carboengine 25.09.2006 11:27 |
I am not a musician - just curious to get some expert opinions. |
john bodega 25.09.2006 12:27 |
Well you know.... this won't be an expert opinion mind you.... I think he maintained a pretty fair whack of individuality over the years - and when he did appropriate different styles from other guitarists, he kept his own stamp on them. Fretboard tapping, for instance, wasn't something he nicked from Eddie Van Halen like a million other guitarists - he actually came upon it in much more interesting circumstances, and to his credit it doesn't sound at all like a 'cloned' skill when he does it. His speed and accuracy (if such things are important?) were pretty consistent over the years - observe the fast descending runs in Jesus, for instance. I suppose a lesser guitarist would get penis envy in the late 80's when you have guys like Jason Becker sweeping like janitors all over the joint... it's interesting to see Brian dabble in sweeping in "Was It All Worth It" without going overboard and trying to do what every other guitarist was doing in those days. Yah, you know - I think he's been pretty level-headed, creative, a little adaptive.... pretty true to his own style. But I may be wrong, as I said this ain't an 'expert' opinion - just the words of a fellow player! |
Sebastian 25.09.2006 12:45 |
There are many details that subtly changed over the years ... but I'm sure many people in this forum can illustrate that better than me. My general observations: frequent tapping in the 85-92 era compared to other periods, more use of the little finger in the later days than early days, more obviously Hendrix influences in the beginning. But yes, from Smile up to Another world (which is what I've heard, of course there's much more before and after), his style was relatively stable, and so were his licks. |
Wiley 25.09.2006 13:13 |
As Sebastian already pointed out, Brian did use his little finger more from The Works on. I remember an interview where he mentioned it. He said he was trying to use it a bit more, particulary in tracks like Hammer to Fall, if I remember correctly. |
TRS-Romania 25.09.2006 16:21 |
to be honest ...because of old(er) age, Brian isn't the same guitarist as he used to be ... He simply forgets about the guitar solo's (either the "intended" one, or even the timing)... And I am not referring to the Queen + PR tour too much, even before on the Another World tour I saw his mind wasnt in tune with his fingers ... He definately slowed down regarding his capabilities ... and I know that he would not be able nowadays to play the "AKOM" solo as he played on wembley ... But I don't mind ...guitarists age, and their playing as well...Still he is a great guitarist, but for the last 5 to 10 years, he is really getting older and not as good (technically) as he used to be ... I don't mind (again), it's just what I have seen and heard over the last decade ... Stefan |
The Real Wizard 25.09.2006 23:41 |
Completely disagree. Brian was in absolutely top shape this year. He prefers to bend and hold notes a bit longer these days than he used to. But his overall style has always been fantastic. I have never heard him play a bad show. Some are better than others, but Brian has always been a fantastic and very unique player. He is truly under-appreciated in the mainstream as a guitarist, songwriter, lyricist, and arranger. |
john bodega 26.09.2006 00:32 |
I gotta say, I haven't noticed Brian slowing down at all! One has good nights and bad nights... I haven't heard anything that'd convince me he's more sluggish than he used to be, but eh - that's just me. |
redspecial85 26.09.2006 01:11 |
Clearly a lot of good points have been established here. I think in the beginning he was solid and breaking through into new things as Queen begun its career, on News of the World (It's Late), we hear him tapping (Which actually is the first recording of tapping on an electric guitar contrary to popular belief that Eddie Van Halen did it first on record)...like people have said before; As time has gone on, he's experimented a little with new techniques...however I think he's gotten to be a lot like Eric Clapton. In the sense that age has made him much more of a finesse player then a fretboard technician. He's enjoying playing more probably now. I think however between 1992 and 2004 he got a little rusty because he played at his own discretion with his solo career and other rare appearences. However with this European, Japan, and North American tour...he's shook off most of his rust. He still is in my opinion one of the most grossly underrated classic rock guitarists...its always Jimmy Page that's heralded as the best. To be honest Jimmy Page is grossly overrated...his licks are nothing more than post-depression (1930-1960) delta blues licks incorporating Middle Eastern scales. There's nothing original about his soloing or songwriting. |
