Slash v Kirk Hammet

Originally Posted by: garthioI really disagree again, i will agree with you that slash is a tad bit more creative then kirk but more talented? @#$% no!!!! the solos kirk plays take way more skill as well as way more speed then any of slashes solos!

A. Skill and talent are not the same thing.

B. I kindly direct your attention to Slash's solo on Mr. Brownstone.

C. I remind you of how sloppy Kirk Hammet is on MANY solos, hitting accidental notes even though he's really not playing very fast at all. If you want speed, listen to Shawn Lane, Zakk Wylde, Yngwie, Joe Satriani, Steve Vai, Alexi Laiho, John Petrucci or someone, you know, fast.

PS. If you still think Hammet is faster than Slash even though Mr. Brownstone clearly indicates he is NOT, then check out some of the live stuff Slash has pulled out with GNR and Slash's Snakepit.

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollyson If you still think Hammet is faster than Slash even though Mr. Brownstone clearly indicates he is NOT,

?! :confused:
You should have pointed to "Paradise City" outro instead , but still , kirk hammett's solos are usualy faster than slash's .... Anyway , it's not convenient to compare those two guitarist from a speed criterion , since I'm pretty positive that at least 50% of the people here play faster than both.

Also , slash is as repetitive as kirk , and there are better guitarists too who are even more repetitive (cough-malmsteen-cough) ... And using the wah does not discredit kirk hammett .

In terms of tastefull playing & soul , slash wins ... He's got better vibrato , bends , tone , and so on.

Originally Posted by: SLYAlso , slash is as repetitive as kirk , and there are better guitarists too who are even more repetitive (cough-malmsteen-cough) ... And using the wah does not discredit kirk hammett .

Slash repeats a few licks, yes, just like [U]everyone else in the world[/U]. The problem with Hammet is EVERY solo is comprised of the same basic licks and structure. At least with Slash you get songs like Welcome to the Jungle and Mr. Brownstone which sound NOTHING alike lickwise.

USING a wah does not discredit Kirk Hammet. Have you SEEN Metallica live? He ABUSES the wah to cover up mistakes. What confuses you here?

Actually yes I have seen 'tallica live...they played about a two hour set, most of which was songs from before 1991 and the use of the wah was minimal.

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollyson USING a wah does not discredit Kirk Hammet. Have you SEEN Metallica live? He ABUSES the wah to cover up mistakes. What confuses you here?

You could say the same about people who uses too much reverb and delay to make the playing easier ... Vai & Angelo for example !

I don't think his reason for using the wah is to cover up mistakes , cuz he usualy screw things up live anyway ! :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by: SLYYou could say the same about people who uses too much reverb and delay to make the playing easier

I do, actually.

My 5 best would be

Matt Bellamy
Slash
Stevie Ray Vaughn
Billie Joe Armstrong
Eric Clapton

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollysonI do, actually.

You do say the same about them , or you do use much delay & reverb . :confused:

Originally Posted by: SLYYou do say the same about them , or you do use much delay & reverb . :confused:

Say the same about those who use too much.

Hammett doesn't even do his own switching on stage... his guitar tech does it all from his little hiding spot inside the stage. I saw them live in Indianapolis last summer and the guy doesn't have to do anything but play. He did play an intermission solo for about 8 minutes and only used the wah for about 2 minutes out of the entire solo. I was in the 3rd row and saw it all pretty upclose. but for real...Hammett vs Slash....... who the F cares. I live GnR and I like Metallica... they're both great guitarists... Hammett uses his wah too much... I can play more scales than Slash... it doesn't matter. Becuase They both make money playing guitar and they're both rock icons. LET IT GO. opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollysonSay the same about those who use too much.

So we should we all lose our effects , plug straight into the clean channel of the amp and play , just to prove that there wasn't a single flaw in our playing ?

I don't know why I find that very silly , cuz sounding nicer is an important part of your playing , even though it's not playing .

Originally Posted by: aschlemanHammett doesn't even do his own switching on stage... his guitar tech does it all from his little hiding spot inside the stage.

Same goes for Slash and 99% of guitarists who can afford a tech , dude !

Originally Posted by: SLYSo we should we all lose our effects , plug straight into the clean channel of the amp and play , just to prove that there wasn't a single flaw in our playing ?

I don't know why I find that very silly , cuz sounding nicer is an important part of your playing , even though it's not playing .

Yeah, I think you're missing the point here or maybe just playing the Devil's advocate, so I'm just not going to pursue this any further.

