First of all, many of the guitar parts Brian played were not necessarily written by him, which makes the whole 'originality' point quite ambiguous, same for John and bass parts, etc. (and of course, same for Petrucci, Beck, etc.).
The thing is, as I've already written, claiming that 'x' is better than 'y' is not the same as claiming 'y' sucks.
Is Brian great? Yes
Is he really great? Yes
Excellent? Yes
Famous? Yes
Influential? Yes
Marvellous? Yes
May-estic? Yes
The best ever? No
Are there millions of guitarists better than him? No
Thousands? No
Hundreds? Don't think so
Many? Maybe, maybe not
Several? Probably
Some? Yes
Is Petrucci one of those some? Yes
Sheer Brass Neck · Member since
"Is Petrucci one of those some? Yes." [/QUOTE] In your opinion, which is based on your criteria, which appears to be technical and physical. Tiger Woods' physical gifts are greater than some (hits the ball a long way), but his imagination is unparaleled, which is a huge, huge factor in his success. Guys who enter long drive events hit the ball miles farther than Tiger Woods. Does this make them better drivers? No, because shaping the ball, positioning it where you want, controlling the spin etc. are equally important. You've decided that Petrucci is a better guitar player, but based on what? I don't know which aspects of playing (speed, cleanliness, string skipping) make John Petrucci a better player than Brian May. So tell me, is guitar playing (or any musical activity) a strictly physical act? If so, Mike Mangini is the best drummer in the world as he can do 1000 plus drum strokes in one minute. Therefore he's better than Neil Peart or Buddy Rich? Or are Neil Peart's and Buddy Rich's imaginations irrelevant to the conversation of good drummers? If you believe that, and I think you are super intelligent Sebastian, then you dismiss soul and brains as part of the package. You can't have one without the other, or else it's all scales. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]And the parts written by others is ridiculous. Brian May's sounds and orchestrations are Brian May's sounds and orchestrations. I don't care who may have hummed a few bars in the studio, his guitar playing (the thing he's okay at) brought them to life. Who cares who created the bass line for Under Pressure? John Deacon made it come alive. If Under Pressure were on TCR with Brian, Roger or Paul playing bass it would have been a much lesser tune as they can't play bass. Personality counts too.[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Jimmy Dean wrote: [/b]
The problem with Muse.. is that, if you listen to each of their albums in a row... the "sound" is the same... the overdramatic chord progressions, the heavy usage of minor chords, the wailing, etc... it's used in every one of their albums...
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I can totally understand how that can be a bit much. To each his own ! Myself, I find it a breath of fresh air compared to anything else that's on the radio.
[QUOTE]but they have thrown some unexpected stuff our way.... the trumpet solo in King For a Day, lol...sorry.. you brought it up...[/QUOTE]
Crap, of course.. how could I forget ?!? I really should listen to Nimrod again.
[QUOTE]to sum up... Muse does outweigh Green Day in the pushing music forward category, because Green Day does not do that, they don't try to push the envelope, they just take what's been done and they try to do their own version of it... and they are good at that, at least.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. And they can keep doing it until they retire, and they'll become U2 without the political posturing. Green Day make their political statements like artists in the late 60s did.. they're not self-serving about it, and it makes for good art.
In terms of technical ability, Petrucci is probably the finest electric guitarist ever. But to his detriment, the fact that he's so reliably perfect at all times removes the danger factor and emotion from most of his performances. But his way of seeing the electric guitar like a student writes their Ph.D. is something that every guitarist should at least admire. That said, with a gun to my head, I'd still pick Brian May for the originality in his approach to the instrument. Petrucci may be the whole package, but Brian May created a significant part of it.
Sheer Brass Neck · Member since
Further Seb, if Petrucci is a better guitarist (not denying he is, just unsure of what the criteria is), then for tone and vibrato there is no freakin' way he is in Brain May's league. Those are physical criteria as Steve Vai says, Brian's tone isn't from his amp, it's from his fingers. These qualities are physical and exclude brains, and you can argue until you're blue in the face, but his tone and vibrato are not close to Brian's. And I posted after Sir GH did, but whether Petrucci is a better technical player than everybody does not make him a better player. Rock is not classical music, it's danger and excitement. You can't dismiss those elements when rating players, and Brian's diverse wildness and beauty have to count for something.
Sebastian · Member since
> In your opinion, which is based on your criteria, which appears to be technical and physical.