Queenman!! 26.09.2006 05:58 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Completely disagree. Brian was in absolutely top shape this year. He prefers to bend and hold notes a bit longer these days than he used to. But his overall style has always been fantastic. I have never heard him play a bad show. Some are better than others, but Brian has always been a fantastic and very unique player. He is truly under-appreciated in the mainstream as a guitarist, songwriter, lyricist, and arranger.I disagree with you a little bit. Off course Brian was in shape but as he refered on Brianmay.com he could have done better. I think now these days he pushes the strings way up to often. I miss the fast licks like he used to do on the back to the light tour and the magic tour. And often he messed up the guitar solo on the Queen+Paul Rodgers Tour. I dislike the harmonizer sound. Way much noise without doing anything. Personally give me the solo's he played on the wembley 1986 DVD |
Mr. Scully 26.09.2006 07:28 |
So is there any definitive answer? One guy who's a very good guitar player was persuading me that Brian's recent guitar playing was just CRAP, absolutely not comparable to his skills in the 70's and 80's. Brian apparently makes a lot of mistakes, is slower and I don't know what else. Now I read some of your opinions about how Brian still kept his skills. So where's the truth? Do opinions of experienced guitar players about Brian's guitar playing differ so much? Why? Btw. I also disliked his recent guitar solos - VERY loud and too simple. Love the Wembley 86 solo! |
john bodega 26.09.2006 07:44 |
Mr. Scully wrote: So is there any definitive answer? One guy who's a very good guitar player was persuading me that Brian's recent guitar playing was just CRAP, absolutely not comparable to his skills in the 70's and 80's. Brian apparently makes a lot of mistakes, is slower and I don't know what else. Now I read some of your opinions about how Brian still kept his skills. So where's the truth? Do opinions of experienced guitar players about Brian's guitar playing differ so much? Why? Btw. I also disliked his recent guitar solos - VERY loud and too simple. Love the Wembley 86 solo!Your very good guitar player friend needs to yank their earplugs. We all have good days, and we all have bad days. Clearly this person was unlucky in what he was listening to. |
YourValentine 26.09.2006 08:19 |
I saw 4 concerts from the 2005 tour and I could not believe how many mistakes Brian made. You do not need to be a guitar player to notice but if guitar players are more trustworthy... I spoke to two guitar players who saw the tour, too and they both agreed. Mainly in Brixton Brian played like a total beginner, he was a nervous wreck. In Frankfurt he left the stage in frustration because he was unable to play the solo (and it was NOT a broken string). In Japan he made loads of mistakes,too. I would not say Brian is a worse player than he used to be - he just seems to be more nervous these days and maybe he was stressed out physically, too. After all, he had not played a tour for 7 years and was clearly lacking practice and maybe some self confidence, too. People who saw concerts in Europe, Japan and USA say he played better on the US tour. |
Boy Thomas Raker 26.09.2006 09:02 |
Brian's in an interesting place in his life as a guitarist. His peers who are on the road aren't really ripping guitarists (Clapton is blues based and has slowed down, Townshend still rocks but isn't in Brian's league as a soloist, and Keith Richards is primarily a rhythm player), so he's really one of the very few (Joe Perry?) pushing 60 and playing fast solo guitar. I always thought Brian took elements of new stuff, but still made it his, for example, everyone tapped in the 80s and sounded like Eddie Van Halen, but the tapping solo in One Vision sounded like Brian May tapping. For the record, It's Late was released before the first VH album, but Brian and others say that the first recorded piece of tapping was by Billy Gibbons of ZZ Top on Beer drinkers and hell raisers in 1973, albeit it's a far cry from It's Late, which is a far cry from the VH debut in terms of technique. |
NTL 26.09.2006 09:04 |
Well I have been paying guitar for 15 years now and Brian has been my bible, he was the reason I picked up a guitar and although I would never say that I could play as well as him, if you watched me play you would struggle to tell the difference (without seeing our faces). I have became trapped in being only able to play and think exactly like Brian May, it has held me back a bit but I am now too lazy to practice enough to take it to another level. Anyway thats my credentials to answer the question. No, I dont think that Brians playing has improved over the years, i think his live playing peak with Queen was around '77, after this period I think he became a little lazy when playing live, as did the rest of the band, or maybe he was just bored with touring. I really liked his playing on the BTTL tour, if you watch the versions of NIH and HTF they beat pretty much any version he done with Queen, maybe it was because he had not been out on the road for a while and felt revitalised. I was really