lalaalalaa
Get Down Make Love has some intricate guitarwork. Anyone agree?
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Wiley
Ok, now the only thing that this thread needs is a post by Soapy Gonad and something about Treasure Moment.
hehe :)
Very interesting discussion here. I like how Seb tends to over analyze everything; it certainly gives everyone else another perspective. Keep it up guys!
I can see that it's difficult for most of us to be objective about something like music. I guess nobody really can accomplish this up to 100%. I recall a phrase I read somewhere: "If I were an object I'd be objective, but since I'm a subject (a person), I'm subjective" (translated from spanish).
It's very difficult to avoid concepts like impact in pop culture or personal preference from a "Best Guitarist" discussion, however formal you want to sound.
Even if we came up with a mathematic method using fuzzy logic and variable weights (ponderation) to determine who the "Best _____" is, there is still subjectivity as to what variables or indicators are used or how to calculate the final outcome.
In the end, we would surely have 200 categories and -guess what?- NONE of our favorite artists would be #1 !!
We would find out that "that finnish guy from YouTube" is the fastest guitar player because he managed to play a 1 second solo with 1/256th notes (Sorry, Satriani, Vai, Malmsteem), that the loudest guitarist is in a garage band who managed to get a 250 dB power chord for a Guinness Record (No luck, Pete Townsend), etc., etc., etc.
More importantly, I don't always carry a whiteboard with me so I can explain when someone asks me who I consider to be the best guitarist... :P
hehe :)
Very interesting discussion here. I like how Seb tends to over analyze everything; it certainly gives everyone else another perspective. Keep it up guys!
I can see that it's difficult for most of us to be objective about something like music. I guess nobody really can accomplish this up to 100%. I recall a phrase I read somewhere: "If I were an object I'd be objective, but since I'm a subject (a person), I'm subjective" (translated from spanish).
It's very difficult to avoid concepts like impact in pop culture or personal preference from a "Best Guitarist" discussion, however formal you want to sound.
Even if we came up with a mathematic method using fuzzy logic and variable weights (ponderation) to determine who the "Best _____" is, there is still subjectivity as to what variables or indicators are used or how to calculate the final outcome.
In the end, we would surely have 200 categories and -guess what?- NONE of our favorite artists would be #1 !!
We would find out that "that finnish guy from YouTube" is the fastest guitar player because he managed to play a 1 second solo with 1/256th notes (Sorry, Satriani, Vai, Malmsteem), that the loudest guitarist is in a garage band who managed to get a 250 dB power chord for a Guinness Record (No luck, Pete Townsend), etc., etc., etc.
More importantly, I don't always carry a whiteboard with me so I can explain when someone asks me who I consider to be the best guitarist... :P
cacatua
Eeeuuuwwwwwwww - I'm allergic to math. If the discussion is degenerating into that area then I'm outta here!
thomasquinn 32989
Sebastian:
You can't be serious when you say that Page was not a better improviser than May. I have tremendous respect for May as a composer, arranger and even performer, but there is no denying that he had and has a morbid fear of improvisation, to which the conversation he had with Zappa alone would testify:
"I was fortunate enough to meet Frank Zappa, a truly great rock
musician, and a very unorthodox and innovative creator. He was already
very ill when I met him (I was working with his son in L.A. ) I told
him I admired his skill and courage in improvising so much in his
music, live in front of large audiences. He said, "Courage? - What do
you mean?! " I said that I was always very aware of the possibilities
of making mistakes. He replied, "How can you make a mistake? It is your
solo, your guitar, and you are playing a piece of your own music. Who
could possibly tell you you are making a mistake?!! "
You can't be serious when you say that Page was not a better improviser than May. I have tremendous respect for May as a composer, arranger and even performer, but there is no denying that he had and has a morbid fear of improvisation, to which the conversation he had with Zappa alone would testify:
"I was fortunate enough to meet Frank Zappa, a truly great rock
musician, and a very unorthodox and innovative creator. He was already
very ill when I met him (I was working with his son in L.A. ) I told
him I admired his skill and courage in improvising so much in his
music, live in front of large audiences. He said, "Courage? - What do
you mean?! " I said that I was always very aware of the possibilities
of making mistakes. He replied, "How can you make a mistake? It is your
solo, your guitar, and you are playing a piece of your own music. Who
could possibly tell you you are making a mistake?!! "
john bodega
I'm not sure how Page being more willing to improvise (but frequently playing complete crap in doing so, ) and Brian sticking to the programme, are two approaches that can be readily measured against each other?
