Best riff writers?

[username]

You can either say it's Chuck Berry or you can be wrong. Those are your only options.

Keith Richards comes second. With all due respect to the rest of the guitar playing world.

[Rovim]

What? so we've established Chuck was responsible for inventing the blueprint of rock n' roll. How the fuck does that relevant enough for what we were talking about?

Well first of all i was talking about GTF about the specific notion that those riffs ain't the same...and they're not, the idea is that there was suggestion that he was being unoriginal, so Dies's point about him inventing the shit in pertinent because he was laying the groundwork a genre and establishing it's standards. In that regard is specifically pertinent.

every riff sounds very similar.

I agree they sound similar...not identical though and thats the point i was arguing, something that you took upon yourself to adjust GTFs statement regarding.

It's like he says the same thing over and over again in many of his riffs but it sounds cool everytime,

This is where appreciation of nuance and subtlety comes in, cuz it's not the same thing...or are you exaggerating again? Can we start saying what we mean please so i can make sense of this conversation?

just less interesting compared to a slightly more adventurous approach

What, more adventurous than creating a new genre at the time? Or, if we're being precise, establishing and consolidating the musical template for said genre.

Keep it in the same realm, but ffs say something else.

Chuck is not responsible for your inability or unwillingness to appreciate subtlety.

You must be joking. He created something new and original, but his work since has been repetitive. Still great stuff, love him, let's leave it at that cause I don't think some people here get what I mean they're just hearing "chuck is unoriginal!".

Also: I always aim to say what I mean.

Well that is close to calling someone unoriginal isnt it? Almost like you're saying 'he did that one thing and then its been the same after', which is wrong on two counts, firstly its not the same and secondly doing that one original thing, if in fact it was the only original thing, its pretty fuckin' seismic, does he have to revolutionise modern music every time for him to not be called repetitive?

The fact that no one has in anyway expanded on his template says a great deal to me. No, solos getting longer and adding tonal instrumentation does not consistute expanding the template, thats called dressing up the template.

But it's not as black as white as either doing one original thing and never even attempting to explore just a little to expand on what you've said before, or revolutionise modern music completely everytime.

AC/DC, a band from a different time, granted, has never drifted too far from what they did well, but all they did was really play blues very loudly and writing rock n' roll songs. But how many distinct enough riffs exist from the mind of Angus?

Just an example of another great guitar player that...played a little more with his riffs so they don't sound stale.

I don't listen to AC/DC very often cause the albums do sound too much the same but that's beside the point.

Not asking him to change too much, just enough so the riffs don't sound like they came from a factory.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Rovim

[Towelie]

I see the music snobs are out in full force. Quick, someone call NME - they could write some of this horseshit down.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Towelie

[Len Cnut]

I see the music snobs are out in full force. Quick, someone call NME - they could write some of this horseshit down.

This is half mast, it aint full force until someone says 'musical landscape'

[Towelie]

I see the music snobs are out in full force. Quick, someone call NME - they could write some of this horseshit down.

This is half mast, it aint full force until someone says 'musical landscape'

Give Diesel time....

[Cosmo]

Lol at people defending Chuck Berry in the RIFF department. That's like defending the Ferrari 125S on the speed department.

[DieselDaisy]

Only a person with a passing acquaintance with Chuck Berry would say his music sounds 'the same'; try Havana Moon, Downbound Train, Hey Pedro or Stop and Listen.

[moreblack]

For those unfamiliar, I made a video:

Not gonna lie, they all sound pretty much in the same parking space.

[GivenToFly]

lol

[OmarBradley]

You can't compare Chuck Berry to someone like Jimmy Page or Dave Mustaine. Berry (or someone else like Berry) had to come first in order for the later guys to do their thing. Do the later/modern rock/metal/punk musicians write better riffs than Chuck? You betcha. But they wouldn't have been able to do it if he hadn't come along first. This is partially where this thread is disagreeing, since Chuck was one of the original founders, does that mean his riffs are better? I don't think so.