looking forward to seeing him go out last year but found him quite dissapointing and his playing boring. If Brian ever got lost in previous years doing a solo he would bend up to a note and hold it until he found a point where he could come back in (probably because he does'nt know his scales well enough), now he does this note bending thing all of the time, it seems as if there is nothing he loves more than to run to the front of the stage and have the crowd expect some wonder solo, and then bend a G at the 18th fret up to an A whilst at the same time pulling a guitar hero face. I wonder when he will notice everyone looking back with 'is that it' looks on their faces. But if thats what he wants to do then so be it, maybe he knows he no longer has to prove himself. As I have said I dont think his playing has improved and as he has also said himself "There is nothing I can play now which I couldnt play when I was 16". |
its_a_hard_life 26994 26.09.2006 09:06 |
He played fantastic at the Hyde Park concert I went to!!!!!! I loved it ALL. We all wanted MORE. |
Mr Mercury 26.09.2006 10:39 |
I personally think that his solo's within the songs are still pretty good, but the actually solo spot in the live gigs has become... well "tired" really. Its got to the point where I think he should either ditch it all together and make space for another couple of songs or shorten it a bit so that its less of a bore. Sorry :( That said though, I would still listen to Brians playing now (even though age might have dulled his ability a bit) rather than those "metal shredding 900 notes a second" yawnfest guitarists anyday... |
The Real Wizard 26.09.2006 11:16 |
redspecial85 wrote: I think in the beginning he was solid and breaking through into new things as Queen begun its career, on News of the World (It's Late), we hear him tapping (Which actually is the first recording of tapping on an electric guitar contrary to popular belief that Eddie Van Halen did it first on record)...like people have said beforeYou're partially right. Steve Hackett of Genesis was tapping on Selling England By The Pound in 1973. Not many people know that, because Genesis wasn't a commercial band then. This was released a month before the ZZ Top album referred to above. The fact is this: the "innovators" are the ones who happen to be in the mainstream. With that in mind, I think Hendrix is horribly over-rated. Before Hendrix, Jeff Beck was doing stuff in the Yardbirds and on his own that Hendrix was doing, and much more. Beck, however, didn't do it on a commercial level, so that's why he isn't recognized or appreciated. But it still makes one wonder what directions Hendrix would have taken in the 70s, had he survived. Would he have gone the way of Santana, playing the same licks over and over again, or would he have tread new ground? To be honest Jimmy Page is grossly overrated...his licks are nothing more than post-depression (1930-1960) delta blues licks incorporating Middle Eastern scales. There's nothing original about his soloing or songwriting.I agree. Page did write a lot of fantastic songs, even though they weren't always completely original... but his genius is production. Listen to Led Zeppelin II, then listen to any other album from 1969. Nothing, with the possible exception of The Beatles' Abbey Road (it was George Martin, after all) matches it. The quality of sound and production is exceptional. |
GreatKingSam 26.09.2006 12:06 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Definitely agree. But to state the extreme obvious (which you have clearly stated yourself) - being a great producer doesn't make him a great guitar player. I like Led Zeppelin, but unlike a lot of bands, I find some of their stuff (and I own all their albums) terribly unlistenable. I just can't get into it. I find that Page simply often does not play for the song, but seems to play for himself, which ruins it for me. Though, you get people like Brian who want to do the best for the song (most of the time at least, the odd bit of ego here and there never hurt!).redspecial85 wrote: I think in the beginning he was solid and breaking through into new things as Queen begun its career, on News of the World (It's Late), we hear him tapping (Which actually is the first recording of tapping on an electric guitar contrary to popular belief that Eddie Van Halen did it first on record)...like people have said beforeYou're partially right. Steve Hackett of Genesis was tapping on Selling England By The Pound in 1973. Not many people know that, because Genesis wasn't a commercial band then. This was released a month before the ZZ Top album referred to above. The fact is this: the "innovators" are the ones who happen to be in the mainstream. With that in mind, I think Hendrix is horribly over-rated. Before Hendrix, Jeff Beck was doing stuff in the Yardbirds and on his own that Hendrix was doing, and much more. Beck, however, didn't do it on a commercial level, so that's why he isn't recognized or appreciated. But it still makes one wonder what directions Hendrix would have taken in the 70s, had he survived. Would he have gone the way of Santana, playing the same licks over and over again, or would he have tread new ground?To be honest Jimmy Page is grossly overrated...his licks are nothing more than post-depression (1930-1960) delta blues licks incorporating Middle Eastern scales. There's nothing original about his soloing or songwriting.I agree. Page did write a lot of fantastic songs, even though they weren't always completely original... but his genius is production. Listen to Led Zeppelin II, then listen to any other album from 1969. Nothing, with the possible exception of The Beatles' Abbey Road (it was George Martin, after all) matches it. The quality of sound and production is exceptional. |
