he'd helped invent two previously non-existent genres of music, not just sprinkled some hot licks about for a few years. Coltrane used to wander off the bandstand still playing when it was time for someone else's solo, and abandon the rest of the band at the bar at a show's end to go back to the hotel - to practice all night, trying to refine ideas that had occurred to him during the night's show.
Of course people like that know exactly what they want to practice, because they have the easy stuff already loaded up. It's safe to say that anybody at the top of a real peer's poll has gone through several years of practicing eight or more hours a day, usually more like twelve to sixteen* - you just can't make the neural connections any other way. I've heard it said that there really aren't lazy musicians, but there's a ton of lazy instrument owners. Which is usually the impetus behind the "too much technique..." kinds of mewling. Look at David Gilmour - god, he used to suck in the early years of Pink Floyd, and his famous solos nowadays are all from the 90's on. He cared enough to keep getting better.
*(there is some evidence that one year of playing sixteen hours a day is better for your skills than two years of playing eight hours a day.)
Torment Leaves Scars said:
I'm afraid it's just a matter of taste.. I love watching Yngwie (saw him in the HOB last month) and think he plays with a lot of emotion.. he is totally into it and has great tone and vibrato...
I also get very annoyed by cliche's like the "he's a one trick pony" comment.. which ironically usually come from blues/SRV fans, since blues is obviously a one trick pony kind of style...
having said that, I do not enjoy all of his albums, especially not the more recent ones.
I am not getting very excited by Mick Mars. also not a fan of chicken fried face head.
same for Satriani... to me there is nothing special about his style, but I do love Vai and Petrucci!
if you think Vai plays without emotion or feeling, than you haven't paid attention.
And, it's worth knowing that there are a whole SHITPILE of great musicians hiding out, making a living doing what they have to to buy a house and raise a family. For simple reasons of the market and time, Steve Morse could not support himself as an instrumental genius in the early 80's. If it's any indication of wierdness, he had already won Guitar Player Magazine's "Best Overall Guitarist" five time in a row, when he quit playing (professionally) for two years and took a day job - as a Boeing 737 pilot. When he'd paid of the mortgage on his farm, he quit flying and went back to playing. For pete's sake's this guy is Olivia Newton John's bandleader:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M6m-1t0qmk&feature=related
Passion? Skill?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M6m-1t0qmk&feature=related
Passion? Skill?
Cagey
Mythical Status
- Messages
- 24,425
StubHead said:
Absolutely. Guitar teacher I had 100 years ago was one of those. Just a magical player, but not famous. Fortunately, he played in a very good band that got a lot of work, and he was good enough to also be able to get regular studio work during the sunshiny part of the day, so he made a living. Had a house, drove a car, ate regular meals, etc. I don't know because I'm not in the business, but according to him there are a number of guys that get by that way. It's no way to get rich, but in some areas it's a decent living if you're good enough.
It was encouraging in some ways, but discouraging in others. You can't just have some trick muscle memory born of thousands of hours in the woodshed. You have to understand music and how it's written, and be able to read it like a book. That's not a trivial skill, although a great many, if not the majority of players, tend to write that part of the whole discipline off. Funny part is, that's where most of the work is. Commercials, jingles, themes, soundtracks, on and on. There are all kinds of those things written every day that need to be played, and that's all done by studio guys. The "hit" players are pretty thin on the ground, and the chances of writing or playing a hit are narrow enough to be called "accidental". In other words, it's nothing to strive for, any more than betting the lottery is a career.
Torment Leaves Scars
Hero Member
- Messages
- 1,343
Marko said:
Well, Yngwie is a one-trick pony. He can be "into it" all he wants, and while HE may play with emotion, it doesn't show very clearly in his music; that's just my opinion. His music is impressive from a technical standpoint, but it's never evoked any type of emotion from me; it's never made me feel happy, sad, glad, angry, etc.
While I don't think Mick Mars is a superstar, I certainly don't think he sucks. There are a lot of basic riffs to his playing, but it works. I'll be happy to listen to the very Pentatonic solo of "Home Sweet Home" over an Yngwie solo any day.
For me, my style is power chords, bends, screeches, and searing whammy-bar pulls and dives. The most solid example I can give is Armored Saint's "Book of Blood." To me, Dave Pritchard's (RIP) playing was the embodiment of what Metal guitar playing is all about. It isn't technical, but damned sure sounds good (to me, anyway...). Another guitarist I've always admired is Chris Holmes (W.A.S.P), who may not have been the greatest, but he could play Metal guitar like nobody's business.
arty07:The good stuff starts at 1:55.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyZH3qiP27Q
As for Vai playing "without emotion," his music doesn't do anything for me. I'm sure he'd be very impressive to watch in concert, and if someone handed me free tickets, I'm sure I'd go and enjoy myself, and more than likely pick up a thing or two to work on the next time I picked up my guitar.
Torment Leaves Scars said:
why do people always and only apply this label on him... why does nobody ever call Jimi Hendrix or Eric Clapton or anybody else that...
He invented his own (neo classical) style..(or re-invented if you want to count Ritchie Blackmore)
that is what he plays and that is what people expect him to play
anyway, it looks like we have fairly similar tastes, but we hear things differently for some reason..
Torment Leaves Scars
Hero Member
- Messages
- 1,343
Marko said:
People don't call Jimi Hendrix a one-trick pony because he was revolutionary. Jimi's playing is what shaped rock guitar into what it is today. His influence is stamped all over Rock, Blues, Metal, you name it....But what about Chuck Berry? :icon_scratch: He's never mentioned in any conversation revolving around Rock N' Roll. ???
Eric Clapton? He's done numerous projects. While he incorporates different styles into his music, and while it's different, he still successfully leaves his distinctive stamp on it. With Yngwie, everybody knows it's Yngwie, but there's no differentiation to what he's done and what he is doing. His clear focus is on playing fast with a classical influence to it, and he's successful at what he does. Personally, I'd like to see him do something other than what he's already done. How many times do you wanna listen to the same record with different titles?
