Major Tom
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ilEvbl3Vv0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ilEvbl3Vv0[/url]
Thread
Posts in chronological order
cacatua
[QUOTE]
[b]Serry... wrote: [/b]
Good Company
[/QUOTE]
I'll second that! Brian is a craftsman.
[b]Serry... wrote: [/b]
Good Company
[/QUOTE]
I'll second that! Brian is a craftsman.
mike hunt
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
> Jimmy page has influenced Just about every guitarist on the planet
Wrong: Julian Bream wasn't influenced by Page; neither were Peo Kindgren, John Christopher Williams, Paco de Lucía, John Dearman, Eva Fampas, Alberto Ponce, Stepan Rak and many, many more who are still alive, still playing brilliantly and the fact they weren't influenced by Page didn't seem to affect them.
So, Page influences many guitarists on the planet, but far far far far far from 'just about every guitarist'.
> I still think his greatest work in Queen was on The Miracle album,
Totally agree.
> despite the shittiness of about half of the songs.
Indeed, but the topic's about his best guitar work, not about the best songs.
> it annoys me that people here are always pissing on Page.
It's freedom of speech. Page's one of those artists who tends to have 49.5% of the people yelling 'you suck', and 49.5% saying 'you're a god, please fuck me!'. I don't personally agree with either but I totally respect those who feel strongly about their take on him.
> he wasn't always as creative as Brian
TBH, Brian wasn't always as creative as Brian either.
> but he was a damn fine guitarist (IMO easily among the very greatest of all time)
IMO, not even sort of close to 'the very greatest of all time'. Certainly a good one, especially on acoustic, but there are loads and loads and loads of guitarists who, while being loads and loads and loads of times less influential and less famous, are/were way better.
> It seems to me that it has become almost the hip thing to diss guitarists like him and Hendrix.
While the actual Hendrix wasn't even sort of close to the mythical one, he certainly played a hell of a lot better than Page.
> I don't like it at all, especially since Brian was influenced by Hendrix, and probably by Page as well.
In fact he was. So? Whoever wants to pan them, has the right to do so, because the fact of the matter is they were both grossly overrated. Now, does it mean they suck? No. But of course, anybody who wants to say Dr May's way better than both is entitled to.
> A great guitarist might have the speed, great riffs and superb solos, but could easily be copied down to a thrill by a equally skilled player. (Eg. Zakk Wylde, great speed, great solos and one of my personal favourites, but he could in my opinion be confused for..say..the late Dimebag)
IMO they're quite different once you get to know them. But I agree neither is as distinctive as, say, Clapton or Santana, whom you can recognise from the very first note.
> A legendary guitarist is one with his axe. There are no doubt who it is when you hear him play. A legendary guitarist is playing from his soul. Even though this player might not posess the skill of speed or any other playing techniques many consider to be important, he is unmistakenly HIM. (Eg. Brian May, David Gilmour, Jimmy Page and even The Edge fits this category I think)
The Edge is more a sound engineer than a guitarist per se, IMO.
> Having said that, the songs weren't really ever carbon copies of the studio versions (IMO).
Statements like that aren't (and can't be) a matter of opinion. Either they were carbon copies or they weren't. And of course, they weren't.
> I would point at AKOM and AOBTD as stand outs in that respect, so I would give him some slack with that in mind
I think his work on DSMN was great on stage, much better than in the studio where he only played that (great) solo and made some fills at the end and that was it.
> Where he absolutely lacked originality was his live solo piece (i.e the Brighton Rock solo). It's a fantastic use of delay etc, and no-one can do it like Brian (that I've heard at least), but it was very repeatitive, and can easily get boring.
I actually find it interesting, and you can tell he enjoys it. For a 99% of the public (me included) it may be the least-exciting part of each concert, but it was probably done to entertain the remaining 1% (that includes the doctor himself).
> To his credit, although he still did it on the last 2 QPR tours, he did add in bits of Chinese Torture and Last horizons etc to spice it up, but these aren't improv either.
IMO, improvisation's a bit overrated by some, when they think that a guitarist that improvises is better than one who doesn't... at the end of the day, most so-called improvisations are made by combining licks and bits of a musician's comfort zone, so at the end of the day, they're not 'really' improvisations, or not more so than beginning the [i]Bo Rhap[/i] solo slightly lower or higher or adding a different phrasing or whatever.
> Finally, there have been other bands where the guitarist has gone off script and improv'd in a solo, and I've thought it was awful (can't think of an example at the moment)
Think Page at Live Aid ;)
> so there's an argument for sticking with the base of a song and its solo.
Especially when the songs have such beautiful arrangements. There are certain details Queen songs have in the music that are as fundamental to them as the lyrics themselves: I wouldn't like Fred to change the [i]We Are the Champions[/i] lyrics at last minute, not only because you expect them to be what they are, but because it'd be very hard to keep the rhyme and stuff... same for things in the arrangements such as the bass licks and the guitar crescendo... if they're left out, it's odd.
For certain things where they specifically wanted a more improvised playing-along thing (e.g. the ending of [i]Crazy Little Thing[/i]), it's perfectly fine to come up with different things every night. But for other things, IMO, it's like having a top chef saying 'today I decided I'm not using cheese in the lasagna and instead I'm putting some potato on it.'
[/QUOTE]
I'm talking about rock guitarists, Not jazz, the blues. It's a fact page was a huge influence on most rock guitarists. A bigger influence than brian for sure. I don't think page was a god, i'm not even a huge zep fan, but it's obvious the man was considered an all time great. don't even start with hendrix, easily the most influencial guitarist in rock history. overall, i'll take brian over page but I'm biased.
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
> Jimmy page has influenced Just about every guitarist on the planet
Wrong: Julian Bream wasn't influenced by Page; neither were Peo Kindgren, John Christopher Williams, Paco de Lucía, John Dearman, Eva Fampas, Alberto Ponce, Stepan Rak and many, many more who are still alive, still playing brilliantly and the fact they weren't influenced by Page didn't seem to affect them.
