what the hell has happened to guitar players?

[Jedi]

Hey Henry, You might not be missing anything. He just might suck for you. But if you haven't heard it, check out Neil Young/Crazy Horse-Everybody knows this is nowhere. IMO, this album kicks some serious ass. Check out "Cowgirl in the Sand" the last track. Now, for me, that was some real down home rock and roll lead coming from our man Neil. I've been playing that album to death because it's some real rock and roll, very authentic, very pure. That last song, "Cowgirl" I'm telling you, Neil is rocking. Check it out, and let us know. I love to hear other opinions on things I think are undeniable. It amazes me that I could love something so deeply and someone else only thinks it's o.k. or it sucks or whatever. I'd love to hear what you think? [quote]Originally posted by Dan South [b]We need a new wave of kick ass guitarists. I elect Chip, Lee, Spigots, and Dead Black Jedi to lead the charge.[/b] [/quote]Hey Dan, I needed those words of encouragement right now. I don't know if you've seen any of my posts yesterday, but I'm feeling really overwhelmed right now. Thanks man. Namaste Jedi

[Tusker]

[quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b]To really be "rocking", you've got to be breaking some rules - and ALL of them have been broken, taken apart, neatly packaged and reconstituted for Mass Consumption. [/b][/quote]Chip: I love your post. I just wanna be a smart-aleck and 'disagree' with this statement though. We haven't broken all the rules. It's just that at this point we don't know what the next set of rules to be broken are. If we could predict where the next subversion is to come from, the "corporate musicians" would make the jump to it. The next jump rarely seems inevitable until people hear it. Then they accept, adopt, and adapt it. No person can say what rock music will do next. If they could, it would be dead. Some think it is. I don't. I think it's part of a cycle of virtue and stagnation that is as old as humanity. Good music will break loose again. People will choose flawed beauty over pristine meaninglessness again. Music will mean more again. This is the paradox and virtue of any movement that has rebellion and re-construction at it's core. If you know where it's going, it is going nowhere. Jerry :)

[Sylver]

Nope, Chip, all the rules have not been broken. And the rules that broke the rules haven't been broken yet. But I do agree with much of your post. I guess when I said that todays music lacks the blues, I meant that it lacks deep emotional content. There are surface emotions there, but I don't feel like it digs deep enough to be interesting. It ain't over, not by a long shot.

[Magpel]

Sure, I can try to explain the basis of Young's greatness as a lead guitar player -- all the reasons that you don't like him! The sound of a man squeezing out pained and painful notes against massive resistance--the lack of ease and fluency, the cramped and crabbed technique, and the cerebral power drill tone. Some people think it's just pure rock and roll. I'm not a huge fan. Incidentally, I've always thought that John Scofield is the Neil Young of jazz. Every note hurts, and he seems to have just barely the chops to pull of his ideas, but his ideas are beautiful and his resources seemingly endless. I love Scofield. [quote]Originally posted by henryrobinett: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Botch: [b]no one's mentioned my three favs: 1. Mark Knopfler 2. Neil Young 3. "Skunk" Baxter [/b][/quote]I'm not trying to be a smart ass. I just don't "get" it. Can you or someone please tell me what you see in Neil Young as a guitar player? I've listened to early Young, from Buffalo Springfield days to "After the Gold Rush" period to CSNY to "better to burn out than to fade away . . .". I'm not a huge fan but I like a lot of his music. BUT his guitar playing I could never stand. I'm not trying to put you on the defensive, I'm just trying to understand. I'm mean I always thought he was OK until he started trying to play a lead. I know he has some fans and he sits on some guitar hero lists, but I've just never understood that. Mark Knopfler and Skunk I can more understand. So come on guys/gals, what am I missing here? What should I be getting that I'm not?[/b][/quote]

[Jedi]

[quote]Originally posted by Sylver I guess when I said that todays music lacks the blues, I meant that it lacks deep emotional content. There are surface emotions there, but I don't feel like it digs deep enough to be interesting. It ain't over, not by a long shot. [/quote]You hit it right on with that one. The stuff on the radio just doesn't seem to have conviction, depth, authenticity, nothing. It's just surface crap. Things have become so pretentious that it's pretentious to say that things are pretentious. That's why Chip's post(an excellent one I might add!) strikes such a chord. I agree with you guys, rock can't be dead, but it sure feels like it. Namaste Jedi

