Biggest wastes of talent

[DieselDaisy]

It is difficult that as Aerosmith had a better run in the 70s with Rocks, Toys, GYW (3 great albums) whereas Guns only put out one good album - but what an album. And, the whole Alicia Silverstone cheesy ballads era leaves one cold.

[Guest Len B'stard]

the whole Alicia Silverstone cheesy ballads era leaves one cold.

I dunno man, those videos used to warm me right up

[Jakey Styley]

[quote name="sugaraylen" post="3708862" timestamp="1395841665"

UNLESS...the king doesn't have any clothes and they really aren't as talented as they say and their prediliction towards slumming with the rock n rollers is indicative of this lack in talent, its easy to be a big fish in a small pond and give it large like that than it is to get there in amongst the big boys and show your worth.

Interesting thought.

I'm not a huge Buckethead fan, but I would say without a doubt his greatest guitar work is on Chinese Democracy, but yet he couldn't wait to get out of gnr .....

Really? Have you listened to much of his solo stuff?

His work on Chinese Democracy is like, 0.03% of he music he's ever created. He has done so much more than like 7 solos and some writing credits on a GNR album.

[OmarBradley]

@OmarBradley,

I get what you are saying, and I agree with most of it. Guys that can play like BBF, Satriani, Vai, Buckethead and others are extremely talented guitarists. You could even make the case that they are better "instrumentalists" than many of their more traditional contemporaries. By instrumentalists I mean strictly ablility on the instrument, not instrumental music per say. They are without a doubt the cream of the guitar crop, but my problem with a lot of these guys is that they are so good that they "act" like certain things are below them. They don't write easy riffs, instead they try and write complex riffs. My problem with this is some of the best riffs ever are really very simple (smoke on the water, welcome to the jungle, heartbreaker). So when these type players try to keep everything complex, they are actually losing something imo.

I guess the best way I can pose this question is to put the players into two catagories;

blues influenced penatonic players vs virtuosos.

By definition the virtuosos are going to appear like the more skilled players, what they can play appears limitiless, which is quite an amazing feat. But then you take a guy like Stevie Ray Vaughn. I don't think Stevie ever played a single solo outside of the blues penatonic scale, but the way he played and felt those notes was amazing. I'm sorry but you could put Buckethead or whomever else you want to name on the stage with Stevie, and Stevie is going to out solo anyone of those guys. (as long as they are playing blues type stuff). But if you put Stevie on Buckethead's stage with robots and astro music, than Stevie's playing would seem out of place. So who is really better than who? It's all very subjective. But who said music is a competition in the first place?

Bringing this back around to Joe Perry, he is not as talented of a guitarists as someone like Buckethead, no. But is Buckethead a better musician? No. Why? Because A big part of music is releasing your creativity, being an artist. So because Joe perry's art and creativity fall in the realm of blues influenced guitar playing that some how means it is worth less than a virtuosos playing? Not in the slighteset. If anything it is actually easier to make a case for Joe Perry being the superior one, why? Because facts and statistics can be used to make a case for Joe Perry; more famous, more albums sold, music is more universal, music is more well know, etc. But then the other side would say popularity doesn't mean shit, and they have a point. But my point is it is all sunbjective, and as I said before, Buckethead and other virtuosos are better guitarists yes, but better musicians or artists? No.

Bucket's really really good, his GNR stuff should not be representative of his material. And I think the road can be reversed for virtuosos - but not the other way around, whereas you're saying (I think) it cannot be reversed. I saw The Sound of Animals Fighting the other night, they're an experimental/math rocky/punky supergroup; I didn't know one song by the band, a friend had an extra ticket. The guitar players were brilliant, technically as proficient as most virtuosos, and compositionally the arrangements were superb - but, at one point in the middle of the show, out of nowhere, they hurled into a blues jam a la Since I've Been Loving You. I was so surprised, but they really did sound just as good as Page, or Clapton, or whoever. Just because you can play at 200 bpm for 2 hours, doesn't mean you can't feel the blues too.