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]What are the criteria? Listenability? Bravery?? [/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]What are the criteria? Listenability? Bravery?? [/QUOTE]
cacatua
[QUOTE]
[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]
Sebastian:
You can't be serious when you say that Page was not a better improviser than May. I have tremendous respect for May as a composer, arranger and even performer, but there is no denying that he had and has a morbid fear of improvisation, to which the conversation he had with Zappa alone would testify:
"I was fortunate enough to meet Frank Zappa, a truly great rock
musician, and a very unorthodox and innovative creator. He was already
very ill when I met him (I was working with his son in L.A. ) I told
him I admired his skill and courage in improvising so much in his
music, live in front of large audiences. He said, "Courage? - What do
you mean?! " I said that I was always very aware of the possibilities
of making mistakes. He replied, "How can you make a mistake? It is your
solo, your guitar, and you are playing a piece of your own music. Who
could possibly tell you you are making a mistake?!! " [/QUOTE]
I'm sure that there a plenty of people here who WOULD tell Brian if he had made a mistake!
[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]
Sebastian:
You can't be serious when you say that Page was not a better improviser than May. I have tremendous respect for May as a composer, arranger and even performer, but there is no denying that he had and has a morbid fear of improvisation, to which the conversation he had with Zappa alone would testify:
"I was fortunate enough to meet Frank Zappa, a truly great rock
musician, and a very unorthodox and innovative creator. He was already
very ill when I met him (I was working with his son in L.A. ) I told
him I admired his skill and courage in improvising so much in his
music, live in front of large audiences. He said, "Courage? - What do
you mean?! " I said that I was always very aware of the possibilities
of making mistakes. He replied, "How can you make a mistake? It is your
solo, your guitar, and you are playing a piece of your own music. Who
could possibly tell you you are making a mistake?!! " [/QUOTE]
I'm sure that there a plenty of people here who WOULD tell Brian if he had made a mistake!
Wiley
[b]Zebonka12 wrote:
[/b]I'm not sure how Page being more willing to improvise (but frequently playing complete crap in doing so, ) and Brian sticking to the programme, are two approaches that can be readily measured against each other?
What are the criteria? Listenability? Bravery??
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
That was part of my point in my nerdy post above: Every criteria is always subject to debate.
At one point, someone has to decide a) what to measure, b) how to measure it, c) how to add things up and come up with an final "score".
If we formed a "World Guitarist Association" and spent millions in coming up with a unified criteria to rate the "Best" guitarist out there, we would surely take into account every single aspect of guitar playing that you can think of: Technique (Rythm, tapping, soloing, etc), Improvisation chops, "Feel", compositional skills, bravery, listenability, blah blah blah.
In the end SOMEONE would have to take those numbers and add them up in a way that yields a score for Brian May, Hendrix, Clapton, Gilmour, etc., and that way you'd rank them,
The idea is ridiculous but that's my point. You can't do that to music!
The safest approach would be to avoid using absolutes like "Best" and use words like "My Favorite" instead, but it's not necessarily how people talk.
At the risk of pulling a Sebastian...
Can we OBJECTIVELY conclude that a given guitar player is THE FASTEST? Yes. Just measure how many notes he can play per measure (even if it sounds like crap).
Can we OBJECTIVELY conclude that a given guitar player is THE BEST? No.
Can we DISCUSS about who WE SUBJECTIVELY THINK IS THE BEST? Of course we can! :D
[/b]I'm not sure how Page being more willing to improvise (but frequently playing complete crap in doing so, ) and Brian sticking to the programme, are two approaches that can be readily measured against each other?