Boy Thomas Raker 26.09.2006 12:24 |
Sir GH, on which song(s) did Hackett tap on Selling England by the pound? |
[StArMaN] 26.09.2006 13:14 |
He's playing tapping on "Musical Box", the title track. |
Sebastian 26.09.2006 13:24 |
Some interesting points have been brought. To add something and sum up: - I haven't seen the tours with Paul (and I'm proud of that), but judging by Amsterdam, Pavarotti & Friends, the Jubilee and other things, I consider Brian's still a good guitarist but of course not "on top form". In the same vein as Page, Clapton and even (mostly) Malmsteen, he's become merely a satire of himself. - Neither Brian nor Eddie invented tapping - Hendrix was overrated (of course, he died!) - Page was overrated (as were everybody in that band). Still I think Zeppelin were the best band ever, but they weren't gods. - Brian's guitar playing during late 80s and early 90s was brilliant (check albums, tours, tribute and legends) - I'll always wonder how far would have Roger gone as a guitarist: during the 70s he played ok, during 80s quite well, and we can actually see him improve gradually during The Cross. Had he kept that route, I think he could have been at the same level of Dave Grohl on mid-90s. We'll never know... - Page was an extraordinary songwriter, a good producer (perfect for the kind of music the band had) and a nice guitarist. |
Boy Thomas Raker 26.09.2006 14:00 |
Brian said he stole tapping from Billy Gibbons, who stole it from some obscure guitarist in Texas in the early 70s. It's like trying to find the creator of a joke, impossible to find the first person who tapped with their right hand. |
Adam Baboolal 26.09.2006 15:13 |
Sebastian wrote: - Hendrix was overrated (of course, he died!)Say what?? |
Cwazy little thing 26.09.2006 16:38 |
Brian, in my opinion has remained as impressive as ever- I think he needed to get warmed up for QPR - I saw Brixton, and was awestruck even whilst noticing mistakes, but by Manchester he was on fire. Off topic- but Hendrix not only invented modern guitar playing in terms of lead, but listen to some of his Experience stuff, and wonder to yourself who was playing fairly complex rhythm while he was singing....thats just him. I cant even play bog standard open chords and sing along comfortably - my brain doesnt work that way, but Hendrix was something else. |
Sebastian 26.09.2006 20:19 |
Regarding the "of course, he died" comment, I'm sorry if it was misunderstood, but I still think that a large portion of his legendary status is the fact he died at the top of his career. Had John Travolta died in 1979, he'd probably be considered one of the best singers ever. |
Boy Thomas Raker 26.09.2006 22:11 |
Interesting thoughts on Hendrix, Sebastian. I'm not a fan, think he's overrated, but my guess is that if we were 14-25 years old in the late 60s, and saw a guy do this crazy shit with his guitar, that no one had done or seen before, we'd be blown away. This was counterculture's prime, Vietnam was happening, people didn't trust their parents or authority, there was some heavy stuff going on, and Hendrix I'm assuming represented freedom for a lot of people, and he sure wasn't playing guitar like the Ventures or other white guitarists of the day. Brian May was my first experience with heavier music, and the joy and awe I had from hearing that power has stayed with me to this day. I imagine that's what it was like for Hendrix fans. |
Sebastian 26.09.2006 22:24 |
Yes that's a very valid point. And it happened to me when I was a teenager and regarded Zeppelin as the beginning and end of everything. And when I heard KISS for the first time I thought the twin-solo in 'Detroit' was something unique. Hendrix was a great guitar player, of course, but he wasn't that sort of God many people say. IMO he didn't invent anything but he didn't need to, his playing was very creative on its own sake; I mean, I don't know why some people are so obsessed with "who invented what?" ... hadn't Bob Dylan "introduced" electric guitars to folk music, somebody else would have done it some months afterwards ... hadn't The Beatles "invented" (put a Beatles first here), somebody else would have ... hadn't Zep or Sabbath "created" metal, somebody else would have done it (Iron Butterfly or whoever) some months later ... and so on. |
