john bodega
I want to add; I am enjoying this thread.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Soundfreak
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Don't worry, I do not participate in any of these endless ranking and rating topics. They are deadly boring and lead to nothing at all.
But there are so many of those topics here that made me wonder if this is a meeting place of school teachers.....
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Don't worry, I do not participate in any of these endless ranking and rating topics. They are deadly boring and lead to nothing at all.
But there are so many of those topics here that made me wonder if this is a meeting place of school teachers.....
Sebastian
> Your style of debating is hit and miss at best, I'm afraid.
If I'm able to reduce a statement to something absurd, it's because the statement's already absurd to begin with. Which means I'm not reducing it to something absurd to begin with...
> Roger isn't even a guitarist, Slash ain't a singer.
According to which criteria? Roger has recorded 40-50 guitar parts, and has played guitar on stage on many gigs as well... Slash has sung (even if only BV's) many times as well (or at least several), etc.
> 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'.
Maybe, but that's a delicate matter. Loads of people who play guitar a hell of a lot better than Fred ever could (Brian amongst them) haven't been able to do the CLTCL intro the way Fred did. Does it mean Fred's as good as them? No. Because for the remaining thousands of songs, they'd do a way better job than Fred.
> 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.
I agree. But it doesn't mean that 'better' doesn't exist, and it doesn't mean that speed doesn't count. Speed is A criterion, not THE criterion. And speed's not the only aspect Petrucci's better than Brian on.
> 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)?
The thing would be trying to get each to play the other's stuff.
> 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.
Sure, but even making those mistakes, he's still playing stuff Gilmour couldn't. Again, I haven't got a way to prove it as I don't own home videos of Dave trying to play Yngwie's songs and failing (and even that wouldn't be an absolute proof as it could be blamed on the equipment or whatever), but again, not every scientific, academic or mathematical conclusion has to be physically and practically measured.
Or how do you think we know the Earth's volume? Did the NASA put the planet inside a giant syringe?
How do we know Saturn's less dense than water? Did a scientist take it with giant gloves, put it inside a giant bathub and claim 'oh, it floats!'?
How do we know the Earth's diametre? Was there a guy walking it with a set square? How did he walk over the ocean?
All those things have been calculated via theoretical scientific formulae and mathematical operations and estimations, which isn't the same as merely guessing or speculating.
Same case here: it can be known if Brian could play Vai's most difficult solos, it can be known if Roger could compose [i]Innuendo[/i], it can be known if Fred could hit [i]Bo Rhap[/i]'s highest note, etc.
> I do not participate in any of these endless ranking and rating topics.
You already did, rendering the previous statement false.
> They are deadly boring and lead to nothing at all.
In your opinion, which is based on your criteria. But others have different POVs, and are entitled to. Or do you think that because you consider those debates to be boring, they automatically are? If so, then it is YOU who would benefit from an introspection, not us; if so, then it is YOU with the superiority complex, not us.
> But there are so many of those topics here that made me wonder if this is a meeting place of school teachers...
I've never seen school teachers debating over guitarists, but of course that doesn't mean they don't. If they do, does it mean only they can do it? Newsflash: you don't have to be a school teacher to debate. You don't have to be an oncologist to say the word 'cancer'. You don't have to be a solicitor to understand habeas corpus. You don't have to be an IT expert to turn on and off the computer. You don't have to be a mechanic to tell the difference between a car and a goose.
If I'm able to reduce a statement to something absurd, it's because the statement's already absurd to begin with. Which means I'm not reducing it to something absurd to begin with...
> Roger isn't even a guitarist, Slash ain't a singer.
According to which criteria? Roger has recorded 40-50 guitar parts, and has played guitar on stage on many gigs as well... Slash has sung (even if only BV's) many times as well (or at least several), etc.
> 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'.