Another component is that the nature of 50's rock n' roll was repetitive, just like a lot of pop music during that time (and today!). It's just the progression of pop music. We're all focusing on the intro riffs here, but I'd have to bet the verse riffs to nearly every one of those songs is pretty much identical too, just in different keys. Does that mean he sucks? No.

We shouldn't deride players for existing before the time of intricate riffs where it was expected each song had a vastly different one than the previous, but we also shouldn't praise them for that very same reason.

Appreciate players in the context of their era, otherwise, there's not really a proper way to compare.

As far as the "if Chuck hadn't come along, we wouldn't have RNR as we know it" line of arguing, maybe, but that's teleological. Any number of players could have done what he did, he just did it first (or most prominently?). Not to mention, I'd have to guess a few others were beginning to do so - though my specific knowledge of this time period is poor, I'd have to guess Buddy Holly and Scotty Moore.

Other than my possible misuse of the word "repetitive," this post was largely ignored, did it get swept under the rug due to it being in the middle of an argument? I was mainly directing this at the "Berry trumps all" posters, as I think most others would agree.

[Rovim]

For those unfamiliar, I made a video:

Not gonna lie, they all sound pretty much in the same parking space.

That's what I was trying to say in the last 2 or 3 pages. It's like just because Chuck's a legend, you can't point out the obvious.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Rovim

[Len Cnut]

For those unfamiliar, I made a video:

Not gonna lie, they all sound pretty much in the same parking space.

That's what I was trying to say in the last 2 or 3 pages. It's like just because Chuck's a legend, you can't point out the obvious.

No, not really, more like you got involved in an argument that had fuck all to do with the point you were making and led it down a different direction Originally i was reacting to GTF saying they were the 'exact same', which they're not.

And yes, they are in the same parking space as dear ol' moreblack put it, no ones denying that nor has anyone attempted to, what was being reacted to was your following on to say that they were similar or quite similar counts as a strike against Chuck for some reason. That and the further insinuation that repetitiveness (and consequently, whether you stated it or not, unorginality, because what else do you call an artist that does the same shit over and over?) was a symptom of his body of work. Lots of things are 'in the same parking space', artists have signature moves, licks, musical nuances, does that amount to them being repetitive or doing the same shit over and over?

At any rate, it can't have been that repetitive and in need of changing up, as evidenced by the fact people copied it for the next 60 odd years. And still are. You should know, some of your favorite artists have.

No ones said you 'cant point out the obvious' though.

I see the music snobs are out in full force. Quick, someone call NME - they could write some of this horseshit down.

This is half mast, it aint full force until someone says 'musical landscape'

Give Diesel time....

I dunno, i don't see how he's said anything airy or high minded or high fallutin, it's all pretty much just statement of the facts of the matter.

Honestly, you create a genre of music that revolutionises post war popular culture, hand these people an identity, enrich their lives and you still get wankered for it, there ain't no fuckin' justice in this world i tell ya

Edited April 23, 2015 by Len B'stard

[Rovim]

For those unfamiliar, I made a video:

Not gonna lie, they all sound pretty much in the same parking space.

That's what I was trying to say in the last 2 or 3 pages. It's like just because Chuck's a legend, you can't point out the obvious.

No, not really, more like you got involved in an argument that had fuck all to do with the point you were making and led it down a different direction Originally i was reacting to GTF saying they were the 'exact same', which they're not.

And yes, they are in the same parking space and dear ol' moreblack put it, no ones denying that nor has anyone attempted to, what was being reacted to was your following on to say that they were similar or quite similar counts as a strike against Chuck for some reason. That and the further insinuation that repetitiveness (and consequently, whether you stated it or not, unorginality, because what else do you call an artist that does the same shit over and over?) was a symptom of his body of work.

No ones said you 'cant point out the obvious' though.

No, it doesn't count as a strike against chuck lol. I've explained a bunch of times that it doesn't, and that if what is there is enough for you, then it's fine.

I think you were being a little too literal, and I was trying to expand on the subject like I've already said...