Boy Thomas Raker 26.09.2006 22:45 |
I think people need a 'landmark' to say they were there, or 'this started here.' Hendrix's playing was unique, Brian and Freddie idolized him, but maybe for what he represented rather than pure skill. Roger says Freddie did drawings of Hendrix as a guitar-toting spaceman, so maybe Jimi represented what Freddie wanted as a person, but not in a musical sense. Pure speculation of course! |
The Real Wizard 28.09.2006 20:50 |
Very interesting thoughts on Hendrix in this topic. |
Q-Nick 29.09.2006 07:16 |
Sebastian wrote: - Page was overrated (as were everybody in that band). Still I think Zeppelin were the best band ever, but they weren't gods.Bonham is anything but underrated. His drumming is such a breath of fresh air; few people would have played the unusual rythmns to 'basic' time signatures as he did. And the best proof is any Moby Dick solo. |
The Real Wizard 29.09.2006 13:06 |
Q-Nick wrote: Bonham is anything but underrated. His drumming is such a breath of fresh air; few people would have played the unusual rythmns to 'basic' time signatures as he did. And the best proof is any Moby Dick solo.Bonham is over-rated. I love Zeppelin, but I can't listen to any Moby Dick solo that exceeds ten minutes. He just did the same moves over and over again. Compare him to any jazz drummer. Buddy Rich, Gene Krupa, and Dave Weckl wipe the floor with any rock drummer... even Neil Peart or Mike Portnoy. Bonham was influential in the rock world, because rock's standards for technical proficiency are generally much below jazz. Bonham wouldn't stand a chance if put in the same room with any jazz drummer. |
Donna13 29.09.2006 13:20 |
|
john bodega 29.09.2006 13:31 |
"any jazz drummer" Surely you jest! There must be some out there that aren't *that* great. |
The Real Wizard 29.09.2006 13:46 |
Donna13 wrote: Boy! This is a picky bunch. I guess everyone is overrated!Exactly. Virtually everyone in the mainstream is over-rated. They are known by most people because they have been marketed. They are the names that are on the radio and MTV. It's a fact that 99% of the best musicians will never be heard on the radio. The radio is mostly pop-oriented, so that's what most people are only familar with - but in the industry as a whole, pop is such a small minority. Being commercially successful these days is now all about money, appearance, and sex - not about talent. The more you want to stay close to your musical values, the less chance you have of being popular in the mainstream. That's why most true musicians look down on the mainstream (unless they're a session musician, and it gives them a paycheck!). What are your feelings about Andres Segovia? I saw him perform when he was in his 90's. My brother was amazed at the performance. I'm not a guitarist, so I couldn't pick it apart (no pun intended).Segovia is truly one of the best. A classical master. The webmaster at digitaldreamdoor.com thinks highly of him. If you want to see lists of musicians that are actually well-thought-out lists, rather than lists that favour people who are commercially successful, digitaldreamdoor.com is the place to find them. Most people think Carlos Santana is the best classical guitarist these days, because he is the only one on the radio. Remember that song Maria Maria? After that album came out, everyone thought he was a guitar mastermind. Truth is, he's been playing the same ten licks since Woodstock. And then there's Jesse Cook, another over-rated flamenco player who happened to get on the radio here in Canada. Santana is important because he fused latino music with rock. He's not really a great guitarist. I have students who play better than him. I'm wondering if maybe Brian's guitar skills can last for 30 plus more years. That would be great! BB King is really old now too. How much do you lose due to age I'm wondering? Or do you improve in other ways?Everyone can get better with age if they choose to. Jeff Beck and Steve Morse are prime examples. They have always been moving forward. Zebonka12 wrote: "any jazz drummer" Surely you jest! There must be some out there that aren't *that* great.No... if they weren't any good, then they'd be playing rock or something else that's simpler. Trust me. Jazz is a genre containing only very strong musicians. Once one has become bored with rock, pop, and whatever else, they want to move on... and jazz can be the next level. There is no such thing as a poor jazz musician. Nobody would ever play have the nerve to jazz publically if they couldn't do it well. It would be an insult to the genre. Jazz is over the heads of the majority of the listening audience. I've been playing music all my life, and I'm just starting to grasp jazz's fundamentals. |
Donna13 29.09.2006 14:23 |
Wow! Thanks for the info. I feel we need to pay you now for this music lesson. LOL. |
The Real Wizard 29.09.2006 15:20 |
Donna13 wrote: Wow! Thanks for the info. I feel we need to pay you now for this music lesson. LOL.Haha... not at all! Email me any time and we can have a chat if you'd like. |