[Rog]

I think when you perform you have to care about what you're singing about - care about the song. Only then can you access the particular emotion and transmit it to the listener. If the artist doesn't feel it, how the fuck am I supposed to? Britney wouldn't recognise a genuine emotion if it crept up and behind her and jumped out screaming 'I'm a genuine emotion' with the words 'I'm a genuine emotion' painted in day glo orange on it's forehead. It's the same with guitar wankers - the only think they're feeling is each others dicks, and I'm left feeling embarrassed. :)

[Rog]

I think when you perform you have to care about what you're singing about - care about the song. Only then can you access the particular emotion and transmit it to the listener. If the artist doesn't feel it, how the fuck am I supposed to? Britney wouldn't recognise a genuine emotion if it crept up and behind her and jumped out screaming 'I'm a genuine emotion' with the words 'I'm a genuine emotion' painted in day glo orange on it's forehead. It's the same with guitar wankers - the only think they're feeling is each others dicks, and I'm left feeling embarrassed. :)

[Jedi]

[quote]Originally posted by Rog [b]Britney wouldn't recognise a genuine emotion if it crept up and behind her and jumped out screaming 'I'm a genuine emotion' with the words 'I'm a genuine emotion' painted in day glo orange on its forehead.[/b] [/quote]LMAO Namaste Jedi

[Charlie-brm]

[quote]Originally posted by henryrobinett: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Botch: [b]no one's mentioned my three favs: 1. Mark Knopfler 2. Neil Young 3. "Skunk" Baxter [/b][/quote]I'm not trying to be a smart ass. I just don't "get" it. Can you or someone please tell me what you see in Neil Young as a guitar player? I've listened to early Young, from Buffalo Springfield days to "After the Gold Rush" period to CSNY to "better to burn out than to fade away . . .". I'm not a huge fan but I like a lot of his music. BUT his guitar playing I could never stand. I'm not trying to put you on the defensive, I'm just trying to understand. I'm mean I always thought he was OK until he started trying to play a lead. I know he has some fans and he sits on some guitar hero lists, but I've just never understood that. Mark Knopfler and Skunk I can more understand. So come on guys/gals, what am I missing here? What should I be getting that I'm not?[/b][/quote]It's OK. I can follow what you mean. Living in hoser land, there is a certain reverence for Neil Young but even some of my buds think he should have stayed with acoustic! Sounds like the historic Bob Dylan controversy (went electric). I think they both sound annoying at times, but I pick up on NY's soul. If Dylan was starting out today an unknown, I wouldn't cross the street to hear him. I switch stations if he's on the radio. To each his own.

[Danny M]

I must admit that I liked some of Nirvana's songs, but I would gladly trade in everyting Nirvana ever did to have rock and roll back. (Motley Crue, Poison, Def Leppard, Warrant, Pre-Load Metallica, the list goes on and on.) Give me back my bands that could actually play something other than just a down-tuned chord progression. Long live the almighty riff! Like Sammy Hagar said, "It's not a point of view, it's a fact!" "We just play for the song" has changed from being artistic honesty to a euphemism for "We can't play, but we sure are popular for some reason." I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Britney is a heck of a lot more fun to listen to ([b]listen[/b] to, I mean it) than about 90% of the supposed "rock" out there today. -Danny

[The Bear Jew]

