OT: What part of OVERKILL don't shredders understand???

[TheDarxide]

Originally posted by GregCrowe Sounds to me that some people are still upset and jealous of the fact they never got good enough to be able to shred. Get over it. If you had the technical ability to shred, you would shred to some extent. Shred can be found in pretty much any genre of music. It's doesn't have to be in 80's metal. Get over it, get off these forums, go practice.

 

 

+1111111111111111111111111

 

 

Thread over

[coyote-1]

How silly.

Originally posted by maccashash dan, this forum is stuck in the '80s. You'll just have to accept that. People here respect CC Deville more than Bob Dylan, and measure the worth of a player by how fast they can play and how pointy their guitar is. It's really weird how most people here venerate Toto and Journey, and totally {censored} on actual good rock like Led Zeppelin and AC/DC, because Jimmy Page wasn't perfect live. It's like some alternate universe where crap is celebrated because it's played with technical perfection.

And how silly the premise of this thread. Dylan WAS great; his good stuff is as good today as it was then.

Dylan's greatness does NOT diminish the amazing playing of, say, Steve Vai. Just as Vai's greatness doesn't diminish that of Cole Porter, whose greatness doesn't diminish that of Paganini or Charlie Parker....

There's room in my listening environs for all the above. What there's NOT room for is AC/DC - just because they've always had the most annoying rock vocal screamers on the planet. Same for some of Zep's live output; bad singing and sloppy guitar cannot save great music from a performance perspective.

[Pungent]

Originally posted by Knottyhed Sorry for the massive edit - but most of it was ranting about some other guys post. Clearly you don't think scales and playing fast is a waste of time because you practice it. IMO alot of this thread is attacking those that work their butt off aquiring technical skill - you don't have to like the music to appreciate good guitar playing for what it is. Without exception, every non-technical guitar player people have thrown in (Bob Dylan, Kurt Cobain etc.) were also singers - they wrote great songs, but their chief method of communicating to the audience was via their singing voice and lyrics. I can't sing, so my guitar is my sole musical outlet - without technical skill i'd be stuck banging out chords and obvious pentatonics as i'd not have the skill set to express myself. Personally I suspect most of those making daily "shred sucks" posts fall into that category and identify more with guitarists that frankly - just aren't that good. I do think that music needs to express emotion, but I'm not sure why some people seem to think that having a high level of skill is somehow counter-productive to that. The less you're thinking about the physical task of guitar playing the more free you are to express yourself. Perhaps some shredders express pomposity in their playing (Ywngie is probably quilty of that), but you should still respect the fact that the guy has a deep love of his instrument, excellent chops and if he decided to join a blues band and express pain and sorrow on his instrument he could probably do it a damn site better than anyone on this thread.

 

 

Finally a sane reply. Of course I find it important, improving skill is why I practice. I don't really use many of the scales and things like that in my music, but I practice them to improve my fret hand flexibility, coordination, and strength. I spend just as much time trying different chords. I admit I'm also one of those singer/guitarist types, but I don't emphasize my singing, its part of the music and my voice is an instrument, I practice it as well to get better, but I really am a guitarist first. I can really understand what you are saying, and I didn't mean to put down good guitar players. I was responding to the bull{censored} some of the other guys were posting, and it does tend to be an inherent trait I notice in many shred players, that personality that lends itself to being center of attention. I really respect players who don't sing like Page, and honestly Clapton is more of a player, his voice really isn't that good. Both of these guys just played without showing off, if you've seen Clapton play a lead he just closes his eyes and goes to work. I don't have a problem with good players, and I've known some really nice guys that shred. I DO have a problem with over the top jerks like the ones I was replying to, and it isn't just their playing that irks me, its their attitude ABOUT their playing, and conversely that comes through in the way they play. You can be reserved while playing good.

 

My whole point can be summed up as, a shredder CAN == good guitarist, but good guitarist does not == shred. You can be very good without playing fast.