Well, yes, sort of... some things [i]are[/i] indeed blatantly obvious, and I go to my height example again: my favourite footballer is Del Piero. Should I argue that he scored more international goals than Maradona? I could, but it's ridiculous, since 34 > 27, full stop. Now, of course I could argue (though in this particular case it'd also be ridiculous) that the 27 goals he scored were against tougher defenders and keepers, etc. and hence they should count for more. Or I could argue that for many of the 91 matches he played (so far?) he only came in at the end, making his minute count smaller and maybe (maybe) his average (counting per minute played, not per game) as good as Diego's or maybe higher. Actually, I would like to get those stats, but that's another topic...
The thing is, I admit that in these cases establishing an absolute (if there is one) is very tough because:
* The music John's played is either written by him or for him, and hence in his comfort zone, which probably Brian wouldn't enable.
* The music Brian's played is either written by him or for him, and hence in his comfort zone, which probably John wouldn't enable.
* People take music as a religion, and they're devoted to their (semi-)gods way too strongly.
> Tiger Woods' physical gifts are greater than some (hits the ball a long way), but his imagination is unparaleled
In your opinion, which is based on your criteria. Again, there's no way to measure it (and hence, no way to establish whether Brian's more creative than John).
> which is a huge, huge factor in his success.
Of course. Brian's got a lot of things on his side: his voice, his arrangements, the arrangements others made for him, the interplay between him and Roger's drums, between him and John's bass, between him and Freddie's piano, between him and John's guitar (when that happened), between him and his own rhythm guitars, between each of his multi-tracked bits, between him and Freddie's vocals, between him and his own piano (when that happened), etc. But when it comes to guitar playing, though excellent, Petrucci's better, and I'm sure Brian would be the first to admit it if asked.
> Guys who enter long drive events hit the ball miles farther than Tiger Woods. Does this make them better drivers? No, because shaping the ball, positioning it where you want, controlling the spin etc. are equally important.
They could be more important indeed.
> You've decided that Petrucci is a better guitar player, but based on what? I don't know which aspects of playing (speed, cleanliness, string skipping) make John Petrucci a better player than Brian May.
Very roughly put, the fact that he can play things Brian couldn't. Of course, that's a completely theoretical point, but keep in mind that a lot of academic conclusions are based on solid theories (as opposed to mere guesswork or speculations). Or do you think the Everest's height was measured by a bloke climbing it with a flexible ruler and marking spots every four inches?
Somewhere in your message you mention classical music. Indeed, in that case, it's tad easier to see who's 'better' as they often play (for some extent) certain things of the same repertoire. For instance, there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of professional pianists who have done Chopin's etudes, and that way we can compare each of them doing the exact same notes (for some extent), etc. and see who cut the mustard and who didn't. And there, imagination counts as well, because no two performers play the same thing the same way even if they didn't write it. Same for conductors, etc.
Of course, the only way to be 100% sure is if we had Brian playing all of Petrucci's recordings and vice versa and see if they could do it. And even if they couldn't, we'd be able to establish excuses: equipment, string make, muscle pain that day, etc. But, just as the Everest wasn't measured via a guy climbing it with flexible ruler, we [i]can[/i] measure whether a guitarist's better than another one, especially in cases where the difference is big. For instance, could I argue that Roger's better than Brian because his [i]Man on Fire[/i] simple limited-chord rhythm and riff have, in my opinion, more 'feeling'?
> So tell me, is guitar playing (or any musical activity) a strictly physical act?
If it were, MIDIs would have replaced us a long time ago. But tell me, is a person who's technically great, automatically not creative? Because they aren't: Vai is VERY creative, VERY original, he plays LOADS of different things; same for Satch, Malmsteen, Petrucci, Bettencourt, etc.
> If so, Mike Mangini is the best drummer in the world as he can do 1000 plus drum strokes in one minute. Therefore he's better than Neil Peart or Buddy Rich? Or are Neil Peart's and Buddy Rich's imaginations irrelevant to the conversation of good drummers?
What about Mike Mangini's imagination?
> If you believe that, and I think you are super intelligent Sebastian, then you dismiss soul and brains as part of the package.
John Petrucci also has brains.
> You can't have one without the other, or else it's all scales.
Petrucci is WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY more than scales. Same for Vai, Satch, etc.
> then for tone and vibrato there is no freakin' way he is in Brain May's league.
Which are the criteria?
> Those are physical criteria as Steve Vai says, Brian's tone isn't from his amp, it's from his fingers.
And that's indeed a point many people ignore: yes, the Red Special is great; yes, the combination of the RS, the Vox, the booster and the coin is great. But the sound comes from Brian's fingers, not his equipment. Same for virtually any professional guitarist.
> These qualities are physical and exclude brains, and you can argue until you're blue in the face, but his tone and vibrato are not close to Brian's.