Fireplace 29.09.2006 16:25 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Thanks! Where would I be without a list to know what musicians I like? Music is mostly a matter of taste my friend, and you know what they say about taste.....in any case I don't have any, so bring on Brian May!Donna13 wrote: Boy! This is a picky bunch. I guess everyone is overrated!Exactly. Virtually everyone in the mainstream is over-rated. They are known by most people because they have been marketed. They are the names that are on the radio and MTV. It's a fact that 99% of the best musicians will never be heard on the radio. The radio is mostly pop-oriented, so that's what most people are only familar with - but in the industry as a whole, pop is such a small minority. Being commercially successful these days is now all about money, appearance, and sex - not about talent. The more you want to stay close to your musical values, the less chance you have of being popular in the mainstream. That's why most true musicians look down on the mainstream (unless they're a session musician, and it gives them a paycheck!). |
The Real Wizard 29.09.2006 17:01 |
Fireplace wrote: Thanks! Where would I be without a list to know what musicians I like? Music is mostly a matter of taste my friend, and you know what they say about taste.....in any case I don't have any, so bring on Brian May!Some people like to critically assess the talents and contributions of musicians, so therefore it can go beyond mere taste if one wishes. To most music listeners, music is simply about taste, as you said. But for musicians, it can go far beyond that. "Best musician" lists aren't a matter of simply throwing together of your favourite players, if they're done properly. Chances are, if it's a well-informed list, it will contain many musicians the average music fan hasn't heard of. That makes the listing of musicians an educational thing. But nobody said you're required to get into it. Nobody said you don't have taste, either, so I don't know what that comment was referencing. If you don't feel the need to compare musicians, then that's fine. But when musicians are being compared, the criteria is what counts. It's not just whoever plays faster is better. Creativity, technical ability, emotion, and influence on popular music are among the points of view that an informed list should go by... although of course, this rarely happens. Most lists just pluck names out of famous bands. Either way, if you don't see this kind of thing as being necessary, then you're perfectly entitled to that opinion. But don't slag off those who enjoy doing the comparison. |
Fireplace 29.09.2006 19:23 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Sir, I see what you mean. But take, for instance, emotion: can you tell me what musician conveys which emotion? Who is more emotional, who is less?Isn't that different for every listener?Fireplace wrote: Thanks! Where would I be without a list to know what musicians I like? Music is mostly a matter of taste my friend, and you know what they say about taste.....in any case I don't have any, so bring on Brian May!Some people like to critically assess the talents and contributions of musicians, so therefore it can go beyond mere taste if one wishes. To most music listeners, music is simply about taste, as you said. But for musicians, it can go far beyond that. "Best musician" lists aren't a matter of simply throwing together of your favourite players, if they're done properly. Chances are, if it's a well-informed list, it will contain many musicians the average music fan hasn't heard of. That makes the listing of musicians an educational thing. But nobody said you're required to get into it. Nobody said you don't have taste, either, so I don't know what that comment was referencing. If you don't feel the need to compare musicians, then that's fine. But when musicians are being compared, the criteria is what counts. It's not just whoever plays faster is better. Creativity, technical ability, emotion, and influence on popular music are among the points of view that an informed list should go by... although of course, this rarely happens. Most lists just pluck names out of famous bands. Either way, if you don't see this kind of thing as being necessary, then you're perfectly entitled to that opinion. But don't slag off those who enjoy doing the comparison. I believe the same goes for creativity, although the Britneys/Christina's of this world come to mind. I'm certainly not trying to pick a fight here. I happen to be one of the musicians you were referring to, and all my (musical) life I've been trying to get away from analysing music that I listen to for my own enjoyment. It's taken me years to stop comparing every musician I hear to myself, favourably or otherwise. In itself this is an unwinnable argument, but sometimes people manage to point out certain aspects to me in the music they like that makes listening a whole new experience. So by all means share your passions and possibly the reasons behind them. I'm open to suggestions! |
