not that its a bad thing i will listen more because of that

i'll reply to this just as an addendum-


So you think Neil Young playing cliche pentatonic solos for an hour would be more interesting than an hour spent in Radiohead's musical universe, which is a veritable wonderland of meticulously crafted atmospheres, textures, sophisticated melodies and adventurous rhythm/lead hybrid guitar playing? Is that what you think? Cause if it is, I can't help you. And anyway, Radiohead virtually are an instrumental band half the time since Thom apparently gave up actual singing for incoherent whining.

Again, if that is true then it is because alternative music is marginalized by a corporate establishment that prefers to profit from nostalgia and milk the heritage acts rather than recognize any new artistic precedents that may have been set by good alternative musicians. Contemporary guitarists have to work a lot harder to get on these lists- Jack White and Matt Bellamy have pretty much been the only two guitarists of the last ten years to achieve mainstream guitar hero status, and only because their music has been consistently good and has broad crossover appeal. Why don't we have "Idol" shows on TV looking to discover great new instrumentalists, or cultivate new artistic movements? Why doesn't mainstream media try to educate or culture our society in any meaningful way? Because its highbrow; the working masses don't want to come home and have to think about something as lofty as art or aesthetics. And if there is something like that on TV that gets people talking (in my experience of UK programming, this is usually also a "top 100" list) then its only because people want their predictable, hand-me-down corporate tastes validated.




the guitar is a very expressive instrument. one can argue that no two guitarists can play a note the same way. and that guy nils is certainly a proficient and slick player. but he is still playing a wanky, cliche guitar solo for no other reason than because that's the only thing classic rock guitarists can think to do. any monkey can memorize a few scales, develop an affectation for attack, note placement, string bends, pinch harmonics and fine tune their vibrato, but it takes real musical vision to realize that most classic rock is actually quite primitive music to begin with, and its ubiquity in our culture has basically conditioned us to take all its facets for granted, perhaps none moreso than the guitar solo, which is an overused, rarely articulate, and ultimately phallic musical gesture.

what about manual gottsching?

i mean look it's not kid a but this was like 1981 or whatever

Isle you just have bad tastes dude. I love Radiohead, they are one of my favorite bands, but no, they just do not compare to Neil Young in terms of overall talent. You seem really stuck on this idea that old music can't be as good as new music... very adolescent. I can explain to you again that Radiohead builds their songs around the same few scales that Neil Young does, or that the Beatles do, or that Kurt Cobain, or Robert Smith, or Jeff Buckley, or Richard Thompson, or ANY rock musician does, but you seem convinced that new acts have somehow invented new musical scales and harmonies which make their music better.

You are looking at this from such a technical point of view (Neil Young is not as good because he uses certain scales, Nils Lofgren is not as good because he uses long guitar solos), so can you explain to me what exactly makes Robert Smith or Jack White or any of your guys more innovative or creative? Because they all they do the exact same thing. I mean in one post up there you are deriding the use of power chords, in another you are deriding the use of excessive lead guitar... but the people you picked make heavy use of plenty of other extremely passe techniques which are as old as dirt. Like I said, Robert Smith's songs are mostly based around four chord progressions in which each chord is played in the typical, bottom-of-the-neck open chord formation. And he throws in arpeggios to spice it up. Folk musicians have been doing this for decades before rock music even existed. You seem to be suffering from "I can't like the music my parents like" syndrome. Your reasoning behind your argument is totally arbitrary.

shut up you fucking faggot, jesus christ

aww :love:




I have played guitar for 10 years. Admittedly I have next to no knowledge of theory, but I don't think that discredits my view, unless I use a term incorrectly. I know alternative music when I hear it. And yes it is an elusive concept- these discussions are my way of bouncing ideas off people so that I may eventually develop a more comprehensive definition. I may lack the theoretical foundation to give a more technical explanation, but I don't think that should even be necessary. You should be able to hear the difference just as well as I can. This discussion is going in circles though because I think you are confusing different issues every time I reply.