In your opinion, which is based on your criteria. Tone and vibrato are very personal to a guitarist. May couldn't do Clapton's and Clapton's couldn't do May's. Same for Vai, Satch, Petrucci, etc.
> And I posted after Sir GH did, but whether Petrucci is a better technical player than everybody does not make him a better
player.
Actually, it does. But I don't think he's technically better than everybody. He's better than most (Brian included) though.
> Rock is not classical music
But they're both music. Same: Del Piero's goals aren't the same as Maradona's, but they're both goals. And 34>27 which means Diego scored more.
>, it's danger and excitement
There's a lot of danger and excitement in classical music. Loads of the subtle changes a conductor makes to a symphony mean a lot, and they do take loads of risks.
> You can't dismiss those elements when rating players
Of course I can. I would be making a huge mistake if I did it, but of course I can.
> and Brian's diverse wildness and beauty have to count for something.
So do John's. Now, the whole 'danger and excitement' point must not be mistaken for sloppiness (and I'm not saying you do). You can play unexpected things and still do it right, and Brian's an expert in that. In terms of personality, both Brian and John have a lot in their favour. And as that's personal, it can't actually be compared in terms of 'better' or 'worse'. Which leaves technical ability as the only measurable criterion. And according to that criterion, May's great, excellent, marvellous, may-estic... but not the best ever. Some guitarists are better than he is, and John Petrucci is one of them. I'm sure Brian would be the first to acknowledge it if asked.
Sebastian · Member since
> And the parts written by others is ridiculous.
It's not, as there are people able to write parts they can't play or sing. John Deacon's not a singer, but he's great at writing vocal parts; Fred wasn't a guitarist, but he was great at composing parts for guitar. Brian doesn't (AFAIK) play clarinet, trombone or bows, but he surely could score great things for any of those instruments. And that's important as not everybody can do it.
> Brian May's sounds and orchestrations are Brian May's sounds and orchestrations.
Not necessarily. He [i]played [/i]them, but he didn't necessairly [i]write [/i]them. So, the beauty of those melodies shouldn't always be used as a factor in his favour. Same for parts Petrucci didn't write, etc.
> I don't care who may have hummed a few bars in the studio, his guitar playing (the thing he's okay at) brought them to life.
They're both (the composer and the player) instrumental there.
> Who cares who created the bass line for Under Pressure?
I do. And other people do or it would've never been discussed here.
> John Deacon made it come alive.
Which is a big, important and fundamental part of the work. But anotherbig, important and fundamental part of the work is creating it, whichhe didn't.
> If Under Pressure were on TCR with Brian, Roger or Paul playingbass it would have been a much lesser tune as they can't play bass.
Indeed, which means that performance is a big, important and fundamental part of the work. But another big, important and fundamental part of the work is creating.
> Personality counts too.
As does the personality of the composer/arranger.
john bodega · Member since
You can keep writing these Yes/No spreadsheets until the cows come home, but what is 'better' will always be governed the criteria of the individual. If it were otherwise, then yours would be the only posts in this thread, other than "I agree Seb".
Sebastian · Member since
There are loads of things that aren't absolute. There are loads of things which opinions may and should differ about because they're in grey or coloured areas, but there are loads of things which [i]are[/i] indeed B/W.
Some people may think Fred sang better on [i]Hang on in There[/i] than [i]Show Must Go On[/i], some people may think otherwise. That's open to debate. If some people think he sang better on one, other think he sang better on the other, and others think he sang equally great on both, each of the people in each of the groups has reasons to believe that, and absolutely nobody's 'right' or 'wrong' there.
But if some people think Fred sang a higher peak note on [i]HOIT[/i] than [i]TSMGO[/i], other think he sang a higher peak note on [i]TSMGO[/i] than [i]HOIT[/i] and other think both songs peak on the same note, then invariably, two of the three groups are wrong, full stop. Because that aspect can be measured.
Amazon · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sheer Brass Neck wrote: [/b]
Sorry to jump on you Seb, but I just here too much of the "Brian's not as good as...", and I think it's ridiculous. Here's Steve Vai talking about Brian.
[/QUOTE]
"I don't think enough is really said about the brilliance of[b] Brian May[/b]'s guitar playing, inthe sense that it's overshadowed by the music itself. The Queen II album was one of those pivotal moments that just nailed me to the wall.
"He's probably one of the top identifiable guitar players, even more so than Beck, Page, and Clapton. They're all so identifiable, but Brian May has such a tone in his head and in his fingers. It speaks volumes. His contribution to orchestrated guitars is unprecedented. There was nothing like it before him. To me, it was like when Edward Van Halen came along and reshaped the sound of electric guitar. That's what I heard in Brian May's playing. It's something that's inherent in the brain of the guitar player.