So, Page influences many guitarists on the planet, but far far far far far from 'just about every guitarist'.
> I still think his greatest work in Queen was on The Miracle album,
Totally agree.
> despite the shittiness of about half of the songs.
Indeed, but the topic's about his best guitar work, not about the best songs.
> it annoys me that people here are always pissing on Page.
It's freedom of speech. Page's one of those artists who tends to have 49.5% of the people yelling 'you suck', and 49.5% saying 'you're a god, please fuck me!'. I don't personally agree with either but I totally respect those who feel strongly about their take on him.
> he wasn't always as creative as Brian
TBH, Brian wasn't always as creative as Brian either.
> but he was a damn fine guitarist (IMO easily among the very greatest of all time)
IMO, not even sort of close to 'the very greatest of all time'. Certainly a good one, especially on acoustic, but there are loads and loads and loads of guitarists who, while being loads and loads and loads of times less influential and less famous, are/were way better.
> It seems to me that it has become almost the hip thing to diss guitarists like him and Hendrix.
While the actual Hendrix wasn't even sort of close to the mythical one, he certainly played a hell of a lot better than Page.
> I don't like it at all, especially since Brian was influenced by Hendrix, and probably by Page as well.
In fact he was. So? Whoever wants to pan them, has the right to do so, because the fact of the matter is they were both grossly overrated. Now, does it mean they suck? No. But of course, anybody who wants to say Dr May's way better than both is entitled to.
> A great guitarist might have the speed, great riffs and superb solos, but could easily be copied down to a thrill by a equally skilled player. (Eg. Zakk Wylde, great speed, great solos and one of my personal favourites, but he could in my opinion be confused for..say..the late Dimebag)
IMO they're quite different once you get to know them. But I agree neither is as distinctive as, say, Clapton or Santana, whom you can recognise from the very first note.
> A legendary guitarist is one with his axe. There are no doubt who it is when you hear him play. A legendary guitarist is playing from his soul. Even though this player might not posess the skill of speed or any other playing techniques many consider to be important, he is unmistakenly HIM. (Eg. Brian May, David Gilmour, Jimmy Page and even The Edge fits this category I think)
The Edge is more a sound engineer than a guitarist per se, IMO.
> Having said that, the songs weren't really ever carbon copies of the studio versions (IMO).
Statements like that aren't (and can't be) a matter of opinion. Either they were carbon copies or they weren't. And of course, they weren't.
> I would point at AKOM and AOBTD as stand outs in that respect, so I would give him some slack with that in mind
I think his work on DSMN was great on stage, much better than in the studio where he only played that (great) solo and made some fills at the end and that was it.
> Where he absolutely lacked originality was his live solo piece (i.e the Brighton Rock solo). It's a fantastic use of delay etc, and no-one can do it like Brian (that I've heard at least), but it was very repeatitive, and can easily get boring.
I actually find it interesting, and you can tell he enjoys it. For a 99% of the public (me included) it may be the least-exciting part of each concert, but it was probably done to entertain the remaining 1% (that includes the doctor himself).
> To his credit, although he still did it on the last 2 QPR tours, he did add in bits of Chinese Torture and Last horizons etc to spice it up, but these aren't improv either.
IMO, improvisation's a bit overrated by some, when they think that a guitarist that improvises is better than one who doesn't... at the end of the day, most so-called improvisations are made by combining licks and bits of a musician's comfort zone, so at the end of the day, they're not 'really' improvisations, or not more so than beginning the [i]Bo Rhap[/i] solo slightly lower or higher or adding a different phrasing or whatever.
> Finally, there have been other bands where the guitarist has gone off script and improv'd in a solo, and I've thought it was awful (can't think of an example at the moment)
Think Page at Live Aid ;)
> so there's an argument for sticking with the base of a song and its solo.
Especially when the songs have such beautiful arrangements. There are certain details Queen songs have in the music that are as fundamental to them as the lyrics themselves: I wouldn't like Fred to change the [i]We Are the Champions[/i] lyrics at last minute, not only because you expect them to be what they are, but because it'd be very hard to keep the rhyme and stuff... same for things in the arrangements such as the bass licks and the guitar crescendo... if they're left out, it's odd.
For certain things where they specifically wanted a more improvised playing-along thing (e.g. the ending of [i]Crazy Little Thing[/i]), it's perfectly fine to come up with different things every night. But for other things, IMO, it's like having a top chef saying 'today I decided I'm not using cheese in the lasagna and instead I'm putting some potato on it.'
[/QUOTE]
I'm talking about rock guitarists, Not jazz, the blues. It's a fact page was a huge influence on most rock guitarists. A bigger influence than brian for sure. I don't think page was a god, i'm not even a huge zep fan, but it's obvious the man was considered an all time great. don't even start with hendrix, easily the most influencial guitarist in rock history. overall, i'll take brian over page but I'm biased.
Sebastian
> I'm talking about rock guitarists, Not jazz, the blues.
Your post read: 'Jimmy page has influenced Just about [b]every guitarist[/b] on the planet'. You could've written '...just about every rock guitarist on the planet' and problem solved. Your mistake, not mine.
> It's a fact page was a huge influence on most rock guitarists.
Yes, that's true.
> A bigger influence than brian for sure.
At the moment...
> I don't think page was a god, i'm not even a huge zep fan, but it's obvious the man was considered an all time great.
Yes... so? It's also obvious that the earth was considered flat.
> don't even start with hendrix, easily the most influencial guitarist in rock history.
'The most influential' is not necessarily the same as 'the best'.
> overall, i'll take brian over page but I'm biased.