"Radio -- suckas never play me." -- Chuck D, Public Enemy As I mentioned before, I agree that radio doesn't offer much of interest these days. I really don't think it's the right place to look for new music anyway. Radio is a business controlled by the same thing that controls most business -- money. Radio stations will continue to play whatever brings the most cash their way, either through advertising dollars paid by companies who wish to reach a "target demographic" or big radio promotions companies, who will push whatever they're being paid to promote. They don't call it "payola" anymore, but a turd by any other name still smells like shit. The labels will push whatever artist has the flavor of the minute, and as long as they think there might be a few bucks left in that artist, they'll push it. Radio has nothing to do with introducing inspirational music -- it's all about money. So please don't look at the state of modern radio as a proper representation of all new music. It's only representative of the music being sold by major companies. This doesn't exactly offer a real hotbed for new, exiting music. Rather, it creates a cult of similiarity. As soon as a new style "hits" and makes money, all the labels with similar acts start pushing the heck out of them to radio. For example, Days Of The New made an impression on radio right after Alice In Chains' unplugged disc hit the streets... this begat Creed's popularity, which then led to bands like Nickelback and Default. Eventually, the radio has become cluttered with baritone singers who sing dirgey songs. However, for every Tantric or Creed, there are dozens of lesser-known artists who don't fit into the radio-specific mold of "today's sound." It's not as easy to find these acts. You have to look under rocks (no pun intended) and get out into the "scene." Yeah, there are a lot of imitators, but there are also a lot of innovators today. They're just harder to find. Personally, I recommend abandoning radio. It's useless for new music and pretty limited for those who want to hear the older stuff. I mean, I like Black Sabbath as much as the next guy, but I'd like to hear something besides "Paranoid" for a change. Forget your radio. Hit the clubs. Dig for gold in the indie record store bins. Read alternative magazines. Look at alternative music websites. The good stuff is out there -- you just have to look harder.

[Tedster]

[quote]Originally posted by henryrobinett: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Botch: [b]no one's mentioned my three favs: 1. Mark Knopfler 2. Neil Young 3. "Skunk" Baxter [/b][/quote]I'm not trying to be a smart ass. I just don't "get" it. Can you or someone please tell me what you see in Neil Young as a guitar player? I've listened to early Young, from Buffalo Springfield days to "After the Gold Rush" period to CSNY to "better to burn out than to fade away . . .". I'm not a huge fan but I like a lot of his music. BUT his guitar playing I could never stand. I'm not trying to put you on the defensive, I'm just trying to understand. I'm mean I always thought he was OK until he started trying to play a lead. I know he has some fans and he sits on some guitar hero lists, but I've just never understood that. Mark Knopfler and Skunk I can more understand. So come on guys/gals, what am I missing here? What should I be getting that I'm not?[/b][/quote]Neil played one of the greatest minimalist guitar solos of all time...the one-note romp on "Cinnamon Girl". I would defy anyone, Yngwie, Vai, Holdsworth, anyone, to improve on that solo (for that particular song, that is). That said, I agree with you otherwise.

[halljams]

[quote]Originally posted by Magpel: [b] Incidentally, I've always thought that John Scofield is the Neil Young of jazz. Every note hurts, and he seems to have just barely the chops to pull of his ideas, but his ideas are beautiful and his resources seemingly endless. I love Scofield. [/quote][/b][/QUOTE] I love Sco too. On one of his early instructional vids, the interviewer is trying to explain something to sco and he says "it's like in Cinnamin girl where Neil does ..."And Sco looks at him like he is fucking crazy for comparing him to Neil Young and politley says "I have no idea what you are talking about".

[vintagevibe]

[quote]Originally posted by Lee Flier: [b]1) Electric guitars sound bigger, better and deeper on analog tape than any digital recorder we yet have. They just do. :D --Lee[/b][/quote]Sorry I don't buy that. This could start a longer thread than I have time for but with the right digital equipment that statement just isn't true IMO. Also I don't thing guitar tones are the problem. It's been uncool to be an acomplished musician ever since Nirvana. I see nothing wrong with not being a virtuoso. I love John Lennon's playing but he had something to say. These days if you don't practice or care about your playing you're cool regardless of whether you actually have any worthwhile musical statement to make.

[mr. rob]

I dont think the hair metal bands were realy better musicians than the grunge bands. I think both era's were defined by 3 power chord ditties. And I think in the context of just grinding on 3 power chords, fancy guitar playing just kind of sits on top, so it is kind of wanky. I like good guitar playing when its in a musicially stimulating context. Like, I can listen to Nels Cline's tribute to John coltrane's interstellar space all day, because its really saying something with the playing in the way it forms a musical structure....And if the playing interacts with the other musicans to interpret a tune thats cool as well. But to just grind on 3 chords while the dude looks like a lady and the guitar dude has blowers cramp sweep picking like a madman...no thanks...