 

And yea, I agree that others shouldn't hate someone just because they can play really well, there are some really good players that truely love guitar and play it well and with feeling. I won't put down Vai, I don't really like his music but I don't deny the guy just simply loves playing guitar. But a lot of wankers don't do it for the love of the guitar, they do it to show off how good they are. It boils down to the reason you play. Is it because you want to impress people, or is it because you simply love to play? Actually I tried for a few years to quit music. I had quit my band, was going to college, had a family, and put my time into learning computers, which is my occupation. Problem is, a few years later I couldn't get it out of me. Fully formed songs just appeared in my head, and I knew I couldn't deny that I just loved music and it was a part of me. So I picked it back up again and praticed every day. I don't say that I'm superiour to anyone, but I know why I do it and I don't like being put down because I'm not showing off.

 

Thanks for injecting some reason into this discussion.

[Uma Floresta]

From a music critic's perspective, all those wimpy guys that shredders think so low of (Nirvana, The Smiths, My Bloody Valentine), those "wimps" are far superior to bands like Van Halen, Ywengie, etc. Substance over style. That's just the way it is. If all you care about is guitar, guitar, guitar, then I can see how you'd be attracted to Van Halen et al. But as for me, music takes precedent over guitar.

[Auggie Doggie]

Originally posted by Uma Floresta From a music critic's perspective, all those wimpy guys that shredders think so low of (Nirvana, The Smiths, My Bloody Valentine), those "wimps" are far superior to bands like Van Halen, Ywengie, etc. Substance over style. That's just the way it is. If all you care about is guitar, guitar, guitar, then I can see how you'd be attracted to Van Halen et al. But as for me, music takes precedent over guitar.

That's why they're critics and not musicians; they TRIED to be musicians, but failed, so they applaud those who can't while bashing those who can.

They're just like the reporter in 'The Natural'. He never played a game in his life, but makes a living writing about others, with the unfortunate ability to drastically alter the course of their careers.

Bands like Nirvana, The Smiths, etc., are severely lacking in substance, and even MORE lacking in talent and ability. Their 'style' is what made them famous; no different from any other fashion show or popularity contest. Nirvana in particular was the patron saint of those who can't but would rather mope around than improve themselves. But, their audience wasn't drawn to their music; it was the image they projected (apathy, uncleanliness, etc)...the medium being the message, and that message was 'it's okay to be a loser because there are so many of us'. There were thousands of middle school garage bands that sounded just like Nirvana years before Nirvana became famous; they couldn't play, write, or sing, which is why they quit and found new hobbies. It wasn't until the 90's when the media told the kiddies that it was best to suck, and that nothing was more offensive than achievement.

[Uma Floresta]

Originally posted by Auggie Doggie That's why they're critics and not musicians; they TRIED to be musicians, but failed, so they applaud those who can't while bashing those who can. They're just like the reporter in 'The Natural'. He never played a game in his life, but makes a living writing about others, with the unfortunate ability to drastically alter the course of their careers. Bands like Nirvana, The Smiths, etc., are severely lacking in substance, and even MORE lacking in talent and ability. Their 'style' is what made them famous; no different from any other fashion show or popularity contest. Nirvana in particular was the patron saint of those who can't but would rather mope around than improve themselves. But, their audience wasn't drawn to their music; it was the image they projected (apathy, uncleanliness, etc)...the medium being the message, and that message was 'it's okay to be a loser because there are so many of us'. There were thousands of middle school garage bands that sounded just like Nirvana years before Nirvana became famous; they couldn't play, write, or sing, which is why they quit and found new hobbies. It wasn't until the 90's when the media told the kiddies that it was best to suck, and that nothing was more offensive than achievement.

I'm sure many music critics are failed musicians, true, but I'm sure there are many who aren't. The most important thing to a music critic, I think, is songwriting. Is the song good? If not, no ammount of riffing will make a bad song good. Does this mean that all technically proficient guitarists are bad songwriters? No. In fact, most shredders couldn't approach Johnny Marr's arpeggios and creative guitar songwriting. Jimi Hendrix wrote some great songs. Led Zep too. But when flash comes first, and songwriting comes second, it makes most people yawn, ESPECIALLY people who aren't musicians. Really, who listens to Ywengie other than guitar players? Let's be honest.

