what the hell has happened to guitar players?

[Bobro]

[quote]Originally posted by Dan South: [b] [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.[/b][/quote]U2- teen rebellion. Neo-conservative self-righteous teens rebelling against their groovy ex-hippy parents. Blood, Sweat, and Tears- Trombones are and have always been breakers of uptight sexual taboos. Peter Gabriel- too well-endowed to settle for merely "rocking". The Police- agree with you here The Cars- don't rock, they roll The Tubes- sexual rebellion The Pretenders- rock n roll, not rock Santana- how did he get in here? He's Santana, too cool to be catagorized. -CB

[Botch.]

Henry, sorry about the delayed answer, my server's been T.U. for a day or two. You asked, "Can someone explain to me what they see in Neil Young's guitar playing?" And my answer is no, I can't. In fact, I had exactly the same opinion when I first heard Neil Young in college (I used to sing "HEY HEY MY MY I WISH NEIL YOUNG WOULD DIE!!" at the top of my lungs in the dorm shower, until the Neil fans started flushing the toilets en masse and scalding my butt!). Anyway, I taped his "Decade" (greatest hits at that time) just because I taped everything in those days, and over the years listened to it more and more. I'd describe myself as a musician who appreciates technical ability, but there's something in Neil Young, both his off singing and his off guitar playing, that has me hooked, and I can't explain it :confused: Just last week I played Rust Never Sleeps, and it moves me just as much as a new Steely Dan CD, just in a different way. Oh, and Tedster, you're looking for another one-note solo that's as good as "Cowgirl"? How 'bout Lindsey Buckingham on Fleetwood Mac's "The Chain"? :thu:

[henryrobinett]

[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. [/b][/quote]That's funny. Well I always thought of Sco as the Monk of jazz guitar. BTW I think Sco actually has a lot of chops, just deceptively so. I've heard him confidently take tempos I wouldn't feel comfortable tackling. He's always brimming with ideas. His right hand is lazy which tends to define some of his sound. But Neil Young on the other hand . . .

[henryrobinett]

Botch, Re Neil Young's guitar soloing: Thanks. A *vibe* I can understand and he does have a vibe. But I separate the music from the more craft/technical aspects of playing an instrument, even though *VIBE* is part of that too. As I said earlier I like a LOT of NY's music. But I tend to separate my enjoyment of his music from my unenjoyment of his lead playing. I just can't get past the point where I think, "He simply can't play". And you're right "Cinnamin Girl" was great. Minmalist yes. I would have said "primativist". There's a naive quality to his playing, as if he were a child, young teenager who barely knows how to sqeeze it out.

[Rick Huff]

I think the reason guitars are not as big these days is simply because engineers are using less and less Dolby. They need more Dolby!

[RABid]

[quote]Originally posted by jnorman: [b]... to the crappy, thin, amateurish and generally unimaginitive guitar playing i hear on current pop tunes, i just wonder what the hell has happened? thoughts?[/b][/quote]The same thing that happened to drummers. I miss Rick Derrenger, Johnny Winter, Jeff Beck my favorite drummer, John Bonham. Robert

[Tusker]

