QueenZone discussion #1213464

ThomasQuinn wrote: My two cents as a guitarist and (most importantly) music theoretician: Brian May is/was an absolutely *brilliant* studio guitarist. No one can best him when it comes to guitar orchestrations, and I doubt anyone has as full an understanding of the effects of multi-layered guitar recordings on the totality of a song as he does. However, as a live guitarist, I would rank him as only reasonably good, primarily because of his inflexibility / stringent attachment to rehearsed parts, by which I mean that Brian has or had a morbid fear of making mistakes, and thus of improvisation, which in part accounts for the remarkable uniformity of his solos through the years.

ThomasQuinn wrote: My two cents as a guitarist and (most importantly) music theoretician: Brian May is/was an absolutely *brilliant* studio guitarist. No one can best him when it comes to guitar orchestrations, and I doubt anyone has as full an understanding of the effects of multi-layered guitar recordings on the totality of a song as he does. However, as a live guitarist, I would rank him as only reasonably good, primarily because of his inflexibility / stringent attachment to rehearsed parts, by which I mean that Brian has or had a morbid fear of making mistakes, and thus of improvisation, which in part accounts for the remarkable uniformity of his solos through the years.

Serry... wrote: Good Company

Sebastian wrote: > Jimmy page has influenced Just about every guitarist on the planet Wrong: Julian Bream wasn't influenced by Page; neither were Peo Kindgren, John Christopher Williams, Paco de Lucía, John Dearman, Eva Fampas, Alberto Ponce, Stepan Rak and many, many more who are still alive, still playing brilliantly and the fact they weren't influenced by Page didn't seem to affect them. So, Page influences many guitarists on the planet, but far far far far far from 'just about every guitarist'. > I still think his greatest work in Queen was on The Miracle album, Totally agree. > despite the shittiness of about half of the songs. Indeed, but the topic's about his best guitar work, not about the best songs. > it annoys me that people here are always pissing on Page. It's freedom of speech. Page's one of those artists who tends to have 49.5% of the people yelling 'you suck', and 49.5% saying 'you're a god, please fuck me!'. I don't personally agree with either but I totally respect those who feel strongly about their take on him. > he wasn't always as creative as Brian TBH, Brian wasn't always as creative as Brian either. > but he was a damn fine guitarist (IMO easily among the very greatest of all time) IMO, not even sort of close to 'the very greatest of all time'. Certainly a good one, especially on acoustic, but there are loads and loads and loads of guitarists who, while being loads and loads and loads of times less influential and less famous, are/were way better. > It seems to me that it has become almost the hip thing to diss guitarists like him and Hendrix. While the actual Hendrix wasn't even sort of close to the mythical one, he certainly played a hell of a lot better than Page. >  I don't like it at all, especially since Brian was influenced by Hendrix, and probably by Page as well. In fact he was. So? Whoever wants to pan them, has the right to do so, because the fact of the matter is they were both grossly overrated. Now, does it mean they suck? No. But of course, anybody who wants to say Dr May's way better than both is entitled to. > A great guitarist might have the speed, great riffs and superb solos, but could easily be copied down to a thrill by a equally skilled player. (Eg. Zakk Wylde, great speed, great solos and one of my personal favourites, but he could in my opinion be confused for..say..the late Dimebag) IMO they're quite different once you get to know them. But I agree neither is as distinctive as, say, Clapton or Santana, whom you can recognise from the very first note. > A legendary guitarist is one with his axe. There are no doubt who it is when you hear him play. A legendary guitarist is playing from his soul. Even though this player might not posess the skill of speed or any other playing techniques many consider to be important, he is unmistakenly HIM. (Eg. Brian May, David Gilmour, Jimmy Page and even The Edge fits this category I think) The Edge is more a sound engineer than a guitarist per se, IMO. > Having said that, the songs weren't really ever carbon copies of the studio versions (IMO). Statements like that aren't (and can't be) a matter of opinion. Either they were carbon copies or they weren't. And of course, they weren't. > I would point at AKOM and AOBTD as stand outs in that respect, so I would give him some slack with that in mind I think his work on DSMN was great on stage, much better than in the studio where he only played that (great) solo and made some fills at the end and that was it. > Where he absolutely lacked originality was his live solo piece (i.e the Brighton Rock solo). It's a fantastic use of delay etc, and no-one can do it like Brian (that I've heard at least), but it was very repeatitive, and can easily get boring. I actually find it interesting, and you can tell he enjoys it. For a 99% of the public (me included) it may be the least-exciting part of each concert, but it was probably done to entertain the remaining 1% (that includes the doctor himself). > To his credit, although he still did it on the last 2 QPR tours, he did add in bits of Chinese Torture and Last horizons etc to spice it up, but these aren't improv either. IMO, improvisation's a bit overrated by some, when they think that a guitarist that improvises is better than one who doesn't... at the end of the day, most so-called improvisations are made by combining licks and bits of a musician's comfort zone, so at the end of the day, they're not 'really' improvisations, or not more so than beginning the Bo Rhap solo slightly lower or higher or adding a different phrasing or whatever. > Finally, there have been other bands where the guitarist has gone off script and improv'd in a solo, and I've thought it was awful (can't think of an example at the moment) Think Page at Live Aid ;) > so there's an argument for sticking with the base of a song and its solo. Especially when the songs have such beautiful arrangements. There are certain details Queen songs have in the music that are as fundamental to them as the lyrics themselves: I wouldn't like Fred to change the We Are the Champions lyrics at last minute, not only because you expect them to be what they are, but because it'd be very hard to keep the rhyme and stuff... same for things in the arrangements such as the bass licks and the guitar crescendo... if they're left out, it's odd. For certain things where they specifically wanted a more improvised playing-along thing (e.g. the ending of Crazy Little Thing), it's perfectly fine to come up with different things every night. But for other things, IMO, it's like having a top chef saying 'today I decided I'm not using cheese in the lasagna and instead I'm putting some potato on it.'

Sebastian wrote: Indeed, but the topic's about his best guitar work, not about the best songs.

Zebonka12 wrote: I've never understood the vitriol involved in guitar-related discussions (I'm not saying it exists here YET, but it frequently happens).  It's not dissing Page to see him for what he was - a very ordinary player, great composer, inventive producer, and influential dude.  If you really love something (a style of music, or the person who plays it) then you won't have a problem as seeing them as imperfect and fallible.  