In terms of what you're saying about Perry, that's sort of the opposite of what I'm trying to argue. I'm saying disregard facts and figures, they only reflect interest, not innate talent. I do think Buckethead is a better musician than Joe Perry. Who would I rather see live? Aeromsith 10 times out of 10, because I'd enjoy it more. But I don't think I should let that cloud my judgement of who is innately more talented.

Thing is we come to music in the form of pop music, the forum we're on is for pop music, the artists and bands, by and large, that we listen to are popular music, i don't think I've misunderstood you i think you misunderstand me. I'm not confusing popularity and skill, I'm highlighting a broader parameter of what comes under skill because i believe that the ear to create the sounds that speak to a wide range of people is a skill in and of itself and that can make you a BRILLIANT guitarist with relatively rudimentary skill set in terms of the textbook stuff.

End of the day music is a form of communication, so the more people a piece of communicates to the better it is in my opinion, on one level at least.

I think no one is misunderstanding anyone, we're disagreeing. Your definition of skill is not the same as mine. I don't think it takes significant skill to make your music "speak to a wide range of people." We discussed this in the Guitar Solo's thread in AG a week ago, and in that debate most of us (or at least a lot of us) agreed that skill is sort of moot when creating pop music. By basing your definition of skill off of, "a broader parameter of what comes under skill because i believe that the ear to create the sounds that speak to a wide range of people," you are inherently intertwining it with popularity. The disagreement comes in at, you would call Johnny Ramone a "BRILLIANT guitarist with relatively rudimentary skill set," because his music touched so many people in a significant way. I would call him a rubbish guitarist with relatively rudimentary skill set who was able to write appealing music. I'm not saying he's not a musician, or that Malmsteen is more of a musician than Ramone, I'm saying Malmsteen is a better guitar player, all around, and who cares how many listeners they have? Like you said, pop music is for the masses, HL Mencken had some things to say about the masses - but that's a different discussion for a different section.

Think of it like college majors, aerospace engineering is going to be a lot tougher of a degree to get than political science (this was my major, so as to not offend anyone). Obviously, poli. sci. is a bit of a different mentality than engineering, and certain individuals are probably naturally geared towards one or the other (much like styles of music....), but I can assure you, aerospace engineering requires more work, patience, and innate smarts than political science does. Does this mean political science majors aren't smart? No. Many are smarter than engineers, but that doesn't change the fact that the coursework for engineering is 10x as onerous. But when it all comes down to it, both the aero-eng major and the poli. sci. major attained college degrees. Some people aren't meant for engineering, and some people aren't meant for political science - some people aren't meant for complex music, some are, and that's fine, it's the way the world works; but that shouldn't mean we bastardize how we view skill and hard work. rTo sum it up in a blunt way: styles of music that virtuoso guitar players, jazz guitar players, classical/neoclassical, etc. play require more talent than styles of music that pop guitarists play. It doesn't mean they are any less of a musician, like how I am no less of a college graduate than an engineer.

Another thing, we put people like Page, Hendrix, Slash, Perry, up on pedastels, but to be honest, there are hundreds of guitar players just as good who don't make it to their position. The music industry is luck sometimes, we have to remember that who we hear on our radios isn't determined by criteria relating to personal musicianship - and that's fine, I don't think it should change, I'm just noting it.

I think thats why it is important to seperate being a instrumentalist from being a great musician/composer/artist. Sure a great instrumentalist can also be a great composer/musician/artist also, but it does appear that many great instrumentalist do lack something in the composing area. Not that they don't compose technically great music, because they do. But their music is like niche' type music, it is not for a lot of people. I've been using Buckehead as an example and will continue to do so, his music is great for his niche' and for the people that like that kind of music, but not for the masses, or even for the rock audiences (which we are no longer part of the masses either). Where as someone like Joe Perry has created or helped create music that has found a significant larger audience than Buckethead has. Does that mean that Joe Perry is the better musican? No. But he might be the better composer. He has a better ear for music that other people will respond to. While Buckethead and others tend to create music that THEY respond to. Which isn't a bad thing, but it is creating an elitist type attitude. Which imo as a musician, the more people that respond positivly to your music the better. I'm not passing judgement or saying that one attitude is better than the other, but for me, I prefer music that is more inclusive by nature, not exclusive. Which imo most guitar virtuoso music is VERY exclusive, only certain people get it. But just about everyone can "get" Walk this way.