I appreciate a good solo, mind, even if it's a bit masturbatory. But good solos AREN'T substance, they are style, and without a compelling, interesting or unique set of chords and lyrics and vocals underneath, good solos aren't worth a whole lot.

I have a feeling we aren't going to see eye to eye on this one.

By the way, there are plenty of failed musicians who LOVE shred. In fact, most shredders ARE failed musicians, because there isn't much of a market for it. That doesn't make them failures per say, they're just not going to have a career in music, even though they may be quite good at it.

[Uma Floresta]

By the way, I agree with whoever said that Van Halen wasn't just a shredder, that he used solos to augment the songs... true true. However, most of his songs are pretty banal, with the most obvious chord progressions imaginable, and throw-away lyrics. But, Van Halen are good party music anyway, they're fun, and there's a need for fun music, even if it's light on substance.

[coyote-1]

For me too.

Originally posted by Uma Floresta But as for me, music takes precedent over guitar.

BUT..... as a multi-instrumentalist, I can tell you it's frustrating when you need to execute a piece of music and you cannot. Often, expressing the emotion of a given piece of music requires tremendous virtuousity - any classical violinist or pianist or jazz saxophonist can tell you this. In the world of western music, it's only in 'rock' that a lack of ability could ever be considered a virtue.

Look at it this way: My band can play "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and nail the emotional content of the music. Your band too? Cool!
We can do the same with "21st Century Schizoid Man" and "Heart of the Sunrise".

Your band too???

[tin whistle]

Originally posted by danbronson PS: It's time to get over it, the 80s ended SIXTEEN YEARS AGO.

 

 

What I find funny is that, while watching the band Coldplay on Austin City for example, the band's music sounded just like stuff I listened to on college/indie radio stations 20+ years ago.

[Auggie Doggie]

Originally posted by Uma Floresta I'm sure many music critics are failed musicians, true, but I'm sure there are many who aren't. The most important thing to a music critic, I think, is songwriting. Is the song good? If not, no ammount of riffing will make a bad song good. Critics judge the quality of a song by two things: the lyrics, and who the performers are. If the lyrics are 'serious', it's dubbed 'good'; if they're not 'serious', then they're 'bad'. If there are no lyrics at all, the critics have no idea what they're even listening to; they have no concept of the language of music, which is why they focus so much on lyrics. If the performers smile when playing, it's 'bad', and vice-versa. The problem is that pop music is NOT serious, no matter how hard people wish it was. Musically, it's thin, shallow, simplistic, and made for easy, mindless consumption. Lyrically, it's just plain pathetic when they try to be say something 'important'. When bands have delved into more interesting music, their pop appeal goes downhill fast, as does their income. As for the general public, it's a 'good song' if it's simple and redundant enough to remember. Thousands of terrible songs have been hits simply because they got enough spins at radio stations; familiarity breeds success. If it wasn't already obvious, songs are everywhere; anyone can string together a few words over some chords and call it a song. No matter how bad it is, if people hear it enough, they start to like it. The more mundane and contrived, the better. Does this mean that all technically proficient guitarists are bad songwriters? No. In fact, most shredders couldn't approach Johnny Marr's arpeggios and creative guitar songwriting. That's an extremely careless use of the word 'creative'. Jimi Hendrix wrote some great songs. Led Zep too. But when flash comes first, and songwriting comes second, it makes most people yawn, ESPECIALLY people who aren't musicians. Really, who listens to Ywengie other than guitar players? Let's be honest. Go to an Yngwie show and find out for yourself. I appreciate a good solo, mind, even if it's a bit masturbatory. But good solos AREN'T substance, they are style, and without a compelling, interesting or unique set of chords and lyrics and vocals underneath, good solos aren't worth a whole lot.

I have yet to hear anything musically interesting from the anti-player crowd, and lyrics aren't music. I haven't even touched the subject of solos; it's really obvious upon listening when someone simply can't play well, long before a solo might appear in a song.

