[/QUOTE]
What good is music if most people don't want to hear it? Or do you only aim to write music for people with supreme musical skills?
Yes, any intermediate guitarist can acknowledge that Page often isn't the cleanest player in the world, but he certainly does not suck. Listen to Since I've Been Loving You from How The West Was Won. Nobody has made a Les Paul snarl with such power like Page did on that live album.
At their best, worst, and everything in between, there was a certain mysticism about Led Zeppelin that cannot be written in sheet music or conveyed in words. There were four members of the band, as well as a fifth element that was far greater than the sum of the four musicians and what was physically happening. That's why there isn't a single Zeppelin tribute band or any incarnation of the remaining Zeppelin members from the last 29 years that sounded half as good. Any or all of those projects could have had far better musicians from a technical standpoint, but none of them come remotely close to capturing the magic that was Led Zeppelin. But if all you're listening for is "right and wrong notes", you've completely missed the point.
Finally... Steve Vai is not God. He is a great writer and arranger and a technical wizard, but as a guitarist he overplays half the time which, to me, makes much of his music unlistenable.
cacatua · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Holly2003 wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Holly2003 wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
> I will ignore the genius comment, but to say that Hitler didn't kill people is completely and totally wrong.
No, it's not: an orchestral conductor isn't playing the instruments, even if what he or she does is even more important. Same case here: Hitler didn't kill, although he ordered literally millions of murders which is, as you imply, even more criminal. But he didn't kill.
> Sebastian, you're often quite pedantic
Actually, I'm not. I [i]am[/i] concerned with points that other people would find trivial, but that's merely an effect of people being different and liking different things.
[/QUOTE]
Err.. no. In English, and I'm sure in other languages too, we do not speak literally all the time. It would be very odd if we did, and very boring and annoying. So when someone says "Hitler was a mass murderer" it is simply an information shortcut. The meaning is totally clear and does not have to be analysed to the point where everyone wants to commit suicide out of boredom. See here [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Logic]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Logic[/url] for an extreme example.
[/QUOTE]
I didn't ask anybody to 'speak literally all the time'. I stated that Hitler didn't kill people [i]per se[/i], which is right. Absolutely nothing 'has to be analysed', but it can if a person (me, in this case) wants to. If you're bored with it, you can... wait for it... wait for it... not read!
Have you tried that?
PS: I know Mr Logic, I think he's great.
[/QUOTE]
Not only are you pedantic, you also cannot be told anything by anyone. You refuse to learn from others, and that's the worst kind of bore.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, I'm not pedantic, as I'm not preaching any sort of knowledge, nor I'm involved in formal rules (I never went to college, for instance).
Of course I can be told loads of things by loads of people, and here, in this forum, I've been told loads of things by loads of people.
Of course I don't refuse to learn from others, and as a matter of fact I have learnt a lot from other people in this forum, you included.
Regarding the 'worst kind of bore' ... well, that's your opinion, and it's respectable. But the rest of your post is quite off.
[/QUOTE]
At risk of becoming a target instead of a voyeur, Sebastian, it is difficult to imagine you learning something from anyone because you present yourself in such a way, dismembering anyone's post, piece by piece, as to give the impression that you ALREADY KNOW EVERYTHING down to the last infernal detail!
Sorry if that is being unfair, but it is the impression I get. It can be very entertaining though if one is not on the receiving end. ;o)
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]
I do hope you're not rejecting technical proficiency, which IMHO is still a vital ingredient for a great musician.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but it's all a matter of how much one truly needs in order to write music that connects with people.
Case in point - Johnny Cash. He knew about 10 chords and wrote hundreds of great songs with them, dozens of which are revered decades later. Therefore I think it's not so much about how technically proficient you are, but what you do with what you have, however much or little.
Holly2003 · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]
I do hope you're not rejecting technical proficiency, which IMHO is still a vital ingredient for a great musician.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but it's all a matter of how much one truly needs in order to write music that connects with people.
Case in point - Johnny Cash. He knew about 10 chords and wrote hundreds of great songs, dozens of which are revered decades later. Therefore I think it's not so much about how technical proficiency you are, but what you do with what you have, however much or little.
