But your stance is of a kind that just encourages me to tease you a little. The sentence of yours that I've quoted is bound to be a classic. I think PG would love it!
(I haven't forgot it's a question of taste.)
I think it's a good thing that you feel bad about "teasing him a little"; it made me feel bad about wanting to tease him a lot
There's a sketch show here called Little Britain and on it a character caller Mr Mann:
every week the guy walks into a shop and asks the shop keeper for obscure items like a painting of an angry owl, a film with Chevy Chase and Will Smith as cops who go under cover as rap artists to break a russian drug smuggling cartel.
Each week the shop keeper comes unnaturally close to finding a match. I've got a painting of an angry eagle owl would that do? ... no it looks more indignant than angry . I've got a film starring Chevy Chase and Mel Smith as cops who go undercover as rap artists to break a russian drug smuggling cartel (to which the shop keeper asks "has it been made yet?". "No, but I'll wait" and Mr Mann stands there expectantly in the shop, answers his mobile "could you phone back, I'm busy")..
I guess I just find it alien that anything other than a panda should have such a rarified diet.
Oh, man....everyone has their own technique, but it's useless and silly to choose the music you like based on whether it has stacatto picking. Check out some non guitar music, or music where the "music" is more important than the technique used to play it. I think the fact that Guthrie is good at many techniques is a good thing, and means he shouldn't have to limit himself to one teachnical style.
Don't take me too seriously. I'm don't think picking has to be undynamic while legato always is. I'm just trying to bullshit in a friendly way, although I always kind of mean what I say.
Yes, I liked the phrase, and "no need to play legato at all..." proves that there really was more from where it came.
Everything cool with you Mr ShredMeister? 'Cause I'm cool with you
No worries, everything is cool. Funny that you slice my quote in whichever way you want to give it the meaning you want. Next, you can just invent it and say that I wrote it, almost as funny.
I know that you probably know already, but I meant that picking by itself can by a dynamic technique and that it does not need other techniques to be dynamic. As I said, I love legato as well, simply think a good picker can sound very dynamic without the need of playing a different technique. _________________ "Living comes much easier once we accept we´re dying"
Does anyone else find it slightly ridiculous having a favourite-sounding technique... FFS it is just silly...
Can you imagine two pianists having a discussion about how they prefer a piece of music because more of the notes are slurred or whatever... phrasing is NOT the main part of the music... it is the notes and rhythms that count.
Oh really? Is it ridiculous to have a sound you like better than other? I wonder why people like Dimeola tend to pick every single note. Maybe because they like that sound better than a legato sound, among other reasons?
And how come that two pianists can play the same piece of music and one of them be considered better than the other? Could it be because of the way he interprets those notes? Of course, there are many elements involved. Different dynamics, different volumes, even slightly different rythms, but also different techniques. One performer may choose to play a part with a technique whose sound he likes better.
One easy example. PG and Yngwie can play the exact arpeggio lick. PG will probably favor string skipping while Yngwie will probably sweep it. The notes are the same, and if both played it at the same speed, the rythm would be exactly the same. However, the sound of the lick is very different. PG tends to be smoother, giving it a sound that is almost impossible to achieve with sweep picking.
Now, is it that difficult to understand that one can like the sound of one lick better than the other? In this case, I favor PG´s approach better, I like the sound better.
In the same way, I like other players´ sound better than GG´s.
The sound of the technique is never the only reason. For example, I love Satch, and his picking is surely not that advanced. However, his music compensates that by far. As I said in the original post, GG´s music is not my cup of tea in terms of composition, and that ADDED to the fact that his technique sound does not appeal to me that much, well, pretty much says why I don´t like him as much as I like other players. But then again, this was all stated on my original post, don´t know why people seem to have only read the technique part of it. The composition also counts!!! _________________ "Living comes much easier once we accept we´re dying"
Does anyone else find it slightly ridiculous having a favourite-sounding technique... FFS it is just silly...
Can you imagine two pianists having a discussion about how they prefer a piece of music because more of the notes are slurred or whatever... phrasing is NOT the main part of the music... it is the notes and rhythms that count.
Oh really? Is it ridiculous to have a sound you like better than other? I wonder why people like Dimeola tend to pick every single note. Maybe because they like that sound better than a legato sound, among other reasons?