What are the criteria? Listenability? Bravery??
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
That was part of my point in my nerdy post above: Every criteria is always subject to debate.
At one point, someone has to decide a) what to measure, b) how to measure it, c) how to add things up and come up with an final "score".
If we formed a "World Guitarist Association" and spent millions in coming up with a unified criteria to rate the "Best" guitarist out there, we would surely take into account every single aspect of guitar playing that you can think of: Technique (Rythm, tapping, soloing, etc), Improvisation chops, "Feel", compositional skills, bravery, listenability, blah blah blah.
In the end SOMEONE would have to take those numbers and add them up in a way that yields a score for Brian May, Hendrix, Clapton, Gilmour, etc., and that way you'd rank them,
The idea is ridiculous but that's my point. You can't do that to music!
The safest approach would be to avoid using absolutes like "Best" and use words like "My Favorite" instead, but it's not necessarily how people talk.
At the risk of pulling a Sebastian...
Can we OBJECTIVELY conclude that a given guitar player is THE FASTEST? Yes. Just measure how many notes he can play per measure (even if it sounds like crap).
Can we OBJECTIVELY conclude that a given guitar player is THE BEST? No.
Can we DISCUSS about who WE SUBJECTIVELY THINK IS THE BEST? Of course we can! :D
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE]
[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]
I'm not sure how Page being more willing to improvise (but frequently playing complete crap in doing so, ) and Brian sticking to the programme, are two approaches that can be readily measured against each other?
What are the criteria? Listenability? Bravery??
[/QUOTE]
Fair point to raise. While Page often played crap, at other times it was complete brilliance. Listen to any show from Europe 1973 to hear him and the rest of Led Zeppelin at the peak of their powers. In that general period of 71 to 73 (i.e. before the drugs took over), he played cleanly and was a superb improviser, never playing the solo in any song the same way twice... minus perhaps What Is And What Should Never Be. After that, he was hit and miss... mostly miss until the 90s.
Queen and Led Zeppelin had two completely different approaches to playing live. While Queen's rehearsing to perfection was ultimately the safer route, the more daring Zeppelin route had its downfalls as well as its highs that, in my opinion, rate higher than any kind of rehearsed perfection. Spontaneity is the spice of life, and this certainly applies to bands taking risks at rock concerts.
[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]
I'm not sure how Page being more willing to improvise (but frequently playing complete crap in doing so, ) and Brian sticking to the programme, are two approaches that can be readily measured against each other?
What are the criteria? Listenability? Bravery??
[/QUOTE]
Fair point to raise. While Page often played crap, at other times it was complete brilliance. Listen to any show from Europe 1973 to hear him and the rest of Led Zeppelin at the peak of their powers. In that general period of 71 to 73 (i.e. before the drugs took over), he played cleanly and was a superb improviser, never playing the solo in any song the same way twice... minus perhaps What Is And What Should Never Be. After that, he was hit and miss... mostly miss until the 90s.
Queen and Led Zeppelin had two completely different approaches to playing live. While Queen's rehearsing to perfection was ultimately the safer route, the more daring Zeppelin route had its downfalls as well as its highs that, in my opinion, rate higher than any kind of rehearsed perfection. Spontaneity is the spice of life, and this certainly applies to bands taking risks at rock concerts.
dragon-fly
It's quite amusing how topic "Best guitar work by Brian May" turned to "Who is better guitar player: Jimmy Page or Brian May". :)
As for comparison:
I guess you need to make a list of criteria by which you define the best guitarist (technique, creative approach, innovations etc etc); but even so- VERY important is human factor (drugs, injuries, personal problems etc, which affect playing). Well....
'Cause you know sometimes words have two meanings....
As for the May's best works:
I'm not going to make a list now, but I do want to mention the intro to A Day At The Races- just a little gem.