Sebastian wrote: > I've never understood the vitriol involved in guitar-related discussions (I'm not saying it exists here YET, but it frequently happens). It's not something that has to be understood IMO. > If you really love something (a style of music, or the person who plays it) then you won't have a problem as seeing them as imperfect and fallible.  Yes, and that's not only the case with music. > I always have (and always will) laugh at the know-it-all's who dismiss people like Hendrix, though.  Hendrix sounds like Hendrix - you sound like the last instructional video you watched. That's quite oversimplifying it (I know - or hope - you don't mean 'you' as in 'me' or anybody else in particular), since you (and I mean you, Zeb) can't possibly know if everybody who criticises Hendrix (or anybody else for that matter) sounds like the last instructional video they watched. AAMOF, you (you, Zeb) can't even know if a person who criticises Hendrix (or anybody else for that matter) has watched instructional videos. > Very, very few people who are playing today have earned the right to pick out a part of guitar evolution and say "that stinks". The thing is, IMO, Hendrix wasn't a part of guitar evolution per se: absolutely every chord he played (including the wrongly-called Hendrix chord), every 'trick' he popularised, even the trend of playing a national anthem... all those things were pre-existing. And even before he was born, there already were guitar players who performed music much more elaborate than anything he did in his life (of course, not in rock, but at the end of the day it's music). Hendrix was (and still is) incredibly important as a cultural icon, as a person who directly or indirectly inspired probably millions into buying guitars and trying them out. In terms of influence, he's second to none and he may have probably influenced even people playing in other genres. But purely speaking in terms of music, he invented nothing. Is that bad? Not at all. But it is important, IMO, to keep in mind that he was, musically, not a stepping stone... way before he existed, there was already great guitar music. And, again, music is music, be it rock, hip-hop, classical, funk or whatever... a C chord is a C chord, etc. In terms of who is/was a more influential guitarist, nobody would 'beat' Hendrix (I know this is not a football match but...). However, in terms of who plays/played guitar better, there are/were many people who 'beat' him by a country mile, as well as many people who're vastly inferior (Page included). > Even if you recognise that a player is pretty ordinary, you should always acknowledge their importance to the evolution of the craft you are involved with. Another angle: when cars were invented, somebody had to be the first to be run over by a car. Does it mean the driver 'invented' traffic-related deaths? Does it mean that without him or her there would be no car accidents? Same case here: Hendrix may have been the first to (successfully) do this and that, but it doesn't mean without him those things wouldn't exist. His importance as a cultural icon, as an idol and as a person whose art marked generations is undeniable. But music had already evolved way past his own limits... and, again, music is music, regardless of genre or even instrument (at the end of the day, it's not about playing guitar, but about playing music through the guitar, which is a concept very few people mastered, and Hendrix was indeed one of them - that, IMO, is his most important contribution, and a pretty hard one to match). > You can't look at human evolution and say "australopithecus was fucking unnecessary". Sure. But it'd also be ridiculous to think 'Australopithecus was taller than modern basketball players' or 'Australopithecus could master more languages than modern polyglots'. > It had to exist, so that the stuff that followed could happen. See the car accident example. > Mmm, it's not totally unrelated. Sure, but only in certain cases... I mean, if a score has the guitar playing an ostinato E on the sixth string for 60 minutes, even if the guitarist is a virtuoso, there's not much chance to prove it. > For me the Miracle is still worth a listen for the performances - despite the songs themselves.  Brian's guitar is one of the few reasons I can stomach the lesser tracks on there (and Freddie, who was sounding excellent). I still hate songs like Rain Must Fall, but I think the guitar work there is extremely well-done. > Hendrix died at 26 and look at the Impact he made. Imagine if he lived until he was 60? We'll never know. Maybe he'd be even more famous, maybe not... that's a pointless argument IMO. > I do agree brian was a better play than page,  but trying too argue that point with most rock fans is an uphill battle. And?

whynot wrote: Doesn't make sense to compare guitarists.

Zebonka12 wrote: "That's quite oversimplifying it (I know - or hope* - you don't mean 'you' as in 'me' or anybody else in particular), since you (and I mean you, Zeb) can't possibly know if everybody who criticises Hendrix (or anybody else for that matter) sounds like the last instructional video they watched. AAMOF, you (you, Zeb) can't even know if a person who criticises Hendrix (or anybody else for that matter) has watched instructional videos."   *Yeah I screwed that bit up.  I meant "you" as in "ya".  Actually I ought to have said "one", haha.     I'll cop that it's an over-simplification, but it isn't a statement without merit.  Granted, the internet is the very last place you want to go for a guaranteed insightful conversation on anything, but with the amount of comments I get from Youtube (where you can easily check on someone's favourites and see what kind of videos they're watching) it's actually not all that uncommon to see instructional stuff there ...  I didn't explain that very well.   Point being, there are plenty of instances where I could (and HAVE) been able to categorically see that x person complaining about y musician has watched a lot of instructional videos (and left them conveniently in their Youtube favourites/played very recognisable licks that we've all seen Paul Gilbert play) and is a bedroom guitarist who probably shouldn't be calling various elements of the craft into question .... and I say this as someone who still does a lot of playing at home.  Ha-ha.     "The thing is, IMO, Hendrix wasn't a part of guitar evolution per se: absolutely every chord he played (including the wrongly-called Hendrix chord), every 'trick' he popularised, even the trend of playing a national anthem... all those things were pre-existing. And even before he was born, there already were guitar players who performed music much more elaborate than anything he did in his life (of course, not in rock, but at the end of the day it's music)."   I invented string skipping.  Well no - I didn't invent it - I thought it up independently and then saw someone else do it one day on Youtube.  (true story, you should've seen my annoyed reaction...)  I'm not the one who'll get credit for it though, because I wasn't the first (or the best).  But someone like Page or Hendrix, who becomes the mass communicator for a technique or discipline or style, cannot be trashed in any reasonable fashion because their influence is a hard fact, and their quality is purely subjective.  One has to accept that people like them, whether one thinks they're any good or not.     I mean I personally feel that you can't really hold up one player and say "THAT'S where this started".  For me you can't talk about Hendrix without mentioning his influences, his contemporaries, and people who have been spurred on by his music.  It's almost galling to me to have a Hendrix discussion without bringing up Chuck Berry or Buddy Guy.  I find it more fun to see the connections between styles, because as Brian says, you can't exist in a vacuum.    "But purely speaking in terms of music, he invented nothing."   But with music being more than just the written note (as it has been ever since people started playing it), it's not just about music, it's about coming up with new sounds ...  Hendrix didn't invent any chords that hadn't been played before but he played them in his own way, through equipment that was treated maybe a little differently, to arrive at a different kind of sound.  I'm not trying to edify him; I'm of the opinion that with the musical trends of the day, someone else would've eventually filled that space.     "Another angle: when cars were invented, somebody had to be the first to be run over by a car."   I believe I've more or less addressed this already.  One would be ludicrous to try and say that without a certain person, given things would not have taken place.  They'd be irrefutably different, but the overall course of things would not change ...  amps were getting bigger, players were bouncing off each other and giving older disciplines a new approach...  if it wasn't Hendrix, someone else would've been there.  But is it a discussion about the evolution of music, or the possibilities of "what might have been"?  I was trying to address the former, no matter how much fun it might be to muck about with the latter!   "Sure. But it'd also be ridiculous to think 'Australopithecus was taller than modern basketball players' or 'Australopithecus could master more languages than modern polyglots'."       But that wasn't what I was implying.  Not that you were .... implying that I was implying that .... (I want this sentence to end).  I am not trying to say Hendrix was something that he was not (that's for others to do).     I think of it like this.  Jesse Owens would not even qualify in his event if he had been brought forward in time to the 2008 Olympics, but his name is worth remembering for a reason - in his day, he was the state of the art, and other people who took it up were following his example.  There would be people who owed their careers to him simply because he inspired them - it's a tenuous connection but role models do exist and they have a tangible effect on people.     I don't think track and field is comparable to music because it's simply nowhere near as diverse, of course.  Hehe.  