[/QUOTE]
Cash is sloppy and he can't shred, man.
;)
GratefulFan · Member since
Arguing that technical excellence is a requisite component of fantastic music is like arguing a great story cannot be communicated without perfect punctuation and flawless grammar. And who would argue that? Not every great story is literature.
Sebastian · Member since
> What good is music if most people don't want to hear it?
There are way too many vaquality is just one of themo be heard or not, and quality is just one of them.
> Or do you only aim to write music for people with supreme musical skills?
While I know your question's not directed at me: IMO, great music should be able to appeal people with or without musical skills. [i]Bo Rhap[/i] for instance, can be liked by tone-deaf individuals as well as by professional choirmasters; Beethoven's Sixth is enjoyed by kids, used on ringtones, appreciated by expert musicologists, etc.
> Yes, any intermediate guitarist can acknowledge that Page often isn't the cleanest player in the world, but he certainly does not suck.
I fully agree.
> Listen to Since I've Been Loving You from How The West Was Won. Nobody has made a Les Paul snarl with such power like Page did on that live album.
Is it an overdub-free album? It's an honest question since I've never heard it.
> At their best, worst, and everything in between, there was a certain mysticism about Led Zeppelin that cannot be written in sheet music or conveyed in words.
Well... that's partly a snowball effect.
> There were four members of the band, as well as a fifth element that was far greater than the sum of the four musicians and what was physically happening.
Which makes Zeppelin's music amazing. But it doesn't change the fact that Page's way overrated as an individual performer. As a songwriter he's great, but as a guitarist he's only 'good', sometimes 'very good', but not the god some people think he is.
> That's why there isn't a single Zeppelin tribute band or any incarnation of the remaining Zeppelin members from the last 29 years that sounded half as good.
Sure, but that's true for most great bands, Queen included.
> Any or all of those projects could have had far better musicians from a technical standpoint, but none of them come remotely close to capturing the magic that was Led Zeppelin.
Sure, but that's true for most great bands, Queen included
Sebastian · Member since
> But if all you're listening for is "right and wrong notes", you've completely missed the point.
That's his prerogative. The way I see it, if you've got 10 minutes to record a solo with wrong notes, you could've used the same ten minutes to record it with the right ones.
> Finally... Steve Vai is not God. He is a great writer and arranger and a technical wizard, but as a guitarist he overplays half the time which, to me, makes much of his music unlistenable.
IMO, a good 95% of his music (at least what's been officially released) is completely listeneable. Now, some people like it some don't, but there's nothing wrong with playing well. There's nothing overplayed there, he can do slow things and fast things and keeps the balance between them.
While he's not my favourite guitarist, he's certainly up there. And he's of course way better than Brian, something the doctor himself has admitted.
> At risk of becoming a target instead of a voyeur, Sebastian, it is difficult to imagine you learning something from anyone because you present yourself in such a way, dismembering anyone's post, piece by piece, as to give the impression that you ALREADY KNOW EVERYTHING down to the last infernal detail!
Of course I don't know everything, and of course I've learnt loads of things from loads of people. To explain my point I'll use an oversimplified example:
Seb writes: '2+2=4, 4+4=7.'
Poster 1 writes: '2+2 is not 4.'
Poster 2 writes: '4+4 is not 7.'
Poster 3 writes: 'you shouldn't write maths, nobody cares, you have no friends, you won't get laid, you'll die alone.'
Discussion with poster 1:
Seb: 'Actually, 2+2 [i]is[/i] 4.'
Poster: 'You can never accept a mistake!!!!!'
Seb: 'I can of course. I've been wrong loads of times, but this isn't one of them, since 2+2 [i]is[/i] 4.'
Poster: 'You're pedantic.'
Seb: 'No, I'm not. 2+2 [i]is[/i] 4.'
Poster stops writing to Seb for a while, then some weeks later comes back with more provokation, or (at convenience) becomes nice to him. End of discussion.
Discussion with poster 2:
Seb: 'Actually, 4+4 [i]is[/i] 7.'
Poster: 'No. Look: if you've got four and then add four, you get eight, not seven.'
Seb: ´'You're right. 4+4 = 8.'