You can be responsible for practically inventing a genre, but that doesn't mean that what will come after won't be just a revisiting of the same well.

He's not a versatile guitar player. That's what obvious to me.

It's like writing the best, most original book ever and then just keep writing sequels to it that are pretty good, but it's still the same story.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Rovim

[moreblack]

It's like writing the best, most original book ever and then just keep writing sequels to it that are pretty good, but it's still the same story.

Tolkien, Rowling, George RR Martin, we're looking at you.

[CheapJon]

Chuck Berry can S my D.

[Len Cnut]

No, it doesn't count as a strike against chuck lol. I've explained a bunch of times that it doesn't, and that if what is there is enough for you, then it's fine.

Right, well, whatever you want to call it, critique, strike against, whatever, unless you were saying you were complimenting it by calling it repetitive and saying he should change it up.

I think you were being a little too literal, and I was trying to expand on the subject like I've already said...

Well fair enough, i was disagreeing with you. As far as me being too literal, when you use the word 'exact same' during a comparison thats someone attempting to say something specific, it's not really the theatre of exaggeration is it? I'm at fault cuz someone goes 'look, these two things are exactly the same!' and then provides an example and i do 'no they're not' when they're not? Don't make a lot of sense, does it?

You can be responsible for practically inventing a genre, but that doesn't mean that what will come after won't be just a revisiting of the same well.

I have no idea what you've said here, did you mean 'will be' instead of 'won't be'? If so, no, it isn't necessarily but the point I was making is that the basic template is unaltered. Things have been laid on top of it, aspects have been accentuated but it's pretty much a case of adding periphery to it, the structure, the foundation of that shit has not expanded beyond what Chuck Berry laid down, thats the point i was making. Things have been put in place to accentuate it but the blueprint is down to Chuck and hasn't really been significantly expanded on.

He's not a versatile guitar player. That's what obvious to me.

Is that a strike against then or would i be wrong in saying it here too? At any rate, that really is a load of bollocks. The guy that could play blues, jazz, invented rock n roll almost, all that pedal steel guy, HE'S not versatile? What other music would you have him play in the 1950s? He's not versatile, see, it's at this point i begin to realise you've probably not heard a lot of Chuck Berry or know a lot about the guy, what is he missing d'ya think, in terms of versatility?

It's like writing the best, most original book ever and then just keep writing sequels to it that are pretty good, but it's still the same story.

No it's not, it's more like inventing a literary genre and sticking to it, like any number of the greatest authors in human history have done.

Chuck Berry can S my D.

I dunno bout sucking it but use his restaurant and there's a good chance he might film you pissing out of it

[Snake-Pit]

Chuck Berry's a G', what's going on?

Hell, Bon Jovi's sold more records than me, so can't complain.

Nice songs in fact.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Snake-Pit

[CheapJon]

Chuck Berry can S my D.

I dunno bout sucking it but use his restaurant and there's a good chance he might film you pissing out of it

[Len Cnut]

Chuck Berry can S my D.

I dunno bout sucking it but use his restaurant and there's a good chance he might film you pissing out of it

http://delicioustacos.com/2012/05/13/just-a-reminder-chuck-berry-used-to-secretly-film-chicks-on-the-toilet/

[OmarBradley]

Also read a recent article claiming a number of sexual assault accusations against him.

[Len Cnut]

Also read a recent article claiming a number of sexual assault accusations against him.

You should watch Hail Hail Rock n Roll, according to one story he nearly got this woman raped walking her into a prison yard...on purpose.

He flattened Keith Richards too, which makes me a massive fan of his for all time, even aside from the music

Edited April 23, 2015 by Len B'stard

[Rovim]

No, it doesn't count as a strike against chuck lol. I've explained a bunch of times that it doesn't, and that if what is there is enough for you, then it's fine.

Right, well, whatever you want to call it, critique, strike against, whatever, unless you were saying you were complimenting it by calling it repetitive and saying he should change it up.

