Bonzolee

Dec 18 2009, 02:38 AM

Music is different for me. Unless I'm making money off it, I couldn't give two shits whether or not someone hears my music or not. The question is: do I think the music is bloody good? That's the only question that matters. I love playing music. Really, I have no problem only sharing my music with friends. Touring sucks, live gigs are usually a headache, and recording is a lot of work. I like playing music and writing music, and jamming. Recording takes up a lot of time, and unless I'm bringing in a good amount of money somewhere else, I'm not going to record. I mean, I record now, but not much. It's a waste of resources and time, and if you're broke like me, you'd be better off rehearsing for and playing a small to medium size gig, and working longer hours at your day job. Financially, it's a much better decision.

I'd love to really spend a good amount of time recording and mixing a good amount of songs, but I'm not going to spend the time on it if I don't have enough money to even live on. And, whatever you do, it must be balanced with the realities of living.

Any message I want to deliver to the world can be done so without music, you know? I mean, there is really no message in the music, it's its own thing entirely. It's sounds, textures, melodies. Sure, it's a story, and a conversation amongst musicians, but one that's sonic. I totally "get" that conversation; it's why I love playing music. You can hear a song for the first time and kind of predict all the little bits that are coming up on the road. You can see the notes as they dance with one another. It's a beautiful thing.

Quote:

 

Dad says Eric Clapton is the greatest guitar player ever. It is to me ridiculous to try and rate greatness like that, but could that assessment be true?

Quote:

 

Eric Clapton would be fucked if he had to play in a thrash metal band.

Quote:

 

Eric Clapton was innovative - for a white Guy and had a good blues feel. But the best? not by a long chalk.

Quote:

 

And Jeez Bonz, you analyse the shit out of everything. You gave me about 20 reasons not to watch those Youtube clips.

Quote:

 

Next time you have a wank

Quote:

 

Basically, there is a certain type of musical expertise that allows a musician go integrate into other genres fairly easily. Hendrix could do this, some Jazz guys can, etc. It doesn't actually come from being a "genius," though that helps, but from being widely influenced so that when another genre that is a cousin of one's own is presented, you can easily pick it up. That's not to say if you just walked up to Clapton and said, "Play death metal!" He could (capitalized because Clapton is God). But He could very probably shred very fast on a mixolydian mode or something, which is a major part of that kind of music. Though, not now, probably, as He's getting old; when He was in his 20's or 30's, probably. I could be wrong about Clapton, but it is actually true of musicians at the top of their game, hence how session musicians can play country one day and Jazz the next (though anything they play will have a flavor of their personal style/interests, as Hendrix playing death metal would sound like, well, Hendrix playing really fast on minor scales).

Quote:

 

Anyway, it's not because they're "the greatest" and they would be unlikely to be as good at it as they are at their "home" genre. It's really why saying "best" is iffy. Best at what? Hendrix could never play like Joe Pass. Joe Pass could never play like Hendrix. Both are superb (though Joe Pass is less sloppy; that's not an insult, though, just a fact).

Bonzolee

Dec 20 2009, 05:20 AM

There is nothing I've ever heard from Clapton that suggests he could in any way handle the duties of a thrash guitarist (lead, that is). It's too fast for him, both with the picking and fretwork. Clapton's specialty is more in note placement, bluesy bends, giving character to the notes he chooses.

Clapton shredding? I doubt it. George Lynch is a shredder. Strong pinky, insanely fast picking hand. Eddie Van Halen, Joe Satriani. And Joe, he relies on a lot of more legato runs, fret hand quickness; slides, hammer-ons and pull-offs, stuff like that. He's immediately recognizable because of that. All three of those guys could easily play thrash, Lynch probably being the most ideal.

And a lot of session musicians, from what I've heard, seem to be good at everything and great at nothing. Metal? Yes. Jazz? Yes.

. . .

I like what one of the guitarists for Judas Priest said: you've only got so much time to spend, so you have to choose to spend it on things you enjoy, things you want to use. You have to know where you want to go, and how you're going to get there.

In economics, there's this thing called "opportunity cost". If you have 25$ to spend and a night absent of any work, you could go out to eat dinner with friends or go out to see a film with a different group friends. If you choose the film, you no longer have the time or money to spend on that night out at the restaurant; you also will not be able to hang out with one group of friends. That 25$, that night's time, can only be spent on the film or dinner, not both.

Applied to music, it basically means that for every second I spend trying to get down Buddy Rich's left hand technique, I lose a second on anything else. Simple concept. And the harder something is to learn, the more time it will need.

And yes, I did drag economics into a music discussion. Wtf?

Do I keep this in mind whenever I practice? Absolutely.

Joe Pass is pretty damn good, if I may say so. And good summation: both guys are on the top of the musical pyramid, but for very different reasons.

Quote:

 

I never liked Van Halen, much, though; he always just struck me as a guy with a lot of technique and very little soul.

Quote:

 

When I was in junior high, there was a rumor among all the guitar players that Randy Rhodes was the fastest player of them all. Any truth to that?

Bonzolee

Dec 23 2009, 04:59 AM

Eddie Van Halen is one of my favorite guitarists. To me, he "gets" the whole conversation of music. He rarely shows off for the sake of showing off. He's just an inventive, highly skilled musician who's enthusiastic about his work. To me, his feel blows Clapton and Allman out of the water. But I think the same about Hendrix, too– he slays Clapton and Allman. Actually, I like Clapton, but never really cared all that much for Duane Allman. Eddie Van Halen is probably the musician who most influenced me.

He also seems to be a total asshole in real life, unfortunately.

And this is where taste enters the equation. One can argue skill and technique, but not really taste. I do think Duane Allman is a damn good guitar player; I just don't dig his work.

Same with Mike Portnoy on drums. Guy is incredible, I just can't get into what he does.

Some of his stuff I do like, but generally I can't get into it. I'd much rather listen to Herlin Riley.

Huxley

Jan 11 2010, 07:36 AM

I always felt that Yngwie Malmsteen was the 'fastest' guitarist I ever heard. of course its all shit what you are hearing; no soul and arpeggios up and down. 'Speed' is no marker for a great guitarist. it takes passion and 'feel' to impress that emotion on the listener.

In view of that, id like to give a mention of an underrated guitarist and that would be Neil Schon of Journey. I mean for his solo stuff. he combines all of the above; speed when necessary, emotion in abundance and that incomparable essence of "I didn't know he had it in him".