Maybe, but that's a delicate matter. Loads of people who play guitar a hell of a lot better than Fred ever could (Brian amongst them) haven't been able to do the CLTCL intro the way Fred did. Does it mean Fred's as good as them? No. Because for the remaining thousands of songs, they'd do a way better job than Fred.
> 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.
I agree. But it doesn't mean that 'better' doesn't exist, and it doesn't mean that speed doesn't count. Speed is A criterion, not THE criterion. And speed's not the only aspect Petrucci's better than Brian on.
> 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)?
The thing would be trying to get each to play the other's stuff.
> 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.
Sure, but even making those mistakes, he's still playing stuff Gilmour couldn't. Again, I haven't got a way to prove it as I don't own home videos of Dave trying to play Yngwie's songs and failing (and even that wouldn't be an absolute proof as it could be blamed on the equipment or whatever), but again, not every scientific, academic or mathematical conclusion has to be physically and practically measured.
Or how do you think we know the Earth's volume? Did the NASA put the planet inside a giant syringe?
How do we know Saturn's less dense than water? Did a scientist take it with giant gloves, put it inside a giant bathub and claim 'oh, it floats!'?
How do we know the Earth's diametre? Was there a guy walking it with a set square? How did he walk over the ocean?
All those things have been calculated via theoretical scientific formulae and mathematical operations and estimations, which isn't the same as merely guessing or speculating.
Same case here: it can be known if Brian could play Vai's most difficult solos, it can be known if Roger could compose [i]Innuendo[/i], it can be known if Fred could hit [i]Bo Rhap[/i]'s highest note, etc.
> I do not participate in any of these endless ranking and rating topics.
You already did, rendering the previous statement false.
> They are deadly boring and lead to nothing at all.
In your opinion, which is based on your criteria. But others have different POVs, and are entitled to. Or do you think that because you consider those debates to be boring, they automatically are? If so, then it is YOU who would benefit from an introspection, not us; if so, then it is YOU with the superiority complex, not us.
> But there are so many of those topics here that made me wonder if this is a meeting place of school teachers...
I've never seen school teachers debating over guitarists, but of course that doesn't mean they don't. If they do, does it mean only they can do it? Newsflash: you don't have to be a school teacher to debate. You don't have to be an oncologist to say the word 'cancer'. You don't have to be a solicitor to understand habeas corpus. You don't have to be an IT expert to turn on and off the computer. You don't have to be a mechanic to tell the difference between a car and a goose.
Holly2003
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
Or how do you think we know the Earth's volume? Did the NASA put the planet inside a giant syringe?
How do we know Saturn's less dense than water? Did a scientist take it with giant gloves, put it inside a giant bathub and claim 'oh, it floats!'?
How do we know the Earth's diametre? Was there a guy walking it with a set square? How did he walk over the ocean?
All those things have been calculated via theoretical scientific formulae and mathematical operations and estimations, which isn't the same as merely guessing or speculating.
[/QUOTE]
Good point. And using that as a guide, I theorize that when you're not stating the obvious or nit-picking on Queenzone, you spend your days arguing with parrots: "It's not enough to want a cracker Polly, you've got to earn it."
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
Or how do you think we know the Earth's volume? Did the NASA put the planet inside a giant syringe?
How do we know Saturn's less dense than water? Did a scientist take it with giant gloves, put it inside a giant bathub and claim 'oh, it floats!'?
How do we know the Earth's diametre? Was there a guy walking it with a set square? How did he walk over the ocean?
All those things have been calculated via theoretical scientific formulae and mathematical operations and estimations, which isn't the same as merely guessing or speculating.
[/QUOTE]
Good point. And using that as a guide, I theorize that when you're not stating the obvious or nit-picking on Queenzone, you spend your days arguing with parrots: "It's not enough to want a cracker Polly, you've got to earn it."
Sebastian
About twenty years ago I wanted a parrot. I saved my allowance and when I finally had the money, it cost three times what I'd saved. So I never got that damn bird.