In terms of influence, Page's (at the moment) made a bigger impact than Brian. But in terms of who plays better (regardless of who influenced more people, who's better-known, etc), Brian's way better.
Your post read: 'Jimmy page has influenced Just about [b]every guitarist[/b] on the planet'. You could've written '...just about every rock guitarist on the planet' and problem solved. Your mistake, not mine.
> It's a fact page was a huge influence on most rock guitarists.
Yes, that's true.
> A bigger influence than brian for sure.
At the moment...
> I don't think page was a god, i'm not even a huge zep fan, but it's obvious the man was considered an all time great.
Yes... so? It's also obvious that the earth was considered flat.
> don't even start with hendrix, easily the most influencial guitarist in rock history.
'The most influential' is not necessarily the same as 'the best'.
> overall, i'll take brian over page but I'm biased.
In terms of influence, Page's (at the moment) made a bigger impact than Brian. But in terms of who plays better (regardless of who influenced more people, who's better-known, etc), Brian's way better.
john bodega
I've never understood the vitriol involved in guitar-related discussions (I'm not saying it exists here YET, but it frequently happens). It's not dissing Page to see him for what he was - a very ordinary player, great composer, inventive producer, and influential dude. If you really love something (a style of music, or the person who plays it) then you won't have a problem as seeing them as imperfect and fallible.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]I always have (and always will) laugh at the know-it-all's who dismiss people like Hendrix, though. Hendrix sounds like Hendrix - you sound like the last instructional video you watched. Very, very few people who are playing today have earned the right to pick out a part of guitar evolution and say "that stinks". Even if you recognise that a player is pretty ordinary, you should always acknowledge their importance to the evolution of the craft you are involved with. You can't look at human evolution and say "australopithecus was fucking unnecessary". It had to exist, so that the stuff that followed could happen.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]Sheesh![/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]I always have (and always will) laugh at the know-it-all's who dismiss people like Hendrix, though. Hendrix sounds like Hendrix - you sound like the last instructional video you watched. Very, very few people who are playing today have earned the right to pick out a part of guitar evolution and say "that stinks". Even if you recognise that a player is pretty ordinary, you should always acknowledge their importance to the evolution of the craft you are involved with. You can't look at human evolution and say "australopithecus was fucking unnecessary". It had to exist, so that the stuff that followed could happen.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]Sheesh![/QUOTE]
john bodega
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]
Indeed, but the topic's about his best guitar work, not about the best songs.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
Mmm, it's not totally unrelated. For me the Miracle is still worth a listen for the performances - despite the songs themselves. Brian's guitar is one of the few reasons I can stomach the lesser tracks on there (and Freddie, who was sounding excellent).
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]For me it's the opposite of Hot Space - some really interesting tracks that were ruined with the production (case in point - those songs were absolutely killer when played live).[/QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]
Indeed, but the topic's about his best guitar work, not about the best songs.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
Mmm, it's not totally unrelated. For me the Miracle is still worth a listen for the performances - despite the songs themselves. Brian's guitar is one of the few reasons I can stomach the lesser tracks on there (and Freddie, who was sounding excellent).
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]For me it's the opposite of Hot Space - some really interesting tracks that were ruined with the production (case in point - those songs were absolutely killer when played live).[/QUOTE]
mike hunt
Hendrix died at 26 and look at the Impact he made. Imagine if he lived until he was 60?....I do agree brian was a better play than page, but trying too argue that point with most rock fans is an uphill battle. unless the debate is on Queenzone of course.
Sebastian
> I've never understood the vitriol involved in guitar-related discussions (I'm not saying it exists here YET, but it frequently happens).
It's not something that has to be understood IMO.
> If you really love something (a style of music, or the person who plays it) then you won't have a problem as seeing them as imperfect and fallible.
Yes, and that's not only the case with music.
> I always have (and always will) laugh at the know-it-all's who dismiss people like Hendrix, though. Hendrix sounds like Hendrix - you sound like the last instructional video you watched.
That's quite oversimplifying it (I know - or hope - you don't mean 'you' as in 'me' or anybody else in particular), since you (and I mean you, Zeb) can't possibly know if everybody who criticises Hendrix (or anybody else for that matter) sounds like the last instructional video they watched. AAMOF, you (you, Zeb) can't even know if a person who criticises Hendrix (or anybody else for that matter) has watched instructional videos.
> Very, very few people who are playing today have earned the right to pick out a part of guitar evolution and say "that stinks".
The thing is, IMO, Hendrix wasn't a part of guitar evolution [i]per se[/i]: absolutely every chord he played (including the wrongly-called Hendrix chord), every 'trick' he popularised, even the trend of playing a national anthem... all those things were pre-existing. And even before he was born, there already were guitar players who performed music much more elaborate than anything he did in his life (of course, not in rock, but at the end of the day it's music).
Hendrix was (and still is) incredibly important as a cultural icon, as a person who directly or indirectly inspired probably millions into buying guitars and trying them out. In terms of influence, he's second to none and he may have probably influenced even people playing in other genres.
But purely speaking in terms of music, he invented nothing. Is that bad? Not at all. But it [b]is[/b] important, IMO, to keep in mind that he was, musically, not a stepping stone... way before he existed, there was already great guitar music. And, again, music is music, be it rock, hip-hop, classical, funk or whatever... a C chord is a C chord, etc.
In terms of who is/was a more influential guitarist, nobody would 'beat' Hendrix (I know this is not a football match but...). However, in terms of who plays/played guitar better, there are/were many people who 'beat' him by a country mile, as well as many people who're vastly inferior (Page included).
> Even if you recognise that a player is pretty ordinary, you should always acknowledge their importance to the evolution of the craft you are involved with.
