Did Axl miss a great chance by not getting John Frusciante?

[Damn_Smooth]

Funny, it was the weepy pansy boys that like sappy crap that turned this into an opinion based argument in the first place. I was glad to keep it factual, but the emo dorks were offended because I pointed out that far better guitarists have joined GN'R. He can tug at your little heartstrings all that you want him to, it doesn't make him any better than he is in reality.

[Bruno P.]

Is anyone arguing that anyone is better because they sold more? I prefer Frusciante for the simple reason that the music he creates makes a bigger stir in me than the music made by the other guys mentioned. I simply just like it more. Musicianship, innovation, creativity, influence, legacy? Who cares. It's such a nerdy, oblivious thing to try to break down music. All I care about is whether I like it or not.

I don't know if you do that on purpose or solely based on the fact that you like to argue over nothing, but did you totally miss some people's posts claiming that Frusciane is a better musician and songwriter than Ron and Bucket based on the fact that he wrote some well known riffs or that his songs sold more? They're still there. Someone mentioned that Frusciane would never join GnR at all because he's "too good", Damn Smooth pointed out that better guitarists had joined Guns, some people laughed because he apparently sold more and wrote "legendary" riffs (Haha ya, because By the way is as legendary as Back in Black or Whole Lotta Love) and I pointed out that that means nothing at all - I also gave examples or how proper legendary guitarists sold way less and wrote less known music than Frusciane, since it's too hard for some people to grasp simple concept such as popularity does not equal quality.

If you missed my point on purpose or If I didn't explain it very well, there we go.

It's none of my business if you like music based on how your heart feels or how some people will feel about those songs, I am arguing over objective stuff. I am glad that you feel this way, and I don't think that anyone listens to music because the artist that created them is more original or sold more than anybody else.

Bono, I am using Frusciane's overall sales numbers as argument. Oh, and I've heard enough of Frusciane to claim that he's nowhere near the greats. It's a well known concept, by the way.

I'll listen to those clips soon.

Edited November 3, 2013 by Bruno P.

[realpoti]

I can't believe there are people comparing Frusciante to Buckethead. They're totally different. It's like saying "red is better than blue".

[niceguy]

So, getting back to the main argument:

DJ and Ron make better music than Frusciante. That appears to be the consensus among you lunatics.

[wasted]

I think its more of a stylistic thing than a definitive thing.

[Damn_Smooth]

So, getting back to the main argument:

DJ and Ron make better music than Frusciante. That appears to be the consensus among you lunatics.

DJ and Ron are the only guitarists that ever played in GN'R? And yes, Ron is way better than John.

[SoulMonster]

Funny, it was the weepy pansy boys that like sappy crap that turned this into an opinion based argument in the first place. I was glad to keep it factual, but the emo dorks were offended because I pointed out that far better guitarists have joined GN'R. He can tug at your little heartstrings all that you want him to, it doesn't make him any better than he is in reality.

And I am pointing out that in my opinion far better guitarists haven't joined GN'R and that our opinions, whether you agree or not, are based on personal musical preferences which are subjective; it follows that people who enter these discussions trying to argue for why one musician is better than the other by pointing to objective criteria like technical ability, legacy, popularity, etc, don't understand why most people like music.

Is anyone arguing that anyone is better because they sold more? I prefer Frusciante for the simple reason that the music he creates makes a bigger stir in me than the music made by the other guys mentioned. I simply just like it more. Musicianship, innovation, creativity, influence, legacy? Who cares. It's such a nerdy, oblivious thing to try to break down music. All I care about is whether I like it or not.

I don't know if you do that on purpose or solely based on the fact that you like to argue over nothing, but did you totally miss some people's posts claiming that Frusciane is a better musician and songwriter than Ron and Bucket based on the fact that he wrote some well known riffs or that his songs sold more?

So someone DID argue that way, thanks.

It is just as stupid as arguing why others are better because they are more "innovative", "creative", "influencing", etc.