This paragraph I am more inclined to agree with than the one of yours I quoted above... but I am still not fully convinced. I do agree with what you stated above, about how virtuoso guitar players don't do enough simple stuff - check out Paul Gilbert's catalog, he's got it all: simple, bluesy, neoclassical, hard rock, blues rock, metal, etc.

[quote name="sugaraylen" post="3708862" timestamp="1395841665"

UNLESS...the king doesn't have any clothes and they really aren't as talented as they say and their prediliction towards slumming with the rock n rollers is indicative of this lack in talent, its easy to be a big fish in a small pond and give it large like that than it is to get there in amongst the big boys and show your worth.

Interesting thought.

I'll add that it is these guys own ego's that get in the their own way imo. How is it that as soon as Buckethead joined gnr, he became a lot more relevant? Same goes for Vai and Satriani. When Vai teamed up with DLR during the 80's, that's when he made his most enduring and recognizable music. When Satriani teamed up with Hagar to form Chickenfoot, his popularity alos increased (realitvly speaking, he did find a larger audience.) But my point is that these guys are so talented on the guitar that they let their ego's get in the way. It's like they refuse any outside help creating music, it has to be 100% their's or they don't want to be a part of it. But as soon as they get a good songwritting partner, they reach a new level of success. But at least in Vai's and Buckethead's case, they couldn't wait to quit and go back to doing their "own" music on the smaller scale? Why??? I know many would argue artistic credibilty or that they don't need help, but that is clearly not the case. I'm not a huge Buckethead fan, but I would say without a doubt his greatest guitar work is on Chinese Democracy, but yet he couldn't wait to get out of gnr (we can blame Axl for that all day long, but Buckethead clearly didn't really want to be there, it was just a platform for him to get more exposure for his solo stuff.) My verdict is that these guys are great guitarists, but none of them can write a vsong worth a damn. So instead they write guitar instrumental pieces, which even though they are "amazing" they are hiding the fact that as Lenny said "The king has no clothes." It sure does beg the question.....

Well, I'm not sure that this directly relates to the player's ego. I know what you mean about their popularity increasing though. How are their egos getting in the way? What's wrong with composing music that's 100% your own? Composers have been operating that way for hundreds of years. Hell, most songs I've written in bands have been 90-95% my material. Of course, I always address suggestions, and I generally institute and agree with them, but having 1 person being the main composer is not so ridiculous.

Unless, you're saying that these guys use pop bands to bolster their own popularity, and are knowingly doing this with the idea in mind to leave the band ASAP? That I can't address I guess, I will say of the guitar players you've mentioned who have done this (Vai, Bucket, Satriani), all together I think I have less than 10 songs (out of many many thousands) combined by those artists on my iTunes.

[bacardimayne]

Just imagine the music Tyler and Slash could have come up with.

[Guest Len B'stard]

I think no one is misunderstanding anyone, we're disagreeing. Your definition of skill is not the same as mine. I don't think it takes significant skill to make your music "speak to a wide range of people." We discussed this in the Guitar Solo's thread in AG a week ago, and in that debate most of us (or at least a lot of us) agreed that skill is sort of moot when creating pop music. By basing your definition of skill off of, "a broader parameter of what comes under skill because i believe that the ear to create the sounds that speak to a wide range of people," you are inherently intertwining it with popularity. The disagreement comes in at, you would call Johnny Ramone a "BRILLIANT guitarist with relatively rudimentary skill set," because his music touched so many people in a significant way. I would call him a rubbish guitarist with relatively rudimentary skill set who was able to write appealing music. I'm not saying he's not a musician, or that Malmsteen is more of a musician than Ramone, I'm saying Malmsteen is a better guitar player, all around, and who cares how many listeners they have? Like you said, pop music is for the masses, HL Mencken had some things to say about the masses - but that's a different discussion for a different section.

I don't think just anybody could do for a living what Johnny Ramone did, as a guitar player. We got some pretty good guitarists on here and honestly, I'd like to see some of em attempt a Ramones set, see how well they do.