However, this is not just a blanket defense of 'shredders'. More often than not, I hear them and think 'it's a shame this guy can play like that, but wastes his energy on crap like this.' But that's still better than listening to crap from those who can't play at all; at least there's something redeeming in the work of those who can play their asses off.

[Pungent]

*sigh* Its like trying to stop the waves in the ocean. There is no way to convince stupid people, everything you say goes over their heads and they just repeat the same tired crap. There isn't enough time in my lifetime to spend trying to explain these things. Its like trying to get a blind person to undestand how the color red looks. You just aren't going to get it.

The only things I will say, no, your band did NOT nail "Smells like teen spirit", I have never heard anyone ever do it right, music critics are not necessarily failed musicians, many times the critics are more lovers of music than some of these so-called musicians, and you don't need to have spent 10 years learning an instrument to be able or allowed to make music.

[Uma Floresta]

Originally posted by coyote-1 For me too. BUT..... as a multi-instrumentalist, I can tell you it's frustrating when you need to execute a piece of music and you cannot . Often, expressing the emotion of a given piece of music requires tremendous virtuousity - any classical violinist or pianist or jazz saxophonist can tell you this. In the world of western music, it's only in 'rock' that a lack of ability could ever be considered a virtue. Look at it this way: My band can play "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and nail the emotional content of the music. Your band too? Cool! We can do the same with "21st Century Schizoid Man" and "Heart of the Sunrise". Your band too???

 

 

Sure, I agree, virtuosity is great. When used as a tool to advance the art, not as the art itself.

[Uma Floresta]

Originally posted by Auggie Doggie I have yet to hear anything musically interesting from the anti-player crowd, and lyrics aren't music. I haven't even touched the subject of solos; it's really obvious upon listening when someone simply can't play well, long before a solo might appear in a song. However, this is not just a blanket defense of 'shredders'. More often than not, I hear them and think 'it's a shame this guy can play like that, but wastes his energy on crap like this.' But that's still better than listening to crap from those who can't play at all; at least there's something redeeming in the work of those who can play their asses off.

Hmm, check out the following:

Talking Heads, The Smiths, The Cure, Nick Drake, Bebel Gilberto, Belle & Sebastian, The Flaming Lips, Adriana Calcanhotto, Legiao Urbana, Joao Gilberto, Radiohead, Bjork, The Police, Antonio Carlos Jobim, Astrud Gilberto, Iron & Wine, Elliot Smith, The White Stripes, My Bloody Valentine, David Bowie, Badly Drawn Boy, Kraftwerk, The Clash

Some of these artists are quite technically proficient, others not so much -- but again, substance over flash. Bands like Van Halen, if we were going to make comparisons to the art world, are like "Dogs Playing Poker." Ywengie would be like a hyper-realist take on "Dogs Playing Poker."

[cloudnine]

Originally posted by Uma Floresta Hmm, check out the following: Talking Heads, The Smiths, The Cure, Nick Drake, Bebel Gilberto, Belle & Sebastian, The Flaming Lips, Adriana Calcanhotto, Legiao Urbana, Joao Gilberto, Radiohead, Bjork, The Police, Antonio Carlos Jobim, Astrud Gilberto, Iron & Wine, Elliot Smith, The White Stripes, My Bloody Valentine, David Bowie, Badly Drawn Boy, Kraftwerk, The Clash

Except for the Police, Bowie, and The CLash, could you pick a more boring, art-fag list of crappy bands and musicians

[Polaris20]

Originally posted by Pungent The only things I will say, no, your band did NOT nail "Smells like teen spirit"

Yeah, they probably played in tune, and without breaking their instruments afterwards.

I never will understand how Cobain is placed on the same pedestal as Hendrix, Joplin, etc.

Had he lived, Nirvana would have faded into obscurity like the rest of the grunge crap.

I agree with the above post; the only place where crappy technique has been acceptable is rock, maybe blues.

When was the last time you heard a classical pianist play like crap and then say they're more a "feel" player?

Keith Richards is a "feel" player. Buddy Guy is a "feel" player. SRV was a "fee" player. But they all had/have some sense of technique.