[Damn_Smooth]

Funny, it was the weepy pansy boys that like sappy crap that turned this into an opinion based argument in the first place. I was glad to keep it factual, but the emo dorks were offended because I pointed out that far better guitarists have joined GN'R. He can tug at your little heartstrings all that you want him to, it doesn't make him any better than he is in reality.

And I am pointing out that in my opinion far better guitarists haven't joined GN'R and that our opinions, whether you agree or not, are based on personal musical preferences which are subjective; it follows that people who enter these discussions trying to argue for why one musician is better than the other by pointing to objective criteria like technical ability, legacy, popularity, etc, don't understand why most people like music.

I think we all fully understand why people like music or we wouldn't bother with a music based forum at all. Stating that this assclown is too good for GN'R when to me he's definitely nothing special is just looking for an argument. If I have 2 guitarists, and one of them can play everything the other guy can plus more, then that one is the better guitarist. True story. I'm not sure what there is to argue about that.

[Bruno P.]

And I am pointing out that in my opinion far better guitarists haven't joined GN'R and that our opinions, whether you agree or not, are based on personal musical preferences which are subjective; it follows that people who enter these discussions trying to argue for why one musician is better than the other by pointing to objective criteria like technical ability, legacy, popularity, etc, don't understand why most people like music.

This is how we know that Hendrix is the greatest guitarist that has ever lived even if you like Frusciane better. Some aspects aren't subjective and that's why we're pointing out that he's not the real deal.

Justin Bieber sells more than Axl these days, way more people like him. That makes him more respected or influential? Hardly. He sells more because he made music meant to sell more.

That's why we know that Axl's music is certainly - musically speaking - better than Bieber's. Not because you think so, but simply because it's better musicality. In the end, their legacy will be what's left of them and that does include musicality, skills, impact, influence, etc. That's why I pointed out a few months ago why Freddie's so much respected - due to his showmanship, songwriting, singing, playing, impact, pop appeal, his legacy etc. all played a big role on why he's widely heralded as the greatest (rock) frontman/vocalist ever, not only because you or anyone else like him and his music or not.

I want you to understand that musical preference is a part of the music, not everything. It's whether you like something or not, but the bigger picture shows that artists (musicians) mean much more than your personal opinion.

I think we all fully understand why people like music or we wouldn't bother with a music based forum at all. Stating that this assclown is too good for GN'R when to me he's definitely nothing special is just looking for an argument. If I have 2 guitarists, and one of them can play everything the other guy can plus more, then that one is the better guitarist. True story. I'm not sure what there is to argue about that.

Exactly. It's a simple concept that he refuses to understand for some reason. stating that someone is better than the other has nothing to do with opinion. Our statements might be wrong (they are not), but subjectivity means shit here whether SoulMonster agrees or not.

I've listened to those Frusciane clips...

After the ending - why exactly is that a proof of his musicianship I don't know, but it's kind of beautiful in a few ways but boring.

Going inside - it starts with one of his generic cliché sounding riffs that I'm already aware of, nothing unusual overall.

Times Goes Back, Wayne - Both remind me why I don't rank him as high as those guys I aforementioned. A big shout to Wayne because it made me so bored that I wanted it to end after the 2nd minute mark.

The tiniest tip of the iceberg reminded me why I don't care about his music.

Edited November 3, 2013 by Bruno P.

[SoulMonster]

Funny, it was the weepy pansy boys that like sappy crap that turned this into an opinion based argument in the first place. I was glad to keep it factual, but the emo dorks were offended because I pointed out that far better guitarists have joined GN'R. He can tug at your little heartstrings all that you want him to, it doesn't make him any better than he is in reality.

And I am pointing out that in my opinion far better guitarists haven't joined GN'R and that our opinions, whether you agree or not, are based on personal musical preferences which are subjective; it follows that people who enter these discussions trying to argue for why one musician is better than the other by pointing to objective criteria like technical ability, legacy, popularity, etc, don't understand why most people like music.