I prefer dogs now, but I don't owe one - haven't got the time or money to support it. My daughter does have some puppies at her mum's, and she adores them (more than us, as it's usual for kids).
I prefer dogs now, but I don't owe one - haven't got the time or money to support it. My daughter does have some puppies at her mum's, and she adores them (more than us, as it's usual for kids).
john bodega
"If I'm able to reduce a statement to something absurd, it's because the statement's already absurd to begin with."
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]There's nothing absurd in what I've said, so I'll let this one go through to the others in the thread![/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]"I agree. But it doesn't mean that 'better' doesn't exist, and it doesn't mean that speed doesn't count."[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]The speed that someone plays their instrument can be measured, with some agreed upon scale in place. (Say, notes per second or whatever). But there is no such scale for 'better'. 'Better' is a judgement that the individual makes, having taken things into consideration. No matter how objective we try to be, a totally unbiased judgement is impossible. We might all agree with said judgement, which would lend it some semblance of credibility I suppose ... but even then, it's really a consensus of opinions, and not an actual measurement. 'Better' only exists as a concept. There is no universal standard in place for such comparisons.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]I'm all ears if anyone wants to establish said universal standards, though![/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]There's nothing absurd in what I've said, so I'll let this one go through to the others in the thread![/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]"I agree. But it doesn't mean that 'better' doesn't exist, and it doesn't mean that speed doesn't count."[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]The speed that someone plays their instrument can be measured, with some agreed upon scale in place. (Say, notes per second or whatever). But there is no such scale for 'better'. 'Better' is a judgement that the individual makes, having taken things into consideration. No matter how objective we try to be, a totally unbiased judgement is impossible. We might all agree with said judgement, which would lend it some semblance of credibility I suppose ... but even then, it's really a consensus of opinions, and not an actual measurement. 'Better' only exists as a concept. There is no universal standard in place for such comparisons.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]I'm all ears if anyone wants to establish said universal standards, though![/QUOTE]
Sebastian
I see your point Zeb, but the thing about Slash vs. Fred still exists. If there weren't actual measurements for 'better', then we could say Slash sings as well as Fred, or Rog plays guitar as well as Brian, etc.
Soundfreak
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
> I do not participate in any of these endless ranking and rating topics.
You already did, rendering the previous statement false.
> They are deadly boring and lead to nothing at all.
In your opinion, which is based on your criteria. But others have different POVs, and are entitled to. Or do you think that because you consider those debates to be boring, they automatically are? If so, then it is YOU who would benefit from an introspection, not us; if so, then it is YOU with the superiority complex, not us.
> But there are so many of those topics here that made me wonder if this is a meeting place of school teachers...
I've never seen school teachers debating over guitarists, but of course that doesn't mean they don't. If they do, does it mean only they can do it? Newsflash: you don't have to be a school teacher to debate. You don't have to be an oncologist to say the word 'cancer'. You don't have to be a solicitor to understand habeas corpus. You don't have to be an IT expert to turn on and off the computer. You don't have to be a mechanic to tell the difference between a car and a goose. [/QUOTE]
I did not participate, I did not rate any guitarplayer. As it's pointless. Even if some John Petrucci is a better guitar-player (whatever that means...) what is the point?
Would Queen have benefitted from that, if he had been there instead of Brian May?
I don't think so.
Without Brian May no Queen. Without The Edge no U2. Without Jimmy Page no Led Zeppelin. Simple as that.
It doesn't matter who is faster...or whatever. It's about personality, it's all about chemistry. You can't rate that.
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
> I do not participate in any of these endless ranking and rating topics.
You already did, rendering the previous statement false.
> They are deadly boring and lead to nothing at all.
In your opinion, which is based on your criteria. But others have different POVs, and are entitled to. Or do you think that because you consider those debates to be boring, they automatically are? If so, then it is YOU who would benefit from an introspection, not us; if so, then it is YOU with the superiority complex, not us.
> But there are so many of those topics here that made me wonder if this is a meeting place of school teachers...