And how come that two pianists can play the same piece of music and one of them be considered better than the other? Could it be because of the way he interprets those notes? Of course, there are many elements involved. Different dynamics, different volumes, even slightly different rythms, but also different techniques. One performer may choose to play a part with a technique whose sound he likes better.
One easy example. PG and Yngwie can play the exact arpeggio lick. PG will probably favor string skipping while Yngwie will probably sweep it. The notes are the same, and if both played it at the same speed, the rythm would be exactly the same. However, the sound of the lick is very different. PG tends to be smoother, giving it a sound that is almost impossible to achieve with sweep picking.
Now, is it that difficult to understand that one can like the sound of one lick better than the other? In this case, I favor PG´s approach better, I like the sound better.
In the same way, I like other players´ sound better than GG´s.
The sound of the technique is never the only reason. For example, I love Satch, and his picking is surely not that advanced. However, his music compensates that by far. As I said in the original post, GG´s music is not my cup of tea in terms of composition, and that ADDED to the fact that his technique sound does not appeal to me that much, well, pretty much says why I don´t like him as much as I like other players. But then again, this was all stated on my original post, don´t know why people seem to have only read the technique part of it. The composition also counts!!!
... absurd as saying: "I prefer fast music because I think fast music sounds better."
... absurd as saying: "I prefer fast music because I think fast music sounds better."
Well, if you can´t understand that each performer has a way of performing a piece that may appeal to people more than that of another, then it is your reasoning that is absurd.
However, just go to the Michael Angelo forum or the Rusty Cooley and you will find that there are lots of people who live by what you find absurd.
In any case, I think that has nothing to do with what I am saying. I have seen Richie Kotzen and Paul gilbert play the same MR BIG songs, most of the time note by note. I like PG´s performance a LOT better. Is that difficult to understand to you? Absurd? I don´t see why, but maybe you can care about explaining before you demean a post. _________________ "Living comes much easier once we accept we´re dying"
Besides taste, I think there's also another thing that should be mentioned.
I personally think that lot's of people do not really listen to music, but 'hear' music and just want to be entertained (take Idols; the tv program for instance). They have never been into a bit more complex music and are not 'trained' listeners. Therefore they'll often not get it. Maybe it's the same with a foreign language: some people will find it interesting and try to understand it by learning more about it, while others don't want to put in any effort to even try to understand and immediately put it aside them and only want to hear their own language. Like German people who, apparantly, favor their own langauge so much that they get native actors do voice-overs in foreign movies. Being Dutch, I would never have learned how to master your american-englisch language if I wouldn't have been interested in it and could not have been part of forums like this. Nor could I have read about all kinds of stuff on the internet and would have been limited by dutch websites, wich would limit my chances of getting info about something since there are way more websites being written in englisch then in dutch.
Anyway, as many here know already, once you have been listening to a bit more to complex and fast played music, a whole new world opens up to you and you'll be able to actually hear, follow and "get" the notes being played quite clearly. Then you'll be one of those listeners who will indeed say that the music is 'speaking' to them instead of just being entertained.
Still the taste-thing is indeed important. I for instance am absolutely able to receive and "get" that what is being played, but still I favor a nice theme/melody that is 'decorated' by riffs as well. This is exactly why I favor the Jan 19 DVD over the other stuff. In the same manner I just LOVE the playing in certain Van Morrison songs, wich is almost the only music that contains singing that I like listening too. Nog because I dislike singing in itself, but because often, in lot's of bands that contains singing, the musicians only have a background function and usually play in a cliche and boring manner; not letting the instruments speak freely. But with songs like Van Morrison's "Moondance" for instance, I really really enjoy pretty much everything that I hear there. Nice piano solo too! That song represents the perfect balance between simplicity and complexity to me.
It also depends on my mood. Sometimes I just don't WANT to put in too much effort to "get" what is being played in a complex manner, because I am too tired and just want to relax and let the music get to me instead of bring myself to the music if that makes any sense.
And about technique: I think the music should tell musicians what technique they should use wich is probably more then one.
Well, if you can´t understand that each performer has a way of performing a piece that may appeal to people more than that of another, then it is your reasoning that is absurd.
Nope, what is absurd is deliberately making your music so it will appeal to a certain audience.
It's musical prostitution and on a par with the pseudo-music of pop stars.