Put simply you appear to be highlighting a distinction between pop music and what these guys do, a distinction between the intent behind the music, the people it's for, everything...so why bother with the comparison? Go be a better guitar player, why would you even wanna address people like Joe Perry or Johnny Ramone or whoever, your position is that technical ability on the guitar is what makes them better, well nobodys arguing in THAT regard that Johnny Ramone or Joe Perry are better than the muso brigade. In fact, if anything, it's those motherfuckers that are often crossing the line over into pop music for the masses.

And I'd be interested to hear what HL Mencken has to say about the masses, i wonder if any of it makes him or her come across like a patronising cunt.

Another thing, we put people like Page, Hendrix, Slash, Perry, up on pedastels, but to be honest, there are hundreds of guitar players just as good who don't make it to their position. The music industry is luck sometimes,

Yeah and y'know why? Cuz they made good songs, simple. No more, they played on good songs. So then whoose the better guitarist? What good is being 'better' when it sounds like and shit and nobody wants to hear it? It's weird, it appears that you almost consider the human a hinderance to the advancement of music If it just wasn't for those darn masses and their liking things and the resultant consensus formed around their taste, if we all just forgot about all that shit, read the textbooks, learned musical theory throughout, used that as a basis for judging talent and just got away from all that troublesome mess about dancefloor and having fun and getting drunk and losing your shit to music.

Instead of proper gigs we could get these lone guitar players in theatres, chuck em onstage and clap politely in between bouts of them shredding their way through Flight of the Bumblebee or something

To be clear here, in a technical ability sense, yes there are better guitar players than the above mentioned but it is no good as will never get the same recognition as those guys because they do not make good songs, that ain't luck, that ain't a fluke, Hendrix is Hendrix because his music spoke to people and quite frankly you could stick all your Steve Vai's onstage and he'd fuckin' roast em cuz that guy had more passion than it is possible for one human being to have and he had the talent, yes, the talent to communicate that through music, another talent many of these so called 'better guitarists' that can play more styles often don't have.

But then we're getting back to that masses thing again and we can't be doing that cuz as HR Puffnstuff rightly said, the masses are a pack of cloth cap wearing dirty snot-sleeved plebs

Edited March 27, 2014 by sugaraylen

[GivenToFly]

I thought it was a given that when we're talking about how good a guitarist is here we're talking about the creative aspect. Or at least that's how most of the conversations go.

[DieselDaisy]

For example, Steve Jones and Izzy Stradlin are two of my favourite guitarists ever. To me, what they do is far superior to Bumblefoot et al. I do have a bit of time for Buckethead because he is actually a lot more bluesier and emotive than most people thing. I like some of his solo stuff - not all of it (there is so much of it that I cannot keep up!).

[Iron MikeyJ]

@Lenny,

I completly agree with your point about the songs. Hendrix, Page, Joe Perry, Slash, and many others helped write really great songs. That is absolutly the most important aspect imo. That is the secret, that is the trick, and thats the point that SO many people don't realize. You can be the most talented musician in the world, but if you can't write a song worth a damn, then you better find someone who can, or go the route of instrumental music (which is fine). But that brings me to my point about todays music, it seems like many people have forgotten about the long lost art of song writing, not just in the pop world, but rock, country, hip hop and many other forms of music. That's why you see so many artists that have other people writing their music (which is nothing new, but I feel it is at an all time high). But even those that are writing songs for other people, they are still border line crap songs imo. Take Katy Perry for example, she has that song fighter (or whatever the hell its called). It absolutly amazes me that that song is a hit, every word in that song is recycled from another song. That song is a complete rip off of Eye of the tiger. The Pretty Reckless is an example of a rock band doing the same crap. I don't know if she writes her own lyrics or not (perhaps someone could educate me on that) but to me all of her lyrics are recycled AC/DC lyrics. I see no originality in that what so ever. I'm not saying these are not catchy songs, they are extremly catchy. But is this what music has come to??? If it is then ok here is my new hit song:

"I walked the stairway to heaven, I rode the highway to hell, I lived my life banging on hells bell. I ain't talkin' bout love, I ain't trying to be pretty, just making my way down to the paradise city."