I am saying that my choices of guitarists are better not necessarily because of their technical skill or innovation, but because I think their music is highly individual within their respective genre, has a refined aesthetic, and a compositional sophistication that distinguishes them from more conventional guitarists, such as those you have listed.

Perhaps some examples would help to illustrate my point. Since we're on the subject of Jeff Buckley, Robert Smith and Staind, I'll use them.





^to me, that is one of the finest, most evocative riffs ever written. i can't think of another to compare it to. the delicate, glassy tone, unusual choice of notes and tip-toeing, almost clumsy-sounding rhythm trigger very specific images in my mind- sleepwalking, the night time. to me, it has a visual, sensuous quality that tells a story even without the lyrics. it isn't just a catchy string of notes like most famous guitar riffs, it is very subtle and restrained and yet it totally transports me into the imagery of the song. would you not agree that that is a higher and more elusive achievement for a musician than simply perfecting the art of gratuitous, indugent lead playing? and would you say that any song by any of the guitarists you favor have had a similar effect on you? if so, show me for comparison.




literally any Cure riff would be a fine example, but i chose this one because it is probably robert's most simple riff and yet it is still very atmospheric and one of the cure's most famous songs. it should be pointed out that any distinction between the guitar and bass here is superficial, by virtue of the fact that robert wrote both parts and thus together they constitute the complete riff. its not a technical piece by any means, and its not even as evocative or articulate as the So Real riff, but it nonetheless conveys a distinct emotion and atmosphere- one of darkness and fear, partly due to the song's title, but also because the bassline is rhythmically similar to that of a heartbeat, and the drum beat is rhythmically similar to that of heavy breathing, which altogether subconsciously reminds the listener of the experience of running, and lastly the claustrophic production of the song psychologically puts the listener in the shoes of the running man. our perception of a song's emotion or atmosphere is created through subliminally suggestive aspects of the music. so to say that robert smith isn't a great guitarist here is failing to realize that the song still hinges around that menacing little 6-note riff. he's actually tricked you into thinking he's a lesser guitarist by hiding the rest of the riff in the bassline. and the production aspect was his doing as well, so he's even blurred the line between guitarist and producer- could you consider a guitarist great if he hardly played a note but those notes were brilliantly produced? i don't see why not. smith is able to create a lot out of very little. his guitar work may be simplistic, but it is still uniquely his own and very poetic.




just a beautiful, intimate, soulful acoustic riff. something that staind do better than almost any band i can think of. their heavy stuff is discussion-worthy too, but their acoustic songs are just devastating. whats a great acoustic riff to you? "wish you were here", perhaps? this is easily as good. (and there's not even any bullshit bluesy lead guitar over the top to spoil it.)


^all of the above are more meaningful contributions to music than anything i've seen by the guitarists you're supporting.

and with that, i bid you all goodnight.

very nicely worded, mi amigo.

i always thought porl was pretty underrated. though i prefer a version with keys, his interpretation on the guitar is really great.

if you don't think this applies to Neil Young you are frankly just a fucking moron, or you haven't actually heard any Neil Young

I am a big fan of The Cure and Buckley and have been familiar with those songs for years. I'm not debating that those guys are good, innovative guitarists in different ways. My issue is that they use just as many musical tropes and timeworn techniques as Neil Young or Paul Simon. You are picking out certain characteristics in music and saying, "look, this is derivative of what came before!" while totally ignoring the way in which your own picks do the same thing.

There is no defending Staind though, that is just a major fail on your part

What I see ultimately is that you are giving preference to a certain set of aesthetic traits in music over others, which is arbitrary. It's clear you don't like "old" sounding music with strong blues and rockabilly influences. That has no bearing on the creative mettle of guitarists who play more in that style.