ShredMeister wrote:
However, just go to the Michael Angelo forum or the Rusty Cooley and you will find that there are lots of people who live by what you find absurd.
Believe me, I am aware of their egregious idiocy and sad obsessions. These people are devoid of taste and they are not musical.
ShredMeister wrote:
In any case, I think that has nothing to do with what I am saying. I have seen Richie Kotzen and Paul gilbert play the same MR BIG songs, most of the time note by note. I like PG´s performance a LOT better. Is that difficult to understand to you? Absurd? I don´t see why, but maybe you can care about explaining before you demean a post.
Oh I can understand preferring a particular interpretation and style, but that includes a hell of a lot more than whether the notes are mainly slurred or picked.
Joined: 10 Sep 2004 Posts: 2783 Location: Chino, CA
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 5:19 am Post subject:
A respected jazz player says, "Guthrie is a great all-around player, albeit somewhat shreddy"... Shreddy... It's mentioned in a very disapproving manner. Jazz players really hate shred. They frown upon it. They think Guthrie is a monster talent but wish he would tame that despicable "shreddiness". Automatically, shred means no sense of swing, no harmonic concepts, no taste, no tone, no ability to blow over complex changes - blah, blah, blah... It's understandable. Jazzholes have the right to express their opinions as they see fit.
The funny thing is that the "shreddiness" that jazz players look down upon is what I find so much more fun to listen to in Guthrie than typical high-browed jazz playing. Yes, many shredders give shred a bad name and perhaps that's what it comes down to. The excesses of the late-80's Shrapnel era still disgust many a guitar music fans and anything that resembles the sounds of that era are automatically dismissed by the jazz/fusion/blues purist types as some lowlife form of guitar playing. Well, it really doesn't matter, does it? I certainly couldn't care less because it's all personal taste in the end. What I find encouraging is the number of new Guthrie fans joining the fold on a daily basis. Now, that's a cool thing! _________________ Ed Yoon
Certified Guthrie Fan-atic
BOING Music LLC - Managing Partner
.strandberg* Guitars USA
Ed Yoon Consulting & Management
Guitar Center Inc.
a jazz guy said that he felt Guthrie's solos in the Fellowship setting, from a rhythmic point of view, were too much on the beat - very "European" and "not American"
This is more of an observation than a critisicm. Maybe it's the fact that he is a european musician. Come on, whoever said this is clutching at straws. Guthrie is an almost flawless player. _________________ mmmmmmmmmmm
hmmmm...I play jazz(and other styles) and I like Guthrie, so I wouldn't say that all jazz players would have a negative attitude about him. I think jazz musicians might associate shred with things that are about showing off technique than music. I don't think super fast technique is something that angers jazz players, because, remeber, that Bird, Trane, Art Tatum, McCoy Tyner, Dave Liebman, and many others posessed it. Holdsworth can play through harder changes than anyone, can swing with amazing time, and burn more than anybody on guitar. But he's respected by jazz players because he's always musical.
It's just that most of what most shredders play is not very musical. Jazz players would be bored listening to that stuff more than anything else. Personally, I think Guthrie's "shredding" works well and fits his music.
A respected jazz player says, "Guthrie is a great all-around player, albeit somewhat shreddy"... Shreddy... It's mentioned in a very disapproving manner. Jazz players really hate shred. They frown upon it. They think Guthrie is a monster talent but wish he would tame that despicable "shreddiness". Automatically, shred means no sense of swing, no harmonic concepts, no taste, no tone, no ability to blow over complex changes - blah, blah, blah... It's understandable. Jazzholes have the right to express their opinions as they see fit.
The funny thing is that the "shreddiness" that jazz players look down upon is what I find so much more fun to listen to in Guthrie than typical high-browed jazz playing. Yes, many shredders give shred a bad name and perhaps that's what it comes down to. The excesses of the late-80's Shrapnel era still disgust many a guitar music fans and anything that resembles the sounds of that era are automatically dismissed by the jazz/fusion/blues purist types as some lowlife form of guitar playing. Well, it really doesn't matter, does it? I certainly couldn't care less because it's all personal taste in the end. What I find encouraging is the number of new Guthrie fans joining the fold on a daily basis. Now, that's a cool thing!
Many rock/shred players could claim that jazz guitarists have an extremely limited range of articulation and tone for notes - not many bends, let alone large bends, no distortion etc.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