That literally took me 30 seconds to come up with, and imo is the lyrical content of most popular music today. Hell I was watching The Great Gatsby last night and Jay Z has a song in it about 100 dollar bills, and the thought occured to me, does he ever get tired of talking about money and bling and all that bs? Honestly how many times can you refrence the same shit over and over again? But people buy it right up, why???

But to cycle this back to guitar players, I firmly believe being able to write a good song on an instrument is MORE valuable than being able to play a million notes per second. That doesn't mean those guys are untalented or anything like that, but give me the guys that can write. Besides it's no conicedence that most of those guitar virtuosos play Hendrix songs at every show. They may have equaled or even surpassed Jimi's technical ability, but none of them have come even close to matching Jimi's song writing abilities, and at the end of the day, people want the songs. That is also why EVH will always be head and shoulders above Vai, Malmsteen, Satriani and the others, because he knows how to write great songs, they do not.

[moreblack]

I like those guys who have very few limits to what they can play, but still know when to reel it in and produce some great melodic stuff when needed.

Chops for days but still soulful and conscious of serving the song.

Because to me, a guy that just strums is boring, a guy that just riffs, is only half the picture.

That is also why EVH will always be head and shoulders above Vai, Malmsteen, Satriani and the others, because he knows how to write great songs, they do not.

Sometimes they do, they've all come up with a few gems. Vai was basically Eddie's replacement in David Lee Roth's band for example, and he definitely made the most of it. I'd put Eat 'Em And Smile and Skyscraper up against any of the Van Halen albums put out at the same time.
Yngwie's solo debut is ridiculous, he took a lot of things that didn't necessarily go together and he made something pretty unique for the time. Black Star is his calling card from here to eternity.

Satch, is probably the best writer of the bunch, his only drawback is that it's mostly instrumentals. But you hear his stuff with Chickenfoot, and it's some pretty badass rock, he still sneaks his complex bits in, but as part of the rhythm behind Hagar's vocals, as opposed to up front on a solo instrumental piece.

Edited March 27, 2014 by moreblack

[Guest Len B'stard]

I think they serve different things, riffs are amazing, they stick in your head, they make shit danceable, strumming on its own, when done right and with an awareness of the subtlties and where to put accents it can be positively hypnotic, even on its own.

[Iron MikeyJ]

@ Moreblack,

I gave Vai and Satriani props for their work with DLR and Chickenfoot in earlier posts, because yes I agree that is the best "songs" that both have written imo. Don't get me wrong, I like all of those guys, they are amazing at what they do. I have actually been to a couple different G3 concerts, so I have seen all of them multiple times live, and I have actually met Yngwie. But if you ask me who my favorite guitar players are, I would take Page, Hendrix, Van Halen, Rhoads, Slash, and even Joe Perry over anyone of those guys. That's just my opinion, but I just plain enjoy the music they make that much more.

[moreblack]

@ Moreblack,

I gave Vai and Satriani props for their work with DLR and Chickenfoot in earlier posts, because yes I agree that is the best "songs" that both have written imo. Don't get me wrong, I like all of those guys, they are amazing at what they do. I have actually been to a couple different G3 concerts, so I have seen all of them multiple times live, and I have actually met Yngwie. But if you ask me who my favorite guitar players are, I would take Page, Hendrix, Van Halen, Rhoads, Slash, and even Joe Perry over anyone of those guys. That's just my opinion, but I just plain enjoy the music they make that much more.

I'm kind of in the same boat, I grew up on Page, Slash, Blackmore, the 3 Maiden guys, and a lot of that kind of thing. But when I get the itch for something more advanced playing-wise I checked out the shred guys, and thru that, began to realize that these guys put a lot of that knowledge and chops to pretty decent compositional use. Marty Friedman's solo instrumental albums immediately come to mind. And because none of what they do is standard fare rock n roll, they kind of dwindle down the number of ears that will appreciate it. But that's never the point. For those guys, the aim is to try to get somewhere other players aren't getting to. Because everybody else is doing the same, or a very similar thing to what's already been done since rock started.