[coolhouse]

[quote]Originally posted by dblackjedi@hotmail.com: [b]...check out Neil Young/Crazy Horse-Everybody knows this is nowhere. IMO, this album kicks some serious ass...that was some real down home rock and roll lead coming from our man Neil...it's some real rock and roll, very authentic, very pure.[/b][/quote]Hey Jedi, There's just something about Neil isn't there? When he first went solo,it was that he was going somewhere nobody else had been to. Now,over 30 years later,I realize that nobody else has gotten there yet. A true original. You put your finger right on it with the words "down home". His stuff from the early days all has the feel of listening to a bunch of guys playing in your living room. Check out the Sub Dudes if you haven't already. Not the same kind of music(more New Orleans) but a similar vibe. Sounds like a bunch of good players who don't care about anything but getting together and playing...and yes they're in the living room. :cool: later, Mike

[Dan South]

[b]It's been uncool to be an acomplished musician ever since Nirvana.[/b] Dave Grohl is accomplished IMO. Besides, what's this uncool crap? Uncool to whom? People who want to have a lot of fun for a minimum investment of work? Fine. There's nothing wrong with that. But I think you underestimate the general listening public. Hendrix is a lot more popular than, say, Ray Davies. [b]I see nothing wrong with not being a virtuoso.[/b] I don't think anyone else does either, as long as you mean a "musical" virtuoso and not just a "technical" virtuoso. All chops and no feel = extremely bad music. [b]These days if you don't practice or care about your playing you're cool regardless of whether you actually have any worthwhile musical statement to make.[/b] Again, what's "cool" got to do with it? I wouldn't buy records from some no-talent hack, nor would I sit in a club for five minutes listening to them. On the other hand, if a player can communicate emotion despite modest technique, I don't see a problem with that. But if they just suck, they're not going to go far no matter how cool they think they are.

[Chip McDonald]

Thanks for the kudos, Dan.... "Rocking" was originally about a few specific things: rebelling against one's parents celebrating sex in the shadow of repressive social mores playing music perceived as "caustic" to the mainstream All 3 of those points can't happen anymore. I teach kids now that borrow their dad's Metallica cd for lessons, they sometimes even say "man.... my parents listen to all this metal crap, I just like folk music". That concept is turned upside down. Sex - that doesn't need any explanation, Girls are Presently Going Wild on a television commercial right now somewhere. "Caustic" - we now have "Christian" death metal bands. "Crazy Train" was used to sell Lexus'. Led Zeppelin is now turned into elevator muzak to be heard while one pumps gas at the local petrol stop. You've got to be doing one of those three things, or really all three to be "rocking". As a *concept* that's what rock was, and can never again be in spirit. RIP.

[Tusker]

[quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b]"Rocking" was originally about a few specific things: rebelling against one's parents celebrating sex in the shadow of repressive social mores playing music perceived as "caustic" to the mainstream All 3 of those points can't happen anymore.[/b][/quote]Agreed. However these threee criteria form a narrow definition... those of predominantly white middle-class teenagers growing up under strict social mores. In that sense I agree, it is hard to rock. However, using a broader definition, rock is about obtaining freedom with music. Holding the narrow definition may inhibit rock music, just as limiting rock music to a Buddy Holly style would. I suspect Buddy Holly would have difficulty recognizing Nirvana as 'his' music. They are still related nonetheless. :) I don't what new freedoms rock music will fight for next, but when I see the concentration of corporate power through mergers, the lack of social justice in the world, and the need for emancipation for various people groups, I believe it will be needed. You may not call it rock, it's style may not be the same, but I suspect the spirit will be. Rock may need to be for somebody other than American white middle class kids, in future. A revolutionary spirit is not well served by an orthodox way of thinking. Jerry

[Jedi]

