Charlie Sheen
Armed and Hammered
Last edited:
Post up pics of your Git-Boxes
- Thread starter Charlie Sheen
- Start date
FalconGTHO
The Reporter
Thats funny. Hendrix was my "guitar hero" when I first started listening to rock and didnt know any better. Now I realize he was good at "inventing" sounds and making noise, but not really a proficient guitarist. Mostly because the drugs got in the way. SRV is just a white clone of Hendrix. Clapton, umm, please. "Mr 3 Finger".
The musicianship, composition, and production engineering Page encompasses is, to me, unequalled by any other "big name" guitarist.
Buzzystang
Member
Post some pics of that Gretsch when you can. Always loved those too. Buddy of mine had a vintage Chet Atkins. I had a reissue Silver Jet for a few months, those reissues are really well built. Didn't Fender buy them or am I thinking Guild? Also gotta go with Page also, even though I don't own a single LZ record and have Hendrix, Clapton and SRV of one form or another around the house. My high school guitar buddy was really into Page and Floyd at the time, and did lay down the same argument: Hendrix, Clapton and SRV are all just blues. Page was more than that, he brought in folk/country, indian, classical and really did establish a new genre in the process.
Heh, and those Arlen Roth videos, those are some classics. The one time I broke down and got one of those was when David Grissom put out a set. I thought "finally, I'm going to learn how to solo improvise and become a guitar god". I pop in the video and the first thing Grissom says "Before you proceed any further, you need to learn all the notes of the fretboard and understand music theory"
Well no sheet dude, I bought this video so I didn't have to do that! Just show me some damn licks and put it in tablature on the screen, fool!
Yeah, I didn't mean to start yet another "who's better" pissing contest - I was really just trying to differentiate between "3-chord rock" and something more difficult for the purposes of refuting the "guitar/strings is/are easy" argument from the perspective of someone who plays both wind and strings. There's much more technical stuff out there. Though a lot of if is on the improv side - it's easier to be techincal/fast in improv.
That said, I agree with the above which is why I like Zep...
I always try to keep past "greatness" in context with "when" it was done - which is why I like/admire Hendrix as well. You have to force yourself to think about what they would be listening to on the radio vs what they did...
buzzystang said:Grissom says "Before you proceed any further, you need to learn all the notes of the fretboard and understand music theory"
"Teach me master, but I have no patience to learn..."
That's the greatest trick of all in music - done well, it looks effortless but 9.999 times out of ten that guy on stage that looks like he couldn't be bothered to "learn" anything, practice anything or focus on anything has spent hundreds of hours (or more) honing his craft...
Even (perhaps especially) those who didn't have "formal training" had to bang away for a long time at some point to get an intuitive feel for where the notes you want in any given key would be... In the end, they learn much of the same stuff, they just don't know the names for it (or learn it later)...
There are "savants", but basically they lack all the barriers to "learning" mind-to-muscle control - they still have to hear it, categorize it and "learn" it at some point before they can use it... Most of them are just amazing parrots - there's a cost to having a messed up brain...
Charlie Sheen
Armed and Hammered
Clapton is a perfect example of what a "tasteful" guitarplayer can do.
It might get away from me. Fucking punks are driving up the cost and it's pretty near the limit I was willing to spend.
http://cgi.ebay.com/VINTAGE-1975-GR...5|66:2|65:12|39:1|240:1309|301:1|293:1|294:50 Oh well, it's still gonna be rockabilly this next year.
It all comes down to patterns and math. And practice. Lots of practice.
I put in a bid for "one meelion dollars" to ensure adequate liquidity in the marketplace
raverjames
Beer Advocate
Opinion is all that is. An amateur can play page.
Charlie Sheen
Armed and Hammered
Gee, what a pal. It's up to $1,600 now. -passI put in a bid for "one meelion dollars" to ensure adequate liquidity in the marketplace
Don't think you'll get too much argument on that - some exceptions, but at issue was how many could have written what page wrote at the time that he wrote it?
Kidding of course, I'd never do that. That, and, I don't need a Gretsch
right now...
FalconGTHO
The Reporter
Ehh, and anybody can play blues. Clapton is flat out friggin boring. Unless theres some hidden stuff of his thats unlike any of his commonly known shit, then theres nothing to be impressed with. Audio Valium. Put him on, fall asleep.
FalconGTHO
The Reporter
Who could write it now?
raverjames
Beer Advocate
That is half the problems with opinions. There is more to clapton than the popular stuff. Same with Hendrix. I have even talked to a few so called Hendrix fans and found that they only knew the popular albums. For Hendrix, my favorite albums were Blue Wild Angel and Radio One. For Clapton, I always liked the Rainbow Concert and Live Cream. BTW, Clapton did a compilation album with Page and the Yardbirds back in the 70's.
