Wow. Guitar players, you need to see this...
Discussion
http://youtu.be/2y9KEtiQ8CM
Ok, its an hour and half, but trust me, its well worth watching. I loved it.
Enthralling insight for someone like me whos a total noob on the guitar.
Ok, its an hour and half, but trust me, its well worth watching. I loved it.
Enthralling insight for someone like me whos a total noob on the guitar.
Turn7 said:
Mastodon2 said:
I can see how this is impressive to a guitar n00b, but believe me, you've seen nothing yet.
Care to expand on that ?However, you could just be highlighting this unusual coming together of contrasting yet notable guitar players from different generations, which does (did) indeed deserve a raised eyebrow from those who take an interest.
My 2p.
Turn7 said:
Care to expand on that ?
Not everyone develops their musical vocabulary, in terms of playing, listening or understanding, to get beyond the rock stage, which is a common entry point for many musicians, and is covered in the documentary that you linked to. If you continue down the line of seeking ever greater listening and playing challenges, you will look back at your what amazed you in 2012 as incredibly basic. I could sit here all day and list incredible musicians across a range of instruments that will blow your mind, but it's a journey you need to take yourself through, and learn it gradually. No doubt, if I had listened to some of the stuff I now consider to be "the bar" in terms of technical, improvisational and compositional ability in music, I'd have been blown away, but it wouldn't have made sense to me the way it does now.
In a sense, being impressed by comparatively basic music is a good thing for the novice listener or musician, as it helps you to learn the basic vocabulary that will become the language for music of ever-increasing complexity you may go on to discover.
Nice asnwer, thanks for that.
I will admit to have had a sherbet or two for the OP, but I still found it fascinating.
Im a big fan of Jack,and saw him at Ally Pally last weekend, but it was interesting to see him with other players.
I really enjoyed watching both Edge and Jack not being able to help themselves smile when Jimmy played the Whole lotta love riff.
Im not, and dont think I ever will be - a musician, but I love playing my guitar and I love watching pros make the thing make noises Ive never even heard before.
However, the likes of Vai and Satch currently hold no interest to me - that may change as my ability improves of course.
The slide session they showed was really good too.
I will admit to have had a sherbet or two for the OP, but I still found it fascinating.
Im a big fan of Jack,and saw him at Ally Pally last weekend, but it was interesting to see him with other players.
I really enjoyed watching both Edge and Jack not being able to help themselves smile when Jimmy played the Whole lotta love riff.
Im not, and dont think I ever will be - a musician, but I love playing my guitar and I love watching pros make the thing make noises Ive never even heard before.
However, the likes of Vai and Satch currently hold no interest to me - that may change as my ability improves of course.
The slide session they showed was really good too.
It is good to be amazed at the stuff these guys do, that's what keeps you going as a beginner. To be fair, every single guitarist at some point was amazed at something pretty basic. I know I was, at a guitarist from a relatively obscure band. It is what made me pick up the guitar in the first place.
And whilst I can do the stuff that guitarist does, now I'm still amazed at the person because I could never "be" him, no matter how much I try to ape his playing. I could play his stuff but he puts a unique feel to the things he plays that comes purely from his hands that I couldn't replicate. Now, I have discovered a lot more highly technical and accomplished players that could simply blow him away, but it doesn't mean he's any less of a guitarist in my eyes. Technical accomplishment has nothing to do with it.
It is good to be amazed at the simple stuff. It reminds you of why you picked up the instrument in the first place. It reminds me of the 'first love'...
(OP: I watched that, it was good stuff. Some of it is not my bag (I loathe Edge), but enjoyed watching three guitarists with a completely different approach to 'doing' music interact together).
And whilst I can do the stuff that guitarist does, now I'm still amazed at the person because I could never "be" him, no matter how much I try to ape his playing. I could play his stuff but he puts a unique feel to the things he plays that comes purely from his hands that I couldn't replicate. Now, I have discovered a lot more highly technical and accomplished players that could simply blow him away, but it doesn't mean he's any less of a guitarist in my eyes. Technical accomplishment has nothing to do with it.
It is good to be amazed at the simple stuff. It reminds you of why you picked up the instrument in the first place. It reminds me of the 'first love'...
(OP: I watched that, it was good stuff. Some of it is not my bag (I loathe Edge), but enjoyed watching three guitarists with a completely different approach to 'doing' music interact together).
Dr Z said:
It is good to be amazed at the stuff these guys do, that's what keeps you going as a beginner. To be fair, every single guitarist at some point was amazed at something pretty basic. I know I was, at a guitarist from a relatively obscure band. It is what made me pick up the guitar in the first place.
And whilst I can do the stuff that guitarist does, now I'm still amazed at the person because I could never "be" him, no matter how much I try to ape his playing. I could play his stuff but he puts a unique feel to the things he plays that comes purely from his hands that I couldn't replicate. Now, I have discovered a lot more highly technical and accomplished players that could simply blow him away, but it doesn't mean he's any less of a guitarist in my eyes. Technical accomplishment has nothing to do with it.