Cobain just plain sucked.

[Pungent]

Originally posted by Polaris20 Yeah, they probably played in tune, and without breaking their instruments afterwards. I never will understand how Cobain is placed on the same pedestal as Hendrix, Joplin, etc. Had he lived, Nirvana would have faded into obscurity like the rest of the grunge crap. I agree with the above post; the only place where crappy technique has been acceptable is rock, maybe blues. When was the last time you heard a classical pianist play like crap and then say they're more a "feel" player? Keith Richards is a "feel" player. Buddy Guy is a "feel" player. SRV was a "fee" player. But they all had/have some sense of technique. Cobain just plain sucked.

HAH, oh man that is so funny. You made a joke about them not being in tune, and you ended it with 'just plain sucked'. What's the matter, making an actual well constructed argument to back your opinion is too hard for you?
I can't believe I'm sitting here defending this, I probably sound like a zealous fan of them or something, which actually I could care less. Its just stupidity that drives me insane. Unless you are deaf, Nirvana was never out of tune. The reason they didn't nail the song is the same reason no one does, because they approached it with the chords and played them in standard timing. Listen to the song and you will hear that it isn't played with any normal timing. As a whole the song has a standard timing, but the way its played isn't. THAT is the beauty of that song.

But again, I'm never going to be able to talk any sense to people that are this hopeless. Speaking of in rock n roll lack of talent is a virtue, when the {censored} did being stupid become acceptable? Try being a grown up and speak intelligently if you have something to say. When I see comments that use the words "boring art-fag list of crappy bands and musicians" it makes me sad to see humanity progressing backwards.

[coyote-1]

LOL! Now you're gonna label anyone who cares enough about the music to get good at playing their instruments stupid???

Nirvana couldn't even play it 'right' in concert. You're confusing production with playing.....

Originally posted by Pungent *sigh* Its like trying to stop the waves in the ocean. There is no way to convince stupid people, everything you say goes over their heads and they just repeat the same tired crap. There isn't enough time in my lifetime to spend trying to explain these things. Its like trying to get a blind person to undestand how the color red looks. You just aren't going to get it. The only things I will say, no, your band did NOT nail "Smells like teen spirit", I have never heard anyone ever do it right, music critics are not necessarily failed musicians, many times the critics are more lovers of music than some of these so-called musicians, and you don't need to have spent 10 years learning an instrument to be able or allowed to make music.

 

[Uma Floresta]

Originally posted by cloudnine Except for the Police, Bowie, and The CLash, could you pick a more boring, art-fag list of crappy bands and musicians

LOL... that's okay, I don't expect us to see eye to eye on this --- except I object to your term "art fag." These so called "wussy fags" at least didn't go around with eyeshadow and spandex tights and permed hair (well, for the most part). And Bowie and The Police both had lots of "Art Fag" moments, especially Bowie (ever listen to "Low"?)

[cloudnine]

Yeah but at least Bowie was talented

Aint nothin' wrong with a few hair metal bands here and there

[Uma Floresta]

Originally posted by cloudnine Yeah but at least Bowie was talented Aint nothin' wrong with a few hair metal bands here and there

LOL

[Pungent]

Originally posted by coyote-1 LOL! Now you're gonna label anyone who cares enough about the music to get good at playing their instruments stupid ??? Nirvana couldn't even play it 'right' in concert. You're confusing production with playing.....

 

 

Yea, go ahead and incorrectly summarize what I said into a completely wrong statement. Where the did I say that? Tell me, where in ANY of my posts in this thread did I say that learning to play your instrument well is stupid?

 

I called people who make blanket statements and summarize things incorrectly stupid. I called people who make statements putting down a musician because they don't follow conventional standards for timing, stupid. I called people who can't make an argument to support their claims other than basic exaggerated statements like, "They couldn't even get it right live", stupid.

 

I HAVE heard live recordings. It sounded exactly what I was describing, with a quirky timing that so far I've only heard the actual band be able to do.