I think we all fully understand why people like music or we wouldn't bother with a music based forum at all. Stating that this assclown is too good for GN'R when to me he's definitely nothing special is just looking for an argument. If I have 2 guitarists, and one of them can play everything the other guy can plus more, then that one is the better guitarist. True story. I'm not sure what there is to argue about that.

I don't think it is the matter of being able to play things other's have written. That's karaoke skills. What is good with Frusciante, in my humble opinion, is that he can create great guitar music. I respect people's opinion that Bumblefoot can write great guitar music, too, his music just doesn't do squat for me. Again, it is a subjective thing. And whereas no one denies that Bumblefoot is freakishly brilliant at copying other's music down to a tee, I still would prefer, and rank, a guy like Frusciante who, to me, at least, creates memorable guitar parts, way, way, way higher. To me it's all about creating, not copying.

If we have two guitarists and one is better at playing everything the other guy can, and more, as you write, that does not automatically make him a better guitarist in my book. Sure, he would be a more technical player, but being a guitar player is so much more than technical skills. I would take a less skilled guitarist who can write stuff I like and which moves me, over a brilliant technician without any soul any day of any week of any year.

[bacardimayne]

bruno you're disappointing me hard right now

[Bruno P.]

I am not saying that player A or player B is better than Frusciane but he's not the be all and end all of guitar playing. Plus he doesn't have the legendary status that players like Page or May have.

My personal opinion doesn't play a role in my posts on this thread. No, I do not think Axl missed a great chance and this is exactly what I thought when people claimed that Sambora would have been a great guitarist for Guns.

[SoulMonster]

And I am pointing out that in my opinion far better guitarists haven't joined GN'R and that our opinions, whether you agree or not, are based on personal musical preferences which are subjective; it follows that people who enter these discussions trying to argue for why one musician is better than the other by pointing to objective criteria like technical ability, legacy, popularity, etc, don't understand why most people like music.

This is how we know that Hendrix is the greatest guitarist that has ever lived even if you like Frusciane better. Some aspects aren't subjective and that's why we're pointing out that he's not the real deal.

Justin Bieber sells more than Axl these days, way more people like him. That makes him more respected or influential? Hardly. He sells more because he made music meant to sell more.

That's why we know that Axl's music is certainly - musically speaking - better than Bieber's. Not because you think so, but simply because it's better musicality. In the end, their legacy will be what's left of them and that does include musicality, skills, impact, influence, etc. That's why I pointed out a few months ago why Freddie's so much respected - due to his showmanship, songwriting, singing, playing, impact, pop appeal, his legacy etc. all played a big role on why he's widely heralded as the greatest (rock) frontman/vocalist ever, not only because you or anyone else like him and his music or not.

I want you to understand that musical preference is a part of the music, not everything. It's whether you like something or not, but the bigger picture shows that artists (musicians) mean much more than your personal opinion.

We don't know that Hendrix is the greatest guitarist ever. In rankings it often turns out that MOST VOTERS prefer him the most, meaning that to the highest amount of people he is considered the best. I can still rank him as, say, the 8th greatest player. It isn't wrong. Again, this is highly subjective because there is no agreed criteria for ranking something as fuzzy as "the best guitarist", and we would never agree on how to do it. Fact is, more people think Hendrix is the best guitarist than any other guitarists. But that doesn't MAKE him the greatest guitarist because such things are not determined by consensus opinions.

When it comes to appreciation of art, and ranking of artists, it is 100 % subjective. That doesn't mean many of us aren't using objective criteria when we rank them, like technical prowess and range, just that the end result in subjective because the judgement will always have a large subjective component (unless you are a robot just measuring and analysing). That's why guitarists like Junior Kimbrough who would fall through on most objective criteria can still rank higher than guitar wizards like Bumblefoot: they got something else which is much less definable but can easiest be expressed as: fans. Simply put: these guys make music people like even if they have to do that with a limited technical palette (or perhaps because of that).