Yeah Jerry, I was thinking along those lines. There is a lot out there to rebel against. I'm still very much a rebel so once I get my shit tight enough I would hope and believe that it will ROCK. Still, very insightful points from Chip though. Namaste Jedi

[strat0124]

[quote]Originally posted by dino321: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Lee Flier: [b]1) Electric guitars sound bigger, better and deeper on analog tape than any digital recorder we yet have. They just do. :D --Lee[/b][/quote]Sorry I don't buy that. This could start a longer thread than I have time for but with the right digital equipment that statement just isn't true IMO. Also I don't thing guitar tones are the problem. It's been uncool to be an acomplished musician ever since Nirvana. I see nothing wrong with not being a virtuoso. I love John Lennon's playing but he had something to say. These days if you don't practice or care about your playing you're cool regardless of whether you actually have any worthwhile musical statement to make.[/b][/quote]I have to agree with Lee, nothing like pushing tape hard, guitars sound huge. Try that with digital and you get nasty harshness. I do like acoustic guitar digital....or solo piano, but raunchy electric guitars, to me sound best on analog tape.

[vintagevibe]

strat0124 wrote: "I have to agree with Lee, nothing like pushing tape hard, guitars sound huge. Try that with digital and you get nasty harshness. I do like acoustic guitar digital....or solo piano, but raunchy electric guitars, to me sound best on analog tape." If you want that tape sound Cakewalk Tape Sim gets pretty darn close but that's not really my point. You can get monsterously big guitar sounds on digital. What Lee appears to be saying means that there will never again be big guitar sounds because of digital technology. This is not true. My point is that digital technology is not the problem. It's production trends. To me saying "you can't get big guitar sounds on digital" is like saying "there's no good music anymore". Very closed ear'ed and minded IMO.

[Lee Flier]

[quote]Originally posted by dino321: [b]What Lee appears to be saying means that there will never again be big guitar sounds because of digital technology.[/b][/quote]Actually it doesn't mean that at all. What it actually means to me is that digital technology can still stand a lot of improvement. And if nobody complains about it, it won't get better. I do believe digital will continue to get better and eventually surpass analog. It's been improving steadily since its inception and there's no reason why that won't continue. And many of the improvements that have been made, are things that I used to complain about and everybody told me I was full of shit for a year or two. :D [quote][b] My point is that digital technology is not the problem. It's production trends.[/b][/quote]Well that's certainly a huge part of the problem. However, I don't personally use those kinds of production techniques or work with people who do, and I've heard my own guitar playing recorded on analog and on a variety of digital formats. Digital recordings sound like the guitar is smashed flat against the speaker. Analog sounds like there's air and space around the track and has a beautiful top end that I just haven't heard yet on digital. This quality is obvious just from comparing the raw tracks (even with top converters, etc.) In fact there are times when I'll even go to a piece of tape first (given an excellent quality analog deck) and from there into the DAW. Curiously I don't feel that way about digital recordings of vocals, bass, piano, acoustic guitar, or even drums for the most part. But I have not heard a recording of an electric guitar, mine or anybody else's, that I've liked as much on digital. Doesn't mean it will never happen. That would be saying that digital technology is fully mature and will never go any further. :D --Lee

[Lee Flier]

[quote]Originally posted by Tusker: [b]No person can say what rock music will do next. If they could, it would be dead. Some think it is. I don't. I think it's part of a cycle of virtue and stagnation that is as old as humanity. Good music will break loose again. People will choose flawed beauty over pristine meaninglessness again. [/b][/quote]I love it man. That last sentence ROCKS. :) Lots of killer stuff in this thread! --Lee

[Lee Flier]

[quote]Originally posted by Dan South: [b] God, I hope there's a twelve-step program for those shitheads. "Stop me before I wank again..." I propose a six-string Scared Straight program: five minutes alone with Pete Townshend. "If you ever wank again, I'm going to spinter your Explorer and shove the strings up your nostrils! DO YOU HEAR ME??"[/b][/quote]ROFL!!! This is classic! [quote][b] We need a new wave of kick ass guitarists. I elect Chip, Lee, Spigots, and Dead Black Jedi to lead the charge. [/b][/quote]Why thank you Dan. I accept the challenge! --Lee