Another angle: when cars were invented, somebody had to be the first to be run over by a car. Does it mean the driver 'invented' traffic-related deaths? Does it mean that without him or her there would be no car accidents? Same case here: Hendrix may have been the first to (successfully) do this and that, but it doesn't mean without him those things wouldn't exist. His importance as a cultural icon, as an idol and as a person whose art marked generations is undeniable. But music had already evolved way past his own limits... and, again, music is music, regardless of genre or even instrument (at the end of the day, it's not about [i]playing guitar[/i], but about [i]playing music through the guitar[/i], which is a concept very few people mastered, and Hendrix was indeed one of them - that, IMO, is his most important contribution, and a pretty hard one to match).
> You can't look at human evolution and say "australopithecus was fucking unnecessary".
Sure. But it'd also be ridiculous to think 'Australopithecus was taller than modern basketball players' or 'Australopithecus could master more languages than modern polyglots'.
> It had to exist, so that the stuff that followed could happen.
See the car accident example.
> Mmm, it's not totally unrelated.
Sure, but only in certain cases... I mean, if a score has the guitar playing an ostinato E on the sixth string for 60 minutes, even if the guitarist is a virtuoso, there's not much chance to prove it.
> For me the Miracle is still worth a listen for the performances - despite the songs themselves. Brian's guitar is one of the few reasons I can stomach the lesser tracks on there (and Freddie, who was sounding excellent).
I still hate songs like [i]Rain Must Fall[/i], but I think the guitar work there is extremely well-done.
> Hendrix died at 26 and look at the Impact he made. Imagine if he lived until he was 60?
We'll never know. Maybe he'd be even more famous, maybe not... that's a pointless argument IMO.
> I do agree brian was a better play than page, but trying too argue that point with most rock fans is an uphill battle.
And?
It's not something that has to be understood IMO.
> If you really love something (a style of music, or the person who plays it) then you won't have a problem as seeing them as imperfect and fallible.
Yes, and that's not only the case with music.
> I always have (and always will) laugh at the know-it-all's who dismiss people like Hendrix, though. Hendrix sounds like Hendrix - you sound like the last instructional video you watched.
That's quite oversimplifying it (I know - or hope - you don't mean 'you' as in 'me' or anybody else in particular), since you (and I mean you, Zeb) can't possibly know if everybody who criticises Hendrix (or anybody else for that matter) sounds like the last instructional video they watched. AAMOF, you (you, Zeb) can't even know if a person who criticises Hendrix (or anybody else for that matter) has watched instructional videos.
> Very, very few people who are playing today have earned the right to pick out a part of guitar evolution and say "that stinks".
The thing is, IMO, Hendrix wasn't a part of guitar evolution [i]per se[/i]: absolutely every chord he played (including the wrongly-called Hendrix chord), every 'trick' he popularised, even the trend of playing a national anthem... all those things were pre-existing. And even before he was born, there already were guitar players who performed music much more elaborate than anything he did in his life (of course, not in rock, but at the end of the day it's music).
Hendrix was (and still is) incredibly important as a cultural icon, as a person who directly or indirectly inspired probably millions into buying guitars and trying them out. In terms of influence, he's second to none and he may have probably influenced even people playing in other genres.
But purely speaking in terms of music, he invented nothing. Is that bad? Not at all. But it [b]is[/b] important, IMO, to keep in mind that he was, musically, not a stepping stone... way before he existed, there was already great guitar music. And, again, music is music, be it rock, hip-hop, classical, funk or whatever... a C chord is a C chord, etc.
In terms of who is/was a more influential guitarist, nobody would 'beat' Hendrix (I know this is not a football match but...). However, in terms of who plays/played guitar better, there are/were many people who 'beat' him by a country mile, as well as many people who're vastly inferior (Page included).
> Even if you recognise that a player is pretty ordinary, you should always acknowledge their importance to the evolution of the craft you are involved with.
Another angle: when cars were invented, somebody had to be the first to be run over by a car. Does it mean the driver 'invented' traffic-related deaths? Does it mean that without him or her there would be no car accidents? Same case here: Hendrix may have been the first to (successfully) do this and that, but it doesn't mean without him those things wouldn't exist. His importance as a cultural icon, as an idol and as a person whose art marked generations is undeniable. But music had already evolved way past his own limits... and, again, music is music, regardless of genre or even instrument (at the end of the day, it's not about [i]playing guitar[/i], but about [i]playing music through the guitar[/i], which is a concept very few people mastered, and Hendrix was indeed one of them - that, IMO, is his most important contribution, and a pretty hard one to match).
> You can't look at human evolution and say "australopithecus was fucking unnecessary".
Sure. But it'd also be ridiculous to think 'Australopithecus was taller than modern basketball players' or 'Australopithecus could master more languages than modern polyglots'.
> It had to exist, so that the stuff that followed could happen.
See the car accident example.
> Mmm, it's not totally unrelated.
Sure, but only in certain cases... I mean, if a score has the guitar playing an ostinato E on the sixth string for 60 minutes, even if the guitarist is a virtuoso, there's not much chance to prove it.
> For me the Miracle is still worth a listen for the performances - despite the songs themselves. Brian's guitar is one of the few reasons I can stomach the lesser tracks on there (and Freddie, who was sounding excellent).
I still hate songs like [i]Rain Must Fall[/i], but I think the guitar work there is extremely well-done.
> Hendrix died at 26 and look at the Impact he made. Imagine if he lived until he was 60?
We'll never know. Maybe he'd be even more famous, maybe not... that's a pointless argument IMO.
> I do agree brian was a better play than page, but trying too argue that point with most rock fans is an uphill battle.
And?
Amazon
[QUOTE]
[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]
I've never understood the vitriol involved in guitar-related discussions (I'm not saying it exists here YET, but it frequently happens). It's not dissing Page to see him for what he was - a very ordinary player, great composer, inventive producer, and influential dude. If you really love something (a style of music, or the person who plays it) then you won't have a problem as seeing them as imperfect and fallible.