I've never seen school teachers debating over guitarists, but of course that doesn't mean they don't. If they do, does it mean only they can do it? Newsflash: you don't have to be a school teacher to debate. You don't have to be an oncologist to say the word 'cancer'. You don't have to be a solicitor to understand habeas corpus. You don't have to be an IT expert to turn on and off the computer. You don't have to be a mechanic to tell the difference between a car and a goose. [/QUOTE]
I did not participate, I did not rate any guitarplayer. As it's pointless. Even if some John Petrucci is a better guitar-player (whatever that means...) what is the point?
Would Queen have benefitted from that, if he had been there instead of Brian May?
I don't think so.
Without Brian May no Queen. Without The Edge no U2. Without Jimmy Page no Led Zeppelin. Simple as that.
It doesn't matter who is faster...or whatever. It's about personality, it's all about chemistry. You can't rate that.
Jimmy Dean
[QUOTE]
[b]Soundfreak wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
> I do not participate in any of these endless ranking and rating topics.
You already did, rendering the previous statement false.
> They are deadly boring and lead to nothing at all.
In your opinion, which is based on your criteria. But others have different POVs, and are entitled to. Or do you think that because you consider those debates to be boring, they automatically are? If so, then it is YOU who would benefit from an introspection, not us; if so, then it is YOU with the superiority complex, not us.
> But there are so many of those topics here that made me wonder if this is a meeting place of school teachers...
I've never seen school teachers debating over guitarists, but of course that doesn't mean they don't. If they do, does it mean only they can do it? Newsflash: you don't have to be a school teacher to debate. You don't have to be an oncologist to say the word 'cancer'. You don't have to be a solicitor to understand habeas corpus. You don't have to be an IT expert to turn on and off the computer. You don't have to be a mechanic to tell the difference between a car and a goose.
[/QUOTE]
I did not participate, I did not rate any guitarplayer. As it's pointless. Even if some John Petrucci is a better guitar-player (whatever that means...) what is the point?
Would Queen have benefitted from that, if he had been there instead of Brian May?
I don't think so.
Without Brian May no Queen. Without The Edge no U2. Without Jimmy Page no Led Zeppelin. Simple as that.
It doesn't matter who is faster...or whatever. It's about personality, it's all about chemistry. You can't rate that.
[/QUOTE]
Actually... without Queen... no one would have heard of Brian May... Without U2... the Edge would not be recognized... and Jimmy Page was a renown session guitarist before starting Led Zeppelin, mind you, he already made his name with the Yardbirds... Agreed on the personality/style point...
so Petrucci, like Page, are renown outside their band's duties... whereas Brian May and The Edge are not...
[b]Soundfreak wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
> I do not participate in any of these endless ranking and rating topics.
You already did, rendering the previous statement false.
> They are deadly boring and lead to nothing at all.
In your opinion, which is based on your criteria. But others have different POVs, and are entitled to. Or do you think that because you consider those debates to be boring, they automatically are? If so, then it is YOU who would benefit from an introspection, not us; if so, then it is YOU with the superiority complex, not us.
> But there are so many of those topics here that made me wonder if this is a meeting place of school teachers...
I've never seen school teachers debating over guitarists, but of course that doesn't mean they don't. If they do, does it mean only they can do it? Newsflash: you don't have to be a school teacher to debate. You don't have to be an oncologist to say the word 'cancer'. You don't have to be a solicitor to understand habeas corpus. You don't have to be an IT expert to turn on and off the computer. You don't have to be a mechanic to tell the difference between a car and a goose.
[/QUOTE]
I did not participate, I did not rate any guitarplayer. As it's pointless. Even if some John Petrucci is a better guitar-player (whatever that means...) what is the point?
Would Queen have benefitted from that, if he had been there instead of Brian May?
I don't think so.
Without Brian May no Queen. Without The Edge no U2. Without Jimmy Page no Led Zeppelin. Simple as that.