Zebonka12 wrote: Those things "can" coexist. I think it's like what you said about the unicorn.

mike hunt wrote: and most consider page better. outside of queenzone that is.

ThomasQuinn wrote: Sebastian: You can't be serious when you say that Page was not a better improviser than May. I have tremendous respect for May as a composer, arranger and even performer, but there is no denying that he had and has a morbid fear of improvisation, to which the conversation he had with Zappa alone would testify: "I was fortunate enough to meet Frank Zappa, a truly great rock musician, and a very unorthodox and innovative creator. He was already very ill when I met him (I was working with his son in L.A. ) I told him I admired his skill and courage in improvising so much in his music, live in front of large audiences. He said, "Courage? - What do you mean?! " I said that I was always very aware of the possibilities of making mistakes. He replied, "How can you make a mistake? It is your solo, your guitar, and you are playing a piece of your own music. Who could possibly tell you you are making a mistake?!! "

Zebonka12 wrote: I'm not sure how Page being more willing to improvise (but frequently playing complete crap in doing so, ) and Brian sticking to the programme, are two approaches that can be readily measured against each other? What are the criteria?  Listenability?  Bravery??

  Funky Horsie wrote: Jimmy Page is the worst guitar player ever.  

Funky Horsie wrote: I don't know anybody besides him who's been playing the same primitive crap for 50 years and still can't get it right. If you know someone worse, please let me now. Page is seriously the worst player ever.

Funky Horsie wrote: I don't know anybody besides him who's been playing the same primitive crap for 50 years and still can't get it right. If you know someone worse, please let me now. Page is seriously the worst player ever.

  Funky Horsie wrote: Of course he is! He sure influenced me! When I listened to him, I thought "GOD, I BETTER PRACTICE HARD, I DON'T WANNA SOUND LIKE THAT!". But, you know, being influential is not necessarily a good thing. Besides, he does suck. So much, so hard. Poor guy, I really pity him. It must be awful to be ABSOLUTELY UNABLE to play your own songs, even when they're so simple and primitive as his songs.

Holly2003 wrote:

Funky Horsie wrote: Of course he is! He sure influenced me! When I listened to him, I thought "GOD, I BETTER PRACTICE HARD, I DON'T WANNA SOUND LIKE THAT!". But, you know, being influential is not necessarily a good thing. Besides, he does suck. So much, so hard. Poor guy, I really pity him. It must be awful to be ABSOLUTELY UNABLE to play your own songs, even when they're so simple and primitive as his songs.

Possibly you are a better technical guitarist than Page, but let's face it no one's heard of you, whereas Page was part of what was probably the most famous rock band in the world. People will be playing and listening to Page long after he, you and I are dead. Obviously Page made a connection with people, which  is something so far you have failed to do (unless you are a ringer). So I doubt Page or anyone else will lose much sleep over your opinion. Sorry, don't mean to demean you, but that's the brutal truth.

Funky Horsie wrote:

Holly2003 wrote:

Funky Horsie wrote: Of course he is! He sure influenced me! When I listened to him, I thought "GOD, I BETTER PRACTICE HARD, I DON'T WANNA SOUND LIKE THAT!". But, you know, being influential is not necessarily a good thing. Besides, he does suck. So much, so hard. Poor guy, I really pity him. It must be awful to be ABSOLUTELY UNABLE to play your own songs, even when they're so simple and primitive as his songs.

Possibly you are a better technical guitarist than Page, but let's face it no one's heard of you, whereas Page was part of what was probably the most famous rock band in the world. People will be playing and listening to Page long after he, you and I are dead. Obviously Page made a connection with people, which  is something so far you have failed to do (unless you are a ringer). So I doubt Page or anyone else will lose much sleep over your opinion. Sorry, don't mean to demean you, but that's the brutal truth.

So your point is it doesn't matter if you FUCKING suck as long as you're famous or important? Good for Hitler!

Funky Horsie wrote:

  Holly2003 wrote:  

          Funky Horsie wrote:       Of course he is! He sure influenced me! When I listened to him, I thought "GOD, I BETTER PRACTICE HARD, I DON'T WANNA SOUND LIKE THAT!". But, you know, being influential is not necessarily a good thing. Besides, he does suck. So much, so hard. Poor guy, I really pity him. It must be awful to be ABSOLUTELY UNABLE to play your own songs, even when they're so simple and primitive as his songs.      

Possibly you are a better technical guitarist than Page, but let's face it no one's heard of you, whereas Page was part of what was probably the most famous rock band in the world. People will be playing and listening to Page long after he, you and I are dead. Obviously Page made a connection with people, which  is something so far you have failed to do (unless you are a ringer). So I doubt Page or anyone else will lose much sleep over your opinion. Sorry, don't mean to demean you, but that's the brutal truth.

So your point is it doesn't matter if you FUCKING suck as long as you're famous or important? Good for Hitler!

Funky Horsie wrote: Of course he is! He sure influenced me! When I listened to him, I thought "GOD, I BETTER PRACTICE HARD, I DON'T WANNA SOUND LIKE THAT!".

Funky Horsie wrote: I care about music, not about being praised by deaf people. I rather spend time practizing than writting shit and playing it awfully. Even if it makes history. Who cares? I don't care about being important, I care about making music! Your problem is that you care way too much about success. To you people, succeeding is becoming important. To me, succeeding is making music in the best way possible.

Funky Horsie wrote: I care about music, not about being praised by deaf people. I rather spend time practizing than writting shit and playing it awfully. Even if it makes history. Who cares? I don't care about being important, I care about making music! Your problem is that you care way too much about success. To you people, succeeding is becoming important. To me, succeeding is making music in the best way possible.

Holly2003 wrote: "Who cares?"  A bit ironic, given how desperately you are trying to convince us that Page sucks. How many times have you said it now? Odd behaviour for someone who doesn't care...

Funky Horsie wrote: I'm not comparing Hitler to Page, I'm using your arguments against you. If you can't see the difference, it's not my problem. Steve Vai is God.

Amazon wrote:

Funky Horsie wrote: I'm not comparing Hitler to Page, I'm using your arguments against you. If you can't see the difference, it's not my problem. Steve Vai is God.

You said that Page sucks even though he's famous and important and said 'good for Hitler.' You were comparing him to Hitler, and as such, I think all of your opinions on this topic are worthless.

Sir GH wrote:

Funky Horsie wrote: Of course he is! He sure influenced me! When I listened to him, I thought "GOD, I BETTER PRACTICE HARD, I DON'T WANNA SOUND LIKE THAT!".

Great, you're spending your 20s learning how to play technically better than Page and whoever else. Page, on the other hand, spent his 20s writing music that would be revered and critically acclaimed generations later.  He didn't give a shit about his technical ability, as that's not what Led Zeppelin was all about. Time well spent, huh?

Funky Horsie wrote:

Amazon wrote:

Funky Horsie wrote: I'm not comparing Hitler to Page, I'm using your arguments against you. If you can't see the difference, it's not my problem. Steve Vai is God.

You said that Page sucks even though he's famous and important and said 'good for Hitler.' You were comparing him to Hitler, and as such, I think all of your opinions on this topic are worthless.