Chip, I'll attempt to respond to your comments below. My only point here is that if we over-define rock, we will kill it. Regards, Jerry :) [quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b] White middle-class teenagers? What does rebelling against parents, pushing sexual taboos, or being perceived as "caustic" have to do with skin color???? [/b][/quote]I am sorry if I offended. I didn't mean to. I drew those terms from my reading of the rock and roll history books. Many of them describe the birth of rock and roll as the adoption of “predominantly” black music idioms by white middle-class teens in the 1950's. These adoptions were enabled in part by a post war rise in middle class income, allowing for more leisure and consumerism by middle-class teenagers. Interviews I have read with Leiber and Stoller are consistent with this view. I have been wrong before though. [quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b] You can be about obtaining freedom while playing classical music, or country music, or really any kind of music. [/b][/quote]Really Chip? This sounds good in theory, but are you aware of any strong protest movement in classical or country? Do you have any examples? [quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [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][/quote]Why 1985? I misunderstood your first post when you mentioned your three criteria. I thought you meant that [i]all three[/i] needed to be present. Which is why I thought it too narrow. Now I think it too vague. :eek: If [i]any one the three [/i] needs to be present…..well, let's see what results the definition will yield… [b]Rebelling against parents [/b]…Madonna's “Papa don't preach” rocks for you? “She's leaving home” is a charming song but ... it rocks for you? [b]Pushing sexual taboos[/b]… soundtracks created for the porn industry rock? Frankie Goes to Hollywood rocks? [b]Being perceived as caustic[/b] Arnold Schoenberg rocked? Anyone who knows how to turn on a fuzz box rocks for you? If the definition isn't sufficient to identify what rocks, why use it? [i]I suspect Buddy Holly would have difficulty recognizing Nirvana as 'his' music. They are still related nonetheless.[/i] [quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b] "Rock music" is/was not Buddy Holly's to give or take. [/b][/quote]Agreed. That is really my point. And rock is really not yours to give or take either. Nor mine. [quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b] Just being political doesn't mean one is "rocking". [/b][/quote]I agree. And just obtaining sexual freedoms, rebelling against parents and being caustic isn't rocking either. Which I think, was your initial point. [quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b] Hey, drop the racial bs because that's all it is. [/b][/quote]I think it is possible to be aware of ethnocentrism without being racist. Being demographically aware is not bs to me. [quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b] 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". [/b][/quote]Those criteria seem to fit very nicely with a certain middle-class demographic. That's fine. You are certainly entitled to have your views. And to share them. And I can respectfully disagree. :) [quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b] Again: name someone who rocked who didn't fulfill one of those points? [/b][/quote]I think of rocking by song, not artist. This saves me from worrying about whether “Silly Love Songs” invalidates “Oh, Darling.” For me, the song “Biko” by Gabriel rocked. Doesn't really meet your criteria, but Biko was about freedom and helped galvanize support for change in South Africa. Bob Marley's “Get up stand up” and “Buffalo Soldier” rock. They aren't about sex, rebellion against parents or caustic sound, but they rock for me. And yes I think Santana rocks, Cameron's witty obfuscations aside. :D Personally I think Woodie Guthrie rocked without meeting any of the three criteria. Check out Vladimir Vysotsky's protest music from Russia. Cui Jian was rocking China pre-Tiananmen and actually played at the square on the eve of the massacre. He seems to have been co-opted since, though. :( Many of the 80's hair bands meet your three criteria, yet leave me curiously un-rocked. There's a bunch of guys who I think rocked who DO fit your criteria: Lennon, Hendrix, Morrison and Bono, to name a few from a long list. Or course you may disagree that these examples rocked. If you do, you would be supporting my view that “what rocks” is personal and not subject to a simple definition. ;) :D

[Jedi]

[quote]Originally posted by Tusker [b]For me, the song “Biko” by Gabriel rocked [/b] [/quote]Hell yeah, this song most definitely rocked. Jedi

[Dan South]

[b] For me, the song "Biko" by Gabriel rocked. Doesn't really meet your criteria, but Biko was about freedom and helped galvanize support for change in South Africa. [/b] "San Jacinto" rocks, and it's about facing one's own motality. More like a mid-life crisis theme than an anthem of teen angst. "Shock The Monkey" and "Red Rain" rock. "Big Time" and "Sledgehammer" rock. "I Don't Remember" rocks. "Steam" rocks. "Mercy Street" rocks in the most delicate way. If your backup band includes Tony Levin and Manu Katché, how can you NOT rock? [b] And yes I think Santana rocks. [/b] Europa, I Hope You're Feeling Better, Black Magic Woman, etc.

[nitecrawler47]

Santana does rock: but the original recording of "Black Magic Woman" by Peter Green, on The English Rose album by Fleetwood Mac definately has a harder rock edge to it! IMO nitecrawler

[Magpel]

Henry, Yes! The Monk is in Sco, for sure. I was reaching for a much more remote and impressionistic analogy with the Neil Young thing. Sco obviously has chops, but I think it's mostly becuase he has imagination. Also, he gets more expressive tonal variation out of his "base tone" than any jazz player I can think of. He's one of those "speaking" guitarists, and probably my very favorite, though I don't keep up much with guitarists anymore. [quote]Originally posted by henryrobinett: [b] [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. [/b][/quote]That's funny. Well I always thought of Sco as the Monk of jazz guitar. BTW I think Sco actually has a lot of chops, just deceptively so. I've heard him confidently take tempos I wouldn't feel comfortable tackling. He's always brimming with ideas. His right hand is lazy which tends to define some of his sound. But Neil Young on the other hand . . .[/b][/quote]