It doesn't matter who is faster...or whatever. It's about personality, it's all about chemistry. You can't rate that.
[/QUOTE]
Actually... without Queen... no one would have heard of Brian May... Without U2... the Edge would not be recognized... and Jimmy Page was a renown session guitarist before starting Led Zeppelin, mind you, he already made his name with the Yardbirds... Agreed on the personality/style point...
so Petrucci, like Page, are renown outside their band's duties... whereas Brian May and The Edge are not...
Sebastian
> I did not participate, I did not rate any guitarplayer.
That's not the only way to participate.
> As it's pointless.
In your opinion, which is based on your criteria. But it's not more valid than anyone else's. If you think otherwise, then it's you with the God complex, not us.
> Even if some John Petrucci is a better guitar-player (whatever that means...) what is the point?
That, exactly.
> Would Queen have benefitted from that, if he had been there instead of Brian May?
Not really. Brian's much more than the guitarist: he's one of the band's songwriters, singers, producers, keyboard players, arrangers, entertainers, etc. His input was much more than just his guitar skills (which are great of course, but not his only aspect).
> It doesn't matter who is faster...or whatever.
It doesn't matter to YOU, in your opinion, which is based on your criteria. But it's not more valid than anyone else's. If you think otherwise, then it's you with the God complex, not us.
> It's about personality, it's all about chemistry.
It's not 'all' about chemistry. That's a very important factor, crucial, fundamental, but not 'all' of it.
> You can't rate that.
Of course I can, and anybody else can. It'd be (IMO of course) quite ambiguous to do so, but of course it can be done. And if you don't care, why are you still reading and replying? Maybe you do care and don't want to accept it.
That's not the only way to participate.
> As it's pointless.
In your opinion, which is based on your criteria. But it's not more valid than anyone else's. If you think otherwise, then it's you with the God complex, not us.
> Even if some John Petrucci is a better guitar-player (whatever that means...) what is the point?
That, exactly.
> Would Queen have benefitted from that, if he had been there instead of Brian May?
Not really. Brian's much more than the guitarist: he's one of the band's songwriters, singers, producers, keyboard players, arrangers, entertainers, etc. His input was much more than just his guitar skills (which are great of course, but not his only aspect).
> It doesn't matter who is faster...or whatever.
It doesn't matter to YOU, in your opinion, which is based on your criteria. But it's not more valid than anyone else's. If you think otherwise, then it's you with the God complex, not us.
> It's about personality, it's all about chemistry.
It's not 'all' about chemistry. That's a very important factor, crucial, fundamental, but not 'all' of it.
> You can't rate that.
Of course I can, and anybody else can. It'd be (IMO of course) quite ambiguous to do so, but of course it can be done. And if you don't care, why are you still reading and replying? Maybe you do care and don't want to accept it.
ParisNair
[QUOTE]
[b]Jimmy Dean wrote:
[/b]Actually... without Queen... no one would have heard of Brian May... Without U2... the Edge would not be recognized... and Jimmy Page was a renown session guitarist before starting Led Zeppelin, mind you, he already made his name with the Yardbirds... Agreed on the personality/style point...
so Petrucci, like Page, are renown outside their band's duties... whereas Brian May and The Edge are not...
[/QUOTE]
You think Brian would be teaching Astrophysics if Queen had not happened?
Brian was making music before Queen and he would have definitely continued even if Queen had not happened.
[b]Jimmy Dean wrote:
[/b]Actually... without Queen... no one would have heard of Brian May... Without U2... the Edge would not be recognized... and Jimmy Page was a renown session guitarist before starting Led Zeppelin, mind you, he already made his name with the Yardbirds... Agreed on the personality/style point...
so Petrucci, like Page, are renown outside their band's duties... whereas Brian May and The Edge are not...
[/QUOTE]
You think Brian would be teaching Astrophysics if Queen had not happened?