You're also trying to spin the argument around and paint me as the guy who thinks technicality matters... that's lala. I don't give a shit about how technically good a player is, I'm just pointing out that you are talking in terms of scales and such yet you don't recognize that the players you picked use the same scales and common chord progressions that nearly all rock music has used for 6 decades. Your choices have to do with the aesthetic of the music apparently. I think you're a little too wrapped up in "alternative" and it is blinding you to the pretty obvious seminal qualities of players like Neil Young and Paul Simon because it's not as cool or something.

I feel that every generation has had its notable guitarists, each one contributing to the evolution of guitar music as a whole. But in 2011, I get more continued enjoyment and inspiration out of the better guitarists of the post-punk and alternative eras, because they display far more stylistic variety and individuality than most of the oldies, who sound neanderthal and one-dimensional by comparison. as far as oldies go, i like jimmy page, frank zappa, tony iommi, dave gilmour, brian may, king crimson- but those guys' playing had a lot more variety and personality than most of their contemporaries as far as i am concerned. they all created great moments in music, and not just crass lead guitar antics.

it's your tastes that are one-dimensional, friend. I haven't mentioned a single guitarist yet who I would say engages in "crass lead guitar antics," at least not any more than Page, since you mentioned him. You clearly haven't listened to enough old music to get the proper perspective on it if you can't understand how original, unique, creative, and powerful someone like Neil Young is on the guitar.

ed: it's funny, cause I'm very sure that Jack White, Johnny Greenwood, and Jeff Buckley would all agree that Young's contribution to guitar playing is fairly significant.

show me some great guitar work by neil young that doesn't involve a solo or bluesy lead guitar. show me a sophisticated, twisting melody or picking pattern. an interesting, atypical chord progression. a great riff that doesn't sound like the blues. hell, even a great riff that does. come on.

before I get drunk, I'll add one more thing. You mention the ability of an instrument to evoke rhythms which bear semblance to things in real life, e.g. a beating heart or footsteps. You talk about this in reference to the Cure like it is unique, but this is a well-recognized quality in American music since at least the time of slavery when spirituals and work songs often mimicked the rhythms of daily life. You are seeing certain qualities in the music you like and asserting that they are the original innovations of those players, but most of those qualities are timeless and can be found in lots of music of any era and of any genre. Similarly, you are ignoring other qualities which you believe are for "dinosaurs," but are also quite timeless and present in the stuff you are posting, such as the pentatonic scale.

dude, once again your problem is that you clearly have no perspective. There is no reason a solo or a bluesy lead CAN'T be sophisticated, interesting, or atypical. You don't know what you are talking about because you are clearly focused very much on music from a certain time period onwards, and you are writing off everything which came before as "the basics" which is just a very narrow, exclusionary way to think about it.

I'm sure that as a guitarist, you have encountered many annoying people who believe that rock music is dead, that there is nothing significant going on in the scene today, and that all the greats are in the past. These people are easily recognizable because they are annoyingly stubborn and myopic in their vision. They are very much living in a certain age, and have cut themselves off from appreciating styles and techniques popular in subsequent times. You basically are one of these people, except in reverse.

i'm not saying that they invented that stuff or did it consciously. i just think that music like that is actually quite rare and it shows that the composer is in tune with a higher, more ethereal (or even more primal) source of inspiration. a good musician just writes what they hear in their head, or jams until they hit upon something and then refines it until it clicks and sounds like something greater than the sum of its parts. it doesn't necessarily have to reflect patterns in the natural world, but if it is identifiable as a great or powerful moment on its own, then its because our brains are responding to a new set of natural harmonics from an idea that is truly original in some way. these songs i'm using as examples connect with people because they subconsciously unlock a part of our mind that we didn't know was there. blues-based rock, by contrast, is very homogenous and anti-progressive. certainly it can still be done very well, i've seen some shit-hot blues/classic rock bands in my time, but it doesn't show me anything new. what does it show you?

Isle what about Julian Swales from Kitchens of Distinction? He is as good as Robin Guthrie I would say. Kudos to you for including the guy from Black Rebel Motorcycle Club.

