Worst guitarplayers/solos

Thats because music has shifted real far from what it was back then. Its much heavyer and non lead guitar orientated. Santana changed with the times, but he never baught into that heavyer scene.
I still like his old songs played now. They are better, faster and more modernized.

Nu Metal IS dying and fading away. All I see when I put on the TV is Rap and NU Metal. Its like a bad music plague. My theory is, there will eventually be so much of it that people will suddenly get sick of it, like what happened in the 80's with all those hair bands who copied people like Van Halen or Def Leppard. Its the same now, only instead bands have ripped off guys like Korn. They are all just immitators. It must stop somewhere.

How about Kerry King. He´s solo are damn fast but it so fu*cked up. First of all, does he know anything about scales and wich notes fits in in some of his runs and his killin´ evrybody with his whammy bar. He´s not like Vai who knows what hi´s doing with whammy, Kerry is messin´ around and mostly sounds really bad and even false. Jeff is much better but he´s not too bright either. However when it comes to riffs Kerry King shows evrybody that he´s the King.

That was funny!! But it´s true man. He would need a year in GIT our any other music school for som theory.

Originally posted by I_am_the_smartest
...the singer died from a drug overdose while curt died bc he couldn't handle the pressure??? that's pretty gay

the singer told you he died of an overdose?
you wouldn't know the difference between an accidental overdose and a proper suicide overdose,now,would you?
stop hating on kurt.
he didn't ask anyone to credit him with what anyone credited him with.you should be hating on the creditors.and in case you're an accounts student,don't correct me.

Originally posted by aiwass
I just don't think Santana would be famous if he tried today.

I don't think you realize what a sad commentary on the state of The biz that is, but you're probably right.

Originally posted by aiwass
I think he was more of a musical innovator than a guitarist.

There were still a lot of prejudicial roadblocks to push aside in the late 60's. Santana brought 'Chicano Rock' out of the barrio, and into the mainstream. And I, for one, think his playing was much fresher, and better-sounding, on Abraxis, than on Supernatural.

Lordathestrings
Guitar Tricks Moderator
www.GuitarTricks.com - Home of Online Guitar Lessons

Permalink

I feel the same king david. You didn't see Kurt walking around showing off and thinking he is better than everybody.

Originally posted by aiwass
God... I'm trying to say that today's music scene is both more demanding, discerning, and filled with musicians of higher skill than Santana...But anyway, even if someone were to meet the demands of today's music scene, they would still have to make it to MTV in order to become rich and famous. And that relies not on talent, but on image, trend-coherence, and writing stuff that teenagers can make out to.

True, all true... at least that last item has always been with us. :)

Originally posted by aiwass
But anyw0ay, even if someone were to meet the demands of today's music scene, they would still have to make it to MTV in order to become rich and famous. And that relies not on talent, but on image, trend-coherence, and writing stuff that teenagers can make out to.

Lordathestrings,can you please tell people from your age group to please start spending more on music.Maybe then labels will think of putting out more sensible stuff.
market forces are supposed to direct markets.I thought good music is a good market force!
Silly me,huh?!?

I'm hardly representative of 'my age group'. I'm single, never been married, have no kids, and I'm still interested in music. And I'm certainly not in a position to dictate how people spend their money. (I wish!) :D

Anyway, I have a theory that everybody has a tendency to cling to the music that was popular at about the time they were going through puberty. Thats when the memories were made that the music serves to help them remember. So if a bunch of balding, middle-aged white Canadian males were to suddenly start spending serious money on music, I don't think you'd like the results.

i guess i'm the exception to that theory.


but its a good theory.

I guess it has to do with the fact that when kids are gong thro' that whole puberty thing,they're very impressionable since they're trying to be cool and all that(as a way to attract the opposite sex.Remember,they've just discovered the opposite sex,coz all along,it's been "sissy",for a boy to hang out with chicks-ugghhh!!-I don't know what girls say-this is my thinking,not necesarily true),and music videos(damn the videos!It's the videos)proveide an avenue of showing them how to be with it,so even when they listen to music and buy music,they're really buying it so as to be seen to be with it,not because the music is good,musically speaking.And since in most of the west and Japan(these are the major music markets,tho' I guess others are emerging as countries develop)kids can go to work and make (relatively) substantial amounts of money,this money is spent on music and forms the bulk of the labels' turnover.And consider,when you're older,you got other things to spend your money on(think college,rent,maybe your kids,etc,etc)but when you're still a kid living ast home with your folks,any extra $ you got can be very easily spent on these things.
I guess as far as market forces go,teenagers are quite a force.And with the state of mind they're in,we all see the product of a game aimed at them.
and before any teenager says anything,this side of the sahara,we don't have tricks for being born on your 20th birthday.
Cryptic?
Here's the meaning in English:
I also was a teenager once.It's not you I'm bashing.Just reflecting on things as things are.