Sneaky-Pete
I was checking out a few Joe Bonamassa videos on Youtube yesterday,
because I'm interested in the new Epiphone Les Paul Joe Bonamassa model.
This guy can really play... a constant stream of notes bursting from the fretboard.
Very impressive...but is it music?
You would think that famous guitarists get paid by the note.
It's up, down and around the keyboard...deedledeedledeedledeedle...
There is no discernable melody line, and like Claude Debussy said: Music is the space between the notes.
Thank heaven for Billy Gibbons and occasionally SlowHand Clapton.
These guys worked out long ago that the fewer the notes, the more important each note is.
Think I'm talking out my bum..?
Here's what Lester Polfus said....you might know him as Les Paul...
"I LEARNED A LONG TIME AGO THAT ONE NOTE CAN GO A LONG WAY
IF IT'S THE RIGHT ONE, AND IT WILL WHIP THE GUY WITH 20 QUICK NOTES"
But enough about my opinion...what do YOU think....
studmissile
Each to their own, I prefer making each note count or even better making it twang like Pete Anderson. Those live solo's Pete plays on Dwight Live are just pure brilliant twang! Twang Master.
=
Chabenda
Yup. I'm with you Sneaky Pete. Whilst I think that its great that some people can play like that, it's not for me. ZZ Top? Listen to Blue Jean Blues with the lights dimmed and a glass of something in your hand!!
StudMissile, Pete Anderson is seriaaas!! One of my all time favourites. He made Dwight Yoakum my favourite C&W star. Taking things to the Bonamassa extreme in this genre you had Danny Gatton who could play at a blistering pace, to my displeasure. He was an amazing entertainer though.
AlanRatcliffe
You'd think so, wouldn't you? ?
Joe Bonamassa is far from being OTT for me though. Like SRV, he's fiery a lot of the time, but does also have tracks/CDs where he calms down a bit and goes slower with more feel. He's like a modern Gary Moore, IMO. A lot of my favourite players are similar in that they usually put some welly in it and can rip up a fretboard along with the best of them, but often don't.
I think it's a big part of any modern player's development, learning how to merrily shred away. Next step is learning when. And trust me, if Cream-era Clapton could have shredded like a modern player, he would have...
Now... if you want to rag on Malmsteen, most shredders or any of the other "Tumeni Notes" crowd, I'm there...
Malkav
Oh look this thread again :?
You're all wrong, and just jelly cause you can't shred ? Being a shredzor is the highest form of muziks and is tha BrOOtalz! Would you rather have one rand, or a million rand? Exactly! Well it's like that with notes, the more notes the more awesome!
You wanna play a discernable melody with good phrasing and tones but is only haz 4 notes, just make sure to add in 400 chromaticz in between, that makes it more awesome sauce and shows everyone that you can haz it!
MAXIMUM SPEED AL DA TIME!!!!
CAUSE BROOTALZ!
chris77
Chad Adam Browne wrote:
Oh look this thread again :?
You're all wrong, and just jelly cause you can't shred ? Being a shredzor is the highest form of muziks and is tha BrOOtalz! Would you rather have one rand, or a million rand? Exactly! Well it's like that with notes, the more notes the more awesome!
You wanna play a discernable melody with good phrasing and tones but is only haz 4 notes, just make sure to add in 400 chromaticz in between, that makes it more awesome sauce and shows everyone that you can haz it!
MAXIMUM SPEED AL DA TIME!!!!
CAUSE BROOTALZ!
Ha! Brilliant ?
chris77
It's all about taste and preference I reckon. If you like mellow music, you won't be impressed by fast players and vice versa.
Plus, no matter at what speed it is being played at, the part has to serve the song. No use going all shredboy when you play Summertime to your nanna or throwing in some slow bluesy bends and trills when you're trying to nail a Dragonforce solo.
Conrad
Do guitarists get paid by the note..?
No it's more like.... by the coin really...
Chabenda
A '59 Strat, straight into the desk.. not too many notes, but they evoke a lot of feeling IMO.
=
AlanRatcliffe
Conrad wrote:
No it's more like.... by the coin really...
Good one!
DaFiz
Chad Adam Browne wrote:
Would you rather have one rand, or a million rand?
I'll take the ONE rand and listen to old Slowhand playing the blues rather than the million notes per second Satriani any day.
Fast guitars don't impress me none... nether do fast cars nor big munny. 8)
Warren
I've seen this movie before... :?
Playing fast and clean AND melodically is bloody hard, and takes tons of practice. I can't do it.