To listen to it though, it's a very tough chew, I bust it out occasionally but it's not my everyday music of choice, because it requires a different kind of ear, that I'm not always willing to give.

Edited March 27, 2014 by moreblack

[Guest Len B'stard]

"I walked the stairway to heaven, I rode the highway to hell, I lived my life banging on hells bell. I ain't talkin' bout love, I ain't trying to be pretty, just making my way down to the paradise city."

I pointed out a similar lyrical self reference and laziness in the works, lyrically, of The Stones and (more often) Aerosmith, it's exactly this kinda thing that you've pointed out.

Jay Z has a song in it about 100 dollar bills, and the thought occured to me, does he ever get tired of talking about money and bling and all that bs? Honestly how many times can you refrence the same shit over and over again? But people buy it right up, why???

I dunno man, how many times can you write about love? Or anger? Or anything, i don't fault Jigga for that and i don't think that necessarily makes him a bad rapper, it just becomes problematic when thats ALL you go on about.

[Iron MikeyJ]

@ Lenny,

I agree that if you only sing about love, then it becomes a very tired subject. For me, it doesn't matter what the lyrical content is as long as it is coming from the heart/soul. When things start sounding very contrived, that's when I have a problem with it, and I'm sorry but that Katy Perry and others that I pointed out, all seems VERY contrived. I was only using Jay Z as an example, I know he has this "persona" that he has to keep up, but honestly man how many times can you go on and on about money and bling? The first song I have ever heard from him was Money ain't a thang, now almost 20 years later he is still going on and on about 100 dollar bills? That would be the same as Axl having a new song about "the jungle" or the "paradise city". We would all FLAME AXL for doing that, why should Jay Z be any different. I somewhat like that song Royals by LORDE, because her singing about wealth and money is ok, because she didn't have it when she wrote that song, so it was sort of ironic in nature. (My band actually does a kick ass version of that song btw), but if her career lasts longer than one year (which I'm not convinced it will) then for her to write another song like that would just be boring imo, same goes for Jay Z. If you want my honest to God opinion of him, I really like his older stuff, but I don't think he has released a single song worth a damn since 99 problems. I would even go as far as to say Beyonce is the worst thing for his career, maybe not his bedroom, but for his career. But that's a different topic all together.

There are still great songs being written today, so I don't want anyone to think that I think other wise, but they are becoming fewer and farther between. This contrived attitude is one of the things I don't like about most metal music, because it's so angry all the time. I'm sorry, but nobody is that angry all the time, and if you are I feel sorry for you and you need some professional help. But if a metal group writes a song that isn't angry, their audience gets pissed off? Why? Shouldn't musicians be free to express all emotions? Why do some have to pigeon held into only one or two emotions? I think it shows diversity in the artists. (btw I can count 3 topics that metal fans are ok with their bands singing about; anger/sadness, devil/satanic/horror, and fantasy stuff like dragons) But if Metallica wrote a love song, their fans would be PISSED, even though they have all fallen in love at some point, I don't really get it. I guess that is one of the reasons I prefer rock/pop music, because it's ok to write a love song, or an angry song, or a satanic song, or a song about nothing. It just seems to me that metal, hip hop (for the most part), and country music all have very restrictive audiences.

[bacardimayne]

Chris Cornell

Another case of great voice, weak material. I just can't get into Soundgarden.

[OmarBradley]

I don't think just anybody could do for a living what Johnny Ramone did, as a guitar player. We got some pretty good guitarists on here and honestly, I'd like to see some of em attempt a Ramones set, see how well they do.

Challenge accepted, give me a list of songs. My main PC isn't operable now, but it should be within the next week or so.

And I'd be interested to hear what HL Mencken has to say about the masses, i wonder if any of it makes him or her come across like a patronising cunt.

It does.

Another thing, we put people like Page, Hendrix, Slash, Perry, up on pedastels, but to be honest, there are hundreds of guitar players just as good who don't make it to their position. The music industry is luck sometimes,

Yeah and y'know why? Cuz they made good songs, simple. No more, they played on good songs. So then whoose the better guitarist? What good is being 'better' when it sounds like and shit and nobody wants to hear it?