End of story.
Discussion with poster 3:
Seb: 'If I want to write about maths, I'll do it. You can ... wait for it ... wait for it... not read!'
Poster: 'You're an idiot. You never learn from anybody else.'
Seb: 'Actually, I do, but my point stands: if I want to write about maths, I will.'
> Sorry if that is being unfair, but it is the impression I get. It can be very entertaining though if one is not on the receiving end. ;o)
If that's the impression, maybe you're jumping to conclusions to early. As exposed in the previous oversimplified example:
* I've got no problem in admitting being wrong when I am (for instance, come to think about it, Hitler did kill at least one person: himself).
* I've got no problem in becoming a broken record if I'm sure about something.
* I think it's ridiculous to criticise whether I 'over-analyse' something or not. It's my prerogative, and I'm not harming anybody by it: if you (not as in you, Cacatua, but 'you' in general) want to change people's behaviours, do it with drunk-drivers, pimps, criminals, lying politicians, etc... by 'over-analysing' the amount of concerts a rock band played during a tour, or whether a guitarist is overrated or not, I'm not harming anybody.
> Case in point - Johnny Cash. He knew about 10 chords and wrote hundreds of great songs with them, dozens of which are revered decades later.
There's a big difference between doing simple things and doing things you can't do. And that's, sometimes, the problem with Jimmy: he wrote some great things that he couldn't play properly. It's like having John Deacon singing his own songs, or even Brian (a great singer) singing [i]Show Must Go On[/i] - great, but another person could do it better.
David Bowie was never a Grade 8-worthy classical guitarist, but he plays well and writes things on guitar that he can play cleanly and quite well. Even if not playing with conservatoire-like technique, he's playing well, plucking the notes and making them sound in the right moments and with right pitch, etc. Whenever he wrote (or somebody else wrote) more difficult guitar parts for his songs, he let somebody else play them. That's being a true musician who plays for the song.
And in most cases, IMO, Jimmy did play for the song, except on occasions that he composed nice parts but then he played them out of tune, out of rhythm or without precision. The overall result wasn't bad mostly because Bonzo and especially Jonesy were ace, but all in all that's something Page lacked sometimes and Brian didn't.
> Therefore I think it's not so much about how technically proficient you are, but what you do with what you have, however much or little.
Both things come hand in hand. Vai's shredding things sound great because they're right for the song, right for the mood and because the person playing them (in this case, himself) can actually pull them off.
> Arguing that technical excellence is a requisite component of fantastic music is like arguing a great story cannot be communicated without perfect punctuation and flawless grammar. And who would argue that? Not every great story is literature.
Sure, but it doesn't mean grammar and punctuation don't matter. Music can be simple and beautifully executed. It can also be ruined by sloppiness. I don't think Page's the worst guitarist ever, and I don't think he sucks, but there are several bits (rhythm and lead) in his own songs that he didn't play quite right, neither on record nor live.
Holly2003 · Member since
I take it poster 3 is me? Why not address me directly instead of being such an ass about it? Instead of simplifying, you've distorted our exchange. Intentionally? If so = dull. Life's too short.
I did not call you an idiot but no, you were not correct. Saying "Hitler is a mass murderer" is fine because it's an information short cut. The person who said it assumes we're all familiar with Hitler and we know what he did. There's no need for that person to have to say it any other way just to pass your pedantry test.
Sebastian · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Holly2003 wrote: [/b]
I take it poster 3 is me? Why not address me directly instead of being such an ass about it? Instead of simplifying, you've distorted our exchange. Intentionally? If so = dull. Life's too short.
I did not call you an idiot but no, you were not correct. Saying "Hitler is a mass murderer" is fine because it's an information short cut. The person who said it assumes we're all familiar with Hitler and we know what he did. There's no need for that person to have to say it any other way just to pass your pedantry test.
[/QUOTE]
No, poster 3 is not you. Poster 3 is a fictional character I picked for the example I set, as are poster 1 and 2.
And I didn't say 'saying "Hitler is a mass murderer"' wasn't fine. I do say it now: that sentence is wrong, because Hitler died, hence, he's not a mass murderer, regardless of whether he was one before or not. Let's see what happened:
I wrote:
'Hitler didn't kill people. He ordered loads of killings, which is not the same thing.'