Brian was making music before Queen and he would have definitely continued even if Queen had not happened.
Jimmy Dean
[QUOTE]
[b]ParisNair wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Jimmy Dean wrote:
[/b]Actually... without Queen... no one would have heard of Brian May... Without U2... the Edge would not be recognized... and Jimmy Page was a renown session guitarist before starting Led Zeppelin, mind you, he already made his name with the Yardbirds... Agreed on the personality/style point...
so Petrucci, like Page, are renown outside their band's duties... whereas Brian May and The Edge are not...
[/QUOTE]
You think Brian would be teaching Astrophysics if Queen had not happened?
Brian was making music before Queen and he would have definitely continued even if Queen had not happened.[/QUOTE]
I think Brian clearly stated in many interviews that if things didn't pick up with the band he would have gone to finish his phd... years earlier.
They struggled miserably in their first few years... they were going nowhere... but that wasn't my point. I'm just saying, Brian May, would not have had they name he does... as a guitar hero anyways, if it wasn't for Queen.
Sure he would have made music, but he may not have made millions ($) in the process...
[b]ParisNair wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Jimmy Dean wrote:
[/b]Actually... without Queen... no one would have heard of Brian May... Without U2... the Edge would not be recognized... and Jimmy Page was a renown session guitarist before starting Led Zeppelin, mind you, he already made his name with the Yardbirds... Agreed on the personality/style point...
so Petrucci, like Page, are renown outside their band's duties... whereas Brian May and The Edge are not...
[/QUOTE]
You think Brian would be teaching Astrophysics if Queen had not happened?
Brian was making music before Queen and he would have definitely continued even if Queen had not happened.[/QUOTE]
I think Brian clearly stated in many interviews that if things didn't pick up with the band he would have gone to finish his phd... years earlier.
They struggled miserably in their first few years... they were going nowhere... but that wasn't my point. I'm just saying, Brian May, would not have had they name he does... as a guitar hero anyways, if it wasn't for Queen.
Sure he would have made music, but he may not have made millions ($) in the process...
ParisNair
[QUOTE]
[b]Jimmy Dean wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]ParisNair wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Jimmy Dean wrote:
[/b]Actually... without Queen... no one would have heard of Brian May... Without U2... the Edge would not be recognized... and Jimmy Page was a renown session guitarist before starting Led Zeppelin, mind you, he already made his name with the Yardbirds... Agreed on the personality/style point...
so Petrucci, like Page, are renown outside their band's duties... whereas Brian May and The Edge are not...
[/QUOTE]
You think Brian would be teaching Astrophysics if Queen had not happened?
Brian was making music before Queen and he would have definitely continued even if Queen had not happened.[/QUOTE]
I think Brian clearly stated in many interviews that if things didn't pick up with the band he would have gone to finish his phd... years earlier.
They struggled miserably in their first few years... they were going nowhere... but that wasn't my point. I'm just saying, Brian May, would not have had they name he does... as a guitar hero anyways, if it wasn't for Queen.
Sure he would have made music, but he may not have made millions ($) in the process...
[/QUOTE]
You never know for sure [img=/images/smiley/msn/regular_smile.gif][/img]
[b]Jimmy Dean wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]ParisNair wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Jimmy Dean wrote:
[/b]Actually... without Queen... no one would have heard of Brian May... Without U2... the Edge would not be recognized... and Jimmy Page was a renown session guitarist before starting Led Zeppelin, mind you, he already made his name with the Yardbirds... Agreed on the personality/style point...
so Petrucci, like Page, are renown outside their band's duties... whereas Brian May and The Edge are not...
[/QUOTE]
You think Brian would be teaching Astrophysics if Queen had not happened?
Brian was making music before Queen and he would have definitely continued even if Queen had not happened.[/QUOTE]
I think Brian clearly stated in many interviews that if things didn't pick up with the band he would have gone to finish his phd... years earlier.
