Monk Rocker Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 I just don't get the whole anti-shred and anti-guitar solo ethos.?( I love guitar solos:up: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
framheim Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 Not always. There are lots of guitarists who could shred but in the context of great songs (megadeth/pantera etc). Just because you're not into metal/shred doesn't mean it's all bad. Some is wank' date=' some isn't.[/quote']i like metal, i just don't like shredding solo's. i don't classic rock solo's as they tend to have more melody and add something to the song but the solo's that are just endless tapping and harmonic wankery just piss me off. i don't think it adds anything to the song at all and it's just a case of "right, we'll slot a 2 minute solo in here to appease the guitarists ego". yea i'm generalising but the point still stands that the ability to play a super fast shredded solo is not essential to a good band, which is what this thread is about. what is essential to a good band is being able to work together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hog Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 totally agree with this.Not always. There are lots of guitarists who could shred but in the context of great songs (megadeth/pantera etc). Just because you're not into metal/shred doesn't mean it's all bad. Some is wank' date=' some isn't.[/quote']Yep, especially a lot of the solos from Megadeth's Rust in Peace album. Fast solo work but it sounds like it has been very well thought out and actually adds something to the songs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 You don't nescessarily need any technical skills on your particular instrumentWhat you do need though, is an ear for music, knowing how to use your instrument effectively, how to integrate all the other instruments musically, timekeeping and all the other things you need to be good at to get a band playing nicely togetherSome examples - U2, I wouldn't say The Edge really is a technical master of the guitar, most of his work being fairly simple lines, but through some incredible uses of effects and creating and using space in a song it sounds excellent, so a case of not really brilliant technically, but amasing musical skills. or bands like Greenday or Blink 182, neither normally being too technically proficient, sticking to fairly simple riffing and powerchords, but being able to string those perfectly into fantastic songs. there are coutless other bands out there, playing very simple stuff, or noisey sloppy playing or whatever, yet it fits perfectly into what they do and their songsYou also get the inverse, guys who have incredible skills on their instrument, but who you kinda get bored of as they don't really incorporate everything musically into an interesting pieceObviously musical style comes into this a lot - You can get a lot further with an indie or punk band with little skills, whereas you could never pull off something more operatic or heavy like Dream Theater or Metallica without knowing your way around your instrument, but in general, I think a lot more comes into it than pure musical ability on an instrumentAnd again, a persons preference in music also biases them slightly, I would rather listen to something more noise and melody based like Pavement, than something like Vai, who dosen't really keep my interest in a song. To a lot of other people Vai is the god and Pavement make tuneless gibberishDavid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 Art versus Engineering?that kinda sums up some of it to me - making it up as you go along in your own style as you see fit, versus using building blocks to piece together something, perfectly organised, but dosen't always click as something from the heart can.David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
britheguy Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 I don't think you need to be very good at playing to be in a good band. It's how the listener hears and enjoy the performance. Ramones is a good example. The Who were good players that played together very well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David B Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 I recall an interesting comment by one of the Slipknot guitarists when asked to compare himself as a musician to Kurt Cobain.It went along these lines -I can shred the ass off Curt, but he wrote Teen Spirit.Nuff said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Doubt Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 And how do you define what a good tune is? I mean if Mozart was alive today he'd probably play electric guitar and shred like a madman!!Yes but he's not alive stop living in the past and move on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesel Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 i always have arguments with other gtrists about this' date=' being able to play really fast complex solos doesnt make u a gd gtrist just makes you good at that technical part. Not being able to play slow melodic and syncopated stuff aswell as keep rythmn but hmm im trying to say u could be the greatest fuckin musician and still not be able to write a decent piece of music/song. that make any sense??[/quote']Spot on!Having said that, being a great technician does not preclude you from being a good composer either, but I think like some of the other replies have pointed out, the ability to listen is much more important.Take the examples of Jimmy Page and Steve Vai. Pagey's live stuff is full of mistakes (so's some of the studio work), but is loaded with groove and heart - whilst Vai, a brilliant technician, produces (IMHO) calculated and souless music that leaves the listener respectful of his abilities, but cold (again IMHO).I know who I'd rather listen to Peter Green said it - LESS IS MORE - and no-one better exemplifies that than my guitar role model and hero, SAHB's Zal Cleminson, who can say more in three notes than most of the shredders out there can in hours of complex legato.DZL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bryn Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 Take the examples of Jimmy Page and Steve Vai. Pagey's live stuff is full of mistakes (so's some of the studio work)' date=' but is loaded with groove and heart - whilst Vai, a brilliant technician, produces (IMHO) calculated and souless music that leaves the listener respectful of his abilities, but cold (again IMHO).DZL[/quote']I find it hard to see how anyone can call Vai's music cold. Some of his stuff is really quite beautiful if you invest a bit, so I'll assume you're merely using a non-existent knowledge of this guy as a metaphor for all piss-artist shredders? As for your comparison...Jimmy Page is GASH. Undeniaby they created some cool tunes, but Page's solos and impro are soooo balls. One particular song, Heartbreaker I think, though its a few years since I've listened to LZ, where theres an extended solo and Jimmy really tries to shred it up? - worst, most painful, unjustly rated solo ever. Vai - the potential to hear something innovative, ground-breaking and generaly interesting.Page, LZ - crap-ass, teenage rock riffs and the ultimate rock cliche. Ughh - nightmare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