I think you were being a little too literal, and I was trying to expand on the subject like I've already said...

Well fair enough, i was disagreeing with you. As far as me being too literal, when you use the word 'exact same' during a comparison thats someone attempting to say something specific, it's not really the theatre of exaggeration is it? I'm at fault cuz someone goes 'look, these two things are exactly the same!' and then provides an example and i do 'no they're not' when they're not? Don't make a lot of sense, does it?

You can be responsible for practically inventing a genre, but that doesn't mean that what will come after won't be just a revisiting of the same well.

I have no idea what you've said here, did you mean 'will be' instead of 'won't be'? If so, no, it isn't necessarily but the point I was making is that the basic template is unaltered. Things have been laid on top of it, aspects have been accentuated but it's pretty much a case of adding periphery to it, the structure, the foundation of that shit has not expanded beyond what Chuck Berry laid down, thats the point i was making. Things have been put in place to accentuate it but the blueprint is down to Chuck and hasn't really been significantly expanded on.

He's not a versatile guitar player. That's what obvious to me.

Is that a strike against then or would i be wrong in saying it here too? At any rate, that really is a load of bollocks. The guy that could play blues, jazz, invented rock n roll almost, all that pedal steel guy, HE'S not versatile? What other music would you have him play in the 1950s? He's not versatile, see, it's at this point i begin to realise you've probably not heard a lot of Chuck Berry or know a lot about the guy, what is he missing d'ya think, in terms of versatility?

It's like writing the best, most original book ever and then just keep writing sequels to it that are pretty good, but it's still the same story.

No it's not, it's more like inventing a literary genre and sticking to it, like any number of the greatest authors in human history have done.

He invented a style, and kept to it. This is what I don't have a problem with. That's why I still listen to his music.

With all the shit you've talked about, what he has done and correcting me (yes, sorry, I meant "will be") you failed to really get my point: there are many riff writers that came up with a style, kept writing in that style but the riffs in their songs have been far more versatile, fresh, and unique enough compared to what they did in the past.

You can talk about how great he is and jazz influences all you want man, but personally I hear the perfect example of what makes it less interesting for me when I listen to Chuck in that clip with all the riffs sounding very similar.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Rovim

[Len Cnut]

With all the shit you've talked about, what he has done and correcting me (yes, sorry, I meant "will be") you failed to really get my point: there are many riff writers that came up with a style, kept writing in that style but the riffs in their songs have been far more versatile, fresh, and unique enough compared to what they did in the past.

Oh i get what you're saying completely, i just don't agree with it and furthermore those 5 or 6 songs or however many there are of Chucks that Chuck has where thats the intro do not stand for his entire catalogue.

You can talk about how great he is and jazz influences all you want man, but personally I hear the perfect example of what makes it less interesting for me when I listen to Chuck in that clip with all the riffs sounding very similar.

Perhaps you're misunderstanding me, i wasn't saying that there was like some kind of subtle convoluted vague influence thing where you say 'hmm, he drew from Jazz there' I'm saying he actually played that style, same with blues, same with that Hawaiian shit, same with rock n roll.

I guess it's a matter of taste when it comes down to it, i appreciate the subtlety of the difference in those runs and you feel they are similar to the point of appearing repetitive, i guess it's just all down to what a person picks up on in a tune, it's cool

All the same yeah?

Edited April 23, 2015 by Len B'stard

[Rovim]

All the same yeah?

Never said that. But yeah, I guess I prefer more versatile players. I'll take Hubert Sumlin's varied playing over Chuck's way of doing it. I only enjoy his main works. 1957 to 1959, with some exceptions.

[Len Cnut]

All the same yeah?

Never said that. But yeah, I guess I prefer more versatile players. I'll take Hubert Sumlin's varied playing over Chuck's way of doing it. I only enjoy his main works. 1957 to 1959, with some exceptions.

No, what you said was repetitive and not versatile so i showed you examples of him playing different styles.

Hubert Sumlins a fuckin' G though. Suprised you've heard of him.