They struggled miserably in their first few years... they were going nowhere... but that wasn't my point. I'm just saying, Brian May, would not have had they name he does... as a guitar hero anyways, if it wasn't for Queen.
Sure he would have made music, but he may not have made millions ($) in the process...
[/QUOTE]
You never know for sure [img=/images/smiley/msn/regular_smile.gif][/img]
Jimmy Dean
[QUOTE]
[b]ParisNair wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Jimmy Dean wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]ParisNair wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Jimmy Dean wrote:
[/b]Actually... without Queen... no one would have heard of Brian May... Without U2... the Edge would not be recognized... and Jimmy Page was a renown session guitarist before starting Led Zeppelin, mind you, he already made his name with the Yardbirds... Agreed on the personality/style point...
so Petrucci, like Page, are renown outside their band's duties... whereas Brian May and The Edge are not...
[/QUOTE]
You think Brian would be teaching Astrophysics if Queen had not happened?
Brian was making music before Queen and he would have definitely continued even if Queen had not happened.[/QUOTE]
I think Brian clearly stated in many interviews that if things didn't pick up with the band he would have gone to finish his phd... years earlier.
They struggled miserably in their first few years... they were going nowhere... but that wasn't my point. I'm just saying, Brian May, would not have had they name he does... as a guitar hero anyways, if it wasn't for Queen.
Sure he would have made music, but he may not have made millions ($) in the process...
[/QUOTE]
You never know for sure [img=/images/smiley/msn/regular_smile.gif][/img] [/QUOTE]
true... but the odds would have been against Brian May... Smile didn't make it big... Queen did... and that's cuz he needed Freddie Mercury to front his band. Would Freddie Mercury have made it on his own?... maybe, maybe not.... he may not have a reason to develop his vocal skills and theatrics without Brian and Roger (and later John) to back him...
[b]ParisNair wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Jimmy Dean wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]ParisNair wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Jimmy Dean wrote:
[/b]Actually... without Queen... no one would have heard of Brian May... Without U2... the Edge would not be recognized... and Jimmy Page was a renown session guitarist before starting Led Zeppelin, mind you, he already made his name with the Yardbirds... Agreed on the personality/style point...
so Petrucci, like Page, are renown outside their band's duties... whereas Brian May and The Edge are not...
[/QUOTE]
You think Brian would be teaching Astrophysics if Queen had not happened?
Brian was making music before Queen and he would have definitely continued even if Queen had not happened.[/QUOTE]
I think Brian clearly stated in many interviews that if things didn't pick up with the band he would have gone to finish his phd... years earlier.
They struggled miserably in their first few years... they were going nowhere... but that wasn't my point. I'm just saying, Brian May, would not have had they name he does... as a guitar hero anyways, if it wasn't for Queen.
Sure he would have made music, but he may not have made millions ($) in the process...
[/QUOTE]
You never know for sure [img=/images/smiley/msn/regular_smile.gif][/img] [/QUOTE]
true... but the odds would have been against Brian May... Smile didn't make it big... Queen did... and that's cuz he needed Freddie Mercury to front his band. Would Freddie Mercury have made it on his own?... maybe, maybe not.... he may not have a reason to develop his vocal skills and theatrics without Brian and Roger (and later John) to back him...
Sheer Brass Neck
Very good thread, but far too confusing for me. So we can certifiably state with acceptable criteria, that John Petrucci is a better guitarist than Brain May, but stating that Deep Purple's influence in North America was equal to or lesser than Kansas, or Styx or REO Speedwagon holds no merit? How so Seb? You use imponderable intangibles to state Deep Purple's case by stating we don't know how many people they've influenced, but happily use defined criteria to state Petrucci is a better player than Brian May. You intelligently dismissed my rationale for stating Deep Purple as being a middling act in North America by throwing out things that cannot be answered, so how can you decide Petrucci is better than May? If Petrucci is greater than May, then Foreigner is certainly more influential than Deep Purple, no? [/QUOTE]