As for comparison:
I guess you need to make a list of criteria by which you define the best guitarist (technique, creative approach, innovations etc etc); but even so- VERY important is human factor (drugs, injuries, personal problems etc, which affect playing). Well....
'Cause you know sometimes words have two meanings....
As for the May's best works:
I'm not going to make a list now, but I do want to mention the intro to A Day At The Races- just a little gem.
Sebastian
> I think brian is becoming more aprreciated as time goes by.
Indeed.
> Afterall, who was one of eddie's influences?
Several people.
> You can't be serious when you say that Page was not a better improviser than May.
Of course I can, watch me:
(Seb puts serious face): Page is not a better improviser than May.
> I have tremendous respect for May as a composer, arranger and even performer, but there is no denying that he had and has a morbid fear of improvisation
Even with a 'morbid fear' (which is quite an exaggeration IMO), he did change several solos (even if in little details) and improvised in several songs and jams. The posted quote about Zappa demonstrates Bri admired how FZ improvised SO MUCH in his music, not that he improvised AT ALL.
> I'm not sure how Page being more willing to improvise (but frequently playing complete crap in doing so, ) and Brian sticking to the programme
But the programme did have some improvised bits. Listen to the [i]Bo Rhap[/i] solo or to the ornaments at the end of [i]Best Friend[/i]: different every night, even if in subtle ways. And that IS improvisation.
> What are the criteria? Listenability? Bravery??
Both of them subjective BTW...
> The idea is ridiculous but that's my point. You can't do that to music!
Of course you can. And it'd be quite interesting to do, actually. Would it change the way millions of people see music? No. But it's a worthwhile project in its own way.
Check my post about live stats. Does it mathematically prove that 'Opera' tour was better than 'Magic'? Of course not. But it does prove it featured more concerts (and average), which is (for some people at least) an interesting fact to know.
If I read a thorough research that demonstrates Vai's records are averagely faster than Satch's (for instance), that won't make me appreciate either one any less. But it's good to know anyway. It's like geography: Canada IS larger than the States; does it mean it's better? safer? holier? No, of course not. But... it's good to know anyway.
Which prompts me to ask, again: is Page really faster than Dr Wig? I really don't think so, but then again, I haven't listened to Jimmy's post-Zep works, so I don't know if he ever improved on his speed or not.
> Can we OBJECTIVELY conclude that a given guitar player is THE FASTEST? Yes.
Actually, we can't, unless we get them in a room and ask them to play the fastest they possibly can (with vices to measure muscular activity and simultaneous 3D CAT scans to analyse them neurologically) and then compare. There are several variables anyway:
* The part they're playing: doing an ascending diatonic, chromatic or pentatonic scale at super-speed may be way easier than doing one with string skipping or double-stops. For some people, it's easier to go upwards, for others it's easier to go downwards, and so on.
* Special techniques and devices - slides, tremolo, etc.
* Fret span, string gauge, scalloped or flat neck, etc... they all have an effect on the final result. To have accurate results we'd have to provide both guitarists with the same instrument, set-up, strings, pick (if they use it - some people play faster without it, etc) and make them play the same part (which may be in either one's home-style but not the other's, in which case the result is compromised), etc.
* If we take all recorded parts by a guitarist and establish the fastest of them all, it still doesn't mean that person can't play any faster than that. It's the same as with vocal ranges.
> Can we OBJECTIVELY conclude that a given guitar player is THE BEST? No.
It actually depends on the case. Can we objectively draw an absolute conclusion between Vai and Satriani? No. But between May and Mercury (as guitarists, that is)? Of course.
> Can we DISCUSS about who WE SUBJECTIVELY THINK IS THE BEST? Of course we can! :D
And it's fun to do!
> While Queen's rehearsing to perfection was ultimately the safer route
TBF, they did rehearse, but not to perfection and neither the musical side nor the visual one were coreographed. There [i]were[/i] several changes and added bits in all instruments as well as vocal phrasing, they didn't carbon-copy an arrangement perpetually.