A lot of guitarists are capable of writing good songs. Writing good songs + being an excellently talented guitarist + being in a band of other good musicians does not inherently = a career in the music business with all that it entails (large scale promotion, professional studio recording contracts, etc.). I will submit, some artists are probably more likely than others to succeed. Like Hendrix, he was causing quite a stir in England, so much so that Clapton turned his attention towards him, before he was famous. It's quite similar to the classic erroneous teleological analyzation of history - there is absoutely no reason that anything (in this case, a band becoming popular) had to happen. All of the variables could add up correctly, but luck and unknown factors will still make or break you. The more hard work you put into your music business (band in this instance), and the better your music is, yes, the more likely you are to be recognized. But there's no reason to imply that the popularity of certain artists was inevitable.

Johnny Ramone made good songs, are you saying he's a better guitar player than me because his songs were recorded professionally and distrubted internationally? I am insulted if that's the case.

Again I'm not saying everyone has to be Bach (I think I literally used that exact sentence in a previous post here), but don't kid yourself that Joe Perry is anywhere near as talented as Marty Friedman. Who made more popular songs is moot in the discussion of talent - that is the point I'm arguing for, which I do realize most people will disagree with.

It's weird, it appears that you almost consider the human a hinderance to the advancement of music If it just wasn't for those darn masses and their liking things and the resultant consensus formed around their taste, if we all just forgot about all that shit, read the textbooks, learned musical theory throughout, used that as a basis for judging talent and just got away from all that troublesome mess about dancefloor and having fun and getting drunk and losing your shit to music.

But that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying that this stuff shouldn't exist (dance music, Ramones, Joe Perry, etc.). I'm saying people should be equipped to make the distinction between differing complexities of music, and differeing levels of talent.

Instead of proper gigs we could get these lone guitar players in theatres, chuck em onstage and clap politely in between bouts of them shredding their way through Flight of the Bumblebee or something

In a perfect world....

To be clear here, in a technical ability sense, yes there are better guitar players than the above mentioned but it is no good as will never get the same recognition as those guys because they do not make good songs, that ain't luck, that ain't a fluke, Hendrix is Hendrix because his music spoke to people and quite frankly you could stick all your Steve Vai's onstage and he'd fuckin' roast em cuz that guy had more passion than it is possible for one human being to have and he had the talent, yes, the talent to communicate that through music, another talent many of these so called 'better guitarists' that can play more styles often don't have.

But then we're getting back to that masses thing again and we can't be doing that cuz as HR Puffnstuff rightly said, the masses are a pack of cloth cap wearing dirty snot-sleeved plebs

I addressed this a few paragraphs above, but to reiterate concisely: it is luck, and sometimes it is a fluke. With Hendrix, I think that's not the case, but with many others, I think it is.

And alright alright, I shouldn't have brought up HR Puffnstuff.

I like those guys who have very few limits to what they can play, but still know when to reel it in and produce some great melodic stuff when needed.

Chops for days but still soulful and conscious of serving the song.

Because to me, a guy that just strums is boring, a guy that just riffs, is only half the picture.

Two words: Paul Gilbert. Also you mentioned Marty's solo stuff in another of your posts, I just started listening to it a few months ago, it's some of the best guitar music (and music in general) that I've ever heard. Ripped, Carazon de Santiago, etc.

[Yesterdays-Civil-War]

Chris Cornell

Another case of great voice, weak material. I just can't get into Soundgarden.

Seriously? Even the Superunknown album does nothing for you?

Do you not like Temple of the Dog either?

[bacardimayne]

IIRC the Soundgarden album I enjoyed most was Badmotorfinger.

[Street Of The Blues]

Syd Barrett is one of the biggest for obvious reasons so his inspiration went to painting for the rest of his days basically. There was no keeping up at all musically and I'm suprised nobody has mentioned him. Shame he didn't slow down and knew what we know now it very well could have been an interesting twist in time had his mental state not deteriorated. Also not to forget Brain Jones who was a waste of talent taken too soon.