And I stand by it.
Amazon then wrote that ' to say that Hitler didn't kill people is completely and totally wrong'. And I wrote 'No, it's not'. And I also stand by it, because it's not 'completely and totally wrong', as he didn't kill people. He killed a person (unless of course he actually pulled the trigger for more individuals than himself).
I'm not criticising the figurative or literal use of language (Amazon is, BTW, in that post), nor I'm in any way offending Amazon, his/her personality or his/her ability (or lack thereof) to learn. You (you, Holly2003), on the other hand, are, which is indeed completely imbecile on your side seeing that:
* You don't know me.
* You completely missed the point I was making.
And by the way, I'm not calling you an imbecile, I [i]am [/i]saying, though, that saying I can't learn from others based on what you've read on an on-line forum (where I've, many times, acknowledging learning from others) is imbecile. Not the person, but the act.
So, to sum up:
* If you see Hitler as a mass murderer, you've got all the right to. In legal terms, it's enough that he was the mastermind and an accessory before the fact.
* However, if I write 'Hitler didn't kill people', it's not 'completely and totally wrong', as he didn't, actually, kill people, besides himself (AFAIK).
* If I make a mistake (and I've done so, many many times), I've got no problem in accepting it. However, if I'm right about something, I don't mind being a broken record about it and I don't mind defending my point. If you (a general 'you', not as in 'you, Holly2003') are annoyed by that, you can, as I pointed out earlier, refrain from reading.
* If I've got any problem with you (you, Holly2003), I'll address it to you (you, Holly2003) directly. As I wrote earlier, 'Poster 3' is a fictional representation. If you sensed any resemblance, it's your problem, not mine. And by the way I haven't got a pedantry test, as I'm not pedantic.
cacatua · Member since
I am STILL amused, Sebastian. You are pissing into the wind! You are trying to rationalize emotional evaluations, and meanwhile getting crosswise of people in the process with all of the nit-picking. Has anyone here who thought Jimmy Page's playing sucked had their mind changed? Raise your hand. Has anyone here who thinks well Jimmy of Page's playing had their mind changed? Huh? Does anyone here remember what the original post was about?
And, now that Johnny Cash has also been sucked into this rolling blob of a discussion, has anyone noticed that Brian has been somewhat favoring black trousers and a longish black jacket in appearances like the book signings? Brings to my mind [i]The Man in Black,[/i] aka Johnny Cash. Well, except for the hair.
Sebastian · Member since
> I am STILL amused, Sebastian.
Great! Amusement is good for your health.
> You are pissing into the wind!
Actually, I'm not (and of course I know the meaning of that expression), as I'm addressing the points directly. Holly2003 wrote I was referring to him/her, I cleared up I wasn't; Amazon said my statement was 'completely and utterly wrong' (or something to that effect, and I cleared up it isn't.
> You are trying to rationalize emotional evaluations
Again, I'm not: I didn't rationalise Holly's 'bore to death' comment, and I did say it's respectable; same for other 'emotional evaluations' as you call them. For other things which can be objectively measured, I do have a say, which is sometimes right, sometimes wrong. And in this case, it's right: saying 'Hitler was a mass murderer' and saying 'Hitler didn't actually kill people' aren't mutually exclusive.
> and meanwhile getting crosswise of people in the process with all of the nit-picking
I won't refrain from writing just to avoid 'getting crosswise of people'. Again, I'm not offending anybody (as Holly2003 is, BTW), and I'm not harming anybody. People who care enough to reply to what I write will get an a comment from me, which may or may not be what they want. Not my problem anyway.
> Has anyone here who thought Jimmy Page's playing sucked had their mind changed?
This forum doesn't exist to convert anybody, and its discussions aren't made to convince others about one's perspectives.
> Does anyone here remember what the original post was about?
Actually, I do: best guitar work by Brian May. I know it's a rethorical question but still...
> has anyone noticed that Brian has been somewhat favoring black trousers and a longish black jacket in appearances like the book signings? Brings to my mind The Man in Black, aka Johnny Cash. Well, except for the hair.