I was replying to the guy who said that it didn't matter if he sucked because he was in one of the world's most important rock bands and he made a connection with people and blah blah. In that case, if he thinks it doesn't matter if you suck or if you do bad, it's only important if you're part of history... then good for Hitler! That's what I said. I didn't compare Page to Hitler in any way. THE MOAR YOU KNOW Learn to read, fella.

Zebonka12 wrote: In either case Hitler is a bad example.  Hitler was a far better dictator than Page is a guitar player.

Zebonka12 wrote: In either case Hitler is a bad example.  Hitler was a far better dictator than Page is a guitar player.

Zebonka12 wrote: In either case Hitler is a bad example.  Hitler was a far better dictator than Page is a guitar player.

Sebastian wrote: Hitler was a genius. An evil genius (or an 'out of control' genius), but a genius nonetheless. Page is a person who plays guitar well, and became grossly overrated by the public.

Sebastian wrote: Hitler was a genius. An evil genius (or an 'out of control' genius), but a genius nonetheless. Page is a person who plays guitar well, and became grossly overrated by the public.

Sebastian wrote: Page is a person who plays guitar well

tcc wrote:

Sebastian wrote: Hitler was a genius. An evil genius (or an 'out of control' genius), but a genius nonetheless. Page is a person who plays guitar well, and became grossly overrated by the public.

Killing people is genius ?  This topic is getting more and more weird. 

Sebastian wrote:

tcc wrote:

Sebastian wrote: Hitler was a genius. An evil genius (or an 'out of control' genius), but a genius nonetheless. Page is a person who plays guitar well, and became grossly overrated by the public.

Killing people is genius ?  This topic is getting more and more weird. 

Hitler didn't kill people. He ordered loads of killings, which is not the same thing. And loads of genocides and/or criminals are geniuses, even if what they do/did is wrong. That's got nothing to do with Page, unless of course you consider he's killed loads of music by playing it.

Zebonka12 wrote: People harp on about Stairway but it's bloody contrived and boring. 

Amazon wrote:  If people want to talk about someone who's famous and important, but overrated, I would suggest Robert Plant!

Zebonka12 wrote:

Amazon wrote:  If people want to talk about someone who's famous and important, but overrated, I would suggest Robert Plant!

"Good God no.

Sebastian wrote: > I will ignore the genius comment, but to say that Hitler didn't kill people is completely and totally wrong. No, it's not: an orchestral conductor isn't playing the instruments, even if what he or she does is even more important. Same case here: Hitler didn't kill, although he ordered literally millions of murders which is, as you imply, even more criminal. But he didn't kill. > Sebastian, you're often quite pedantic Actually, I'm not. I am concerned with points that other people would find trivial, but that's merely an effect of people being different and liking different things.

Amazon wrote:  I think that songs like Kashmir could have been greatly improved if he wasn't singing like a little girl. Kashmir is a perfect example. Incredible instrumentation; but IMO Plant was far too delicate and so prevented the song from IMO becoming the absolute masterpiece it could have been. 

Holly2003 wrote:

Sebastian wrote: > I will ignore the genius comment, but to say that Hitler didn't kill people is completely and totally wrong. No, it's not: an orchestral conductor isn't playing the instruments, even if what he or she does is even more important. Same case here: Hitler didn't kill, although he ordered literally millions of murders which is, as you imply, even more criminal. But he didn't kill. > Sebastian, you're often quite pedantic Actually, I'm not. I am concerned with points that other people would find trivial, but that's merely an effect of people being different and liking different things.

Err.. no. In English, and I'm sure in other languages too, we do not speak literally all the time. It would be very odd if we did, and very boring and annoying. So when someone says "Hitler was a mass murderer" it is simply an information shortcut. The meaning is totally clear and does not have to be analysed to the point where everyone wants to commit suicide out of boredom. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Logic for an extreme example.

  Sebastian wrote:  

      Holly2003 wrote:      

              Sebastian wrote:       > I will ignore the genius comment, but to say that Hitler didn't kill people is completely and totally wrong. No, it's not: an orchestral conductor isn't playing the instruments, even if what he or she does is even more important. Same case here: Hitler didn't kill, although he ordered literally millions of murders which is, as you imply, even more criminal. But he didn't kill. > Sebastian, you're often quite pedantic Actually, I'm not. I am concerned with points that other people would find trivial, but that's merely an effect of people being different and liking different things.      

Err.. no. In English, and I'm sure in other languages too, we do not speak literally all the time. It would be very odd if we did, and very boring and annoying. So when someone says "Hitler was a mass murderer" it is simply an information shortcut. The meaning is totally clear and does not have to be analysed to the point where everyone wants to commit suicide out of boredom. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Logic for an extreme example.

I didn't ask anybody to 'speak literally all the time'. I stated that Hitler didn't kill people per se, which is right. Absolutely nothing 'has to be analysed', but it can if a person (me, in this case) wants to. If you're bored with it, you can... wait for it... wait for it... not read! Have you tried that? PS: I know Mr Logic, I think he's great.

Holly2003 wrote:

  Sebastian wrote:  

      Holly2003 wrote:      

              Sebastian wrote:       > I will ignore the genius comment, but to say that Hitler didn't kill people is completely and totally wrong. No, it's not: an orchestral conductor isn't playing the instruments, even if what he or she does is even more important. Same case here: Hitler didn't kill, although he ordered literally millions of murders which is, as you imply, even more criminal. But he didn't kill. > Sebastian, you're often quite pedantic Actually, I'm not. I am concerned with points that other people would find trivial, but that's merely an effect of people being different and liking different things.

Err.. no. In English, and I'm sure in other languages too, we do not speak literally all the time. It would be very odd if we did, and very boring and annoying. So when someone says "Hitler was a mass murderer" it is simply an information shortcut. The meaning is totally clear and does not have to be analysed to the point where everyone wants to commit suicide out of boredom. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Logic for an extreme example.

I didn't ask anybody to 'speak literally all the time'. I stated that Hitler didn't kill people per se, which is right. Absolutely nothing 'has to be analysed', but it can if a person (me, in this case) wants to. If you're bored with it, you can... wait for it... wait for it... not read! Have you tried that? PS: I know Mr Logic, I think he's great.

Not only are you pedantic, you also cannot be told anything by anyone. You refuse to learn from others, and that's the worst kind of bore.

Funky Horsie wrote: To you people, succeeding is becoming important.

Sebastian wrote:

  Holly2003 wrote:  

              Sebastian wrote:              

                              Holly2003 wrote:                              

                                                              Sebastian wrote:                               > I will ignore the genius comment, but to say that Hitler didn't kill people is completely and totally wrong. No, it's not: an orchestral conductor isn't playing the instruments, even if what he or she does is even more important. Same case here: Hitler didn't kill, although he ordered literally millions of murders which is, as you imply, even more criminal. But he didn't kill. > Sebastian, you're often quite pedantic Actually, I'm not. I am concerned with points that other people would find trivial, but that's merely an effect of people being different and liking different things.                  