[/QUOTE]
When I moaned that people were pissing on Page, I was referring to the following comment: "Page sucks from the first time he picked up a guitar... turds for fingers." IMO, and I'm no Page groupie, that comment goes beyond dissing him.
[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]
I've never understood the vitriol involved in guitar-related discussions (I'm not saying it exists here YET, but it frequently happens). It's not dissing Page to see him for what he was - a very ordinary player, great composer, inventive producer, and influential dude. If you really love something (a style of music, or the person who plays it) then you won't have a problem as seeing them as imperfect and fallible.
[/QUOTE]
When I moaned that people were pissing on Page, I was referring to the following comment: "Page sucks from the first time he picked up a guitar... turds for fingers." IMO, and I'm no Page groupie, that comment goes beyond dissing him.
mike hunt
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
> I've never understood the vitriol involved in guitar-related discussions (I'm not saying it exists here YET, but it frequently happens).
It's not something that has to be understood IMO.
> If you really love something (a style of music, or the person who plays it) then you won't have a problem as seeing them as imperfect and fallible.
Yes, and that's not only the case with music.
> I always have (and always will) laugh at the know-it-all's who dismiss people like Hendrix, though. Hendrix sounds like Hendrix - you sound like the last instructional video you watched.
That's quite oversimplifying it (I know - or hope - you don't mean 'you' as in 'me' or anybody else in particular), since you (and I mean you, Zeb) can't possibly know if everybody who criticises Hendrix (or anybody else for that matter) sounds like the last instructional video they watched. AAMOF, you (you, Zeb) can't even know if a person who criticises Hendrix (or anybody else for that matter) has watched instructional videos.
> Very, very few people who are playing today have earned the right to pick out a part of guitar evolution and say "that stinks".
The thing is, IMO, Hendrix wasn't a part of guitar evolution [i]per se[/i]: absolutely every chord he played (including the wrongly-called Hendrix chord), every 'trick' he popularised, even the trend of playing a national anthem... all those things were pre-existing. And even before he was born, there already were guitar players who performed music much more elaborate than anything he did in his life (of course, not in rock, but at the end of the day it's music).
Hendrix was (and still is) incredibly important as a cultural icon, as a person who directly or indirectly inspired probably millions into buying guitars and trying them out. In terms of influence, he's second to none and he may have probably influenced even people playing in other genres.
But purely speaking in terms of music, he invented nothing. Is that bad? Not at all. But it [b]is[/b] important, IMO, to keep in mind that he was, musically, not a stepping stone... way before he existed, there was already great guitar music. And, again, music is music, be it rock, hip-hop, classical, funk or whatever... a C chord is a C chord, etc.
In terms of who is/was a more influential guitarist, nobody would 'beat' Hendrix (I know this is not a football match but...). However, in terms of who plays/played guitar better, there are/were many people who 'beat' him by a country mile, as well as many people who're vastly inferior (Page included).
> Even if you recognise that a player is pretty ordinary, you should always acknowledge their importance to the evolution of the craft you are involved with.
Another angle: when cars were invented, somebody had to be the first to be run over by a car. Does it mean the driver 'invented' traffic-related deaths? Does it mean that without him or her there would be no car accidents? Same case here: Hendrix may have been the first to (successfully) do this and that, but it doesn't mean without him those things wouldn't exist. His importance as a cultural icon, as an idol and as a person whose art marked generations is undeniable. But music had already evolved way past his own limits... and, again, music is music, regardless of genre or even instrument (at the end of the day, it's not about [i]playing guitar[/i], but about [i]playing music through the guitar[/i], which is a concept very few people mastered, and Hendrix was indeed one of them - that, IMO, is his most important contribution, and a pretty hard one to match).
> You can't look at human evolution and say "australopithecus was fucking unnecessary".
Sure. But it'd also be ridiculous to think 'Australopithecus was taller than modern basketball players' or 'Australopithecus could master more languages than modern polyglots'.
> It had to exist, so that the stuff that followed could happen.
See the car accident example.
> Mmm, it's not totally unrelated.
Sure, but only in certain cases... I mean, if a score has the guitar playing an ostinato E on the sixth string for 60 minutes, even if the guitarist is a virtuoso, there's not much chance to prove it.
> For me the Miracle is still worth a listen for the performances - despite the songs themselves. Brian's guitar is one of the few reasons I can stomach the lesser tracks on there (and Freddie, who was sounding excellent).
I still hate songs like [i]Rain Must Fall[/i], but I think the guitar work there is extremely well-done.
> Hendrix died at 26 and look at the Impact he made. Imagine if he lived until he was 60?
We'll never know. Maybe he'd be even more famous, maybe not... that's a pointless argument IMO.
> I do agree brian was a better play than page, but trying too argue that point with most rock fans is an uphill battle.
And?
[/QUOTE]
and?....and most consider page better. outside of queenzone that is.
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
> I've never understood the vitriol involved in guitar-related discussions (I'm not saying it exists here YET, but it frequently happens).
It's not something that has to be understood IMO.
> If you really love something (a style of music, or the person who plays it) then you won't have a problem as seeing them as imperfect and fallible.
Yes, and that's not only the case with music.
> I always have (and always will) laugh at the know-it-all's who dismiss people like Hendrix, though. Hendrix sounds like Hendrix - you sound like the last instructional video you watched.
That's quite oversimplifying it (I know - or hope - you don't mean 'you' as in 'me' or anybody else in particular), since you (and I mean you, Zeb) can't possibly know if everybody who criticises Hendrix (or anybody else for that matter) sounds like the last instructional video they watched. AAMOF, you (you, Zeb) can't even know if a person who criticises Hendrix (or anybody else for that matter) has watched instructional videos.
> Very, very few people who are playing today have earned the right to pick out a part of guitar evolution and say "that stinks".