> the more daring Zeppelin route had its downfalls as well as its highs that, in my opinion, rate higher than any kind of
rehearsed perfection.
That could be analysed/questioned more deeply from both sides, and it could raise a lot of interesting points for both band's music.
> Spontaneity is the spice of life, and this certainly applies to bands taking risks at rock concerts.
And Queen did take risks, and they were spontaneous. The subtle changes they added to each song in each concert is as much 'improvisation' as having a crappy 10-minute solo made from scratch.
Indeed.
> Afterall, who was one of eddie's influences?
Several people.
> You can't be serious when you say that Page was not a better improviser than May.
Of course I can, watch me:
(Seb puts serious face): Page is not a better improviser than May.
> I have tremendous respect for May as a composer, arranger and even performer, but there is no denying that he had and has a morbid fear of improvisation
Even with a 'morbid fear' (which is quite an exaggeration IMO), he did change several solos (even if in little details) and improvised in several songs and jams. The posted quote about Zappa demonstrates Bri admired how FZ improvised SO MUCH in his music, not that he improvised AT ALL.
> I'm not sure how Page being more willing to improvise (but frequently playing complete crap in doing so, ) and Brian sticking to the programme
But the programme did have some improvised bits. Listen to the [i]Bo Rhap[/i] solo or to the ornaments at the end of [i]Best Friend[/i]: different every night, even if in subtle ways. And that IS improvisation.
> What are the criteria? Listenability? Bravery??
Both of them subjective BTW...
> The idea is ridiculous but that's my point. You can't do that to music!
Of course you can. And it'd be quite interesting to do, actually. Would it change the way millions of people see music? No. But it's a worthwhile project in its own way.
Check my post about live stats. Does it mathematically prove that 'Opera' tour was better than 'Magic'? Of course not. But it does prove it featured more concerts (and average), which is (for some people at least) an interesting fact to know.
If I read a thorough research that demonstrates Vai's records are averagely faster than Satch's (for instance), that won't make me appreciate either one any less. But it's good to know anyway. It's like geography: Canada IS larger than the States; does it mean it's better? safer? holier? No, of course not. But... it's good to know anyway.
Which prompts me to ask, again: is Page really faster than Dr Wig? I really don't think so, but then again, I haven't listened to Jimmy's post-Zep works, so I don't know if he ever improved on his speed or not.
> Can we OBJECTIVELY conclude that a given guitar player is THE FASTEST? Yes.
Actually, we can't, unless we get them in a room and ask them to play the fastest they possibly can (with vices to measure muscular activity and simultaneous 3D CAT scans to analyse them neurologically) and then compare. There are several variables anyway:
* The part they're playing: doing an ascending diatonic, chromatic or pentatonic scale at super-speed may be way easier than doing one with string skipping or double-stops. For some people, it's easier to go upwards, for others it's easier to go downwards, and so on.
* Special techniques and devices - slides, tremolo, etc.
* Fret span, string gauge, scalloped or flat neck, etc... they all have an effect on the final result. To have accurate results we'd have to provide both guitarists with the same instrument, set-up, strings, pick (if they use it - some people play faster without it, etc) and make them play the same part (which may be in either one's home-style but not the other's, in which case the result is compromised), etc.
* If we take all recorded parts by a guitarist and establish the fastest of them all, it still doesn't mean that person can't play any faster than that. It's the same as with vocal ranges.
> Can we OBJECTIVELY conclude that a given guitar player is THE BEST? No.
It actually depends on the case. Can we objectively draw an absolute conclusion between Vai and Satriani? No. But between May and Mercury (as guitarists, that is)? Of course.
> Can we DISCUSS about who WE SUBJECTIVELY THINK IS THE BEST? Of course we can! :D
And it's fun to do!
> While Queen's rehearsing to perfection was ultimately the safer route
TBF, they did rehearse, but not to perfection and neither the musical side nor the visual one were coreographed. There [i]were[/i] several changes and added bits in all instruments as well as vocal phrasing, they didn't carbon-copy an arrangement perpetually.