I like GNR a ton, but i can say that i like Metallica too, I mean like back in the day Metallica, because i can not listen to Reload. I have the album and i honestly since i got it havent listened to the whole thing yet, because the first couple songs i think are insanley boring and just really awful, in my eyes. But hey, some of you probably like that album so im not going to press my opinon in which of there stuff is better. Personally, I rele think Slash is better. Kirk Hammet can pull out some speed, and awesome licks(Master Of Puppets) but i honestly like Slash better. When it comes to the mastery of technical stuff and speed, id go to Hammet, but when the time comes to look more for the emotional + creative side of playing, lets learn from Slash. I think you would benefit more as a guitarist if youd stopped looking for whos better, not idolizing only one great guitarist, and combine them and learn from them both since both have qualities if put together would make a rele awesome guitarist.

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollyson ... or maybe just playing the Devil's advocate

Devil's advocate ?
Oh yeah , I'm the one who criticize guitarists for using guitar effects . :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by: SLYDevil's advocate ?
Oh yeah , I'm the one who criticize guitarists for using guitar effects . :rolleyes:

That's not quite what "Devil's Advocate" means. Anyhow, I withdraw my withdrawl just to clarify with you. NOTHING is wrong with using effects. Effects are wonderful, they can add an elegant element to your playing. However, there is something wrong with OVERUSING effects and covering up what you're actually playing. Do you understand what I mean?

Look at it this way: I LOVE Iron Maiden. Yeah, they use a lot of distortion, but it's not an over-the-top, obvious cover-up.

however, sometimes overusing effects is ideal...for instance, both The Edge and Andy Summers have admitted to being mediocre guitarists, yet through effects usage(usually excessively) they have managed to make exceptional music with U2 and The Police respectively...I say"If you are playing live and you are able to cover up a mistake or make summin sound better through effects, then why not?" so long as it actually does ound better.

I am not saying bands should be excused for playing badly, but not criticised for attempting to cover up.


Bad live bands annoy me, especially professional bands...my father is a civil engineer, if he designs a bad construction, he gets into trouble, yet if James Hetfield performs a bad gig, he gets away with it
(not anything against James or Metallica,although St Anger sucks,his was just the first name I thought of, I've never seen him play a particularly bad gig)

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollyson
Look at it this way: I LOVE Iron Maiden. Yeah, they use a lot of distortion, but it's not an over-the-top, obvious cover-up.

How does any rock band not overuse distortion. every rock band uses distortion through every song. and has it ever occured to you that kirk might use his wah peddel to make his music soud better than it already does? are you telling me everything you play is clean with no effects? whats overuse anyways if something sounds good why not stick with it. plus ive been to 5 metallica live gigs and by no means does he overuse it. sure he uses it when it makes the song sound better but he used it less than a quarter of the time i bet.

Originally Posted by: garthioHow does any rock band not overuse distortion. every rock band uses distortion through every song. and has it ever occured to you that kirk might use his wah peddel to make his music soud better than it already does? are you telling me everything you play is clean with no effects? whats overuse anyways if something sounds good why not stick with it. plus ive been to 5 metallica live gigs and by no means does he overuse it. sure he uses it when it makes the song sound better but he used it less than a quarter of the time i bet.

I'll bet against that, I have seen Metallica plenty of times live and on DVD. DVDs also give you the advantage of seeing him stomp that wah. If it sounded good, I'd agree that he should stick with it. But seeing as too much wah makes you sound like a novice, I think we can safely say that it does NOT in fact sound good, at least as being indicative of skill.

You state that every rock band uses distortion through every song, which is false. In fact, it's so blatantly false that I can't believe you had the gall to type it.

I'm not quite sure how many times I've stated that I love using effects and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, but I think it's been said in several posts. I'm not sure what the confusion is, maybe some of the members don't have the best reading comprehension, but I think my point is still pretty straightforward and easy to understand: effects are fine, but when you blatantly use them to cover up mistakes, it's just poor musicianship. Clearly you haven't fully read any of my posts, or you would have noticed that I said there was nothing wrong with effects. Please don't engage in a debate unless you know what's been said.

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollysoneffects are fine, but when you blatantly use them to cover up mistakes, it's just poor musicianship.

I would actually say that it is better musicianship to cover up mistakes with effects than it is to make mistakes and not attempt to recover at all...but at the end of the day...You still made a mistake, which is bad musicianship(tho almost inevitable)