[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Q-Nick wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Bonham is anything but underrated. His drumming is such a breath of fresh air; few people would have played the unusual rythmns to 'basic' time signatures as he did.
And the best proof is any Moby Dick solo.[/QUOTE]
Bonham is over-rated. I love Zeppelin, but I can't listen to any Moby Dick solo that exceeds ten minutes. He just did the same moves over and over again.
Compare him to any jazz drummer. Buddy Rich, Gene Krupa, and Dave Weckl wipe the floor with any rock drummer... even Neil Peart or Mike Portnoy. Bonham was influential in the rock world, because rock's standards for technical proficiency are generally much below jazz. Bonham wouldn't stand a chance if put in the same room with any jazz drummer.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
"any jazz drummer"
Surely you jest! There must be some out there that aren't *that* great.
Surely you jest! There must be some out there that aren't *that* great.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Donna13 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Boy! This is a picky bunch. I guess everyone is overrated![/QUOTE]
Exactly. Virtually everyone in the mainstream is over-rated. They are known by most people because they have been marketed. They are the names that are on the radio and MTV. It's a fact that 99% of the best musicians will never be heard on the radio. The radio is mostly pop-oriented, so that's what most people are only familar with - but in the industry as a whole, pop is such a small minority. Being commercially successful these days is now all about money, appearance, and sex - not about talent. The more you want to stay close to your musical values, the less chance you have of being popular in the mainstream. That's why most true musicians look down on the mainstream (unless they're a session musician, and it gives them a paycheck!).
[QUOTE]What are your feelings about Andres Segovia? I saw him perform when he was in his 90's. My brother was amazed at the performance. I'm not a guitarist, so I couldn't pick it apart (no pun intended).[/QUOTE]
Segovia is truly one of the best. A classical master. The webmaster at digitaldreamdoor.com thinks highly of him. If you want to see lists of musicians that are actually well-thought-out lists, rather than lists that favour people who are commercially successful, digitaldreamdoor.com is the place to find them. Most people think Carlos Santana is the best classical guitarist these days, because he is the only one on the radio. Remember that song Maria Maria? After that album came out, everyone thought he was a guitar mastermind. Truth is, he's been playing the same ten licks since Woodstock. And then there's Jesse Cook, another over-rated flamenco player who happened to get on the radio here in Canada. Santana is important because he fused latino music with rock. He's not really a great guitarist. I have students who play better than him.
[QUOTE]I'm wondering if maybe Brian's guitar skills can last for 30 plus more years. That would be great! BB King is really old now too. How much do you lose due to age I'm wondering? Or do you improve in other ways?[/QUOTE]
Everyone can get better with age if they choose to. Jeff Beck and Steve Morse are prime examples. They have always been moving forward.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"any jazz drummer"
Surely you jest! There must be some out there that aren't *that* great.[/QUOTE]
No... if they weren't any good, then they'd be playing rock or something else that's simpler. Trust me. Jazz is a genre containing only very strong musicians. Once one has become bored with rock, pop, and whatever else, they want to move on... and jazz can be the next level. There is no such thing as a poor jazz musician. Nobody would ever play have the nerve to jazz publically if they couldn't do it well. It would be an insult to the genre. Jazz is over the heads of the majority of the listening audience. I've been playing music all my life, and I'm just starting to grasp jazz's fundamentals.
Exactly. Virtually everyone in the mainstream is over-rated. They are known by most people because they have been marketed. They are the names that are on the radio and MTV. It's a fact that 99% of the best musicians will never be heard on the radio. The radio is mostly pop-oriented, so that's what most people are only familar with - but in the industry as a whole, pop is such a small minority. Being commercially successful these days is now all about money, appearance, and sex - not about talent. The more you want to stay close to your musical values, the less chance you have of being popular in the mainstream. That's why most true musicians look down on the mainstream (unless they're a session musician, and it gives them a paycheck!).
[QUOTE]What are your feelings about Andres Segovia? I saw him perform when he was in his 90's. My brother was amazed at the performance. I'm not a guitarist, so I couldn't pick it apart (no pun intended).[/QUOTE]
Segovia is truly one of the best. A classical master. The webmaster at digitaldreamdoor.com thinks highly of him. If you want to see lists of musicians that are actually well-thought-out lists, rather than lists that favour people who are commercially successful, digitaldreamdoor.com is the place to find them. Most people think Carlos Santana is the best classical guitarist these days, because he is the only one on the radio. Remember that song Maria Maria? After that album came out, everyone thought he was a guitar mastermind. Truth is, he's been playing the same ten licks since Woodstock. And then there's Jesse Cook, another over-rated flamenco player who happened to get on the radio here in Canada. Santana is important because he fused latino music with rock. He's not really a great guitarist. I have students who play better than him.
[QUOTE]I'm wondering if maybe Brian's guitar skills can last for 30 plus more years. That would be great! BB King is really old now too. How much do you lose due to age I'm wondering? Or do you improve in other ways?[/QUOTE]
Everyone can get better with age if they choose to. Jeff Beck and Steve Morse are prime examples. They have always been moving forward.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"any jazz drummer"
Surely you jest! There must be some out there that aren't *that* great.[/QUOTE]
No... if they weren't any good, then they'd be playing rock or something else that's simpler. Trust me. Jazz is a genre containing only very strong musicians. Once one has become bored with rock, pop, and whatever else, they want to move on... and jazz can be the next level. There is no such thing as a poor jazz musician. Nobody would ever play have the nerve to jazz publically if they couldn't do it well. It would be an insult to the genre. Jazz is over the heads of the majority of the listening audience. I've been playing music all my life, and I'm just starting to grasp jazz's fundamentals.
Wow! Thanks for the info. I feel we need to pay you now for this music lesson. LOL.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Donna13 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Wow! Thanks for the info. I feel we need to pay you now for this music lesson. LOL.[/QUOTE]
Haha... not at all! Email me any time and we can have a chat if you'd like.
Haha... not at all! Email me any time and we can have a chat if you'd like.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Donna13 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Boy! This is a picky bunch. I guess everyone is overrated![/QUOTE]
Exactly. Virtually everyone in the mainstream is over-rated. They are known by most people because they have been marketed. They are the names that are on the radio and MTV. It's a fact that 99% of the best musicians will never be heard on the radio. The radio is mostly pop-oriented, so that's what most people are only familar with - but in the industry as a whole, pop is such a small minority. Being commercially successful these days is now all about money, appearance, and sex - not about talent. The more you want to stay close to your musical values, the less chance you have of being popular in the mainstream. That's why most true musicians look down on the mainstream (unless they're a session musician, and it gives them a paycheck!).
[/QUOTE]
Thanks! Where would I be without a list to know what musicians I like? Music is mostly a matter of taste my friend, and you know what they say about taste.....in any case I don't have any, so bring on Brian May!
Exactly. Virtually everyone in the mainstream is over-rated. They are known by most people because they have been marketed. They are the names that are on the radio and MTV. It's a fact that 99% of the best musicians will never be heard on the radio. The radio is mostly pop-oriented, so that's what most people are only familar with - but in the industry as a whole, pop is such a small minority. Being commercially successful these days is now all about money, appearance, and sex - not about talent. The more you want to stay close to your musical values, the less chance you have of being popular in the mainstream. That's why most true musicians look down on the mainstream (unless they're a session musician, and it gives them a paycheck!).
[/QUOTE]
Thanks! Where would I be without a list to know what musicians I like? Music is mostly a matter of taste my friend, and you know what they say about taste.....in any case I don't have any, so bring on Brian May!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Fireplace wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Thanks! Where would I be without a list to know what musicians I like? Music is mostly a matter of taste my friend, and you know what they say about taste.....in any case I don't have any, so bring on Brian May![/QUOTE]
Some people like to critically assess the talents and contributions of musicians, so therefore it can go beyond mere taste if one wishes. To most music listeners, music is simply about taste, as you said. But for musicians, it can go far beyond that.
"Best musician" lists aren't a matter of simply throwing together of your favourite players, if they're done properly. Chances are, if it's a well-informed list, it will contain many musicians the average music fan hasn't heard of. That makes the listing of musicians an educational thing. But nobody said you're required to get into it.
Nobody said you don't have taste, either, so I don't know what that comment was referencing. If you don't feel the need to compare musicians, then that's fine. But when musicians are being compared, the criteria is what counts. It's not just whoever plays faster is better. Creativity, technical ability, emotion, and influence on popular music are among the points of view that an informed list should go by... although of course, this rarely happens. Most lists just pluck names out of famous bands. Either way, if you don't see this kind of thing as being necessary, then you're perfectly entitled to that opinion. But don't slag off those who enjoy doing the comparison.
Some people like to critically assess the talents and contributions of musicians, so therefore it can go beyond mere taste if one wishes. To most music listeners, music is simply about taste, as you said. But for musicians, it can go far beyond that.
"Best musician" lists aren't a matter of simply throwing together of your favourite players, if they're done properly. Chances are, if it's a well-informed list, it will contain many musicians the average music fan hasn't heard of. That makes the listing of musicians an educational thing. But nobody said you're required to get into it.
Nobody said you don't have taste, either, so I don't know what that comment was referencing. If you don't feel the need to compare musicians, then that's fine. But when musicians are being compared, the criteria is what counts. It's not just whoever plays faster is better. Creativity, technical ability, emotion, and influence on popular music are among the points of view that an informed list should go by... although of course, this rarely happens. Most lists just pluck names out of famous bands. Either way, if you don't see this kind of thing as being necessary, then you're perfectly entitled to that opinion. But don't slag off those who enjoy doing the comparison.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Fireplace wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Thanks! Where would I be without a list to know what musicians I like? Music is mostly a matter of taste my friend, and you know what they say about taste.....in any case I don't have any, so bring on Brian May![/QUOTE]
Some people like to critically assess the talents and contributions of musicians, so therefore it can go beyond mere taste if one wishes. To most music listeners, music is simply about taste, as you said. But for musicians, it can go far beyond that.
"Best musician" lists aren't a matter of simply throwing together of your favourite players, if they're done properly. Chances are, if it's a well-informed list, it will contain many musicians the average music fan hasn't heard of. That makes the listing of musicians an educational thing. But nobody said you're required to get into it.
Nobody said you don't have taste, either, so I don't know what that comment was referencing. If you don't feel the need to compare musicians, then that's fine. But when musicians are being compared, the criteria is what counts. It's not just whoever plays faster is better. Creativity, technical ability, emotion, and influence on popular music are among the points of view that an informed list should go by... although of course, this rarely happens. Most lists just pluck names out of famous bands. Either way, if you don't see this kind of thing as being necessary, then you're perfectly entitled to that opinion. But don't slag off those who enjoy doing the comparison.
[/QUOTE]
Sir, I see what you mean. But take, for instance, emotion: can you tell me what musician conveys which emotion? Who is more emotional, who is less?Isn't that different for every listener?
I believe the same goes for creativity, although the Britneys/Christina's of this world come to mind.
I'm certainly not trying to pick a fight here. I happen to be one of the musicians you were referring to, and all my (musical) life I've been trying to get away from analysing music that I listen to for my own enjoyment. It's taken me years to stop comparing every musician I hear to myself, favourably or otherwise.
In itself this is an unwinnable argument, but sometimes people manage to point out certain aspects to me in the music they like that makes listening a whole new experience. So by all means share your passions and possibly the reasons behind them. I'm open to suggestions!
Some people like to critically assess the talents and contributions of musicians, so therefore it can go beyond mere taste if one wishes. To most music listeners, music is simply about taste, as you said. But for musicians, it can go far beyond that.
"Best musician" lists aren't a matter of simply throwing together of your favourite players, if they're done properly. Chances are, if it's a well-informed list, it will contain many musicians the average music fan hasn't heard of. That makes the listing of musicians an educational thing. But nobody said you're required to get into it.
Nobody said you don't have taste, either, so I don't know what that comment was referencing. If you don't feel the need to compare musicians, then that's fine. But when musicians are being compared, the criteria is what counts. It's not just whoever plays faster is better. Creativity, technical ability, emotion, and influence on popular music are among the points of view that an informed list should go by... although of course, this rarely happens. Most lists just pluck names out of famous bands. Either way, if you don't see this kind of thing as being necessary, then you're perfectly entitled to that opinion. But don't slag off those who enjoy doing the comparison.
[/QUOTE]
Sir, I see what you mean. But take, for instance, emotion: can you tell me what musician conveys which emotion? Who is more emotional, who is less?Isn't that different for every listener?
I believe the same goes for creativity, although the Britneys/Christina's of this world come to mind.
I'm certainly not trying to pick a fight here. I happen to be one of the musicians you were referring to, and all my (musical) life I've been trying to get away from analysing music that I listen to for my own enjoyment. It's taken me years to stop comparing every musician I hear to myself, favourably or otherwise.
In itself this is an unwinnable argument, but sometimes people manage to point out certain aspects to me in the music they like that makes listening a whole new experience. So by all means share your passions and possibly the reasons behind them. I'm open to suggestions!
"No... if they weren't any good, then they'd be playing rock or something else that's simpler."
Nah, I can't see the sense in this. One can be ambitious enough to try something and not be very good at it. = bad jazz drummer. It could happen, it's an awful big world.
Though I imagine once they play at it hard enough, maybe they'd grasp the concept better and no longer would they be a dodgy drummer.
Who knows - but there's millions of drumsticks out there and not everyone who picks one up and thinks 'jazz' is going to be great. I was merely referring to the beginners and not-so-greats - a small bracket perhaps but they exist I tell you.
Drummers aren't any different from any other musician - you yourself said you've been playing music all your life, yet you're only just beginning to grasp jazz. Therefore - wouldn't *you* be a lousy jazz musician?
That ain't a dig - what I mean to say is, if I picked up my guitar today and said 'jazz', it wouldn't just *come* because I've been playing for so many years and I really like jazz. It'd have to start somewhere.
Hence - you can have lousy jazz musicians. They have to start somewhere!
Nah, I can't see the sense in this. One can be ambitious enough to try something and not be very good at it. = bad jazz drummer. It could happen, it's an awful big world.
Though I imagine once they play at it hard enough, maybe they'd grasp the concept better and no longer would they be a dodgy drummer.
Who knows - but there's millions of drumsticks out there and not everyone who picks one up and thinks 'jazz' is going to be great. I was merely referring to the beginners and not-so-greats - a small bracket perhaps but they exist I tell you.
Drummers aren't any different from any other musician - you yourself said you've been playing music all your life, yet you're only just beginning to grasp jazz. Therefore - wouldn't *you* be a lousy jazz musician?
That ain't a dig - what I mean to say is, if I picked up my guitar today and said 'jazz', it wouldn't just *come* because I've been playing for so many years and I really like jazz. It'd have to start somewhere.
Hence - you can have lousy jazz musicians. They have to start somewhere!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Fireplace wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Sir, I see what you mean. But take, for instance, emotion: can you tell me what musician conveys which emotion? Who is more emotional, who is less?Isn't that different for every listener?
I believe the same goes for creativity, although the Britneys/Christina's of this world come to mind.[/QUOTE]
Of course, emotion is relative to one's experience of the music. But I think it can be generally accepted that Eric Clapton plays with more emotion than Angus Young, right? Unless of course, you interpret "emotion" to mean "energy"... at which point Angus would be on top. Hmm... yeah, I see your point!
[QUOTE]I'm certainly not trying to pick a fight here. I happen to be one of the musicians you were referring to, and all my (musical) life I've been trying to get away from analysing music that I listen to for my own enjoyment. It's taken me years to stop comparing every musician I hear to myself, favourably or otherwise.[/QUOTE]
Don't see analysis and comparison as a negative thing. Seeing the strengths and flaws in other musicians can only strengthen you as a musician.
[QUOTE]In itself this is an unwinnable argument, but sometimes people manage to point out certain aspects to me in the music they like that makes listening a whole new experience. So by all means share your passions and possibly the reasons behind them. I'm open to suggestions![/QUOTE]
Awesome. Okay, pick a few pieces of music that really connect with you, and a few that don't... and we'll go from there. I'm sure this will be interesting.
I believe the same goes for creativity, although the Britneys/Christina's of this world come to mind.[/QUOTE]
Of course, emotion is relative to one's experience of the music. But I think it can be generally accepted that Eric Clapton plays with more emotion than Angus Young, right? Unless of course, you interpret "emotion" to mean "energy"... at which point Angus would be on top. Hmm... yeah, I see your point!
[QUOTE]I'm certainly not trying to pick a fight here. I happen to be one of the musicians you were referring to, and all my (musical) life I've been trying to get away from analysing music that I listen to for my own enjoyment. It's taken me years to stop comparing every musician I hear to myself, favourably or otherwise.[/QUOTE]
Don't see analysis and comparison as a negative thing. Seeing the strengths and flaws in other musicians can only strengthen you as a musician.
[QUOTE]In itself this is an unwinnable argument, but sometimes people manage to point out certain aspects to me in the music they like that makes listening a whole new experience. So by all means share your passions and possibly the reasons behind them. I'm open to suggestions![/QUOTE]
Awesome. Okay, pick a few pieces of music that really connect with you, and a few that don't... and we'll go from there. I'm sure this will be interesting.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]you yourself said you've been playing music all your life, yet you're only just beginning to grasp jazz. Therefore - wouldn't *you* be a lousy jazz musician?[/QUOTE]
Absolutely! I fully admit that. But I have minimal ambition to be a jazz musician. I'm also a lousy carpenter, electrician, auto mechanic, football player, shoe salesman, javascript programmer, and pilot. Yet these aren't negative things. One can't accomplish everything in a lifetime, right? :)
[QUOTE]That ain't a dig - what I mean to say is, if I picked up my guitar today and said 'jazz', it wouldn't just *come* because I've been playing for so many years and I really like jazz. It'd have to start somewhere.
Hence - you can have lousy jazz musicians. They have to start somewhere![/QUOTE]
Naturally, yes, you're correct. Then I'll revise my statement to say: "of those people who actually play jazz gigs and release jazz records, there are no poor jazz musicians". Jazz musicians are incredibly well-trained and they understand the complexities of western music better than most other musicians. They are so far over the heads of 99% of the listening audience that the average listener can barely tell the difference between John Bonham / Buddy Rich, Jimmy Page / Joe Pass, and Dido / Ella Fitzgerald, if at all. There are thousands and thousands of people who actually think Keith Richards is one of the greatest guitarists ever. There really is no reply to that!
That was the general point I was making. The better you get as a musician, and the more musically complex your music gets, the smaller your audience becomes. This is what virtually every strong musician has to battle with.
Absolutely! I fully admit that. But I have minimal ambition to be a jazz musician. I'm also a lousy carpenter, electrician, auto mechanic, football player, shoe salesman, javascript programmer, and pilot. Yet these aren't negative things. One can't accomplish everything in a lifetime, right? :)
[QUOTE]That ain't a dig - what I mean to say is, if I picked up my guitar today and said 'jazz', it wouldn't just *come* because I've been playing for so many years and I really like jazz. It'd have to start somewhere.
Hence - you can have lousy jazz musicians. They have to start somewhere![/QUOTE]
Naturally, yes, you're correct. Then I'll revise my statement to say: "of those people who actually play jazz gigs and release jazz records, there are no poor jazz musicians". Jazz musicians are incredibly well-trained and they understand the complexities of western music better than most other musicians. They are so far over the heads of 99% of the listening audience that the average listener can barely tell the difference between John Bonham / Buddy Rich, Jimmy Page / Joe Pass, and Dido / Ella Fitzgerald, if at all. There are thousands and thousands of people who actually think Keith Richards is one of the greatest guitarists ever. There really is no reply to that!
That was the general point I was making. The better you get as a musician, and the more musically complex your music gets, the smaller your audience becomes. This is what virtually every strong musician has to battle with.
Sir GH, you're spot on when you say "The better you get as a musician, and the more musically complex your music gets, the smaller your audience becomes. This is what virtually every strong musician has to battle with." For me, that's what made Queen, and Freddie's writing in particular, so amazing. I believe it was Sebastian who stated a few months back (I'm paraphrasing here, not quoting verbatim), that Freddie's greatest gift was making complex music accessible for the masses. Granted, Bohemian Rhapsody isn't jazz, but when you look at the top 100 "pop/rock" songs of all time, I'd bet they'd nearly all be 4/4 time, with 3 or 4 chords. A song with 7, 8, 9 time signature changes, wildly fluctating dynamics and a major key change wouldn't seem like a song that is arguably rock's greatest ever, and certainly Britain and Europe's most popular ever.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]you yourself said you've been playing music all your life, yet you're only just beginning to grasp jazz. Therefore - wouldn't *you* be a lousy jazz musician?[/QUOTE]
Absolutely! I fully admit that. But I have minimal ambition to be a jazz musician. I'm also a lousy carpenter, electrician, auto mechanic, football player, shoe salesman, javascript programmer, and pilot. Yet these aren't negative things. One can't accomplish everything in a lifetime, right? :)
[QUOTE]That ain't a dig - what I mean to say is, if I picked up my guitar today and said 'jazz', it wouldn't just *come* because I've been playing for so many years and I really like jazz. It'd have to start somewhere.
Hence - you can have lousy jazz musicians. They have to start somewhere![/QUOTE]
Naturally, yes, you're correct. Then I'll revise my statement to say: &quot;of those people who actually play jazz gigs and release jazz records, there are no poor jazz musicians&quot;. Jazz musicians are incredibly well-trained and they understand the complexities of western music better than most other musicians. They are so far over the heads of 99% of the listening audience that the average listener can barely tell the difference between John Bonham / Buddy Rich, Jimmy Page / Joe Pass, and Dido / Ella Fitzgerald, if at all. There are thousands and thousands of people who actually think Keith Richards is one of the greatest guitarists ever. There really is no reply to that!
That was the general point I was making. The better you get as a musician, and the more musically complex your music gets, the smaller your audience becomes. This is what virtually every strong musician has to battle with.
[/QUOTE]
Aha, I getcha now. I was just clarifying. Hehe. Double points for the last paragraph by the way!
Absolutely! I fully admit that. But I have minimal ambition to be a jazz musician. I'm also a lousy carpenter, electrician, auto mechanic, football player, shoe salesman, javascript programmer, and pilot. Yet these aren't negative things. One can't accomplish everything in a lifetime, right? :)
[QUOTE]That ain't a dig - what I mean to say is, if I picked up my guitar today and said 'jazz', it wouldn't just *come* because I've been playing for so many years and I really like jazz. It'd have to start somewhere.
Hence - you can have lousy jazz musicians. They have to start somewhere![/QUOTE]
Naturally, yes, you're correct. Then I'll revise my statement to say: &quot;of those people who actually play jazz gigs and release jazz records, there are no poor jazz musicians&quot;. Jazz musicians are incredibly well-trained and they understand the complexities of western music better than most other musicians. They are so far over the heads of 99% of the listening audience that the average listener can barely tell the difference between John Bonham / Buddy Rich, Jimmy Page / Joe Pass, and Dido / Ella Fitzgerald, if at all. There are thousands and thousands of people who actually think Keith Richards is one of the greatest guitarists ever. There really is no reply to that!
That was the general point I was making. The better you get as a musician, and the more musically complex your music gets, the smaller your audience becomes. This is what virtually every strong musician has to battle with.
[/QUOTE]
Aha, I getcha now. I was just clarifying. Hehe. Double points for the last paragraph by the way!
> of those people who actually play jazz gigs and release jazz records, there are no poor jazz musicians
Fifty years ago that'd be probably right, but (unfortunately?) there are some jazz musicians who actually are very poor if you analyse them. They've just learnt some two/three licks and repeat them over and over. I mean, in every sort of music (or science, or art, etc) you can find mediocre people.
> There are thousands and thousands of people who actually think Keith Richards is one of the greatest guitarists ever. There really is no reply to that!
It actually depends on what you consider a "great guitarist". Most rock fans relate the quality of the guitarist with the quality of the composer, hence they don't think of the musician, they think of their recordings.
> The better you get as a musician, and the more musically complex your music gets, the smaller your audience becomes.
Yes and no. There's a huge minority looking for the most obscure things 'round there, hence, complex music would be suitable for them. And so on. While I respect your knowledge and mostly I agree with you in some points, I think sometimes you're making your statements way too absolute (e.g. all jazz musicians are experts, clever music isn't catchy), when there are of course exceptions.
> Granted, Bohemian Rhapsody isn't jazz
To be fair, the very beginning ("is this the real life ... reality") sounds a little jazzy to me. The chords implied by the vocals (Bb6/D, F7/C, Cm7) sound (IMO) somewhat influenced by spirituals, which is one of the sources feeding jazz in the beginning. Especially if you play the very first progression (Bb6/D > C7) at the piano, with a nice D>Db>C bass motion, it does sound jazzy. It's just a very slight "flirt" with the genre but it's there, and it only demonstrates once again how brilliant a masterpiece 'Bo Rhap' is.
> but when you look at the top 100 "pop/rock" songs of all time, I'd bet they'd nearly all be 4/4 time, with 3 or 4 chords.
Indeed. If I ever make my website again, I'd love to draw such a detailed comparison and confirm or deny that. There have been some clever songs hitting top-10 over the years, or becoming classics. 'Dust In The Wind' and 'Karma Police' come to my mind.
> A song with 7, 8, 9 time signature changes
I think that point is a bit exaggerated. To my ears, 'Bo Rhap' is in 4/4 from beginning to end, of course having some disorienting rhythms during the operatic bit (casual or causal?), and some (unusual for Freddie) rubattos.
Fifty years ago that'd be probably right, but (unfortunately?) there are some jazz musicians who actually are very poor if you analyse them. They've just learnt some two/three licks and repeat them over and over. I mean, in every sort of music (or science, or art, etc) you can find mediocre people.
> There are thousands and thousands of people who actually think Keith Richards is one of the greatest guitarists ever. There really is no reply to that!
It actually depends on what you consider a "great guitarist". Most rock fans relate the quality of the guitarist with the quality of the composer, hence they don't think of the musician, they think of their recordings.
> The better you get as a musician, and the more musically complex your music gets, the smaller your audience becomes.
Yes and no. There's a huge minority looking for the most obscure things 'round there, hence, complex music would be suitable for them. And so on. While I respect your knowledge and mostly I agree with you in some points, I think sometimes you're making your statements way too absolute (e.g. all jazz musicians are experts, clever music isn't catchy), when there are of course exceptions.
> Granted, Bohemian Rhapsody isn't jazz
To be fair, the very beginning ("is this the real life ... reality") sounds a little jazzy to me. The chords implied by the vocals (Bb6/D, F7/C, Cm7) sound (IMO) somewhat influenced by spirituals, which is one of the sources feeding jazz in the beginning. Especially if you play the very first progression (Bb6/D > C7) at the piano, with a nice D>Db>C bass motion, it does sound jazzy. It's just a very slight "flirt" with the genre but it's there, and it only demonstrates once again how brilliant a masterpiece 'Bo Rhap' is.
> but when you look at the top 100 "pop/rock" songs of all time, I'd bet they'd nearly all be 4/4 time, with 3 or 4 chords.
Indeed. If I ever make my website again, I'd love to draw such a detailed comparison and confirm or deny that. There have been some clever songs hitting top-10 over the years, or becoming classics. 'Dust In The Wind' and 'Karma Police' come to my mind.
> A song with 7, 8, 9 time signature changes
I think that point is a bit exaggerated. To my ears, 'Bo Rhap' is in 4/4 from beginning to end, of course having some disorienting rhythms during the operatic bit (casual or causal?), and some (unusual for Freddie) rubattos.