"I remember working with Frank Zappa for the first time. I had just moved out to Los Angeles, and nobody knew me. I was 21. I went out to the Rainbow Bar and Grill, and Brian May was there. I couldn't believe it. I mustered up every little bit of courage and went up to him and said, 'Thank you so much for everything you've done. I play guitar. I'm here in town with Frank Zappa.' He said 'Oh really? Why don't you come down to our rehearsal?'
"I went down and he brought me up on the stage, and he let me play the guitar-the guitar that he built with his dad [the "Red Special"]. I couldn't even believe that I was touching this instrument! He was so kind and so warm, and for who? This kid, you know? And I played his guitar, and it sounded like Steve Vai. Then when he played it, it sounded just like Brian May. It was very apparent to me that his tone is in his fingers and his head.
"He's a class act from head to toe, and it shows in his playing. I can listen to any player and pantomime their sound, but I can't do Brian May. He's just walking on higher ground."
Maybe John Petrucci is walking on a higher ground than Brian, but virtually nobody in the world of guitar who values originality in tone and playing would think of John Petrucci in the same breath as Brian May. Maybe John Petrucci is faster, cleaner, more diverse (don't know if any of that is true), but those are components of guitar playing. If you dismiss originality, tone and orchestration as creations of the mind and not the act of playing guitar, I understand. But to me, you can't separate the two, which makes Brian no better or worse, just more unique than virtually anyone. Again, Billy Sheehan can (probably and reputation wise) play circles around John Deacon, but can't write therfore play melodic lines like Deacon, which makes Deacon a more pleasing (although maybe not as flash) player than Sheehan, same with Brain and Petrucci."
I couldn't agree with you more. Hear hear!
I came across that quite by Steve Vai a while ago, and I love it so much, that I actually bookmarked it. Fantastastic quote and a superb post!
Soundfreak · Member since
I do not understand why some people always have to compare and rate each and everything.
Is this a board of school teachers? Or eternal pupils?
And it really becomes strange when it comes to comparing individual musicians. You cannot compare musicians at all. Especially musicians from different generations.
They all learn from each other, they start on the grounds that others have built for them.
Brian May learned from Hank Marvin, Eddie Van Halen learned from Brian May and so on...
But to say that Eddie is better than Brian or Brian is better than Hank is pointless. They were all outstanding in their field and in their times.
So enjoy their music, their sound, be grateful for the inspiration. That's what music is about.
Sebastian · Member since
> I do not understand why some people always have to compare and rate each and everything.
Not each and everything is being compared. Some things, many things. But not everything.
> Is this a board of school teachers? Or eternal pupils?
Neither. But the universe won't implode if a person who's not a school teacher or eternal pupil compares. People who are neither school teachers nor eternal pupils can also compare.
> And it really becomes strange when it comes to comparing individual musicians. You cannot compare musicians at all.
Of course you can: there are similar and different aspects. Once you contrast them, you do some action which can be designed with a verb... what's it called? what's it called? Oh yes: TO COMPARE.
> Especially musicians from different generations.
Of course you can: there are similar and different aspects. Once you contrast them, you do some action which can be designed with a verb... what's it called? what's it called? Oh yes: TO COMPARE.
> They all learn from each other, they start on the grounds that others have built for them.
Yes. But it doesn't mean they can't be compared.
> Brian May learned from Hank Marvin, Eddie Van Halen learned from Brian May and so on...
Hank also may have learnt from May, May may have also learnt from van Halen, etc.
> But to say that Eddie is better than Brian or Brian is better than Hank is pointless.
No, not pointless, as it may bring interest discussions. If you don't want to be involved in them, then don't be. Simple as that.
> They were all outstanding in their field and in their times.
Not 'all' were outstanding. Some were, indeed, and of course May and van Halen are amongst them.
> So enjoy their music, their sound, be grateful for the inspiration. That's what music is about.
In your opinion, which is based on your criteria. If you don't want to read or participate in threads comparing them, don't. But those who want to are entitled to. I don't give a damn about architecture, but am I entering to architecture forums to ask them not to discuss the topic and instead just enjoy the buildings they live in? People are different. Some like to discuss about music, some don't. I can't and shouldn't ask you to engage in technical debates if that's not your thing; but likewise, you have absolutely no right to ask people not to discuss something we find interesting.