And Bonamassa is hardly the poster-boy for shred...I agree completely with Alan: he's an amazing all-round player. Amazing tone, great feel and gobs of speed when he wants it. I'd rather listen to Joe B's blues stuff than any of the old school blokes, Clapton most especially.
Keira-WitherKay
Well think of itas value for money ...... Playing fast gives the listener far more notes for their money ?
anyway in classical music sergovia played lots of notes and fast , in flamenco .... Paco literrally shreds on a nylon , in rock hendrix didn't hold back on the note count not did ritchie blackmore or steve vai ... In blues stevie sure played more notes than he skipped ....so did muddy waters and in jazz , wes montgomery never stopped , al di meola shreds and george benson rips it up ...... So yeah maybe some players don't rip but most times its cos they can't ( tongue in cheek)
its simply good value that you get more notes for your money ......
Arno-West
I'd pay R2000 just to see Gilmour play the 4 signature notes in Shine on...however, I won't pay a cent to see any shredder. Yes, I can shred if I have to, but I find it akin to w*nking.
ftcl
Keira WitherKay wrote:
Well think of itas value for money ...... Playing fast gives the listener far more notes for their money ?
Haha. Brilliant!
I started playing guitar because I wanted to shred. That's what got me excited. But I never had the self discipline to learn how to. So for a while I hated shredders, and listened to a lot of slower, less cluttered music (note wise,not necessarily sound wise).
Now, I find I enjoy both almost equally. So. Win win?
AlanRatcliffe
It really is just different strokes...
I can easily enjoy either, but do find that the higher the note density, the lower my tolerance. It also depends on the complexity and depth of the composition. That's why I can listen to a couple of complete albums by Steve Morse in one go, a whole one by Vai, but only one or two tracks of Malmsteen (and about 30 seconds of many of the other shredders). And Zappa all day. ?
Reinhard
I agree with Shreddy and Alan, JB isn't one of the players I think of when someone mentions a 1000 notes per second. His material is pretty melodic and not your typical wank fest and he can also do the slow and soulful stuff with tone to match. I have watched some of his live stuff of late and his shows have a nice composition of covers, originals, acoustic and electric, guest artists etc. I don't think your average shredder would sell out the Royal Albert Hall, let alone have women in the audience.
Bob-Dubery
This is another of those matters where two factors actually have nothing to do with each other. Lots of notes do not make something musical nor do they disqualify it from being regarded as music. A simpler approach (usually passed off as "feel") is not auomatically musical or more music.
Paul Kossof wasn't famous for playing lots of notes, but he played some wonderful parts. There's a solo on Paul Simon's "Hearts and Bones" album, played by Al di Meola. As you might expect, Al packs a lot of notes into that solo, and whilst he's not my favourite player that solo is a thing of beauty and wonder. He fits the mood and feel of the song perfectly, and the precision of his playing is marvellous. Not just getting in every note cleanly and distinctly and with good timing, but also the dynamics in his playing. Just a marvellous little solo.
There's no problems with technical facility and the urge to use it. There are subjective issues of taste (we all think we're above that, but most of us aren't), and I think the whole package, the song, the vocals, the arrangement etc, does influence our perception of the solo.
For players of all inclinations and skill levels I think a problem can be that they start off with not such good material. One of the reasons Jeff Beck's "Blow by Blow" album works so well is that he choses good basic songs as showcases for his playing.
There are occasions when I hear a player and it sounds to me like the main point of the exercise is too put his chops, his tone etc on display, where it seems to be a sort of exhibitionism rather than about the music. But
1) This is nothing to do with speed. I've heard plenty of "tasteful" pentatonic players with that immaculate Les Paul tone and blah blah blah and it bores the pants off of me.
2) Al di Meola proved to me that you can burn the frets off of that sucker and still serve the song.
Here's that song with that solo
Bob-Dubery
Alan Ratcliffe wrote:
It really is just different strokes...
I can easily enjoy either, but do find that the higher the note density, the lower my tolerance. It also depends on the complexity and depth of the composition. That's why I can listen to a couple of complete albums by Steve Morse in one go, a whole one by Vai, but only one or two tracks of Malmsteen (and about 30 seconds of many of the other shredders). And Zappa all day. ?
Is the difference not the compositions? For me it's harder to appreciate a good solo in a bum setting (and harder to find something to play), or maybe it's easier to forgive a not so good solo if it's part of an overall satisfying piece?
studmissile
Rick Vito's Masterpiece, making every note count. Amazing solo, compliments the song perfectly. Which I consider the key ingredient. Fast or slow, everything (instrument and lyrics) must compliment the song. All the great songs are like that. And of course there's something very special about Bob Seger, a very underrated artist.
=