Err.. no. In English, and I'm sure in other languages too, we do not speak literally all the time. It would be very odd if we did, and very boring and annoying. So when someone says "Hitler was a mass murderer" it is simply an information shortcut. The meaning is totally clear and does not have to be analysed to the point where everyone wants to commit suicide out of boredom. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Logic for an extreme example.

I didn't ask anybody to 'speak literally all the time'. I stated that Hitler didn't kill people per se, which is right. Absolutely nothing 'has to be analysed', but it can if a person (me, in this case) wants to. If you're bored with it, you can... wait for it... wait for it... not read! Have you tried that? PS: I know Mr Logic, I think he's great.

Not only are you pedantic, you also cannot be told anything by anyone. You refuse to learn from others, and that's the worst kind of bore.

Actually, I'm not pedantic, as I'm not preaching any sort of knowledge, nor I'm involved in formal rules (I never went to college, for instance). Of course I can be told loads of things by loads of people, and here, in this forum, I've been told loads of things by loads of people. Of course I don't refuse to learn from others, and as a matter of fact I have learnt a lot from other people in this forum, you included. Regarding the 'worst kind of bore' ... well, that's your opinion, and it's respectable. But the rest of your post is quite off.

ThomasQuinn wrote: I do hope you're not rejecting technical proficiency, which IMHO is still a vital ingredient for a great musician.

Sir GH wrote:

  ThomasQuinn wrote: I do hope you're not rejecting technical proficiency, which IMHO is still a vital ingredient for a great musician.

Yes, but it's all a matter of how much one truly needs in order to write music that connects with people. Case in point - Johnny Cash.  He knew about 10 chords and wrote hundreds of great songs, dozens of which are revered decades later.  Therefore I think it's not so much about how technical proficiency you are, but what you do with what you have, however much or little.

Holly2003 wrote: I take it poster 3 is me? Why not address me directly instead of being such an ass about it? Instead of simplifying, you've distorted our exchange. Intentionally? If so = dull. Life's too short. I did not call you an idiot but no, you were not correct. Saying "Hitler is a mass murderer" is fine because it's an information short cut. The person who said it assumes we're all familiar with Hitler and we know what he did. There's no need for that person to have to say it any other way just to pass your pedantry test.

Sebastian wrote: > I am STILL amused, Sebastian. Great! Amusement is good for your health. > You are pissing into the wind! Actually, I'm not (and of course I know the meaning of that expression), as I'm addressing the points directly. Holly2003 wrote I was referring to him/her, I cleared up I wasn't; Amazon said my statement was 'completely and utterly wrong' (or something to that effect, and I cleared up it isn't. > You are trying to rationalize emotional evaluations Again, I'm not: I didn't rationalise Holly's 'bore to death' comment, and I did say it's respectable; same for other 'emotional evaluations' as you call them. For other things which can be objectively measured, I do have a say, which is sometimes right, sometimes wrong. And in this case, it's right: saying 'Hitler was a mass murderer' and saying 'Hitler didn't actually kill people' aren't mutually exclusive. > and meanwhile getting crosswise of people in the process with all of the nit-picking I won't refrain from writing just to avoid 'getting crosswise of people'. Again, I'm not offending anybody (as Holly2003 is, BTW), and I'm not harming anybody. People who care enough to reply to what I write will get an a comment from me, which may or may not be what they want. Not my problem anyway. > Has anyone here who thought Jimmy Page's playing sucked had their mind changed? This forum doesn't exist to convert anybody, and its discussions aren't made to convince others about one's perspectives. > Does anyone here remember what the original post was about? Actually, I do: best guitar work by Brian May. I know it's a rethorical question but still... > has anyone noticed that Brian has been somewhat favoring black trousers and a longish black jacket in appearances like the book signings? Brings to my mind The Man in Black, aka Johnny Cash. Well, except for the hair. At least we can be grateful he didn't favour Freddie's 70's clothing... up to 'News', that is.

Sebastian wrote: > Listen to Since I've Been Loving You from How The West Was Won.  Nobody has made a Les Paul snarl with such power like Page did on that live album. Is it an overdub-free album? It's an honest question since I've never heard it.

> Any or all of those projects could have had far better musicians from a technical standpoint, but none of them come remotely close to capturing the magic that was Led Zeppelin. Sure, but that's true for most great bands, Queen included

Sir GH wrote:

Funky Horsie wrote: To you people, succeeding is becoming important.

What good is music if most people don't want to hear it?  Or do you only aim to write music for people with supreme musical skills? Yes, any intermediate guitarist can acknowledge that Page often isn't the cleanest player in the world, but he certainly does not suck.  Listen to Since I've Been Loving You from How The West Was Won.  Nobody has made a Les Paul snarl with such power like Page did on that live album. At their best, worst, and everything in between, there was a certain mysticism about Led Zeppelin that cannot be written in sheet music or conveyed in words.  There were four members of the band, as well as a fifth element that was far greater than the sum of the four musicians and what was physically happening.  That's why there isn't a single Zeppelin tribute band or any incarnation of the remaining Zeppelin members from the last 29 years that sounded half as good.  Any or all of those projects could have had far better musicians from a technical standpoint, but none of them come remotely close to capturing the magic that was Led Zeppelin.  But if all you're listening for is "right and wrong notes", you've completely missed the point. Finally... Steve Vai is not God.  He is a great writer and arranger and a technical wizard, but as a guitarist he overplays half the time which, to me, makes much of his music unlistenable.

Sebastian wrote: > I will ignore the genius comment, but to say that Hitler didn't kill people is completely and totally wrong. No, it's not: an orchestral conductor isn't playing the instruments, even if what he or she does is even more important. Same case here: Hitler didn't kill, although he ordered literally millions of murders which is, as you imply, even more criminal. But he didn't kill. > Sebastian, you're often quite pedantic Actually, I'm not. I am concerned with points that other people would find trivial, but that's merely an effect of people being different and liking different things. > Hitler was a genocidal murderer. And a way better (worse) one than Page as guitarist. > End of story. Not really... there are loads of things that haven't been cleared up about that era, loads of uncovered secrets, etc. Without them seeing the light, the 'end of story' is still light years away.

Sebastian wrote:

                              Holly2003 wrote:               I take it poster 3 is me? Why not address me directly instead of being such an ass about it? Instead of simplifying, you've distorted our exchange. Intentionally? If so = dull. Life's too short. I did not call you an idiot but no, you were not correct. Saying "Hitler is a mass murderer" is fine because it's an information short cut. The person who said it assumes we're all familiar with Hitler and we know what he did. There's no need for that person to have to say it any other way just to pass your pedantry test.              