[Lee Flier]

[quote]Originally posted by Rabid: [b] [quote]Originally posted by jnorman: [b]... to the crappy, thin, amateurish and generally unimaginitive guitar playing i hear on current pop tunes, i just wonder what the hell has happened? thoughts?[/b][/quote]The same thing that happened to drummers. [/b][/quote]I thought so too until a couple of years ago when I thankfully discovered that rock drumming is actually alive and well, but had just been hiding in an inconspicuous suburb of Atlanta. :D --Lee

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by Dan South: [b]Pre 1985? How about...[/b][/quote](well, pre-85 puts one in the company of the Beatles, Zeppelin, Stones, Jimi and the Who, but....) [b] U2 [/b] When U2 started what they were doing musically was far from the mainstream; they were the last edge of real "alternative" music, before it became "acceptable". [b]Blood Sweat and Tears[/b] I don't know enough about them... I don't think of them as "rocking" exactly, though... [b]Peter Gabriel[/b] I like Petey, but I wouldn't exactly define him as "rocking" now... although back in the day the makeup put him into the "scare the parents/rebellion" category I think... [b]The Police[/b] The Police were part of the new-wave/punk movement when they first came out - definitely not parental-approved, not to mention their first hit single was about love for a prostitute... [b]The Cars[/b] The "Candy-O" record cover puts them into the "not parentally approved" category for the time - although again - Rik Ocasek and "rocking" don't seem to come to mind at the same time to me. [b]The Tubes[/b] The Tubes weren't about pushing buttons relative to sex??? [b]The Pretenders[/b] "Bad Boys Get Spanked" [b]Santana[/b] Santana isn't of this generation by far, but at the time he was happening originally he was part of the counter culture, the flower child hippie movement - that kind of qualifies him for the "rebellion" aspect going on at the time, eh?

[SatoriJoe]

