[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Aisha Sweetness wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Slash,
Matt Belhamy(muse)
James Iah (pumpkins)
Tom Morello (rage and audioslave)
Jimmy Page
Kerry King (SLAYER)[/QUOTE]
Christ, I feel I've let myself down... I completely forgot Tom Morello from my list. He is absolutely class. It is safe to say he is a completely original player. I've always thought he was good, Rage and Audioslave, but I recently bought the Rage DVD of their final show, and until you witness him live, it's like you realise he's even more class. Maybe it's because you can actually see him making all the noises and not just take them for granted.
But he is class.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
God... most of you people don't have a clue what you're talking about. Most of the classic rock guitarists aren't in the top 1000 of all time. The radio exposes you mostly to rock guitarists, but you need to realize that the guitar goes far deeper than that.
http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_guitar-all.html
http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_guitar-spec.html
http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_jazz/best_jazzguitar.html
Phil Keaggy, Joe Pass, and Wes Montgomery vs Angus Young, Brian May, Jimi Hendrix, and Jimmy Page? Not a chance. Branch out, people. Most jazz, classical, and flamenco guitarists put any rock guitarist to utter shame.
Fans of rock music will often say that jazz and classical players are all technique and no emotion, but that's just because the jazz and classical players are so far over their heads. Emotion is relative. Taste is relative. I'd take Joe Pass over Hendrix any day. Pass is a far more interesting guitarist to listen to. Most of the classic rockers are limited to major and pentatonic stuff, but the other genres move so much further than that.
http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_guitar-all.html
http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_guitar-spec.html
http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_jazz/best_jazzguitar.html
Phil Keaggy, Joe Pass, and Wes Montgomery vs Angus Young, Brian May, Jimi Hendrix, and Jimmy Page? Not a chance. Branch out, people. Most jazz, classical, and flamenco guitarists put any rock guitarist to utter shame.
Fans of rock music will often say that jazz and classical players are all technique and no emotion, but that's just because the jazz and classical players are so far over their heads. Emotion is relative. Taste is relative. I'd take Joe Pass over Hendrix any day. Pass is a far more interesting guitarist to listen to. Most of the classic rockers are limited to major and pentatonic stuff, but the other genres move so much further than that.
Eddie Van Halen
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]God... most of you people don't have a clue what you're talking about. Most of the classic rock guitarists aren't in the top 1000 of all time. The radio exposes you mostly to rock guitarists, but you need to realize that the guitar goes far deeper than that.
http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_guitar-all.html
http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_guitar-spec.html
http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_jazz/best_jazzguitar.html
Phil Keaggy, Joe Pass, and Wes Montgomery vs Angus Young, Brian May, Jimi Hendrix, and Jimmy Page? Not a chance. Branch out, people. Most jazz, classical, and flamenco guitarists put any rock guitarist to utter shame.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree. Firstly, I find classical guitarists extremely uncreative and boring. Sure, many can play complex, impressive pieces, but those are usually the limits of their abilities. Secondly, while jazz guitarists can play great jazz, the skill levels of the best jazz players are about on par with the skill levels of the best rock players. There is no utter shame when it comes to guitar because most of it is about expression. Remember, there is no such thing as "balls to the wall" when referring to jazz, classical, or flamenco. There's no such thing as "heavy". The types of melodies are completely different. The instruments themselves are completely different. There is no putting to shame involved, you are comparing apples and oranges.
http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_guitar-all.html
http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_guitar-spec.html
http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_jazz/best_jazzguitar.html
Phil Keaggy, Joe Pass, and Wes Montgomery vs Angus Young, Brian May, Jimi Hendrix, and Jimmy Page? Not a chance. Branch out, people. Most jazz, classical, and flamenco guitarists put any rock guitarist to utter shame.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree. Firstly, I find classical guitarists extremely uncreative and boring. Sure, many can play complex, impressive pieces, but those are usually the limits of their abilities. Secondly, while jazz guitarists can play great jazz, the skill levels of the best jazz players are about on par with the skill levels of the best rock players. There is no utter shame when it comes to guitar because most of it is about expression. Remember, there is no such thing as "balls to the wall" when referring to jazz, classical, or flamenco. There's no such thing as "heavy". The types of melodies are completely different. The instruments themselves are completely different. There is no putting to shame involved, you are comparing apples and oranges.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I disagree. Firstly, I find classical guitarists extremely uncreative and boring. Sure, many can play complex, impressive pieces, but those are usually the limits of their abilities. Secondly, while jazz guitarists can play great jazz, the skill levels of the best jazz players are about on par with the skill levels of the best rock players. There is no utter shame when it comes to guitar because most of it is about expression. Remember, there is no such thing as "balls to the wall" when referring to jazz, classical, or flamenco. There's no such thing as "heavy". The types of melodies are completely different. The instruments themselves are completely different. There is no putting to shame involved, you are comparing apples and oranges.[/QUOTE]
Argument well received. While I see what you're saying, I still insist that the average classical or jazz player's knowledge of music far exceeds the knowledge of the average rock player, hence from a technical perspective, they usually create much more interesting music. Of course, that's just one aspect of music, but that's the one I'm focusing on right now.
Being a serious musician, listening to major, minor, and pentatonic scales along with major/minor/7th chords does little for me anymore. They're bland and boring, as I've heard every pentatonic scale and basic chord in the world put together. I much more enjoy listening to other genres of music now, or fusions of styles, which can include rock. The Dixie Dregs blow me away in that regard. Although they were obviously not as influential as say Zeppelin or Black Sabbath, few can deny that the Dregs covered far more musical ground than Zeppelin did. Sure, Zeppelin tried many styles, but none that were nearly as complex as the directions that the Dregs took. Morse is a 10x better and cleaner guitarist than Page. But more influential? Of course not. Most people can't relate to Morse. He's way over their heads.
However - to me, still, nothing compares to the energy of a rock concert, like when I saw Queen+Rodgers on Sunday. Again, it's all about tastes, and I'm just explaining how my tastes have evolved. This doesn't have to ring true for everyone, nor is everyone required to have musical tastes that evolve.
Argument well received. While I see what you're saying, I still insist that the average classical or jazz player's knowledge of music far exceeds the knowledge of the average rock player, hence from a technical perspective, they usually create much more interesting music. Of course, that's just one aspect of music, but that's the one I'm focusing on right now.
Being a serious musician, listening to major, minor, and pentatonic scales along with major/minor/7th chords does little for me anymore. They're bland and boring, as I've heard every pentatonic scale and basic chord in the world put together. I much more enjoy listening to other genres of music now, or fusions of styles, which can include rock. The Dixie Dregs blow me away in that regard. Although they were obviously not as influential as say Zeppelin or Black Sabbath, few can deny that the Dregs covered far more musical ground than Zeppelin did. Sure, Zeppelin tried many styles, but none that were nearly as complex as the directions that the Dregs took. Morse is a 10x better and cleaner guitarist than Page. But more influential? Of course not. Most people can't relate to Morse. He's way over their heads.
However - to me, still, nothing compares to the energy of a rock concert, like when I saw Queen+Rodgers on Sunday. Again, it's all about tastes, and I'm just explaining how my tastes have evolved. This doesn't have to ring true for everyone, nor is everyone required to have musical tastes that evolve.
Am I the only one who thinks Clapton is a bit overated?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Argument well received. While I see what you're saying, I still insist that the average classical or jazz player's knowledge of music far exceeds the knowledge of the average rock player, hence from a technical perspective, they usually create much more interesting music. Of course, that's just one aspect of music, but that's the one I'm focusing on right now.
Being a serious musician, listening to major, minor, and pentatonic scales along with major/minor/7th chords does little for me anymore. They're bland and boring, as I've heard every pentatonic scale and basic chord in the world put together. I much more enjoy listening to other genres of music now, or fusions of styles, which can include rock. The Dixie Dregs blow me away in that regard. Although they were obviously not as influential as say Zeppelin or Black Sabbath, few can deny that the Dregs covered far more musical ground than Zeppelin did. Sure, Zeppelin tried many styles, but none that were nearly as complex as the directions that the Dregs took. Morse is a 10x better and cleaner guitarist than Page. But more influential? Of course not. Most people can't relate to Morse. He's way over their heads.
However - to me, still, nothing compares to the energy of a rock concert, like when I saw Queen+Rodgers on Sunday. Again, it's all about tastes, and I'm just explaining how my tastes have evolved. This doesn't have to ring true for everyone, nor is everyone required to have musical tastes that evolve.
[/QUOTE]
As for knowledge of music, I really can't argue with you. Very few rock guitarists have a deep understanding of the more intricate facets of music for the reason that it is unnecessary. But rock and roll is really about being able to express yourself without spending 40 or so years on being proficient at one's particular instrument.
But furthermore, this is primarily the reason that rock bands are more influential than the more esoteric genres: more people can relate to it, as well as recreate it. I think I can firmly say that there is a rock song for everybody out there, or at least a rock song to be written.
However, as for mastering the instrument itself, I would say that jazz, classical, etc. has a firm stranglehold on the vast rock population, although you will at least acknowledge that there are many rock guitarists who have reached a skill level that could not be surpassed, although I am still doubtful that as far as musical knowledge goes, any rock guitarist stands a chance.
But like I stated before, there is an extreme difference between the tastes of guitarists and non-guitarists, musicians and non-musicians, which anyone can see.
Argument well received. While I see what you're saying, I still insist that the average classical or jazz player's knowledge of music far exceeds the knowledge of the average rock player, hence from a technical perspective, they usually create much more interesting music. Of course, that's just one aspect of music, but that's the one I'm focusing on right now.
Being a serious musician, listening to major, minor, and pentatonic scales along with major/minor/7th chords does little for me anymore. They're bland and boring, as I've heard every pentatonic scale and basic chord in the world put together. I much more enjoy listening to other genres of music now, or fusions of styles, which can include rock. The Dixie Dregs blow me away in that regard. Although they were obviously not as influential as say Zeppelin or Black Sabbath, few can deny that the Dregs covered far more musical ground than Zeppelin did. Sure, Zeppelin tried many styles, but none that were nearly as complex as the directions that the Dregs took. Morse is a 10x better and cleaner guitarist than Page. But more influential? Of course not. Most people can't relate to Morse. He's way over their heads.
However - to me, still, nothing compares to the energy of a rock concert, like when I saw Queen+Rodgers on Sunday. Again, it's all about tastes, and I'm just explaining how my tastes have evolved. This doesn't have to ring true for everyone, nor is everyone required to have musical tastes that evolve.
[/QUOTE]
As for knowledge of music, I really can't argue with you. Very few rock guitarists have a deep understanding of the more intricate facets of music for the reason that it is unnecessary. But rock and roll is really about being able to express yourself without spending 40 or so years on being proficient at one's particular instrument.
But furthermore, this is primarily the reason that rock bands are more influential than the more esoteric genres: more people can relate to it, as well as recreate it. I think I can firmly say that there is a rock song for everybody out there, or at least a rock song to be written.
However, as for mastering the instrument itself, I would say that jazz, classical, etc. has a firm stranglehold on the vast rock population, although you will at least acknowledge that there are many rock guitarists who have reached a skill level that could not be surpassed, although I am still doubtful that as far as musical knowledge goes, any rock guitarist stands a chance.
But like I stated before, there is an extreme difference between the tastes of guitarists and non-guitarists, musicians and non-musicians, which anyone can see.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]As for knowledge of music, I really can't argue with you. Very few rock guitarists have a deep understanding of the more intricate facets of music for the reason that it is unnecessary. But rock and roll is really about being able to express yourself without spending 40 or so years on being proficient at one's particular instrument.[/QUOTE]
Good point, but why can't one do both? Genesis and Yes did both, and then some.
[QUOTE]But furthermore, this is primarily the reason that rock bands are more influential than the more esoteric genres: more people can relate to it, as well as recreate it.[/QUOTE]
Another good point, but not everyone's goal is to be influential on the mainstream. Many musicians play to please themselves, or to select crowds, and that makes them happy enough. Not everyone wants to be commercially successful. Nowadays, 99% of the time, commercial success requires some kind of selling out, be it creatively, artistically, or visually. In the end, it's all about who is doing the appreciating. A musician will ask himself, does the opinion of the majority, aka mainstream matter most, or the opinions of those who are most musically educated, aka those whom have a more musically/technically valid view? Like I say, these things are always relative.
[QUOTE]I think I can firmly say that there is a rock song for everybody out there, or at least a rock song to be written.[/QUOTE]
I disagree, because you're speaking again from a very commercial point of view only. Not all music fans are satisfied with a catchy piece of music connecting with them for the short term. For example, progressive rock music often means concept albums and opuses which can last with people for a lifetime. Many rock albums are the same way, too. Pop music is usually disposable, with very few long-lasting songs that still connect with people. Pop is all about who is big *now*. Some people like their music to be deeper than that, and thus connect with albums and bands as opposed to single songs.
[QUOTE]But like I stated before, there is an extreme difference between the tastes of guitarists and non-guitarists, musicians and non-musicians, which anyone can see.[/QUOTE]
Yep, of course! That's why there are jazz crowds, dance crowds, punk crowds, and rock crowds. All have different aspects regarding appreciation for music, and thus contribute to very different atmospheres.
Good point, but why can't one do both? Genesis and Yes did both, and then some.
[QUOTE]But furthermore, this is primarily the reason that rock bands are more influential than the more esoteric genres: more people can relate to it, as well as recreate it.[/QUOTE]
Another good point, but not everyone's goal is to be influential on the mainstream. Many musicians play to please themselves, or to select crowds, and that makes them happy enough. Not everyone wants to be commercially successful. Nowadays, 99% of the time, commercial success requires some kind of selling out, be it creatively, artistically, or visually. In the end, it's all about who is doing the appreciating. A musician will ask himself, does the opinion of the majority, aka mainstream matter most, or the opinions of those who are most musically educated, aka those whom have a more musically/technically valid view? Like I say, these things are always relative.
[QUOTE]I think I can firmly say that there is a rock song for everybody out there, or at least a rock song to be written.[/QUOTE]
I disagree, because you're speaking again from a very commercial point of view only. Not all music fans are satisfied with a catchy piece of music connecting with them for the short term. For example, progressive rock music often means concept albums and opuses which can last with people for a lifetime. Many rock albums are the same way, too. Pop music is usually disposable, with very few long-lasting songs that still connect with people. Pop is all about who is big *now*. Some people like their music to be deeper than that, and thus connect with albums and bands as opposed to single songs.
[QUOTE]But like I stated before, there is an extreme difference between the tastes of guitarists and non-guitarists, musicians and non-musicians, which anyone can see.[/QUOTE]
Yep, of course! That's why there are jazz crowds, dance crowds, punk crowds, and rock crowds. All have different aspects regarding appreciation for music, and thus contribute to very different atmospheres.