FalconGTHO
The Reporter
Ehh, if the "unknown" stuff is that great, logic dictates that it WOULD be well known. I find it hard to believe that Clapton took a depature from his well worn 3 finger style to craft some "hidden gems".
As far as Hendrix, its only been recent posthumous releases to "discover" a hidden side. Prior to that, all there was were the studio releases and the studio hack remixes released by his manager Alan Douglas shortly after his death. I have all his JHE studio stuff, the two "Essential" collections which have some of his Band of Gypsies work, plus three of those Alan Douglas releases, Peace In Missisippi, Midnight Lightning, and a jazz exercise called Nine To The Universe. I very rarely like live recordings.
As far as opinion, music CAN be quantified OBjectively, by those in the business, a musicians peers and anybody with an educated, critical ear. While Jimi broke ground and pushed the musical envelope, his talent his skill is artificially inflated by his legend and the mythology surrounding him, which befalls MANY bands and artists. They APPEAR greater, better, than they really are and people buy into the hype.
Lastly, I LOVE blues, but as I said, it IS a simple music, anyone can play it. However, NOT everyone can FEEL it and therein lies the difference. But, at the end of the day, it doesnt make THAT much difference in the final product.
As far as Hendrix, its only been recent posthumous releases to "discover" a hidden side. Prior to that, all there was were the studio releases and the studio hack remixes released by his manager Alan Douglas shortly after his death. I have all his JHE studio stuff, the two "Essential" collections which have some of his Band of Gypsies work, plus three of those Alan Douglas releases, Peace In Missisippi, Midnight Lightning, and a jazz exercise called Nine To The Universe. I very rarely like live recordings.
As far as opinion, music CAN be quantified OBjectively, by those in the business, a musicians peers and anybody with an educated, critical ear. While Jimi broke ground and pushed the musical envelope, his talent his skill is artificially inflated by his legend and the mythology surrounding him, which befalls MANY bands and artists. They APPEAR greater, better, than they really are and people buy into the hype.
Lastly, I LOVE blues, but as I said, it IS a simple music, anyone can play it. However, NOT everyone can FEEL it and therein lies the difference. But, at the end of the day, it doesnt make THAT much difference in the final product.
Last edited:
Boss281
Senior Member
I was doing a lot of head nodding (yeah, Hendrix could sure suck live, although there were moments there) until I got to your last paragraph. Sure anyone CAN play the blues, but not everyone GETS it. To me, at the end of the day, it DOES make that much difference in the final product.
Matter of opinion I guess...
John
I agree with most of what you said, but would like to point out a flaw in this thinking...
1. People are sheep - even people with good ears and a reason to question the "group think", it's a rare person who will earnestly advocate for the greatness of something that doesn't already have popular acceptance. I'm not counting the people who make their living by doing to so to convince "the herd" to like it... That's literally their occupation...
2. To this day, what get's heard and "known" is not really a function of what is great. Now and then something is so new and good, it sneaks through against all odds, but for the most part, we hear the "lowest common denominator"...
Moreover we hear what a very small group of producers with influence want us to hear and know that we will eagerly/reliably consume.
This is much more obvious in some genres like "Soul/R&B/Rap" where you get 20 versions of basically the same song from each of the people who share a given producer (Down to effects and rhythms).
But it's still very true in "Rock" and more so (I vomit a little in my mouth to even say this word) "Pop"...
Most of what we hear is formulaic crap - this is proof IMO, that we don't exist in a system where music lives or dies on its artistic merit.
raverjames
Beer Advocate
I agree 100%. Modern rap would not exist if originality and artistic skill decided the fate of the music. I know a few local bands that play wonderful music fusing jazz, blues, rock, and even some R&B. They all have a strong musical background and most have music related college education. They will probably never make it. People don't want originality. People want the same old sound repeated over and over again. That is what sells records.
Every now and then someone manages to find a "transition" - though in many ways it's something that had already been done that manages to make it's way into the stream of vomit known as "popular"...
Look at all the punk bands and grunge bands - in their respective times, they were not revolutionary - what changed was whether they were accepted for radio play. They had to "cross over"...
I think in many cases it has to do with how well the singer/writer "communicates" to his audience - the more genuine/interesting it seems, the more likely people are to accept something "new" into the mainstream... Cobain is an example of that...
Charlie Sheen
Armed and Hammered
It's fun to watch someone else argue for a change LOL
Your wrong, you couldn't be more wrong, I cannot image how someone can think like thatIt's fun to watch someone else argue for a change LOL
Prove it!
Charlie Sheen
Armed and Hammered
Your wrong, you couldn't be more wrong, I cannot image how someone can think like that
Sorry, as much as I would like to help out I got my own pissing match going on. Possibly me vs a whole car club. Now that's a fight!
Similar threads
Support us!
Support Us - Become A Supporting Member Today!
Click Here For Details