> the more daring Zeppelin route had its downfalls as well as its highs that, in my opinion, rate higher than any kind of
rehearsed perfection.
That could be analysed/questioned more deeply from both sides, and it could raise a lot of interesting points for both band's music.
> Spontaneity is the spice of life, and this certainly applies to bands taking risks at rock concerts.
And Queen did take risks, and they were spontaneous. The subtle changes they added to each song in each concert is as much 'improvisation' as having a crappy 10-minute solo made from scratch.
Wiley
I agree with Sebastian in the part where it's fun to have these discussions and even get to the point to make this kind of analysis, if you have the time.
Still, any type of analysis that you make will have a limited scope. You either consider "bravery", "ability to play fast scales" or "emotion" as a parameter or not, in this hypothetical "Investigation".
In YOUR investigation you will have to decide to consider only studio performances, live or both.
Even if you took on this huge challenge and came up with a result, you couldn't still claim it's definitive or it's 100% objective if the title is "Who is THE BEST _____?"
Some things you can measure objectively, like speed or time (relativity aside, please), but in the way you make the conclusion of your work is that it stops being entirely objective.
Either way, kids, this is not guaranteed to help you convince your friends that your favorite guitar player is "better" than theirs, unless the differences are glaringly obvious (Brian May vs. Me).
:P
Still, any type of analysis that you make will have a limited scope. You either consider "bravery", "ability to play fast scales" or "emotion" as a parameter or not, in this hypothetical "Investigation".
In YOUR investigation you will have to decide to consider only studio performances, live or both.
Even if you took on this huge challenge and came up with a result, you couldn't still claim it's definitive or it's 100% objective if the title is "Who is THE BEST _____?"
Some things you can measure objectively, like speed or time (relativity aside, please), but in the way you make the conclusion of your work is that it stops being entirely objective.
Either way, kids, this is not guaranteed to help you convince your friends that your favorite guitar player is "better" than theirs, unless the differences are glaringly obvious (Brian May vs. Me).
:P
Matias Merçeauroix
Best guitar work?? A Night at the Opera and A Day at the Races. BY FAR.
The Miracle (and Innuendo, Back to the Light, MIH, etc) is greatly played but it's much much much more common, while his arrangements and playing on Opera and Races are totally groundbreaking. Absolutely amazing.
Jimmy Page is the worst guitar player ever.
The Miracle (and Innuendo, Back to the Light, MIH, etc) is greatly played but it's much much much more common, while his arrangements and playing on Opera and Races are totally groundbreaking. Absolutely amazing.
Jimmy Page is the worst guitar player ever.
dragon-fly
[QUOTE]
[b]Funky Horsie wrote: [/b]
Jimmy Page is the worst guitar player ever.
[/QUOTE]
You may not like Jimmy Page- and that's your right.
But if you think that Led Zeppelin became a popular band without his skills in playing guitar- you are very naive.
[b]Funky Horsie wrote: [/b]
Jimmy Page is the worst guitar player ever.
[/QUOTE]
You may not like Jimmy Page- and that's your right.
But if you think that Led Zeppelin became a popular band without his skills in playing guitar- you are very naive.
Matias Merçeauroix
I don't know anybody besides him who's been playing the same primitive crap for 50 years and still can't get it right. If you know someone worse, please let me now.
Page is seriously the worst player ever.
Page is seriously the worst player ever.
mike hunt
[QUOTE]
[b]Funky Horsie wrote: [/b]
I don't know anybody besides him who's been playing the same primitive crap for 50 years and still can't get it right. If you know someone worse, please let me now.
Page is seriously the worst player ever.
[/QUOTE]
and you're young and stupid!.....page is one of the biggest influences in rock history.
[b]Funky Horsie wrote: [/b]
I don't know anybody besides him who's been playing the same primitive crap for 50 years and still can't get it right. If you know someone worse, please let me now.
Page is seriously the worst player ever.
[/QUOTE]
and you're young and stupid!.....page is one of the biggest influences in rock history.