Hi, I don't post that often but I realized as an 18 year old kid I could probably offer a different perspective on this. I'm a senior high school, I play guitar, and I like music ranging from techno and rap to orchestrated and lo-fi to IDM (computer music) and pop rock. I find most radio music bland and derivative, and so do my friends and other kids at my school. I live in a pretty nice place for people who want to start a band and the local scene here is really good. Local shows happen at least twice a week with bands that are playing original and good material. Music is not dead. Although given the definitions of rocking, that Chip gave, rock could be. Or at least guitar-oriented rock. Bands like Dntel, Fennesz, The Microphones, Dismemberment Plan, Sigur Ros, and even Radiohead are pursuing new ways of writing a song that doesn't require the Verse/Chorus/Verse formula. Anyone who wants to hear an interesting, creative, and emotional song should listen to Dntel's "The Dream of Evan and Chan". You owe it to yourself. The song consists of Jimmy Tamborello creating an atmospheric arrangement using his computer basically with another guy singing vocals. It's alive, it's catchy, and it has no guitar. Fennesz is another "music programmer". It's not the most accessible music (I haven't listened to it, but I guess a good precursor to this album is Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music) out there, but that's the point, right? Some of his music is downright caustic, but his latest album, "Endless Summer", adds warmth to his music. An acoustic guitar can be heard strumming in the background with some tracks but it's always just to add flavor rather then stand out. I don't know what draws me to it, but this album is inviting and a definate change-of-pace then the latest band ripping off Brian Wilson to make California music. "Endless Summer" is Calfornia, digitalized. The Microphones, Sigur Ros, and Radiohead can be lumped together for the sake of brevity. The Microphones are lo-fi. They record on a 4-track. It's basically one guy, Phil Elvrum, creating music in a studio with his friends. He makes some of the most achingly beautiful, unpretentious music I've heard. His music, much like Dntel, creates the image of his lyrics except he takes advantage of guitars to craft his songs. When a song is called "Ocean 1,2,3" or "The Moon", you could hear the instruments and say, "This song will be about water" or "This song feels like travelling through my town at night." The analog recording only adds to the beauty and intimacy in his songs. Radiohead and Sigur Ros kind of come from the opposite end of the spectrum to achieve the same thing. They are much more mainstream and both give ways of adding emotion into a song without having to directly say "I am sad". Their music is grandiose but at the same time familiar. I hold no delusions that these bands will probably never hit it big, whether it's from their own ethos, their own unconventianality (Fennesz, Dntel), or because they already got popular with a pop album and can do whatever they want for the rest of their career (Radiohead). Amnesiac is a weird, unbalanced album, but damn, people at my school bought it, listened to it, and enjoyed it. It's surprising what me and my friends like when we're presented with it. All of these bands are trying things new. I don't see the point in complaining about a lack of solos anymore when the people who are going to play the solos aren't creative enough to make a new, exciting one. The Strokes have some solos, but you know what? They all sound like something The Kinks did. Everyone's complaining about a lack of ingenuity and uniqueness in today's music, but you can't say that while only wanting bands that are going to fit into an over-extended genre, playing the same riffs and melodies of your favorite band. That's the impression I get from people wanting a new wave in music. They don't want something new, they want what they already had. And I guess that's my whole point. People see samplings and DJ's as a decline in music. Listen to The Avalanches - Since I Left You or DJ Shadow - Endtroducing and tell me those aren't great records. And each only use samples. It takes talent to create records like that. I know most people here play guitar or some other insturment and I've read posts here where people actually sound threatened by rap music and techno. Where they are disappointed or angry when they see a kid buy a turntable. You have to embrace that. Yes, it is a change in music but keep the ears open to new sounds otherwise you'll never like what comes next. But now contradicting everything I've stated, there is a resurgence in garage rock. Someone mentioned a lack of blues, The White Stripes are from Detroit and rock and play real blues. None of that Kenny Wayne Shepherd drek ;) They aren't breaking new ground, but god, they write some great songs. They're huge in Europe and they just played Letterman two nights ago. On The Late, Late with Kilborn that same night, Clinic played. Clinic toured with Radiohead, and kind of sound like how Radiohead would sound if they tried to play like The Kinks. Good old fashioned rock and roll has The Strokes and the load of bands which are sure to follow in their steps. All I really needed to say was that don't worry about guitar players, they still serve their purpose in the creation of a song, but it's not gonna go on forever, and instead of it just resorting back to fast solos and wank mannerisms, the musicmakers (not excluding you) may resort to liberating themselves and incorporating new ways in creating still important and wonderful songs that can reach a mass appeal. But I don't know what the future in radio or MTV is. The internet [i]is[/i] the new way of finding music which will probably lead to much more fractured groups of listeners. If you're interested in finding good music the resources are there. Seriously, find Dntel - The Dream of Evan and Chan. What an amazing song... And get ...And You Will Know Us by the Trail of Dead - Source Tags and Codes. It should be able to satisfy any guitar player. Joey (sorry for getting so long about nothing imparticular, I could just talk about music for hours, in fact, I have)

[Tedster]

Yep..."The Chain". Buckingham can [i]play[/i], too. I don't know the name of that instrumental fingerstyle thing he did on their recent reunion concert, but it kicked some serious butt...

[Jedi]

[quote]Joey wrote - [b]DJ Shadow - Endtroducing and tell me those aren't great records. [/b] [/quote]DJ Shadow is the man. I couldn't tell you what album I liked best. I love just about everything I've heard from him. Great post, Joe. Namaste Jedi

[Curve Dominant]

F*CK GUITAR PLAYERS!!! [i]Wait...I'm a guitar player...[/i] I've recently taken to sampling my own guitar playing. It's less expensive than sampling someone else's guitar playing. The accounting is a little tricky, though. I have to licence my music to myself. Then, there is the existential dilemma: If I'm not me, then who the hell am I??!!! Time for a cocktail... E

[Curve Dominant]

BTW, Lee, I am going to spill the beans RE: my proposition. Do you mind? You know, it would be cool...in that absurd way we spoke of. Are you ready to take the plunge??? Freakness is my weakness...try it, you'll like it... E

[aeon]