So enjoy their music, their sound, be grateful for the inspiration, and let those who enjoy technical discussions and apple-orange comparisons do so. That's what a discussion forum is about.
john bodega · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]
But if some people think Fred sang a higher peak note on [i]HOIT[/i] than [i]TSMGO[/i], other think he sang a higher peak note on [i]TSMGO[/i] than [i]HOIT[/i] and other think both songs peak on the same note, then invariably, two of the three groups are wrong, full stop. Because that aspect can be measured. [/QUOTE]
But that's not what is being measured, in the case of The People Vs. Brian May. If your assertion is 'are there players who are faster than Brian May', then it really ought to be worded that way for clarity. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]You (and others) have been throwing the word 'better' at various guitar players in this thread, and it's not fitting at all. "Better" is wholly a subjective term. To make any pretense at objectivity while using 'better' in a discussion is just plain silly.
[/QUOTE]
Sebastian · Member since
So, should we say that there's no way Brian's a better guitarist than Roger because that's subjective? Is Fred just as good pianist as Fred Mandel, Rick Wakeman, Lang Lang? Is Slash equally great on vocals as Freddie?
lalaalalaa · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Jimmy Dean wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Mercury SingerOfLife wrote: [/b]
sir GH: When you say that they are the next queen , what does that automatically mean? that they must SOUND like queen , how else are they the next queen?
[/QUOTE]
Michael Jackson is considered to be my generation's Elvis. Did MJ's music sound anything like Elvis?
There's more to music than what's on the surface. To me, Muse certainly are worthy of being called the next Queen (if such a thing exists, conceptually or literally) for many reasons:
a) They are all strong musicians
b) They have progressed from one record to the next, bringing in new influences, taking risks, and never doing the same thing twice
c) Their albums are bringing them success, not just their singles.
d) They did two nights at Wembley on their last tour.
e) After their fifth record, they are now doing the big arenas in North America
How many other bands in the mainstream meet these qualifications? Very few, if any at all.
[/QUOTE]
Actually... Green Day fits your letters A through E perfectly....
a) They are all strong musicians... maybe not Billie Joe on the guitar...he's ok... but Dirnt and definitely Tre Cool are very proficient musicians... I mean Tre Cool is hands down better than Roger... without exception... listen to Jesus of Suburbia or Burnout (on the their 3rd album)... A-class drumming.
b) Green Day's progression is definitely more varied than Muse... Showbiz and Resistance aren't nearly as varied as Dookie and Warning are., or even American Idiot.... so if anything Green Day fits that description better
c) Green Day's albums are more recognizeable than Muse's, if anything... everyone owns a copy of Dookie and American Idiot... every Green Day fan owns a copy of Insomniac (their cult classic)
d) Green Day is an *American* band... and they filled Wembley for 1 night, with other venues in the country during the same week..
e) Green Day began to grow on people by their 4th record (Nimrod) with Good Riddance (Time of Your Life)... a major hit... [Boh Rhap on Queen's 4th album, anyone?]... and they achieved recognition with Warning/Minority on their 5th album [Somebody to Love/Tie Your Mother Down] and finally got their anthem on their 6th album with American Idiot/Boulevard of Broken Dreams [We Will Rock You/We Are The Champions]
I don't think those 5 criteria really fit the bill... Green Day is NOT the *next* Queen... and I very much doubt Muse is either. But I can easily throw any other band's name out there and we can sit and go through all the reasons why or why not...
Coldplay has the same thing going for them... but since someone already dubbed them the next U2... they aren't compared to Queen.
[/QUOTE]
Pffff. Roger Taylor is a far better drummer than Tre Cool. (Matter of opinion, like always)
john bodega · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
So, should we say that there's no way Brian's a better guitarist than Roger because that's subjective? Is Fred just as good pianist as Fred Mandel, Rick Wakeman, Lang Lang? Is Slash equally great on vocals as Freddie? [/QUOTE]
Your style of debating is hit and miss at best, I'm afraid. Roger isn't even a guitarist, Slash ain't a singer. As for Freddie vs. other pianists, it comes down to them being able to do stuff that Freddie couldn't, same as Petrucci being able to do stuff that Brian can't. But the reverse is true. Those players who are technically inferior have qualities that are arguably absent in their 'betters'. Again, if that weren't the case then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]I hate semantics as much as the next guy but that's what this is, unfortunately. I think what I was trying to intimate is that the word 'better' hinges on what your criteria are. To be painfully basic about it, faster does not equal better. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]What if we compared someone who played slow blues (but never made a mistake) vs. someone who was a superbly fast 80's shredder (but made the odd mistake now and then)? [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]You'll find a lot of people on the internet who'll say Malmsteen is a better guitarist than David Gilmour, but he makes rafts of mistakes. Especially now that he's fat and rich, he's sloppier than a pizza that's just been dropped in a bucket.