No, poster 3 is not you. Poster 3 is a fictional character I picked for the example I set, as are poster 1 and 2. And I didn't say 'saying "Hitler is a mass murderer"' wasn't fine. I do say it now: that sentence is wrong, because Hitler died, hence, he's not a mass murderer, regardless of whether he was one before or not. Let's see what happened: I wrote: 'Hitler didn't kill people. He ordered loads of killings, which is not the same thing.' And I stand by it. Amazon then wrote that ' to say that Hitler didn't kill people is completely and totally wrong'. And I wrote 'No, it's not'. And I also stand by it, because it's not 'completely and totally wrong', as he didn't kill people. He killed a person (unless of course he actually pulled the trigger for more individuals than himself). I'm not criticising the figurative or literal use of language (Amazon is, BTW, in that post), nor I'm in any way offending Amazon, his/her personality or his/her ability (or lack thereof) to learn. You (you, Holly2003), on the other hand, are, which is indeed completely imbecile on your side seeing that: * You don't know me. * You completely missed the point I was making. And by the way, I'm not calling you an imbecile, I am saying, though, that saying I can't learn from others based on what you've read on an on-line forum (where I've, many times, acknowledging learning from others) is imbecile. Not the person, but the act. So, to sum up: * If you see Hitler as a mass murderer, you've got all the right to. In legal terms, it's enough that he was the mastermind and an accessory before the fact. * However, if I write 'Hitler didn't kill people', it's not 'completely and totally wrong', as he didn't, actually, kill people, besides himself (AFAIK). * If I make a mistake (and I've done so, many many times), I've got no problem in accepting it. However, if I'm right about something, I don't mind being a broken record about it and I don't mind defending my point. If you (a general 'you', not as in 'you, Holly2003') are annoyed by that, you can, as I pointed out earlier, refrain from reading. * If I've got any problem with you (you, Holly2003), I'll address it to you (you, Holly2003) directly. As I wrote earlier, 'Poster 3' is a fictional representation. If you sensed any resemblance, it's your problem, not mine. And by the way I haven't got a pedantry test, as I'm not pedantic.

Sebastian wrote: I hate Don Quixote.

Funky Horsie wrote: No

Sir GH wrote:

Funky Horsie wrote: No

Thanks for your thought-provoking contribution to the discussion.

Funky Horsie wrote: What do you want me to answer? It's obvious that I'm arguing with a deaf person, I'm wasting my time.

Sir GH wrote:

Funky Horsie wrote: What do you want me to answer? It's obvious that I'm arguing with a deaf person, I'm wasting my time.

So if I don't worship Steve Vai and choose to respect Led Zeppelin, I'm deaf? Good luck selling that point of view to anyone outside of a select few music snobs.

Funky Horsie wrote: But, on the other hand, if you ever dare to call yourself a decent musician, I think you should, at least, realize that he FUCKING SUCKS. If you choose to like his shit despite that, I don't think anyone would care but... being unable to notice his obvious lack of skills... now that's a problem.

  Voice of Reason 2009 wrote: I just tuned into this thread and went straight to page 7. How the fuck did you get from Brian's guitar playing to Hitler?!! Happy New Year!

Sebastian wrote: Well, I respect your opinion, but I don't share it. Just like there are many guitar players that were/are not in the slightest way influenced by Page but still play wonderfully, there are many guitarists who don't think Jimmy sucks, who actually admire him, and for whom things turned out OK (Brian included). So, not everybody who dislikes (or is not interested in) Page is a snob, and not everybody who likes him is deaf.

Funky Horsie wrote: We'd have to see which ones really liked Page and which ones grew up listening to his (horrible) music and eventually named him among musical influences because of that. Besides, I don't think any important musician would go and say OK, LED ZEPPELIN IS CRAP, because it's not clever to do so, it's not polite and you won't change people's minds. On the other hand, I can allow myself to say it as much as I want and piss idiots off, which I love doing. And yes, Page DOES suck. There is a HUGE difference between being somewhat sloppy (as Eddie Van Halen live, during the early years) and being an utter disaster/a motherfucker that should have never picked up a guitar. I also think his songs are poor and terrible. It's ridiculous how his bandmates didn't kick him out of the band. Plant eventually became a pretty good singer. John Paul Jones is great and Bonzo really improved during the years... yet Page always managed to suck. I mean... you can see John Paul Jones'  WTF/LMFAO face during Jimmy's solos. But one should always look on the bright side of life. Maybe Page is a good cock, maybe he is an amazing tennis player!

Holly2003 wrote:

Funky Horsie wrote: We'd have to see which ones really liked Page and which ones grew up listening to his (horrible) music and eventually named him among musical influences because of that. Besides, I don't think any important musician would go and say OK, LED ZEPPELIN IS CRAP, because it's not clever to do so, it's not polite and you won't change people's minds. On the other hand, I can allow myself to say it as much as I want and piss idiots off, which I love doing. And yes, Page DOES suck. There is a HUGE difference between being somewhat sloppy (as Eddie Van Halen live, during the early years) and being an utter disaster/a motherfucker that should have never picked up a guitar. I also think his songs are poor and terrible. It's ridiculous how his bandmates didn't kick him out of the band. Plant eventually became a pretty good singer. John Paul Jones is great and Bonzo really improved during the years... yet Page always managed to suck. I mean... you can see John Paul Jones'  WTF/LMFAO face during Jimmy's solos. But one should always look on the bright side of life. Maybe Page is a good cock, maybe he is an amazing tennis player!

So while you're trolling around forums trying to annoy people, at around the same age, Page was a member of rock's most famous band, having the time of his life, and making millions of dollars. Okay....

Funky Horsie wrote:

  Holly2003 wrote:  

      Funky Horsie wrote:   We'd have to see which ones really liked Page and which ones grew up listening to his (horrible) music and eventually named him among musical influences because of that. Besides, I don't think any important musician would go and say OK, LED ZEPPELIN IS CRAP, because it's not clever to do so, it's not polite and you won't change people's minds. On the other hand, I can allow myself to say it as much as I want and piss idiots off, which I love doing. And yes, Page DOES suck. There is a HUGE difference between being somewhat sloppy (as Eddie Van Halen live, during the early years) and being an utter disaster/a motherfucker that should have never picked up a guitar. I also think his songs are poor and terrible. It's ridiculous how his bandmates didn't kick him out of the band. Plant eventually became a pretty good singer. John Paul Jones is great and Bonzo really improved during the years... yet Page always managed to suck. I mean... you can see John Paul Jones'  WTF/LMFAO face during Jimmy's solos. But one should always look on the bright side of life. Maybe Page is a good cock, maybe he is an amazing tennis player!  

So while you're trolling around forums trying to annoy people, at around the same age, Page was a member of rock's most famous band, having the time of his life, and making millions of dollars. Okay....

I think it's time you stopped repeating how much money Page did. It's clear for everyone that if you were to have a band, the last thing you'd care about is the music. You seem to love money so much, it's actually sad. On the other hand, I'm not trolling. I'm stating something that it's incredibly true. Your reactions make me laugh, like when someone says FREDDIE MERCURY WAS GAY and lots of people cry and say: a- "BUT HE WAS A GOOD SINGER!!!", when nobody said anything about his vocal skills in the first place. b- "NO, HE WASN'T, HE WAS BISEXUAL", which is not true. c- "YOU ARE HOMOPHOBIC", when nobody said anything about homosexuality being a bad thing, it was just stated that Freddie Mercury was, indeed, gay. d- "OMFG OMFG WTF WTF LOLZOR" But none of them actually says YES, HE WAS. Which he was and it's true and nobody can deny. Which, of course, has nothing to do with his music. And the statement itself doesn't say it's a good or a bad thing, it just says something that is true. That's pretty much what happens when I say that Jimmy Page sucks. He does suck. So much. And there are of course, those who say he doesn't. Those who say it doesn't matter. Those who say he did kinda suck and people like you who say "BUT HE HAZ A LOTSA MONEY LAWLZ!!!111!1!1!!"