The thing is, IMO, Hendrix wasn't a part of guitar evolution [i]per se[/i]: absolutely every chord he played (including the wrongly-called Hendrix chord), every 'trick' he popularised, even the trend of playing a national anthem... all those things were pre-existing. And even before he was born, there already were guitar players who performed music much more elaborate than anything he did in his life (of course, not in rock, but at the end of the day it's music).
Hendrix was (and still is) incredibly important as a cultural icon, as a person who directly or indirectly inspired probably millions into buying guitars and trying them out. In terms of influence, he's second to none and he may have probably influenced even people playing in other genres.
But purely speaking in terms of music, he invented nothing. Is that bad? Not at all. But it [b]is[/b] important, IMO, to keep in mind that he was, musically, not a stepping stone... way before he existed, there was already great guitar music. And, again, music is music, be it rock, hip-hop, classical, funk or whatever... a C chord is a C chord, etc.
In terms of who is/was a more influential guitarist, nobody would 'beat' Hendrix (I know this is not a football match but...). However, in terms of who plays/played guitar better, there are/were many people who 'beat' him by a country mile, as well as many people who're vastly inferior (Page included).
> Even if you recognise that a player is pretty ordinary, you should always acknowledge their importance to the evolution of the craft you are involved with.
Another angle: when cars were invented, somebody had to be the first to be run over by a car. Does it mean the driver 'invented' traffic-related deaths? Does it mean that without him or her there would be no car accidents? Same case here: Hendrix may have been the first to (successfully) do this and that, but it doesn't mean without him those things wouldn't exist. His importance as a cultural icon, as an idol and as a person whose art marked generations is undeniable. But music had already evolved way past his own limits... and, again, music is music, regardless of genre or even instrument (at the end of the day, it's not about [i]playing guitar[/i], but about [i]playing music through the guitar[/i], which is a concept very few people mastered, and Hendrix was indeed one of them - that, IMO, is his most important contribution, and a pretty hard one to match).
> You can't look at human evolution and say "australopithecus was fucking unnecessary".
Sure. But it'd also be ridiculous to think 'Australopithecus was taller than modern basketball players' or 'Australopithecus could master more languages than modern polyglots'.
> It had to exist, so that the stuff that followed could happen.
See the car accident example.
> Mmm, it's not totally unrelated.
Sure, but only in certain cases... I mean, if a score has the guitar playing an ostinato E on the sixth string for 60 minutes, even if the guitarist is a virtuoso, there's not much chance to prove it.
> For me the Miracle is still worth a listen for the performances - despite the songs themselves. Brian's guitar is one of the few reasons I can stomach the lesser tracks on there (and Freddie, who was sounding excellent).
I still hate songs like [i]Rain Must Fall[/i], but I think the guitar work there is extremely well-done.
> Hendrix died at 26 and look at the Impact he made. Imagine if he lived until he was 60?
We'll never know. Maybe he'd be even more famous, maybe not... that's a pointless argument IMO.
> I do agree brian was a better play than page, but trying too argue that point with most rock fans is an uphill battle.
And?
[/QUOTE]
and?....and most consider page better. outside of queenzone that is.
Amazon
Sebastian wrote: " "it annoys me that people here are always pissing on Page." It's freedom of speech. Page's one of those artists who tends to have 49.5% of the people yelling 'you suck', and 49.5% saying 'you're a god,
please fuck me!'. I don't personally agree with either but I totally respect those who feel strongly about their take on him." Did I ever question people's freedom of speech? No, I said that this constant pissing upon Page annoys me. What is wrong with that? Just because people have the right to say something, doesn't mean I don't have the right to say that it annoys me.
" "he wasn't always as creative as Brian" TBH, Brian wasn't always as creative as Brian either." That doesn't make much sense. Unless you're saying that Brian wasn't always extremely creative. Which is true, but generally speaking, I think he was more creative than Page (Good Company for example).
" "but he was a damn fine guitarist (IMO easily among the very greatest of all time)" IMO, not even sort of close to 'the very greatest of all time'. Certainly a good one, especially on acoustic, but there are loads and loads and loads of guitarists who, while being loads and loads and loads of times less influential and less famous, are/were way better." Sorry, I don't agree. I regard Page as among the ten greatest guitarists of all time. Easily. You say that there are loads and loads and loads of guitarists who are/were way better (which I think is absurd) but are nowhere near famous and influential, well, that's the same with everything. Was Pele the single greatest soccer player of all time? Who knows? But he was certainly the greatest professional soccer player of all time; yes, there might be a soccer player somewhere who's better but who never followed through with his career and decided to do something else, but we'll never know. Similarly, there might be some unrecorded guitarists out there who are better than Page. We will never know for sure. I will say this; IMO Page was among the ten greatest recorded guitarists of all time.
" "It seems to me that it has become almost the hip thing to diss guitarists like him and Hendrix." While the actual Hendrix wasn't even sort of close to the mythical one, he certainly played a hell of a lot better than Page." He was superior, yes, but Page was also capable of absolute brilliance (Stairway to Heaven & Dazed and Confused for example ).
" "I don't like it at all, especially since Brian was influenced by Hendrix, and probably by Page as well."
In fact he was. So? " My point was that since people on this site love Brian, I don't understand why they constantly diss guitarists who influenced Brian.
"Whoever wants to pan them, has the right to do so" Did I ever say that they didn't have the right to do so? Again, just because you have the right to say something, does NOT mean I don't have the right to be annoyed by it.
"because the fact of the matter is they were both grossly overrated." No, according to you, they were both grossly overrated. There's no fact about it. Personally, I regard Hendrix to be the single greatest guitarist of all time and I consider Page to have been among the ten best in history.
"Now, does it mean they suck? No. But of course, anybody who wants to say Dr May's way better than both is entitled to." You've made this into a freedom of speech issue, and it was never one.
please fuck me!'. I don't personally agree with either but I totally respect those who feel strongly about their take on him." Did I ever question people's freedom of speech? No, I said that this constant pissing upon Page annoys me. What is wrong with that? Just because people have the right to say something, doesn't mean I don't have the right to say that it annoys me.
" "he wasn't always as creative as Brian" TBH, Brian wasn't always as creative as Brian either." That doesn't make much sense. Unless you're saying that Brian wasn't always extremely creative. Which is true, but generally speaking, I think he was more creative than Page (Good Company for example).
" "but he was a damn fine guitarist (IMO easily among the very greatest of all time)" IMO, not even sort of close to 'the very greatest of all time'. Certainly a good one, especially on acoustic, but there are loads and loads and loads of guitarists who, while being loads and loads and loads of times less influential and less famous, are/were way better." Sorry, I don't agree. I regard Page as among the ten greatest guitarists of all time. Easily. You say that there are loads and loads and loads of guitarists who are/were way better (which I think is absurd) but are nowhere near famous and influential, well, that's the same with everything. Was Pele the single greatest soccer player of all time? Who knows? But he was certainly the greatest professional soccer player of all time; yes, there might be a soccer player somewhere who's better but who never followed through with his career and decided to do something else, but we'll never know. Similarly, there might be some unrecorded guitarists out there who are better than Page. We will never know for sure. I will say this; IMO Page was among the ten greatest recorded guitarists of all time.
" "It seems to me that it has become almost the hip thing to diss guitarists like him and Hendrix." While the actual Hendrix wasn't even sort of close to the mythical one, he certainly played a hell of a lot better than Page." He was superior, yes, but Page was also capable of absolute brilliance (Stairway to Heaven & Dazed and Confused for example ).
" "I don't like it at all, especially since Brian was influenced by Hendrix, and probably by Page as well."
In fact he was. So? " My point was that since people on this site love Brian, I don't understand why they constantly diss guitarists who influenced Brian.
"Whoever wants to pan them, has the right to do so" Did I ever say that they didn't have the right to do so? Again, just because you have the right to say something, does NOT mean I don't have the right to be annoyed by it.
"because the fact of the matter is they were both grossly overrated." No, according to you, they were both grossly overrated. There's no fact about it. Personally, I regard Hendrix to be the single greatest guitarist of all time and I consider Page to have been among the ten best in history.
"Now, does it mean they suck? No. But of course, anybody who wants to say Dr May's way better than both is entitled to." You've made this into a freedom of speech issue, and it was never one.
Holly2003
I also love the guitar melodies in a lot of Brian's work, particularly the delays in White man, and also that his harmonies weren't parallel i.e. they 'fed' off or complimented eachother. Great examples include Good Company, All Dead, All Dead, and Sail Away Sweet Sister. Brian's guitar work often made average songs into good ones, and good ones, into great. People who see Fred as Queen often don't appreciate this.
whynot
Doesn't make sense to compare guitarists. You can''t compare Brian May, Jimmy Page, Tommy Emmanuel, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Chuck Berry, Keith Richards, Ry Cooder etc. All of them are great players and one isn't "better" then the other, just different.
Brian May is a great player. His best work (for me) is without doubt "Brighton Rock".
Brian May is a great player. His best work (for me) is without doubt "Brighton Rock".
john bodega
"That's quite oversimplifying it (I know - or hope* - you don't mean 'you' as in 'me' or anybody else in particular), since you (and I mean you, Zeb) can't possibly know if everybody who criticises Hendrix (or anybody else for that matter) sounds like the last instructional video they watched. AAMOF, you (you, Zeb) can't even know if a person who criticises Hendrix (or anybody else for that matter) has watched instructional videos."
*Yeah I screwed that bit up. I meant "you" as in "ya". Actually I ought to have said "one", haha.
I'll cop that it's an over-simplification, but it isn't a statement without merit. Granted, the internet is the very last place you want to go for a guaranteed insightful conversation on anything, but with the amount of comments I get from Youtube (where you can easily check on someone's favourites and see what kind of videos they're watching) it's actually not all that uncommon to see instructional stuff there ... I didn't explain that very well.
Point being, there are plenty of instances where I could (and HAVE) been able to categorically see that x person complaining about y musician has watched a lot of instructional videos (and left them conveniently in their Youtube favourites/played very recognisable licks that we've all seen Paul Gilbert play) and is a bedroom guitarist who probably shouldn't be calling various elements of the craft into question .... and I say this as someone who still does a lot of playing at home. Ha-ha.
"The thing is, IMO, Hendrix wasn't a part of guitar evolution per se[/i]: absolutely every chord he played (including the wrongly-called Hendrix chord), every 'trick' he popularised, even the trend of playing a national anthem... all those things were pre-existing. And even before he was born, there already were guitar players who performed music much more elaborate than anything he did in his life (of course, not in rock, but at the end of the day it's music)."
I invented string skipping. Well no - I didn't invent it - I thought it up independently and then saw someone else do it one day on Youtube. (true story, you should've seen my annoyed reaction...) I'm not the one who'll get credit for it though, because I wasn't the first (or the best). But someone like Page or Hendrix, who becomes the mass communicator for a technique or discipline or style, cannot be trashed in any reasonable fashion because their influence is a hard fact, and their quality is purely subjective. One has to accept that people like them, whether one thinks they're any good or not.
I mean I personally feel that you can't really hold up one player and say "THAT'S where this started". For me you can't talk about Hendrix without mentioning his influences, his contemporaries, and people who have been spurred on by his music. It's almost galling to me to have a Hendrix discussion without bringing up Chuck Berry or Buddy Guy. I find it more fun to see the connections between styles, because as Brian says, you can't exist in a vacuum.
"But purely speaking in terms of music, he invented nothing."