[Lee Flier]

[quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b] We live in a completely jaded world; you have to have contrast to percieve "rock", and we no longer have that.... To really be "rocking", you've got to be breaking some rules - and ALL of them have been broken, taken apart, neatly packaged and reconstituted for Mass Consumption. [/b][/quote]Amen. But you know what, there's only one thing that can't be calculated or packaged, and that's passion and authenticity itself. Sure, lots of people try, but it don't fly when you stack it against the real thing. I'll tell you why our band rocks: because what we're rebelling against is that very thing - the shallowness, the calculatedness, and all the people who can't tell the difference between what's real and what's contrived. We are also rebelling against the stupid cliche "rock star" lifestyle. It's sad enough that audiences believe in that stuff, but it's even sadder when the artists themselves do. Gotta have your rock uniform and your requisite amount of chemical substances and so on. Jadedness sucks. I've become jaded to it. :D We'd just like to be earnest and passionate people who aren't afraid to laugh at corny jokes or speak a conviction without irony. That seems to be against the rules lately, so I guess that means we rock, eh? :D --Lee

[strat0124]

Kinda funny when a band is breaking all the rules, the folks in charge at the moment thinks it sucks, and it takes some bohemian or some teenage introvert thinking outside the box to lock in and KNOW that it is cool as hell. I'd rather see a band doing something nobody else is doing, and doing it well, than see a band hanging on to what used to be note for note perfect. I kinda lean toward blues, alt country, punk side of the house, so I'm pretty biased there. No offense to you guys who still love Wish you were here or whatever. But theres an audience for just about everything, and thats the bottom line isn't it? So who gives a rats ass if Debbie doesn't like Dino Jr and Bobby doesn't like Creed........somebody does. For all the bitching I've done about the music scene, Nobody...I mean nobody, can claim a more challenging music scene than jazz or bluegrass players. Thats true love......

[aeon]

Do you really want to know what happened to the guitar players? Simple. Young people aren’t choosing it as the instrument of choice now. That title is held by the tuntable, which outsells the guitar 2 to 1 according to NAMM, retailers in Europe, and the Japanese Association of Instrument Retailers. Rock died. Whereas you once had a Les Paul and Marshall stack and reefer, you now have a TB-303, SP-1200mkII and methylenedioxymethamphetamine. Brave New World! ;)

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by Tusker: [b]However these threee criteria form a narrow definition... those of predominantly white middle-class teenagers growing up under strict social mores.[/b][/quote]White middle-class teenagers? What does rebelling against parents, pushing sexual taboos, or being perceived as "caustic" have to do with skin color???? [b]rock is about obtaining freedom with music.[/b] I disagree. You can be about obtaining freedom while playing classical music, or country music, or really any kind of music. [b] Holding the narrow definition may inhibit rock [/b] That's not a narrow definition; name a rock act up until 1985 that "rocked" that did not fulfill one of those 3 points? [b]style would. I suspect Buddy Holly would have difficulty recognizing Nirvana as 'his' music. They are still related nonetheless. :) [/b] "Rock music" is/was not Buddy Holly's to give or take. [b]I don't what new freedoms rock music will fight for next, but when I see the concentration of corporate [/b] "Freedom Rock"... can't I buy that cd on television? [b]people groups, I believe it will be needed. You may not call it rock, it's style may not be the same, but I suspect the spirit will be.[/b] Just being political doesn't mean one is "rocking". [b]Rock may need to be for somebody other than American white middle class kids, in future.[/b] Hey, drop the racial bs because that's all it is.... You need sexual taboo, abrasive sound, or teen rebellion to be "rocking". You can have politics in "rock music", but that doesn't mean you're "rocking". Again: name someone who rocked who didn't fulfill one of those points?

[Dan South]

[quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b]Again: name someone who rocked who didn't fulfill one of those points?[/b][/quote]Pre 1985? How about... U2 Blood Sweat and Tears Peter Gabriel The Police The Cars The Tubes The Pretenders Santana Whether they "rocked" is a subjective, but I don't think any of them meet the criteria.