Funky Horsie wrote:

  Holly2003 wrote:  

      Funky Horsie wrote:   We'd have to see which ones really liked Page and which ones grew up listening to his (horrible) music and eventually named him among musical influences because of that. Besides, I don't think any important musician would go and say OK, LED ZEPPELIN IS CRAP, because it's not clever to do so, it's not polite and you won't change people's minds. On the other hand, I can allow myself to say it as much as I want and piss idiots off, which I love doing. And yes, Page DOES suck. There is a HUGE difference between being somewhat sloppy (as Eddie Van Halen live, during the early years) and being an utter disaster/a motherfucker that should have never picked up a guitar. I also think his songs are poor and terrible. It's ridiculous how his bandmates didn't kick him out of the band. Plant eventually became a pretty good singer. John Paul Jones is great and Bonzo really improved during the years... yet Page always managed to suck. I mean... you can see John Paul Jones'  WTF/LMFAO face during Jimmy's solos. But one should always look on the bright side of life. Maybe Page is a good cock, maybe he is an amazing tennis player!  

So while you're trolling around forums trying to annoy people, at around the same age, Page was a member of rock's most famous band, having the time of his life, and making millions of dollars. Okay....

I think it's time you stopped repeating how much money Page did. It's clear for everyone that if you were to have a band, the last thing you'd care about is the music. You seem to love money so much, it's actually sad. On the other hand, I'm not trolling. I'm stating something that it's incredibly true. Your reactions make me laugh, like when someone says FREDDIE MERCURY WAS GAY and lots of people cry and say: a- "BUT HE WAS A GOOD SINGER!!!", when nobody said anything about his vocal skills in the first place. b- "NO, HE WASN'T, HE WAS BISEXUAL", which is not true. c- "YOU ARE HOMOPHOBIC", when nobody said anything about homosexuality being a bad thing, it was just stated that Freddie Mercury was, indeed, gay. d- "OMFG OMFG WTF WTF LOLZOR" But none of them actually says YES, HE WAS. Which he was and it's true and nobody can deny. Which, of course, has nothing to do with his music. And the statement itself doesn't say it's a good or a bad thing, it just says something that is true. That's pretty much what happens when I say that Jimmy Page sucks. He does suck. So much. And there are of course, those who say he doesn't. Those who say it doesn't matter. Those who say he did kinda suck and people like you who say "BUT HE HAZ A LOTSA MONEY LAWLZ!!!111!1!1!!"

Major Tom wrote: Well, IMO, the best work he's done is the "Back to the light" album. Through and through a brilliant album with lots of emotion and since it's a "concept album"(I like ém, ok!), I tend to listen to it a lot. Resurrection, Back to the light, Last horizon, brilliant...

Holly2003 wrote: Nope, what's sad is your admisson that you troll around internet forums trying to annoy people. Your attempt to bring Fred into this is embarrasing. You should stop now before you make a bigger fool of yourself. But of course you won't, because trolls like you crave attention, as you've admitted above.

Funky Horsie wrote: But what I will NEVER understand is why people talk about Zeppelin as the ultimate rock band when the band next door was FAR SUPERIOR. I'm talking about Deep Purple, of course. I mean... MUCH better singer. MUCH MUCH MUCH better. Paice is a much better drummer than Bonham.  BLACKMORE IS SURELY BETTER THAN PAGE... but, then again, everyone is. Jon Lord is one GREAT player. The arrangements are better, the compositions, everything... I mean, it's like comparing the moon and Paul Rodgers' smegma. Seriously.

Funky Horsie wrote: But what I will NEVER understand is why people talk about Zeppelin as the ultimate rock band when the band next door was FAR SUPERIOR. I'm talking about Deep Purple, of course. I mean... MUCH better singer. MUCH MUCH MUCH better. Paice is a much better drummer than Bonham.  BLACKMORE IS SURELY BETTER THAN PAGE... but, then again, everyone is. Jon Lord is one GREAT player. The arrangements are better, the compositions, everything... I mean, it's like comparing the moon and Paul Rodgers' smegma. Seriously.

Funky Horsie wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkApNqfg7tE This is seriously, the worst thing I've heard in my life.

cacatua wrote: Mike Hunt wrote: "Just look at behind the scenes of the video the great pretender.  If that doesn't convince you the man was gay, then nothing will." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ What does this say about Roger then??

Sheer Brass Neck wrote:

Funky Horsie wrote: But what I will NEVER understand is why people talk about Zeppelin as the ultimate rock band when the band next door was FAR SUPERIOR. I'm talking about Deep Purple, of course. I mean... MUCH better singer. MUCH MUCH MUCH better. Paice is a much better drummer than Bonham.  BLACKMORE IS SURELY BETTER THAN PAGE... but, then again, everyone is. Jon Lord is one GREAT player. The arrangements are better, the compositions, everything... I mean, it's like comparing the moon and Paul Rodgers' smegma. Seriously.

Dude, you believe what you want about Jimmy Page being bad, and he did suck in that video, and that's good.  If your criteria for being a good guitarist feature things Page is incapable of, fair enough.  Lots would disagree with you, lots would agree.  But if you honestly believe what you wrote about Deep Purple, then you truly don't understand anything about music, because even if all of the things you listed why Deep Purple are true, their songs OBVIOUSLY did not CONNECT with fans like Zep's did.  Knowing you though, you'll argue with this with your opinion and dubious facts.

Funky Horsie wrote:

  Holly2003 wrote: Nope, what's sad is your admisson that you troll around internet forums trying to annoy people. Your attempt to bring Fred into this is embarrasing. You should stop now before you make a bigger fool of yourself. But of course you won't, because trolls like you crave attention, as you've admitted above.

You don't seem to get the point. Do you have ADD or something? I like to argue with people about things I find interesting, I enjoy debating. I think that's what a forum is for. If think anyone who tries this is a "troll" then, fuck, you should join an Queen/Page/whatever adoration group, where no one will bother you. On the other hand, I think Jimmy speaks for himself: link This is seriously, the worst thing I've heard in my life. You know... someone who plays like that, just CAN NOT be one of the best guitar players ever. It's completely impossible. But I have. of course, also seen concerts of Led Zeppelin from the mid 70's and fuck... he's really awful.  80% of what he plays is just plain embarrasing. The other 20% is not THAT bad, just very sloppy. Jimmy Page CAN'T be considered a good guitar player. But what I will NEVER understand is why people talk about Zeppelin as the ultimate rock band when the band next door was FAR SUPERIOR. I'm talking about Deep Purple, of course. I mean... MUCH better singer. MUCH MUCH MUCH better. Paice is a much better drummer than Bonham.  BLACKMORE IS SURELY BETTER THAN PAGE... but, then again, everyone is. Jon Lord is one GREAT player. The arrangements are better, the compositions, everything... I mean, it's like comparing the moon and Paul Rodgers' smegma. Seriously.

Funky Horsie wrote: This is seriously, the worst thing I've heard in my life.

Zebonka12 wrote: The problem with Purple is that they were only really worth listening to for those short years when they had both Gillan and Blackmore.  You can fucking TOSS the rest of their catalogue, honestly.