It is good to be amazed at the simple stuff. It reminds you of why you picked up the instrument in the first place. It reminds me of the 'first love'...
(OP: I watched that, it was good stuff. Some of it is not my bag (I loathe Edge), but enjoyed watching three guitarists with a completely different approach to 'doing' music interact together).
Thanks Z,god post. I think the bold bit is what I was probably aiming in the OP if Im honest!And whilst I can do the stuff that guitarist does, now I'm still amazed at the person because I could never "be" him, no matter how much I try to ape his playing. I could play his stuff but he puts a unique feel to the things he plays that comes purely from his hands that I couldn't replicate. Now, I have discovered a lot more highly technical and accomplished players that could simply blow him away, but it doesn't mean he's any less of a guitarist in my eyes. Technical accomplishment has nothing to do with it.
It is good to be amazed at the simple stuff. It reminds you of why you picked up the instrument in the first place. It reminds me of the 'first love'...
(OP: I watched that, it was good stuff. Some of it is not my bag (I loathe Edge), but enjoyed watching three guitarists with a completely different approach to 'doing' music interact together).
Mastodon2 said:
I can see how this is impressive to a guitar n00b, but believe me, you've seen nothing yet.
To develop the theme Mastodon2 is touching on here, I would point you in the direction of Mr. Greg Koch - this is impressive (and highly entertaining):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQQIT4SJHpY
Insane technique AND utterly catchy, quirky (cross-genre) playing - things which are not always mutually inclusive. And there's a bunch of Page homage in there too!
Edited by richiep on Monday 12th November 21:30
Technical virtuosity as an end in itself leaves me cold. I'll take a killer blues riff over 64th notes on a scalloped strat any day of the week.
Everything has it's place, but nothing says look at me more than a ten minute jazz tinged prog solo. There's a reason the Sex Pistols booted Rick Wakeman out of the park in 1977.
A big vocabulary is one thing, getting the message across is quite another. If I peppered every sentence I utter with Antidisestablishmentarianism or floccinaucinihilipilification, I imagine I'd think I was a twunt.
Everything has it's place, but nothing says look at me more than a ten minute jazz tinged prog solo. There's a reason the Sex Pistols booted Rick Wakeman out of the park in 1977.
A big vocabulary is one thing, getting the message across is quite another. If I peppered every sentence I utter with Antidisestablishmentarianism or floccinaucinihilipilification, I imagine I'd think I was a twunt.
Dr Z said:
because I could never "be" him, no matter how much I try to ape his playing
I'm reminded of a piece somewhere in my Guitar World magazine archive upstairs regarding Jeff Beck. A particular guitarist related the story of when he met JB, and then let him muck about on his guitar. I can't remember who this player was, but his guitar of choice was totally different to Jeff Beck's usual Fender fare.What he said was that Beck still sounded like Beck, despite playing a totally different setup of guitar and amp from what he was used to. IIRC, he also stated, "...he could play a piece of 4 x 2 with one string, and you'd still know it was Jeff Beck playing it".
Justin Cyder said:
Technical virtuosity as an end in itself leaves me cold. I'll take a killer blues riff over 64th notes on a scalloped strat any day of the week.
Everything has it's place, but nothing says look at me more than a ten minute jazz tinged prog solo. There's a reason the Sex Pistols booted Rick Wakeman out of the park in 1977.
A big vocabulary is one thing, getting the message across is quite another. If I peppered every sentence I utter with Antidisestablishmentarianism or floccinaucinihilipilification, I imagine I'd think I was a twunt.
I'll break your post down into points to discuss it.Everything has it's place, but nothing says look at me more than a ten minute jazz tinged prog solo. There's a reason the Sex Pistols booted Rick Wakeman out of the park in 1977.
A big vocabulary is one thing, getting the message across is quite another. If I peppered every sentence I utter with Antidisestablishmentarianism or floccinaucinihilipilification, I imagine I'd think I was a twunt.
1. Technical virtuosity for the sake of it is pointless, but is no more shameful than the frankly embarrassing cult of musicians who think that rebelling against being proficient at your instrument in the pursuit of being more musically "honest" or "true" is a sensible path to take. Kurt Cobain was one such of these types, spearheading the grunge movement that developed in antithesis to the technical proficiency of 80s musicians. Any voice or message that was trying to be conveyed in this genre was about as eloquent as a sulky four year old having a tantrum.
2. Your mention of "64th notes on a scalloped strat" leads me to believe you are referring to possibly Blackmore, but more than likely Malmsteen. As a long time fan of Malmsteen, I can't think of any places in his music, off the top of my head, where he actually plays 64th notes, as he is so fond of a fast 4/4 drum beat to give his music pace, almost all of his shredding is 16ths or at most 32nds. Unfortunately, I can only tolerate his music in short doses these days, because he only has two modes; neoclassical, which is almost exclusively harmonic minor scales in the key of A minor for Yngwie, or blues, which again for him is pretty much just minor pentatonic scales in the key of E minor. While he was a bit of a game changer on the 80s guitar scene, Yngwie is a good lesson on why you better have more than one trick in the bag, even if it is a damn good trick.