[Yesterdays-Civil-War]

IIRC the Soundgarden album I enjoyed most was Badmotorfinger.

I've just never heard anyone call Soundgarden's stuff weak. I guess I should have known that opinion existed but I've personally never ran into a, what I perceive to be a rock fan, who thinks Chris Cornell is a waste of talent.

[bran]

IIRC the Soundgarden album I enjoyed most was Badmotorfinger.

my favorite soundgarden album, the sabbath like riffs were awesome.

[bacardimayne]

IIRC the Soundgarden album I enjoyed most was Badmotorfinger.

I've just never heard anyone call Soundgarden's stuff weak. I guess I should have known that opinion existed but I've personally never ran into a, what I perceive to be a rock fan, who thinks Chris Cornell is a waste of talent.

Weak is probably the wrong word. I like some of their stuff, but in general I just don't find myself going out of my way to listen to them, or any of Cornell's material, despite how much I love his voice.

[DR DOOM]

IIRC the Soundgarden album I enjoyed most was Badmotorfinger.

my favorite soundgarden album, the sabbath like riffs were awesome.

Indeed.

Louder Than Love, Badmotorfinger and Down On The Upside (probably my favourite) are fuck off great records.

Never really dug Superunkown as much as them for some reason.

Thayil really "got" what Iommi is all about.

Edited March 29, 2014 by DR DOOM

[Guest Len B'stard]

Challenge accepted, give me a list of songs. My main PC isn't operable now, but it should be within the next week or so.

Cool, OK First time someones done this over all the years of my making similar statements so respect to ya fella. Anyway, OK, Ramones sets were like 21 songs-ish, played live they were played a shitload faster so bear that in mind and there's basically no breaks between songs, it's 1,2,3,4 and into the other...and you have to do a Dee Dee impersonation 1,2,3,4 Nah, scratch the Dee Dee bit

Anyway, songs:

Do You Wanna Dance?

Judy Is A Punk

I Don't Wanna Go Down to the Basement

Havana Affair

Listen to my Heart

I Dont Wanna Walk Around With You

Commando

Warthog

Glad to See You Go

Oh Oh I Love Her So

Rockaway Beach

Teenage Lobotomy

She's the One

Chinese Rocks

Psycho Therapy

Endless Vacation

I Wannabe Sedated

He's Gonna Kill That Girl

Sheena Is A Punk Rocker

California Sun

Gimme Shock Treatment

Once again, played in The Ramones style, as they did live (i.e. a shitload faster than the studio recordings), back to back, with no breaks except for that count in...and maybe one break after the first 3 songs when they'd take their jackets off, all of 20 seconds Respect to you again by the way, for taking this up

Johnny Ramone made good songs, are you saying he's a better guitar player than me because his songs were recorded professionally and distrubted internationally? I am insulted if that's the case.

Again I'm not saying everyone has to be Bach (I think I literally used that exact sentence in a previous post here), but don't kid yourself that Joe Perry is anywhere near as talented as Marty Friedman. Who made more popular songs is moot in the discussion of talent - that is the point I'm arguing for, which I do realize most people will disagree with.

Yes you can say that though, on some level, he is better, although it does beg the question is that shit was Marty Friedman is even looking to do? But yes, if you can write good songs but you're rudimentary and then you got a virtuoso who can't write a song to save his life, in the sphere of popular music the first guy is better.

The way i look at it all this hotdog shit is just gym work, it's looking good in the place designed for you to look good, every fighter looks good in the gym, songs to me are like fight night, you show your worth.

It's like you have these underground MCs coming up in hip hop and they can rhyme all night and it's amazing, the mindblowing rap you ever heard...and me as a rap fanatic i'll just listen to em rhyme all night off of some mickey mouse beat, i don't care, i eat that shit up but like, people don't wanna hear that shit, people wanna hear songs so like, y'know, to me they're the shit but to most they're like an incomplete tapestry. It's kinda the same with these virtuoso guitarists, to you its some cool shit cuz it's your sphere of interest most people ain't trying to hear that shit, that fuckin' tinkley Ice Cream van jingle shit up and down a fretboard, people want tunes.

Edited March 29, 2014 by sugaraylen