 

Don't diss other musicians because they aren't playing something that fits your snobbish guidelines. Thats what creativity is, breaking the norms and expanding on what is established. Not rehashing the same tired {censored} over and over.

[Uma Floresta]

I think Cobain really WASN'T much of a guitarist ... but he was a great SONGWRITER, which is even better. Dave Groll was/is a good drummer, though.

And really, what does it matter if he wasn't a good guitarist. The Sex Pistols were horrible musicians, but they seem to have shaken things up. I'd say Nirvana was the Sex Pistols of the 90's, but with better songs.

[Knottyhed]

Originally posted by Auggie Doggie That's why they're critics and not musicians; they TRIED to be musicians, but failed, so they applaud those who can't while bashing those who can. They're just like the reporter in 'The Natural'. He never played a game in his life, but makes a living writing about others, with the unfortunate ability to drastically alter the course of their careers. Bands like Nirvana, The Smiths, etc., are severely lacking in substance, and even MORE lacking in talent and ability. Their 'style' is what made them famous; no different from any other fashion show or popularity contest. Nirvana in particular was the patron saint of those who can't but would rather mope around than improve themselves. But, their audience wasn't drawn to their music; it was the image they projected (apathy, uncleanliness, etc)...the medium being the message, and that message was 'it's okay to be a loser because there are so many of us'. There were thousands of middle school garage bands that sounded just like Nirvana years before Nirvana became famous; they couldn't play, write, or sing, which is why they quit and found new hobbies. It wasn't until the 90's when the media told the kiddies that it was best to suck, and that nothing was more offensive than achievement.

 

 

i partly agree and partly disagree. Nirvana had some pretty decent musicians in it, they weren't virtuoso's by any means - but they could play with intensity and write songs people would remeber. Kurt Cobain also had an amazing singing voice, he could use it to scream, mumour, sing an old blues standard with massive emotional intensity (go listen to the unplugged album) he could really impart emotion through his singing. The irony of what you said is that kurt cobain knew most people were only attracted to his music because of the image - in fact "In Bloom" is a song mocking those very people. In the end i think he was so embarrassed about it he blew his f(*king head off.

 

i do agree that musicians have a different appreciation of music than the general public and the critics - i used to like nirvana (and still do to an extent), but as my guitar skills became more sophisticated, so did my musical taste. however, if i was trying to make a fortune in music i'd have to write from the general public and not musicians.

[Shocker]

caringaboutnotesandtechniquesusedwithoutunderstandingthattheyareapartofagreaterwholethatistomakeagoodsongyesasaguitaristyouareonlyapartofawholeislikeclaimingtoappreciatewordswithoutneedingtounderstandtheyneedsomesortofstructureiffornootherreasonthanbecauseyouneedsomereferencepointforthingstomakeanysortofsense

//S

[Polaris20]

Originally posted by Pungent Yea, go ahead and incorrectly summarize what I said into a completely wrong statement. Where the did I say that? Tell me, where in ANY of my posts in this thread did I say that learning to play your instrument well is stupid? I called people who make blanket statements and summarize things incorrectly stupid. I called people who make statements putting down a musician because they don't follow conventional standards for timing, stupid. I called people who can't make an argument to support their claims other than basic exaggerated statements like, "They couldn't even get it right live", stupid. I HAVE heard live recordings. It sounded exactly what I was describing, with a quirky timing that so far I've only heard the actual band be able to do. Don't diss other musicians because they aren't playing something that fits your snobbish guidelines. Thats what creativity is, breaking the norms and expanding on what is established. Not rehashing the same tired {censored} over and over.

 

 

there's a difference between "unconventional time keeping" and just playing out of time.

 

I HAVE heard live recordings, and they ARE out of tune. AND it sounds like crap. Bad. Unacceptable. Unpleasant. Any other word describing something painful to listen to.

 

To see unconventional time, see Frank Zappa or Dream Theater.

 

Don't get your panties in a bunch because I have an opinion, and that opinion is that Nirvana sucked. Reasons to back it up?

 

Can't keep time, can't sing and often play in tune. I find it unpleasant.

 

There you have it.