Justin Bieber will probably end up being less appreciated than Axl Rose, as times go by. This doesn't mean that people who think he is better is wrong. To them he IS better. To them Justin Bieber creates music that makes them feel better, that energizes them, that allows them to escape the world for a short while. Why, I have no idea. But I will never belittle people from what they can't choose, their musical preferences. And I will never claim that Axl is a better musician than Bieber just because Axl is preferred by more people. It just tells me that his music is preferred by more people, but as this isn't a popularity contest it really doesn't mean anything. Bieber is still better to some. And that's really okay. It is these differences in musical preferences that allows the huge diversity of music, which I personally enjoy. Because even genres that aren't my thing will occasionally turn out some gold nuggets, and being exposed to music I think is shit just makes me enjoy my music the more.

Edited November 3, 2013 by SoulMonster

[Bruno P.]

To them Justin Bieber creates music that makes them feel better, that energizes them, that allows them to escape the world for a short while. Why, I have no idea.

It's music that's meant to make listeners feel good because it's easy to listen to. Pop-sounding songs with very basic structure, 3 to 4 minutes long, standart pop vocals with catchy choruses and lyrics that appeal to most. Those hitmakes know exactly that and that's why artists such as Bon Jovi had to rely on them to be relevant - hitmakers know exactly how to make those basic yet catchy songs work. Add to that huge promotion and they're set.

Oh, and please, you're running into circles again. I already explained why your opinion doesn't matter if you rank Hendrix as the 8th or 1st since his legacy, inovation and everything else prove that he's the greatest - as in most influential, original, the one that had the biggest impact etc. It's up to you if you refuse to accept this fact.

[SoulMonster]

To them Justin Bieber creates music that makes them feel better, that energizes them, that allows them to escape the world for a short while. Why, I have no idea.

It's music that's meant to make listeners feel good because it's easy to listen to. Pop-sounding songs with very basic structure, 3 to 4 minutes long, standart pop vocals with catchy choruses and lyrics that appeal to most. Those hitmakes know exactly that and that's why artists such as Bon Jovi had to rely on them to be relevant - hitmakers know exactly how to make those basic yet catchy songs work. Add to that huge promotion and they're set.

Oh, and please, you're running into circles again. I already explained why your opinion doesn't matter if you rank Hendrix as the 8th or 1st since his legacy, inovation and everything else prove that he's the greatest - as in most influential, original, the one that had the biggest impact etc. It's up to you if you refuse to accept this fact.

It doesn't matter how simple the music is. The purpose of music isn't to be complex but to entertain people. In that regards no one can deny that Bieber's music is successful.

I don't agree with your definition of "best guitarist" to be the one who is "the most influential, original, the one who made the biggest impact". The most influential guitarist is...the most influential guitarist. The most original guitarist is...the most original guitarist. And so on. The best guitarist varies from individual to individual.

[bacardimayne]

save us jakey

[CoolRanchDressing]

Why? Does Frusciante hate writing, recording and releasing music?

[Bruno P.]

It doesn't matter how simple the music is. The purpose of music isn't to be complex but to entertain people. In that regards no one can deny that Bieber's music is successful.

I don't agree with your definition of "best guitarist" to be the one who is "the most influential, original, the one who made the biggest impact". The most influential guitarist is...the most influential guitarist. The most original guitarist is...the most original guitarist. And so on. The best guitarist varies from individual to individual.

Of course his music entertains most people as it's exactly meant to do that. They're pop-sounding songs with very basic structure, 3 to 4 minutes long, standart pop vocals with catchy choruses and lyrics that appeal to most and it had huge promotion.

My definition of best guitarist is exact.

best (bst)

adj. Superlative of good.

