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.

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?

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. ?

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.

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

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?

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.
=

X-rated Bob wrote: Is the difference not the compositions?

That is a big part of it, production, arrangement and even recording are a part of it for me too. But I've also heard some great compositions ruined by some idiot machinegunning away over the top and mundane pop songs transported to a different level by the solo.

What sets the good shredders (DiMeola, Morse, Vai, Lane, Thal, Govan, et. al.) apart from the bad is detail. Sure, they play fast, but nearly every note is carefully crafted and, in most cases, you could slow it down to 1/10th of the speed and still have usable melodies and expressive detail like vibrato and bends rather than scale exercises.

I remember working through Vai's The Attitude Song years ago and every single riff and phrase was a revelation, some simply because they were so different from anything I'd ever heard before but also many because they revealed themselves to be country, blues, reggae or other riffs that I could recognise as such only when I took them out of context of the composition.

Some players like Eklundh and Thal are just so unusual that I can't help loving what they do. I like being surprised and I like the hugely varied and obscure musical references they sneak in as musical in jokes that few people probably will get. That's probably the Zappa fan in me...

Ye ye I get it. Too many notes, shredders are bad, they don't have souls, BB King is a god.

Just don't rap on Yngwie. That man is a legend. No feel? I disagree, some of the prettiest vibrato ever is courtesy of Yngwie.
He also startet the whole neo-classical phrygian thing. But yes it does get boring.

wow most everyone has answered this with such a serious tone/position ?

i saw only maybe 2 or 3 posts answered tongue in cheek.... where's the sense of humour here ..

Alan talks about some idiot machine-gunning over the top....

Nothing makes me reach for my bowie knife faster than hearing
Carlos Santana climbing all over the vocalist...

if you've hired someone to sing, get out of the way when they do...!

In any other band, after one verse, the singer would take the top of
Carlos' head off with the edge of his Ibanez....

Sneaky Pete wrote: Alan talks about some idiot machine-gunning over the top....

Nothing makes me reach for my bowie knife faster than hearing
Carlos Santana climbing all over the vocalist...

if you've hired someone to sing, get out of the way when they do...!

In any other band, after one verse, the singer would take the top of
Carlos' head off with the edge of his Ibanez....

Spot on regarding your view on Santana. I feel exactly the same way about him as you do. Spot on.

Arno West wrote:
Spot on regarding your view on Santana. I feel exactly the same way about him as you do. Spot on.

Uh oh...watch all the Santana fans on GFSA rush to his defense...oh...wait...

Here's some thoughts on this

There's only two types of music, good music and bad music
There's only two types of solo, good solo and bad solo? ?

The more notes you play the lower the value of each note because the CD [remember them] price stays the same??

Can Santana play quarter notes at higher than 120 b.p.m? - I Wonder
Agree with Arno about him but, funny, I still like listening to him.

briang wrote: The more notes you play the lower the value of each note because the CD [remember them] price stays the same??

Well not really, a lot of the music I like is fairly unknown and as such when you find it in a music store it tends to have a far bigger price tag than most of the popular names being thrown around here, and trust me they charge you for those extra notes :-\

Chad Adam Browne wrote:

briang wrote: The more notes you play the lower the value of each note because the CD [remember them] price stays the same??

Well not really, a lot of the music I like is fairly unknown and as such when you find it in a music store it tends to have a far bigger price tag than most of the popular names being thrown around here, and trust me they charge you for those extra notes :-\

Yeah - you are right about that Chad, especially around these parts where some of the artists you want to listen to have not been heard of ?

You'd think a guitarist would get paid less for a 1/32 note than a 1/8 note. Why should they get the same money for less note?

Arno West wrote: 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.

Totally! ?

I can shred, and have before and I think time have changed my musical pref's and
I choose to play calmer and more melodic.
I choose to write songs, the kind that dont even need a solo.

i dont think its better, just what I like more today, rather than 20 odd years ago.

Its great to achieve greater ability on your axe, being able to play well can get you
a better rank and perhaps more calls for work, but
if all you can and willing to do is rip it is likely that you will limit yourself to be liked by young musicians mostly.

This getting a bit ridiculous. Back to the original question and the answer is - no.