[quote][i]SatoriJoe said:[/i] [b]Everyone's complaining about a lack of ingenuity and uniqueness in today's music, but you can't say that while only wanting bands that are going to fit into an over-extended genre, playing the same riffs and melodies of your favorite band.[/b][/quote]So true, so true. Satori Joe, I loved your post, and you also listen to some good stuff. :) I think you also hit on something important - there are still plenty of guitar players out there, but they are no longer limiting themselves to just the rock context. Therein lies part of the problem. Many people have bought into the idea that silicon and bitstreams cannot be tools for expressing the human spirit, and that such tools are devoid of soul and emotion. As such, they dismiss post-rock, IDM, beat science and all of the other music forms that were birthed around 1970, and came to fruition from 1980-1990. As long as they cling to such outdated paradigms, the world and the current state of music will make less and less sense to them. Their loss. The joy in remaining open to things is that you can listen to Led Zeppelin, Fennesz, The Shirelles, Lali Puna, Beethoven, Funckarma, Patsy Cline, Wire, Anja Garbarek, The Red House Painters and Vladislav Delay all in one evening, and you see the continuum that runs through all of them. ;)

[Mark V]

Amazingly technically good guitarists make me sick because they can play better than me.Check out those guys on Steely Dans ,Alive in America,incredible ,they can probably play like that in there sleep too.Trouble is if you listen to too much of that stuff it sends you to sleep.Not that I don't like the Dan,but sometimes you just gotta listen to something that sounds like..like ..I dunno ,some simple hard riffing ,Jimmy Page. By the way I can do a really good rendition of Like a Hurricane.

[Joel76]

I think todays guitarist's are too lazy to put in the time and pay the dues to learn how to play,... and it works because the music industry is not about music, just money. Lets back up and look at someone who did care about the music....Edward Van Halen. EVH is the guy who grabbed my interest in playing the guitar. I didn't care about his solo tapping crap, but what grabbed me was his rhythm playing and impeccable sense of timing. There has never been anything quite like him. Too bad it is all over. A lot of talented players are still out there but can't cut through all the bullshi* to make the break to be seen and heard. Ninetys and current music just basically sucks. I did like small portion of the Pearl Jam and Sound Garden stuff, but the music lost it's identity.....it is so inbreed now and retarded sounding. I still like listening to classic rock....it still moves my soul....not the crap they repeat over and over and over again on the radio, but all the stuff that doesn't get played. This is getting off the subject, but if a radio station was going to play Blue Oyster Cult, what song of theirs do you think they would play? hmmmmmm?! They had a boatload of better songs than "Don't Fear the Reaper" !! ...give me a break. Heart? Crazy on You...of course ...the only song that they did that was good!....?? Radio Stations SUCK!! It's all about money, not music. Moving back on track, I bet there ARE a bunch of great current songs out there that you will never hear on the radio. It is up to you to dig deep and find the "gems" as someone else here earlier said. ...either that, or write your own stuff...!!

[henryrobinett]

I think there are great guitar players all over the place. I think the industry has put the lack of guitar players face on things. Not as a conspiracy but rather as an act of capitalism. Ever since the late 60s early 70s when the guitar solo ruled by the likes of Hendrix, Clapton, Page, Beck, Townsend, Rock was defined by the guitar. Unfortunately every other wannabe thought they were Hendrix too and a large majority became self absorbed, self indulgent primadonas and ruined it for everyone else. The 80s eeked these guitar players out when synths took over. If a guitar solo made an entrance it lasted no more than 8 bars and was not competing for importance over the verse, chorus, bridge. It was what the instrumental break was intended to be: a short instrumental break. Other band members would roll their eyes in frustration over the overbearing guitarist who always wanted solo space and always played too loud. But from the audience perspective and the record producers perspective long guitar solos were simply boring, especially in the wrong hands. They were regulated to live performances and even those were getting lost because other bandmates were going crazy. Producers wanted something they could control. Recaord were too expensive and too much money was at stake. Hits were needed and long solos did not make hits. So by and large the raging guitar solo, with few exceptions, became a thing of the past. So it's not that there aren't guitar players out there. I hear guitar players who can play all the time. There's just no place for them to play. I think it may have something to do with they way guitar's recorded, analog vs digital, dolby, but frankly I think those are smaller issues. So why should a young player practice hours and hours doing something nobody does any more?