Since when has music become an athletic competition?

hence the difference between a musician and an instrumentalist.

Yes, I know the song. Who doesn't? It was his god awful rendition of it that I was referring to.

That 'cheap sequencer' was just a metronome...how is that relevant?

----------------
Now playing on Winamp: GrayLightning - Final Fantasy 4 Phoenix Symphonic OC ReMix
via FoxyTunes

Instrumentalists play instruments. Instruments make music. Malmsteen and that other fat dude are just kids who got picked on cause they couldn't play sports as a kid so they had to show everyone up by being the fastest at something.

Well, I had actually edited my post to phrase it differently but it's not just a metronome. Listen to it, it's playing a lot more than just a steady beat, it's actually playing notes. Anyway, the point here is that the end result is not music that I find enjoyable and thus my statement that I was happy it got shorter every time he played it.

I disagree. Virtuosity is not a crime. Its an essential part of quite a large amount of music, particularly in the classical and calssically influenced genres, where works by composers and artists such as Rachmaninoff, Lizst, and Paganini are held among the highest regard.

The large backlash against virtuosic stylings didn't come about because of malmsteen and his more popular contemporaries, but because of those imitators of those artists who mistook the techicality as the substance of their works. Musicians such as paganini and lizst didn't get their status purely on technicality, but if they were releasing music today they'd be shouted down because the DIY ethic of rock seems to be taking offense to the idea of technical skill as a worthwhile tool for expression.

----------------
Now playing on Winamp: Gojira - To Sirius
via FoxyTunes

Lil Wayne.


there i said it

Great, but wasn't this thread greatest ROCK guitarists?
If you like virtuosity then thats fine but it's not really that important in a medium thats primarily based on writing simple catchy memorable songs (Or at least much simpler than classical music) instead of having songs filled with long virtuoso performances & solos. I'm not saying you can't have them but I would imagine for most rock fans that isn't what they want from rock music. Some might , and the artists you posted cover that demand. But lets be honest we're not going to be getting another Beatles or another Clash from these neo classical fret wankers.

Personally I think they're as bad as each other but that's just my interpretation so I won't argue with you here.

I don't take offence to technical skill. I take offence to EXCESSIVE technical skill at the expense of things like songwriting. I'd much rather hear a competent guitarist play a well written song than a virtuoso play an awful one.

All fair points, and perhaps I was being a little pointed. My argument is more against the kind of people who will actively discourage technical skill.

I severely dislike that kind of argument, on the basis that they percieve anything where great technical skill is required, to be devoid of merit purely because of that fact. Its almost as if anything comprised of more than slow bends and archaic blues progressions is anathema to these people, such is the fervor with which they will descend upon any great musical technician solely to spout their own jaded viewpoints to him as if their thoughts on music are the one true gospel.

As for your comment about not getting another beatles or another clash out of 'neoclassical fretwankers', I disagree entirely with the ideas behind that statement.

The Clash and The Beatles were fantastically successful for a great number of different reasons, the primary one in both cases was timing and the most important secondary one was public perception.

The Clash wrote music that contrasted punk while retaining many of its values and aesthetics, in an era where political tensions within music were FANTASTICALLY powerful subject matter and gave them great current appeal. The historical significance of those same political times has also lent itself to their longevity as they remain etched in the public conscious and so still retain significance. Compare this to songs that reference chain gangs or pirates, and obviously the general public will empathise more with the clash, but that isn't to say powerfully emotional music can't be written about those subjects.
They mixed this with a great array of styles and influences that gave them a very broad and lasting appeal, in much the same way as David Bowie is largely ubiquitous because his work is so varied and anyone can find SOMETHING they like.

The Beatles wrote music that built on the ideas and conventions of much earlier styles, but presented it with interesting twists and fresh faces that very quickly became iconic. At the height of their earlier success, when they were still regularly playing live concerts, the beatles were pioneering not only their own musical progression, but requesting some of the first custom amplification to breach 100 Watts in a guitar amplifier, and custom venue arrangements because their fans were so uninterested in the music itself, and more interested in screaming in expectation of such popular public figures, that they had difficulty hearing themselves play. The subject matter wasn't greatly engaging in the earlier songs, but it was fantastically pointed and engaged a large number of predominantly Female teenagers who propelled them rapidly to a position where their huge amounts of later experimentation wasn't at risk of damaging their wider success.



In both cases, there were fantastic numbers of things working in their favour apart from the music. Such has always been the case with any highly popular band you can think of. Its a bad indicator of musical worth, and implying as such doesn't just discount the virtuoso players of the world, many of whom write perfectly fantastic and beautiful music that can be enjoyed on any number of levels, but also discounts fantastic numbers of experimental musicians, such as The Mars Volta, Frank Zappa, Porcupine Tree, Yoko Kanno and The Seatbelts, Jethro Tull, Paula Cole, Vibrasphere, Amethystium, Patrick Hadley, ETC, who we are all well aware will NEVER have the lasting appeal of a Clash or Beatles or Sinatra, but who are all absolutely fantastic in their own right and have wildly different approaches to personal expression encompassing all manner of stylistic, virtuosic, philosophical, and even spiritual musical theories and techniques.

And to be blunt, even all of them are far more commercially viable than anything a dyed in the wool musicologist might point you in the direction of, such as Phil Thomas, Christian Wolf, John Cage, Martin Blain, George Gershwin, etc.

I don't really understand the stylistic comparisons between Frusciante and Hendrix, granted I've only got two of his solo albums but there definitely isn't a bluesy or hard rock vibe in either of them.
Niandra Lades is mostly sparse acoustic arrangements with the electric guitar squalling in the background.

Someone want to post a song which illustrates the similarities?

you've never heard 'under the bridge' by the chili peppers?

Indeed, but the similarities still seems superficial. Then again, I know nothing about guitar playing...

Or, for that matter, their cover of Hendrix's "Fire".

You couldn't sound like more of a moron if you were trying.:laughing:

I agree, but i was trying to be more civil.

----------------
Now playing on Winamp: Monobrow - Pain Withstanding (Standing The Pain)
via FoxyTunes

Dan Hawkins is really good.

I'd say that John Mayer resembles a modern Hendrix more definitively than Frusciante does. I mean, I don't listen to the guy, but even his tone is very reminiscent of SRV & Hendrix.

There is no such thing as a modern Hendrix. There was and will always be only one Hendrix. This goes for everything.

Jimmy Page is a God.

Agreed, very.

he was the only guitarist i could fathom that became his instrument, playiing it like it was an extension of his soul.

I agree!

Graham Coxon is an amazing guitarist as well.

YouTube - SXSW 2009 - Graham Coxon

I gotta say my favorite guitarist has to be Dave Mustaine, hands down. Dimebag Darrel Shredded, too. God bless him:)

Mustaine is such an intense rhythm player.

Per Nilsson from scar symmetry is the best in my opinion

he has really original solos with mad weird combinations of picking and tapping

if you're curious to hear one of his better solos, retaliator has an incredible one where he hits 18 notes a second

no one cares how many nps he can play.

I may have missed it , but I couldn't see Michael Schenker on the list

He's number 100.

Ah. so he is

Who the best guitarist is is impossible to say. Some people really dig a certain kind of playing, and of the really good guitarists, they are all really good for different reasons. Technique v. improvisation v. inventiveness v. cool riffs v. use of effects ... There are just so many criteria to base one's opinion on. The guitarist in Heroes On Parade is pretty damn good, and he's only 17 years old, which is just crazy. See what I'm talking about at their myspace, it's pretty cool!

Neil Young not in top 20! Blasphemy :mad:

I don't know any other guitarist who can play 10 C notes in a row and still make it sound awesome :)

That's a D. Everybody can make a D sound awesome.

:D

Yeah, and I don't know any other guitarist who would want to play ten C notes in a row.

It was half (or two thirds) a joke, but my point about Neil Young's great guitar playing still stands.

Neil Young has some really impressive parts, he also has some humbling parts. Sometimes it's good, sometimes... not so good. He deserves credit, but im not sure about top 20.

He can take Brian May's place.

I couldn't take more pleasure in informing you that you are wrong. That is not a possiblity.