Sebastian wrote: Drugs and lack of practice aren't an excuse.

Sebastian wrote: > I agree, it is pretty brutal... probably the worst I've heard a 'professional' guitarist play.  But he was fucked up on drugs and had barely played in 2 years.  His amp gain was set pretty low too, so that didn't help at all. Drugs and lack of practice aren't an excuse. If after a couple of years without playing he's not able to do well on something like that (which isn't a walk in the park but is not a Grade-VIII piece either), then, again, he's definitely not a top guitarist. Not necessarily the worst one (he's had good moments too), not necessarily a bad one (he's had good moments too, loads of them), but definitely not one of the best ever. Not even close.

Sir GH wrote:

Sebastian wrote: Drugs and lack of practice aren't an excuse.

Have you ever tried to play guitar in front of thousands of people high as a kite on heroin?

Sebastian wrote:

Sheer Brass Neck wrote:

Funky Horsie wrote: But what I will NEVER understand is why people talk about Zeppelin as the ultimate rock band when the band next door was FAR SUPERIOR. I'm talking about Deep Purple, of course. I mean... MUCH better singer. MUCH MUCH MUCH better. Paice is a much better drummer than Bonham.  BLACKMORE IS SURELY BETTER THAN PAGE... but, then again, everyone is. Jon Lord is one GREAT player. The arrangements are better, the compositions, everything... I mean, it's like comparing the moon and Paul Rodgers' smegma. Seriously.

Dude, you believe what you want about Jimmy Page being bad, and he did suck in that video, and that's good.  If your criteria for being a good guitarist feature things Page is incapable of, fair enough.  Lots would disagree with you, lots would agree.  But if you honestly believe what you wrote about Deep Purple, then you truly don't understand anything about music, because even if all of the things you listed why Deep Purple are true, their songs OBVIOUSLY did not CONNECT with fans like Zep's did.  Knowing you though, you'll argue with this with your opinion and dubious facts.

DP songs connect with DP fans just as much as LZ songs connect with LZ fans, just as much as ABBA songs connect with ABBA fans, PF, U2, GD, GD, RS, BSB, SG, MtH, etc.

Sebastian wrote: There's no way to measure which connects 'more'. One song could connect 'more' with one person than another with ten people.

---there is.  Called album sales and concert tickets. At the end of the day, again, both DP and LZ have gained millions of fans (or at least several hundred thousands), and they've earnt it. Same for Yes, PK, Queen, etc.

---sure, but Deep Purple was not as commercially successful as either Zeppelin or Queen.  Why?  Were their songs so good people didn't get them?  The Ataris's have gained millions of fans, so have Barenaked Ladies.  Haven't heard many people compare them to The Clash or The Beatles. Or... is Usher's Confessions a way better album than Queen II?

---not at all.  But in his realm, Usher has established a track record.  Zep's track record in rock (not even a big fan BTW) was stellar, delivering top albums with no singles promotion and little video exposure.  They had a career, if not unmatched in rock, wasn't equalled by many.  The Beatles, Queen and Zep stand alone as pop, pop/rock, heavy rock kings.  

Sebastian wrote: Guitarists worse than Page: Ringo, Bono, Adam Sandler...

Sheer Brass Neck wrote: Zep's reunion show was enormous news and the most anticipated concert event of the last decade for North American rock fans.  Our local classic rock station had a month long promo with the winner getting seats and airfare to London from Toronto.  Honestly, Deep Purple could reunite with the original lineup and it wouldn't cause a ripple compared to the Zep reunion tsunami.  

Sheer Brass Neck wrote:  I'm taking a North American view of things. And while these things are ridiculous and subjective, VH1 pegged Deep Purple as the 22nd greatest rock act of all time.  Zep  was number 1.  Ultimately meaningless, but that is how the two bands popularity and stature is perceived here.  Zeppelin are the heavy rock gods of all-time in North America.  DP was a great band for a few years early in their career.  Zep's reunion show was enormous news and the most anticipated concert event of the last decade for North American rock fans.  Our local classic rock station had a month long promo with the winner getting seats and airfare to London from Toronto.  Honestly, Deep Purple could reunite with the original lineup and it wouldn't cause a ripple compared to the Zep reunion tsunami.  

Sir GH wrote: Even 'Burn' !??  I think it's just as strong as In Rock and Machine Head.

Sebastian wrote: I don't argue that more people would be familiar with 'Led Zeppelin' than 'Deep Purple', but to say one's Pele and the other's Beckham... And indeed, there are 193 countries in the world besides Canada and the States.

Holly2003 wrote: I'd like to broaden the discussion. These are the top ten planets on which Deep Purple is less well known than Zeppelin. On planets marked with a *, Purple are completely unknown: 1. Klingon home world (aka Kronos) 2. Alderaan 3. Earth 4. Planet of the Apes* 5. Altair 4 6. Krypton* 7. Kobol 8. Mongo* 9. Andoria  10. Tatooine   Here are the top ten planets (out of an infinite list) in which it is unacceptable to compare Jimmy Page to Hitler 1. Vulcan 2. Earth 3. Pyrrus 4. Tralfamadore 5. Htrae  6. Thargoidia  7. Gallifrey  8.Trantor 9. Cygnus Alpha    10. Romulus

Sheer Brass Neck wrote: Still haven't answered my question Seb.  Purple and Smoke could mean SFA in Myanmar and Bolivia while Zep and Stairway rule there.  Does that mean the world is bigger than Croatia and the country you live, therefore your opinion is wrong?  Of course not.  You selectively choose arguments to fit your position without accepting anybody's else's POV, even if they are fact based.  So forgetting things that the world has used for years (record sales, concert tix sales, radio airplay, position in the eyse of the community), what crtiteria OTHER than how you feel can make you state with certainty that DP is even in the same league as LZ?  Your argument that Croatia siding with DP is meaningless.  Croatia is zero in tems of influence on the rock market, population, sales etc.  Zero.  So give me your criteria for determining this, because other than your opinion, which is no greater or worse than mine, you can't give any valid facts as to how DP is regarded as the ultimate heavy rock band.  Not one. 

ThomasQuinn wrote: @Sebastian: Just as a point of interest: do you believe that in a group consisting of four musicians who also compose, like Queen, it is *practically* (not theoretically) possible for a song to be written without all four contributing?

Sebastian wrote: > John Paul Jones was IMO just about the greatest bass player of all time Not even sort of close. > while *Page  was IMO a vastly superior guitarist to Blackmore Not even sort of close.

Wiley wrote:   Yup, it did. I don't even remember if I gave my opinion as to Brian's best work.   I've been listening to Hot Space in my car for the last couple of days and I have to say that I love the guitar in songs like Dancer and Put Out the Fire.   Regarding solos, it's Put Out the Fire (again) and Back Chat (whose solo ALMOST saves the song) for me. Man, I really like that album!   10% more guitars, 20% less synths and a higher tempo in some songs would have made it a classic.   By the way, does anybody know if Brian plays rythm guitar on Cool Cat? It sounds similar in style to AOBTD and that was John, so I guess it could be John playing there.  

qrock wrote: Anyway, how good a guitarist do you think Brian is/was