framheim Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 i'd rather listen to peter green than vai or page any day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bluesxman Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 I would much rather see technically limited playing that does something interesting than technically superb playing which is just plain dull. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MKII Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 I would much rather see technically limited playing that does something interesting than technically superb playing which is just plain dull.Grrrr, why do people keep saying this, just because someone has crap or limited technique does not mean that they will somehow be able to write better music with more 'feeling'. Sometimes music NEEDS fast playing etc! There are plenty of technically superb musicans who dont let their technique get in the way of the music, just as there are plenty of musicians with a lack of technique who do the same. A great musician, to me, is someone who serves the music(regardless of ability), not their ego. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Jack Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 Grrrr' date=' why do people keep saying this, just because someone has crap or limited technique does not mean that they will somehow be able to write better music with more 'feeling'. Sometimes music NEEDS fast playing etc! There are plenty of technically superb musicans who dont let their technique get in the way of the music, just as there are plenty of musicians with a lack of technique who do the same. A great musician, to me, is someone who serves the music(regardless of ability), not their ego.[/quote']I think that was pretty much Mr sxman's point... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MKII Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 I think that was pretty much Mr sxman's point...Aye' date=' but no one seems to be saying it like this [i']I'd rather see technically superb playing that does something interesting than technically poor playing which is just plain dull.for example, if yeh get fit I mean!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripey Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 Aye' date=' but no one seems to be saying it like this [i']I'd rather see technically superb playing that does something interesting than technically poor playing which is just plain dull.for example, if yeh get fit I mean!?This is a good post. I would add if I may that I find technically good playing which is utilised in a creatively dull manner, dull. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MKII Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 dull dullThis is a good post. I would add if I may that I find technically good playing which is utilised in a creatively dull manner' date=' dull.[/quote']Dull playing is dull playing, whether the person doing the dull playing knows their instrument or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraemeC Posted March 21, 2006 Report Share Posted March 21, 2006 Playing a musical instrument in a band and not being as proficiant on that instrument as is possible is never a good thing, if you dont learn it as best you can it will always be a limiting factor for you and the band.Being a good Guitarist/Bass player/Drummer does not have to mean you are a self indulgent wank, tone, feeling & self control are important factors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraemeC Posted March 21, 2006 Report Share Posted March 21, 2006 It's normally the most technically skilled musicians that can't write a tune to save their lives.On what do you base this gem of wisdom...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeirdAl Posted March 21, 2006 Report Share Posted March 21, 2006 The band I listen to the most is Dream Theater so needless to say I get bored listening to music with average/poor playing in it. However I agree that you could be a god at your instrument but can't write a song to save yourself ... I have met such people. So obviously having an amazing ear for music is better than raw ability ... it's all about knowing where to draw the line and of course, how to cross it without ruining the song Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
framheim Posted March 21, 2006 Report Share Posted March 21, 2006 it's all about knowing where to draw the line and of course' date=' how to cross it without ruining the song [/quote']so how come you listen to so much dream theater then? god i hates dream theater. i get it, but i just can't stand it. i seem to be the only person in my place of work who thinks like this somedays. makes me very sad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeirdAl Posted March 21, 2006 Report Share Posted March 21, 2006 so how come you listen to so much dream theater then? god i hates dream theater. i get it' date=' but i just can't stand it. i seem to be the only person in my place of work who thinks like this somedays. makes me very sad [/quote']Well as I said, it's being able to cross the line without ruining the song. Dream Theater is a very aquired taste and I must admit that their newer stuff can go way too far at times. It's the fact that they all cross the line and that it's not really one person trying to out-do the others that is what holds it all in place and makes me love it.The most obvious reason as to why I listen to so much Dream Theater is because I am a drummer and Mike Portnoy is absolutely amazing and a joy to listen to/watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bluesxman Posted March 22, 2006 Report Share Posted March 22, 2006 Grrrr' date=' why do people keep saying this, just because someone has crap or limited technique does not mean that they will somehow be able to write better music with more 'feeling'. Sometimes music NEEDS fast playing etc! There are plenty of technically superb musicans who dont let their technique get in the way of the music, just as there are plenty of musicians with a lack of technique who do the same. A great musician, to me, is someone who serves the music(regardless of ability), not their ego.[/quote']Sigh, what I am trying to say is that ability to me is not necessarily important, the music needs to have that certain something that makes it appealing. Technically limited stuff can bore the shite out of me too if it's got nothing in it to grab me. But i'm sure there are people out there who will just switch off as soon as they hear a bum note or some instrument being slightly out of time. This doesn't necessarily bother me, each to their own, innit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bluesxman Posted March 22, 2006 Report Share Posted March 22, 2006 I think that was pretty much Mr sxman's point...Thankyou Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
threeornothing Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 As much as I hate guitar wankery, just seen a DVD with Gary Moore doing an amazing version of Hendrix's redhouse...unlike pointless guitar wankery of the 80's, every fucking note he played (no matter how fast, and it was fast!) was valid and musical and not a mere show off of skills. I could even let him off for the stupid faces, I think I almost made the same when he hit some of the high notes, his tone was very Hendrixy aswell...actually the playing was a little too close to the book, but man....made me want to play solos for hours, which I did but i suck....So..if you're an old guy who's been playing guitar prior to the 80's, skill is essential (as demonstrated by The Crickets on the same DVD...no one wants to see old guys playing 2 chords)...if you're young...discover your penis before your guitar....and save those stupid faces for the bathroom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.