3. While I do love prog, I can't think of any guitar solo stretching onto 10 minutes, unless of course by "solo" you mean a song with guitar leads over the top that stretches on past the 10 minute mark, which would be an incorrect use of the word "solo". In this genre, particularly in Jazz fusion music, it is easy to be awed by the generally supreme technique of the musicians involved, and this, coupled with the often angular and colourful style of composition matched with improvisation can make Jazz or Jazz fusion seem near impenetrable to the uneducated listener. Of course, as the ultimate in free musicial expression - the only genre where technique, composition and improvisation are truly combined, it could be argued that it was never intended for mass consumption. To truly appreciate it does take a knowledge of what is being presented to the listener.
In a sense, it is similar to looking at paintings. I've always found Jazz fusion to be similar to cubism, in that it takes an element and views and reviews it from multiple perspectives, relying on varied colours and textures to display the full picture from many angles. Take a complex and difficult to digest painting and place it next to a child's finger painting of a flower, or a cloud, and ask 100 people which they prefer, and most will pick the child's painting, as most people, even those with no knowledge or inclination towards art, will identify with the simlpistic styling and values of the child's effort. The same is true for music; most people are not going to make the effort to learn to appreicate Jazz, when simplistic rock or blues music will provide them with base emotion and crass yet easily digested expression. It is this lack of understanding in the general population that removes the "look at me" element of Jazz. There are no packed arenas, no screaming ladies getting their tits out at gigs and no teenage boys putting posters of you on their walls. When playing Jazz to a crowd that is listening, you can be suitably assured that they are there to enjoy the music and not simply to see how fast you can play, or many swept arpeggios you can string together, or how long you can draw a solo on for - they'd all be at Rusty Cooley concerts if they wanted to see that.
4. A big vocabulary is one thing, having something to say with it is quite another. Not everyone who speaks the language has something profound to say with it, and some people just get good at saying certain phrases very quickly. Again, I don't see the point of deliberately eschewing from developing as a musician to fit into some sort of establishment against the establishment of being a better musician. I just can't understand why some people are happy with "Yeah, we know 3 chords and a minor pentatonic, we're set for life!" - to me that is bizarre, like knowing you can be so much more and deciding, to fit in I suppose, that you don't need to be. I will admit though, that not everyone who picks up an instrument is going to have the same potential, I agree with the sentiment about getting the point across, delivery is all important, but the point will define how that delivery is performed. Some things can't be said with 3 chords and one scale. Not every song or composition needs to be the musical equivalent of "War and Peace", but by that token I can't imagine anyone with an inquisitive mind being happy with "The Hungry Caterpillar" for their whole lives. The musically educated only make up a very small percentage of the listening population, hence why Status Quo have done well. I would hope that anyone musically inclined enough to take up an instrument would have the drive and passion to reach their potential rather than settling for a bare minimum in the name of "rock and roll".
As it is, guitarists tend to be the least talented musicians going, you can thank rock and roll for those low attainment levels as so many guitarists just want to be able to bash out a few chords rather than developing into proper musicians. Thanks again to rock culture, guitarists tend to have the biggest gulf between ego/perceived ability and actual ability, due to this idea that a bit of swagger and attitude are more important than being able to play something beyond a minimum in complexity.
And I think saying something with the music is the important bit. Even within the strictures of the minor pentatonic there's so much that can be said with variations of tone and timbre. I've heard people put more into a single note than most guitarists manage with dozens.
But then sometimes I like to be challenged by the music I listen to; math rock and experimental jazz aren't ever really enjoyable to listen to for me, but finding the groove in there gives a bit of a thrill. Also watching people try to mosh to 5/4 time is hilarious.
But then sometimes I like to be challenged by the music I listen to; math rock and experimental jazz aren't ever really enjoyable to listen to for me, but finding the groove in there gives a bit of a thrill. Also watching people try to mosh to 5/4 time is hilarious.
Justin Cyder said:
Technical virtuosity as an end in itself leaves me cold. I'll take a killer blues riff over 64th notes on a scalloped strat any day of the week.
I can't think of anyone who chases technical facility exclusively though, other than youtube bedroom players. Even Rusty Cooley has made albums of music which project some artistic vision he wishes to convey. They're not just a vehicle for his superbly fast, clean playing. Whilst music is often presented as a competitor sport (especially 'muso' stuff, when spoken of by those lacking the ability to appreciate it), I couldn't name a serious musician who thinks of it as such.davepoth said:
And I think saying something with the music is the important bit. Even within the strictures of the minor pentatonic there's so much that can be said with variations of tone and timbre. I've heard people put more into a single note than most guitarists manage with dozens.
^^This. Sorry Mastodon, couldn't be bothered to plough through that but I suspect the voluble prolix response kind of proves what I'm getting at.
Gassing Station | Music | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff