Best Guitar Work by Brian May

I certainly can't claim to be an expert on guitarists (of which there seem to be plenty here already), but getting past Freddie (sorry Fred), Brian's guitar IS the immediately recognizeable sound of Queen. I didn't call Brian a craftsman casually. That is how I see him, as a meticulous craftsman. I see [i]Good Company[/i] as an excellent example of that sort of creativity.

Others will value a player who just jumps in and lets it all hang out. I suppose that the best of all possible worlds is one who lies somewhere between the two.

It doesn't all boil down to taste, but if you have ever been to, say a horse show, or the like, then you soon learn that there are breed standards that apply, but even those are often trumped by the judge's personal taste. The same with critics, experts, and pretty much all of the rest of us.

[QUOTE]

[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]

"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] [/QUOTE]

All very well said, Z!

> and?....and most consider page better. outside of queenzone that is.

And? Most people considered the earth to be flat too.

> I said that this constant pissing upon Page annoys me.

But by giving it more importance than it deserves you're just magnifying the problem.

> doesn't mean I don't have the right to say that it annoys me.

You're right about that.

> 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).

True.

> Similarly, there might be some unrecorded guitarists out there who are better than Page. We will never know for sure.

There are many recorded guitarists who, without being even close to Page's impact or influence, play much better.

> I will say this; IMO Page was among the ten greatest recorded guitarists of all time.

Julian Bream, John Williams, Paco de Lucia, John Dearman, Peo Kingren, Matthew Greif, William Kanengiser, Django Reinhart, Paco de Lucia, Andrew York... ten already... they're all recorded and they all play a hell of a lot better, even if none of them has had Page's influence.

In terms of influence and impact, there are very few guitarists who top Page (Hendrix is one of the, BTW). In terms of playing better (technique, thoroughness, cleanness), there are many guitarists who top Page (Hendrix among them as well).

> He was superior, yes, but Page was also capable of absolute brilliance (Stairway to Heaven & Dazed and Confused for example ).

Both wonderful songs. As a songwriter, I take Page over Hendrix. But as guitarist (i.e. plucking the strings with one's fingers, regardless of how influential or famous one is, or how good one is in other departments such as singing or songwriting), Hendrix was way better. It doesn't mean Page is bad... a 6 ft tall person isn't short or a dwarf, but he or she isn't even close to being the tallest person in the world.

> My point was that since people on this site love Brian, I don't understand why they constantly diss guitarists who influenced Brian.

Those things aren't mutually exclusive. Just because a person influenced another doesn't make them perfect. Sure, Page was not crap, but he's certainly way less skilled than what the 'legend' dictates. Same for Hendrix.

> 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.

Of course you can: there are similar and different aspects. And of course, for certain extent, you can compare technique, and establish who is (technically) better. There's a more ambiguous dimension to it, which is completely subjective, and according to it if I think John Lennon's a better bass-player than Stu Hamm I'm entitled to. But on what can actually be measured (which is the part I'm talking about), Stu's way better than Lennon as a bassplayer, even if the latter was of course a much better composer and cultural icon.

> 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.

Yes, but I don't think only people who are recorded and officially-released guitarists should have the right to criticise guitarists. Otherwise, only presidents could vote, only newspaper owners could say 'that tabloid sucks', etc.
 
>  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.

Sure, but one also has to accept that some people don't like them. Not everybody who admires Page is a narrow-minded hippie who's easily wowed by a sloppy plagiarised lick, and not everybody who pans him is a narrow-minded conceited snob who only accepts people playing Paganini variations.

> 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.

That's very true and that's indeed an enormous contribution he made.

>  But is it a discussion about the evolution of music, or the possibilities of "what might have been"?

Music already had evolved long before Hendrix was born. He may have contributed to the evolution of the massification of music for new generations, the evolution of using the electric guitar as the main instrument, the evolution of using the studio to create new things that didn't happen in a concert situation... all those things are very important and he of course deserves credit for that. But it doesn't mean guitar wouldn't exist without him. Or guitar music.

> 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.

True. So... if we speak about the most influential athletes, Owens is way up there. If we speak about the best athletes ever, he's not. Two different matters.

> I don't think track and field is comparable to music because it's simply nowhere near as diverse, of course.  Hehe.

Actually, it is.

> It IS possible to make intelligent comparisons between musicians.  Although it's not as common as I'd like.

I think it's more common to find unicorns.

I agree with Serry and Cacatua.
All of us have tried to convince non-Queen fans and even non-rock fans that there's something incredible about this band.

I love the heavy guitar work, "Dead On Time", "The Prophet's Song" "Ogre Battle"  etc.. but when I want to demonstrate to someone that this guitar man is a master I play them the end of  "Good Company." 

He created a dixieland jazz band (or trad jazz) with guitars and nothing else.  You can hear the trombone sliding up, you can hear the clarinet trills, you can hear it all, yet none of it is there.  Other guitarists may be more skilled at other things, but no guitarist can do that!  Maybe none would want to, I could understand that, but Brian May did want to create it and we still want to hear it! 

Leave the album playing and they get to hear "God Save The Queen"..no other guitarist could do that either!

I love heaps of Brian's early work. But emotion is also a big thing in guitar playing and for the the guitar parts in All Dead All Dead  and These Are The Days Of Our Lives you can not beat for the emotion he captures.

Intelligent discussion, and plenty of it on QZ?  There's hope for this place yet.
[/QUOTE]Lots of good points, for Seb re: 10 better guitarists, if your first connection with music was hearing a heavy Page riff, it will stay with you forever.  Yngwie Malmsteen is a "better" (faster, technically superior) guitarist than Brain will ever be.  But hearing the first raked note of the solo in "Save Me" contains more emotion than th eentire Manglstein catalogue.  How music touches us influences our "favourite" and "best" musician/guitarist choices. [/QUOTE]

There's a lot of emotion in Malmsteen, and there's a lot of technique in May. Those things do coexist.

Those things "can" coexist. I think it's like what you said about the unicorn.

[QUOTE]

[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]

Those things "can" coexist. I think it's like what you said about the unicorn.[/QUOTE]

They often do. However, it's not always easy to distinguish between the two, regardless even of your position as either listener or performer. Emotion tends to start in the same gray area where technique becomes instinctive.

I have no idea. Probably depends on my mood.
Today is Queen I, tomorrow Innuendo.

Brian noted the riff on 'Tie Your Mother Down' as the one he was personally most proud of.  And I think it is the best there is among songs that are all about that classic, hard driving, forward charging, riff driven guitar rock.  The song may have some equals, but there are none better IMO.

[QUOTE]





[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]



and most consider page better. outside of queenzone that is.

[/QUOTE]
That's because most people equate 'faster' and 'flashier' with 'better'.  Brian May is under-appreciated by most because his sense of genius isn't as easily accessible as Page's.

Page is the better improviser, but Brian is the better orchestrator.  Brian created his own guitar and tone, but Page was a groundbreaking producer.  Brian created Good Company and Page created Kashmir.  There's really no point in comparing these guys.  They have both contributed ever so much to the evolution of rock music, and we should just leave it at that.

Nice to see Tommy Emmanuel mentioned above !!  I saw him last year, and he is an absolute god.

> That's because most people equate 'faster' and 'flashier' with 'better'.

If that were the case, neither Page nor Hendrix would be famous at all. There [i]are[/i] people who equate 'faster' and 'flashier' with better, but they're not even sort of close to 'most'.

> Brian May is under-appreciated by most because his sense of genius isn't as easily accessible as Page's.

I disagree. Loads of Brian's work is accessible. It hasn't been promoted too much, which is something completely different.

> Page is the better improviser, but Brian is the better orchestrator.

IMO, the quality of a guitarist as guitarist is different to his skills as songwriter. Same for singers, bassists, drummers, pianists, etc. At the end of the day, the better guitarist is the one who plays guitar better, regardless of how inventive the parts are. The better arranger is the one who scores better bits (and remember that May wasn't always the one who wrote what he played, same with the others).

And I don't think Page's a better improviser... he's more famous for it, but that's not the same. And by the way, Page's not faster than the Dr.

> Brian created his own guitar and tone

No, he didn't: he and his father did.

> but Page was a groundbreaking producer.

So is Brian, and a pretty good one. Not as famous but, again, not the same thing.

> Brian created Good Company and Page created Kashmir.

That's a good proof of their abilities as songwriters (both excellent), but not as guitarists per se.

> There's really no point in comparing these guys.

Actually, there is. By comparing these guys (and others) one can learn a lot about music, technique, what to do, what not to do, people who're well-acquainted with May may (no pun intended) get to know Page better and vice-versa. There's really no point in having aggressive 'you don't know shit - you're a wanker because you like that music - you should be killed' rows (about Page or about anything else for that matter), but there is a lot of good in having healthy discussions about whatever this board (or any other for that matter) may bring up.

> They have both contributed ever so much to the evolution of rock music, and we should just leave it at that.

No, we 'should' leave it at wherever we want to. Some people will compare them, and those who don't want to should leave it at that and let others do as they please.

I think brian is becoming more aprreciated as time goes by.  He'll never be the sexy name that eddie van halen is, but for people who know their music he'll always be respected.  Afterall,  who was one of eddie's influences?....Of course i think brian was also the better player.  I Think this is mostly opinions anyway.  Everyone has a different opinion about these things.

Seems like we're flogging a dead horse here, no?