john bodega 29.09.2006 22:02 |
"No... if they weren't any good, then they'd be playing rock or something else that's simpler." Nah, I can't see the sense in this. One can be ambitious enough to try something and not be very good at it. = bad jazz drummer. It could happen, it's an awful big world. Though I imagine once they play at it hard enough, maybe they'd grasp the concept better and no longer would they be a dodgy drummer. Who knows - but there's millions of drumsticks out there and not everyone who picks one up and thinks 'jazz' is going to be great. I was merely referring to the beginners and not-so-greats - a small bracket perhaps but they exist I tell you. Drummers aren't any different from any other musician - you yourself said you've been playing music all your life, yet you're only just beginning to grasp jazz. Therefore - wouldn't *you* be a lousy jazz musician? That ain't a dig - what I mean to say is, if I picked up my guitar today and said 'jazz', it wouldn't just *come* because I've been playing for so many years and I really like jazz. It'd have to start somewhere. Hence - you can have lousy jazz musicians. They have to start somewhere! |
The Real Wizard 29.09.2006 22:53 |
Fireplace wrote: Sir, I see what you mean. But take, for instance, emotion: can you tell me what musician conveys which emotion? Who is more emotional, who is less?Isn't that different for every listener? I believe the same goes for creativity, although the Britneys/Christina's of this world come to mind.Of course, emotion is relative to one's experience of the music. But I think it can be generally accepted that Eric Clapton plays with more emotion than Angus Young, right? Unless of course, you interpret "emotion" to mean "energy"... at which point Angus would be on top. Hmm... yeah, I see your point! I'm certainly not trying to pick a fight here. I happen to be one of the musicians you were referring to, and all my (musical) life I've been trying to get away from analysing music that I listen to for my own enjoyment. It's taken me years to stop comparing every musician I hear to myself, favourably or otherwise.Don't see analysis and comparison as a negative thing. Seeing the strengths and flaws in other musicians can only strengthen you as a musician. In itself this is an unwinnable argument, but sometimes people manage to point out certain aspects to me in the music they like that makes listening a whole new experience. So by all means share your passions and possibly the reasons behind them. I'm open to suggestions!Awesome. Okay, pick a few pieces of music that really connect with you, and a few that don't... and we'll go from there. I'm sure this will be interesting. |
The Real Wizard 29.09.2006 23:01 |
Zebonka12 wrote: you yourself said you've been playing music all your life, yet you're only just beginning to grasp jazz. Therefore - wouldn't *you* be a lousy jazz musician?Absolutely! I fully admit that. But I have minimal ambition to be a jazz musician. I'm also a lousy carpenter, electrician, auto mechanic, football player, shoe salesman, javascript programmer, and pilot. Yet these aren't negative things. One can't accomplish everything in a lifetime, right? :) That ain't a dig - what I mean to say is, if I picked up my guitar today and said 'jazz', it wouldn't just *come* because I've been playing for so many years and I really like jazz. It'd have to start somewhere. Hence - you can have lousy jazz musicians. They have to start somewhere!Naturally, yes, you're correct. Then I'll revise my statement to say: "of those people who actually play jazz gigs and release jazz records, there are no poor jazz musicians". Jazz musicians are incredibly well-trained and they understand the complexities of western music better than most other musicians. They are so far over the heads of 99% of the listening audience that the average listener can barely tell the difference between John Bonham / Buddy Rich, Jimmy Page / Joe Pass, and Dido / Ella Fitzgerald, if at all. There are thousands and thousands of people who actually think Keith Richards is one of the greatest guitarists ever. There really is no reply to that! That was the general point I was making. The better you get as a musician, and the more musically complex your music gets, the smaller your audience becomes. This is what virtually every strong musician has to battle with. |
Boy Thomas Raker 29.09.2006 23:21 |
Sir GH, you're spot on when you say "The better you get as a musician, and the more musically complex your music gets, the smaller your audience becomes. This is what virtually every strong musician has to battle with." For me, that's what made Queen, and Freddie's writing in particular, so amazing. I believe it was Sebastian who stated a few months back (I'm paraphrasing here, not quoting verbatim), that Freddie's greatest gift was making complex music accessible for the masses. Granted, Bohemian Rhapsody isn't jazz, but when you look at the top 100 "pop/rock" songs of all time, I'd bet they'd nearly all be 4/4 time, with 3 or 4 chords. A song with 7, 8, 9 time signature changes, wildly fluctating dynamics and a major key change wouldn't seem like a song that is arguably rock's greatest ever, and certainly Britain and Europe's most popular ever. |
