Cobain v.s. Hendrix

Originally Posted by: RaskolnikovI have not heard a single Puddle of Mudd song that didn't have numerous elements borrowed directly from Nirvana.

They may be an extreme example, but if you know what to listen for, the signs are everywhere -- even if it's nothing more than a songwriter or band stopping to ask himself/herself/themselves "should there even be a solo here? Does it really add anything of value to the song?"

Yeah, but Hip-Hop isn't exactly known for guitar playing of any kind.

Originally Posted by: XinobyCobais is the best musician ever!!! don't say that things about he. :mad: NIRVANA 4EVER

Originally Posted by: RaskolnikovSo you've got reasons to disagree other than "Cobain sucks," right?

Originally Posted by: paradymeI have to respectfully disagree here. Well, I guess I agree in fact, but disagree with the philosophical implication raised.

Kurt's playing was simplistic without a doubt, and I would say to an extent sloppy as well, but the thing that Kurt proved, and I mean NO disrespect to anyone here, that you don't need to be a whiz-kid to get on stage; if you can only play 3 chords, play them like you mean them, and be inventive about how you use them. For him, I think Nirvana was a way of getting his emotional baggage out on paper, to be cathartic and let it out.

I for one was very much encouraged by what he did musically, I found that it was good to see someone get out there and just let raw emotion take control (sadly, it became more and more an issue of letting raw drug abuse take control).

I'm going to say something that will be very unpopular here- no matter how intricate or complex these players abilities are, I personally cannot stand the sound of "shred" playing. To me that has always epitomized where the guitarist ego went wrong. Maybe it's why I was into punk rock and the kind of music that is called "primitive" in academic circles. I always felt that a simpler style was more able to get the point across if for no reason other than the fact that guitarists more often than not try to (and please pardon the cliche) gild the lilly. What I'm saying is that we tend to play more notes when fewer are needed to show our level of skill, we tend to look at things like "who's the better player?"

The answer is neither. It is all in the ears of the listener. I personally find Steve Vai, Joe Satriani, Kerry King, Kirk Hammett, Randy Rhoads, and especially Eddie Van Halen to bore me to tears. Not that they aren't amazing players; they are. They deserve respect and they certainly have mine, but I see the guitar as an ensemble instrument, and I feel that the rock guitarists who handle solos best are Trey Anastasio and Carlos Santana. They play what fits into the song and fills the space and creates a sonic atmosphere. They are musically like the person who leaves the party before it gets old, ends the conversation while it is still interesting, and I always admired their sense of that, knowing when it was still fresh and ending it then.

I have always been bothered by the deification of guitarplayers by other players. If someone is called a guitar-god, I tend to change the station, because as another musician, sure I hear what they're doing, and while it may be interesting, it seems to be little more than self-gratifying fretboard-masturbation. Maybe I'm wrong, and if I haven't offended enough people (and guys, I seriously am not trying to offend anyone's taste-for real), I always said similar things about Glass, Cage, Stravisky, and especially Arnold Schönberg-compositionally mindblowing, musical geniuses, as are all the players I've singled out. I want to emphasize again, just because I don't like them, I do respect them, and I take nothing away from them, especially since I am not even in the same class as they are, but I think we as musicians need to move away from the "who'd win in a fight, Freddy or Jason?" contests that have been going on for years now.

I mean in all seriousness, from a technical perspective, Al DiMeola, John MacLaughlin, and Pat Metheny (I never spell his name right- apologies if butchered!), just to name a few could put most of these guys to shame, but that's not what they're out there to do- they are just musicians- they are good, but they do not seek to be gods.

I don't know if I make any sense here, or if I just got put on the guitar-player's union's hit list or what, but I see music as being something that can be as minimal or as ornate as anyone would like, but we need to respect the minimalistic players just as much for the choices they make to not play as we do for the guys who want to play basically what I would call contemporary pop-fugues. Neither is better than the other. One group has developed skill and precision and speed, and the other leans more toward soul and sparcity. Perfection lies somewhere in between yet it varies from ear to ear. None is better, but all are worth respecting and learning from.

I'm going to get out from behind the pulpit though.

peace