1. Surpassing all others in excellence, achievement, or quality;

2. Most satisfactory, suitable, or useful;

3. Greatest;

4. Most highly skilled;

You're saying which one *you* like the best, not which one is *actually* the best. But no, I am not claiming that Hendrix was the best guitar player ever, but the one who made the greatest impact - greatest as in most successful in most aspects. Love him all you want, rank him the best for your own opinion all you want - I will not blame you. However, he can't hold a candle to the legendary ones.

Edited November 3, 2013 by Bruno P.

[magisme]

Argument via dictionary = automatic F, please rewrite

[bacardimayne]

not to mention that these fucking retards seem to think john's career began and ended at californication

[magisme]

I haven't listened to him much, but I wasn't overly impressed with those songs Bono posted. Is that some of his best work?

[bacardimayne]

[Bruno P.]

I'm making sure that my argument is based on the right definition of the word best.

Frusciane career may be pretty good and he's heralded highly by many, but he simply *can not* touch Jimmy Page or Eddie Van Halen. Or Blackmore. Or Brian May. Some of you people want us to believe that Axl missed a great opportunity and in my opinion he did not. He missed a greater opportunity when he let Bucket and Brain leave - now we're left with Frank and DJ but we could have Bumble, Brain and Bucket on the same band.

Some people wanted to rank him as high as the greats and I pointed out why he is not. I don't think it's a hard concept to grasp but somehow some people find it difficult to understand.

[Jakey Styley]

I haven't listened to him much, but I wasn't overly impressed with those songs Bono posted. Is that some of his best work?

His solo work isn't a representation of his guitar playing skills really, it's not meant to be like that.

There's a bunch of "best of" videos that show his soloing ability. His ability to improvise is incredible. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa5gbyvbwAQ

He's a phenomenal songwriter. Look at RHCP's music before and after Frusciante, he elevated them to legendary status. If you haven't listened to Blood Sugar Sex Magik, it's an album that everyone needs to listen to. No other guitarist could've done what he did on songs like Sir Psycho Sexy and Give It Away.

His singing is beautiful, too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tKQWvNZT0k

Edited November 3, 2013 by Jakey Styley

[Crash Diet]

Flea said that Frusciane is the best guitarist on the planet so I'll post this to make sure my argument is right.

You all may love Frusciane to death, but he's nothing compared to lets say Jimi Hendrix. Nothing. But he sold more and Flea said he's the best on the planet so he's truly the best. I am not talking about personal opinion, I am talking about overall musicianship, inovation, creativity, influence, legacy, etc.

What's next? Backstreet Boys are as great as Deep Purple because they sold as much? Britney sold as much as KISS so she's as big of an influence? Jon Bon Jovi is better than Bruce Dickinson because he sold more albums? Keep using the "but he played a riff that's well known, therefore he is better than someone who plays music that isnt meant to sell". It's entertaining. How about this... Psy's Gangnam Style has way more YouTube views than November Rain, Bohemian Rhapsody and Stairway to Heaven combined. That obviously means he's better - and more relevant - musician than Freddie, Plant, Axl, Page, May, Slash, Izzy, etc put together.

Is anyone arguing that anyone is better because they sold more? I prefer Frusciante for the simple reason that the music he creates makes a bigger stir in me than the music made by the other guys mentioned. I simply just like it more. Musicianship, innovation, creativity, influence, legacy? Who cares. It's such a nerdy, oblivious thing to try to break down music. All I care about is whether I like it or not.

This. This post is perfect. Stop trying to rationalize something as music and taste.

Yeah, it so weird to find oneself in a discussion about our subjective preferences in regards to music, basically what we like, and then be met with people trying to argue that what they like is better because of some objective criteria, like legacy, sales numbers, technical abilities and all that stuff that has little to do with what most people like. I'd say that people who like music because of objective things doesn't really like music at all. Because it is not that what music is about. They are soulless nerds who listen with their brains and not their hearts.

100% correct