john bodega 30.09.2006 00:08 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Aha, I getcha now. I was just clarifying. Hehe. Double points for the last paragraph by the way!Zebonka12 wrote: you yourself said you've been playing music all your life, yet you're only just beginning to grasp jazz. Therefore - wouldn't *you* be a lousy jazz musician?Absolutely! I fully admit that. But I have minimal ambition to be a jazz musician. I'm also a lousy carpenter, electrician, auto mechanic, football player, shoe salesman, javascript programmer, and pilot. Yet these aren't negative things. One can't accomplish everything in a lifetime, right? :)That ain't a dig - what I mean to say is, if I picked up my guitar today and said 'jazz', it wouldn't just *come* because I've been playing for so many years and I really like jazz. It'd have to start somewhere. Hence - you can have lousy jazz musicians. They have to start somewhere!Naturally, yes, you're correct. Then I'll revise my statement to say: "of those people who actually play jazz gigs and release jazz records, there are no poor jazz musicians". Jazz musicians are incredibly well-trained and they understand the complexities of western music better than most other musicians. They are so far over the heads of 99% of the listening audience that the average listener can barely tell the difference between John Bonham / Buddy Rich, Jimmy Page / Joe Pass, and Dido / Ella Fitzgerald, if at all. There are thousands and thousands of people who actually think Keith Richards is one of the greatest guitarists ever. There really is no reply to that! That was the general point I was making. The better you get as a musician, and the more musically complex your music gets, the smaller your audience becomes. This is what virtually every strong musician has to battle with. |
Sebastian 30.09.2006 08:33 |
> of those people who actually play jazz gigs and release jazz records, there are no poor jazz musicians Fifty years ago that'd be probably right, but (unfortunately?) there are some jazz musicians who actually are very poor if you analyse them. They've just learnt some two/three licks and repeat them over and over. I mean, in every sort of music (or science, or art, etc) you can find mediocre people. > There are thousands and thousands of people who actually think Keith Richards is one of the greatest guitarists ever. There really is no reply to that! It actually depends on what you consider a "great guitarist". Most rock fans relate the quality of the guitarist with the quality of the composer, hence they don't think of the musician, they think of their recordings. > The better you get as a musician, and the more musically complex your music gets, the smaller your audience becomes. Yes and no. There's a huge minority looking for the most obscure things 'round there, hence, complex music would be suitable for them. And so on. While I respect your knowledge and mostly I agree with you in some points, I think sometimes you're making your statements way too absolute (e.g. all jazz musicians are experts, clever music isn't catchy), when there are of course exceptions. > Granted, Bohemian Rhapsody isn't jazz To be fair, the very beginning ("is this the real life ... reality") sounds a little jazzy to me. The chords implied by the vocals (Bb6/D, F7/C, Cm7) sound (IMO) somewhat influenced by spirituals, which is one of the sources feeding jazz in the beginning. Especially if you play the very first progression (Bb6/D > C7) at the piano, with a nice D>Db>C bass motion, it does sound jazzy. It's just a very slight "flirt" with the genre but it's there, and it only demonstrates once again how brilliant a masterpiece 'Bo Rhap' is. > but when you look at the top 100 "pop/rock" songs of all time, I'd bet they'd nearly all be 4/4 time, with 3 or 4 chords. Indeed. If I ever make my website again, I'd love to draw such a detailed comparison and confirm or deny that. There have been some clever songs hitting top-10 over the years, or becoming classics. 'Dust In The Wind' and 'Karma Police' come to my mind. > A song with 7, 8, 9 time signature changes I think that point is a bit exaggerated. To my ears, 'Bo Rhap' is in 4/4 from beginning to end, of course having some disorienting rhythms during the operatic bit (casual or causal?), and some (unusual for Freddie) rubattos. |
Boy Thomas Raker 30.09.2006 12:27 |
By "7, 8, 9 time signatures", Sebastian, I just meant that there are that many time changes in the song, making it uncommon by popular music standards. It's pretty much 4/4 in the beginning with a 5/4 measure. In the opera section there's a couple of 2/4 measures, a 5/4 and in the rock section it's 12/8, with a 6/8 and 9/8 thrown in. 6 different time signatures used, even if only for a few bars. |
YourValentine 30.09.2006 21:31 |
btt |