If I wanted something "new" I would listen to an album that came out in 2011. Stop kidding yourself, The Cure and Jeff Buckley are not relevant acts anymore. I understand that you are very committed to this alternative thing, but you're at the helm of a ship which went down a decade and a half ago. The Cure is a classic rock band at this point. As amazing as A Forest is, that song is thirty one years old. The Neil Young song I posted is only one year older. Again, you are focusing on a certain aesthetic and musical ideal (alternative, whatever the fuck that even means anymore) and excluding everything else as being less good or creative because it doesn't fit into that ideal. No one on the planet plays like Neil Young. He's influenced everyone from the Seattle acts to slowcore. He is one of the most influential guitar players in modern history. But the fact that his roots are in blues and folk instead of punk somehow causes his talent to elude you.

Look at it this way: The Cure is essentially a punk rock band. They are inheritors of a tradition which generally limits songs to 3 or 4 chords repeated over and over. They are inheritors of a tradition which puts virtually no stock in melody, harmony, or dynamics. Yet A Forest is a striking song, although it more or less follows these rules. At this point, punk is almost more passe than blues rock because we are more immersed in it. Our friends listened to Blink 182 in high school, the bastard, pimple-faced pop music descendant of the Ramones and the Sex Pistols. Modern music has been more defined by that 4 powerchord spirit than it has by blues music. This apparent banality does not prevent A Forest from being an immersing and evocative experience.

Likewise, the fact that Neil Young likes the pentatonic scale and incorporates guitar solos into his music does not say anything about the quality of his songs at all. He comes from a different musical tradition (although not drastically different, it's all just rock), which in some ways is trite, but that doesn't prevent a player from being creative, important, unique, skillful, inventive, etc., etc.

i haven't met many people like that, actually. but the few who i have are generally progressive metallers who have plainly stated that they think "all the great songs have been written" and that the only ground left to cover is in extreme technical music (a frightening and insane proposition if there ever was one). then i play them something i like, which i know they probably haven't heard, and i explain that i feel the opposite is true- perhaps most musical genres and lyrical themes have been done to death, but i think the future of music lies in refining all those elements to produce music with higher dynamics, more subtle and suggestive lyrics, greater melodic and harmonic sophistication and overall greater emotional or psychological impact. i always say, "you know that moment in a song that makes the hairs on your neck stand up? what if you could write a piece of music that was like that the whole way through?" the future of music lies in examining technical aspects and aesthetics under a microscope and learning to understand what i call the "quantum mechanics" of music. and i feel that my preferred guitarists are unconciously trying to do that, whereas the blues/classic rock dinosaurs have basically no conception of that. in my opinion, 99% of all musicians, myself included, are just monkeys who've learned how to string notes together within a certain rhythm and infuse them with an essential lyrical quality, the origins and nature of which we don't fully comprehend. there have only ever been a handful of true geniuses in music who intuitively understood the details within details and whose imaginations produced fully-formed works of unreal quality.

still waiting

facepalm into infinity. you are hopeless. You are clearly looking for something very specific in what you like and will not accept that a player can be consequential if he does not fit your preconceived notion of would are good musical values. The things that are valued in folk, blues, country, rockabilly, etc. are not necessarily the same things which are valued by post-punk or alternative, or modern indie music (although all those things were built on the back what guys like Neil Young does). That doesn't mean it takes less talent to write them, Isle.

also I don't know how you could not have had tons of encounters with people who think only Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin are good and nothing after 1980 is worthwhile, because they are amongst the most numerous kinds of music people.

man you guys know you're arguing for an audience of one right

apparently that poor sucker is you

ah no, i didn't read any of that

if you would like me to break it down for you:

the person arguing the point has an audience of the other and vice versa. So if you're talking then ??? is the only one reading and if you're reading ???'s post to refute it, you're the only one doing so. See? Audience of one.

On this specific point your half-right...

Queen was thematically serious and cinematic but also toungue in cheek and as such the better band with more diverse songs.

Buckley's been far more relevant dead than alive.