At least we can be grateful he didn't favour Freddie's 70's clothing... up to 'News', that is.
cacatua · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
> I am STILL amused, Sebastian.
Great! Amusement is good for your health.
> You are pissing into the wind!
Actually, I'm not (and of course I know the meaning of that expression), as I'm addressing the points directly. Holly2003 wrote I was referring to him/her, I cleared up I wasn't; Amazon said my statement was 'completely and utterly wrong' (or something to that effect, and I cleared up it isn't.
> You are trying to rationalize emotional evaluations
Again, I'm not: I didn't rationalise Holly's 'bore to death' comment, and I did say it's respectable; same for other 'emotional evaluations' as you call them. For other things which can be objectively measured, I do have a say, which is sometimes right, sometimes wrong. And in this case, it's right: saying 'Hitler was a mass murderer' and saying 'Hitler didn't actually kill people' aren't mutually exclusive.
> and meanwhile getting crosswise of people in the process with all of the nit-picking
I won't refrain from writing just to avoid 'getting crosswise of people'. Again, I'm not offending anybody (as Holly2003 is, BTW), and I'm not harming anybody. People who care enough to reply to what I write will get an a comment from me, which may or may not be what they want. Not my problem anyway.
> Has anyone here who thought Jimmy Page's playing sucked had their mind changed?
This forum doesn't exist to convert anybody, and its discussions aren't made to convince others about one's perspectives.
> Does anyone here remember what the original post was about?
Actually, I do: best guitar work by Brian May. I know it's a rethorical question but still...
> has anyone noticed that Brian has been somewhat favoring black trousers and a longish black jacket in appearances like the book signings? Brings to my mind The Man in Black, aka Johnny Cash. Well, except for the hair.
At least we can be grateful he didn't favour Freddie's 70's clothing... up to 'News', that is.
[/QUOTE]
Hehehe........Just like jousting with a windmill. My hat's off to you. ;o)
Sebastian · Member since
I hate Don Quixote.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
> Listen to Since I've Been Loving You from How The West Was Won. Nobody has made a Les Paul snarl with such power like Page did on that live album.
Is it an overdub-free album? It's an honest question since I've never heard it.
[/QUOTE]
Both the LZ DVD and HTWWW are purely live, although the some guitar or vocal bits are slipped in from another night to create a more definitive performance. In the case of HTWWW, it's a compilation of two June 1972 shows as such, with only one exception - the keys in Stairway are taken from a January 1973 show, as Page and/or John Paul Jones preferred the mellotron sound over the organ that JPJ used at the original show (he switched to the mellotron in concert in October 1972). Even with those adjustments, it's about as honest as a live album is going to get from a classic rock band.
[QUOTE]> Any or all of those projects could have had far better musicians from a technical standpoint, but none of them come remotely close to capturing the magic that was Led Zeppelin.
Sure, but that's true for most great bands, Queen included[/QUOTE]
Agreed.
Matias Merçeauroix · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Funky Horsie wrote: [/b]
To you people, succeeding is becoming important.
[/QUOTE]
What good is music if most people don't want to hear it? Or do you only aim to write music for people with supreme musical skills?
Yes, any intermediate guitarist can acknowledge that Page often isn't the cleanest player in the world, but he certainly does not suck. Listen to Since I've Been Loving You from How The West Was Won. Nobody has made a Les Paul snarl with such power like Page did on that live album.
At their best, worst, and everything in between, there was a certain mysticism about Led Zeppelin that cannot be written in sheet music or conveyed in words. There were four members of the band, as well as a fifth element that was far greater than the sum of the four musicians and what was physically happening. That's why there isn't a single Zeppelin tribute band or any incarnation of the remaining Zeppelin members from the last 29 years that sounded half as good. Any or all of those projects could have had far better musicians from a technical standpoint, but none of them come remotely close to capturing the magic that was Led Zeppelin. But if all you're listening for is "right and wrong notes", you've completely missed the point.
Finally... Steve Vai is not God. He is a great writer and arranger and a technical wizard, but as a guitarist he overplays half the time which, to me, makes much of his music unlistenable.
[/QUOTE]
No