But with music being more than just the written note (as it has been ever since people started playing it), it's not just about music, it's about coming up with new sounds ... Hendrix didn't invent any chords that hadn't been played before but he played them in his own way, through equipment that was treated maybe a little differently, to arrive at a different kind of sound. I'm not trying to edify him; I'm of the opinion that with the musical trends of the day, someone else would've eventually filled that space.
"Another angle: when cars were invented, somebody had to be the first to be run over by a car."
I believe I've more or less addressed this already. One would be ludicrous to try and say that without a certain person, given things would not have taken place. They'd be irrefutably different, but the overall course of things would not change ... amps were getting bigger, players were bouncing off each other and giving older disciplines a new approach... if it wasn't Hendrix, someone else would've been there. But is it a discussion about the evolution of music, or the possibilities of "what might have been"? I was trying to address the former, no matter how much fun it might be to muck about with the latter!
"Sure. But it'd also be ridiculous to think 'Australopithecus was taller than modern basketball players' or 'Australopithecus could master more languages than modern polyglots'."
But that wasn't what I was implying. Not that you were .... implying that I was implying that .... (I want this sentence to end). I am not trying to say Hendrix was something that he was not (that's for others to do).
I think of it like this. Jesse Owens would not even qualify in his event if he had been brought forward in time to the 2008 Olympics, but his name is worth remembering for a reason - in his day, he was the state of the art, and other people who took it up were following his example. There would be people who owed their careers to him simply because he inspired them - it's a tenuous connection but role models do exist and they have a tangible effect on people.
I don't think track and field is comparable to music because it's simply nowhere near as diverse, of course. Hehe.
[/QUOTE]
*Yeah I screwed that bit up. I meant "you" as in "ya". Actually I ought to have said "one", haha.
I'll cop that it's an over-simplification, but it isn't a statement without merit. Granted, the internet is the very last place you want to go for a guaranteed insightful conversation on anything, but with the amount of comments I get from Youtube (where you can easily check on someone's favourites and see what kind of videos they're watching) it's actually not all that uncommon to see instructional stuff there ... I didn't explain that very well.
Point being, there are plenty of instances where I could (and HAVE) been able to categorically see that x person complaining about y musician has watched a lot of instructional videos (and left them conveniently in their Youtube favourites/played very recognisable licks that we've all seen Paul Gilbert play) and is a bedroom guitarist who probably shouldn't be calling various elements of the craft into question .... and I say this as someone who still does a lot of playing at home. Ha-ha.
"The thing is, IMO, Hendrix wasn't a part of guitar evolution per se[/i]: absolutely every chord he played (including the wrongly-called Hendrix chord), every 'trick' he popularised, even the trend of playing a national anthem... all those things were pre-existing. And even before he was born, there already were guitar players who performed music much more elaborate than anything he did in his life (of course, not in rock, but at the end of the day it's music)."
I invented string skipping. Well no - I didn't invent it - I thought it up independently and then saw someone else do it one day on Youtube. (true story, you should've seen my annoyed reaction...) I'm not the one who'll get credit for it though, because I wasn't the first (or the best). But someone like Page or Hendrix, who becomes the mass communicator for a technique or discipline or style, cannot be trashed in any reasonable fashion because their influence is a hard fact, and their quality is purely subjective. One has to accept that people like them, whether one thinks they're any good or not.
I mean I personally feel that you can't really hold up one player and say "THAT'S where this started". For me you can't talk about Hendrix without mentioning his influences, his contemporaries, and people who have been spurred on by his music. It's almost galling to me to have a Hendrix discussion without bringing up Chuck Berry or Buddy Guy. I find it more fun to see the connections between styles, because as Brian says, you can't exist in a vacuum.
"But purely speaking in terms of music, he invented nothing."
But with music being more than just the written note (as it has been ever since people started playing it), it's not just about music, it's about coming up with new sounds ... Hendrix didn't invent any chords that hadn't been played before but he played them in his own way, through equipment that was treated maybe a little differently, to arrive at a different kind of sound. I'm not trying to edify him; I'm of the opinion that with the musical trends of the day, someone else would've eventually filled that space.
"Another angle: when cars were invented, somebody had to be the first to be run over by a car."
I believe I've more or less addressed this already. One would be ludicrous to try and say that without a certain person, given things would not have taken place. They'd be irrefutably different, but the overall course of things would not change ... amps were getting bigger, players were bouncing off each other and giving older disciplines a new approach... if it wasn't Hendrix, someone else would've been there. But is it a discussion about the evolution of music, or the possibilities of "what might have been"? I was trying to address the former, no matter how much fun it might be to muck about with the latter!
"Sure. But it'd also be ridiculous to think 'Australopithecus was taller than modern basketball players' or 'Australopithecus could master more languages than modern polyglots'."
But that wasn't what I was implying. Not that you were .... implying that I was implying that .... (I want this sentence to end). I am not trying to say Hendrix was something that he was not (that's for others to do).
I think of it like this. Jesse Owens would not even qualify in his event if he had been brought forward in time to the 2008 Olympics, but his name is worth remembering for a reason - in his day, he was the state of the art, and other people who took it up were following his example. There would be people who owed their careers to him simply because he inspired them - it's a tenuous connection but role models do exist and they have a tangible effect on people.
I don't think track and field is comparable to music because it's simply nowhere near as diverse, of course. Hehe.
[/QUOTE]
john bodega
[QUOTE]
[b]whynot wrote: [/b]
Doesn't make sense to compare guitarists.
[/QUOTE]
I think it makes perfect sense. I don't think it makes any sense to rubbish one to make another sound better, though. It IS possible to make intelligent comparisons between musicians. Although it's not as common as I'd like.
[b]whynot wrote: [/b]
Doesn't make sense to compare guitarists.
[/QUOTE]
I think it makes perfect sense. I don't think it makes any sense to rubbish one to make another sound better, though. It IS possible to make intelligent comparisons between musicians. Although it's not as common as I'd like.