Qpr is better when Chelsea win nothing but play better football. He cant fight the shame he feels watching Chelsea these days. They've now won their one title in 5 years so we are in for 5 years of hilarious wummage as Chelsea fail over and over again
That song is in A maj. The solo is done using The major pentatonic scale. Just listen to his phrasing, the dynamics. The way he subtly bends the notes half a tone or a full tone. Some he kills with his palm, other he lets ring. It's just instinctive. You can't teach that, you either feel it or you don't!
Sorry, but I have to step in to stop this bollocks! I've had this argument so many times over with so many people... Just because a guitarist is technically proficient and understands music theory does not not mean he isn't as good as those players who know jack-**** but have "feel." The only guitarists I have ever (and I mean "ever") slag off those of us who have good technique, are those who don't have good technique. Let me absolutely assure you that we who can "fill" every bar with "technical wizardry" are more than able to slow down and play with "feel." If you want me to slow it right down and bend and slur my way through a bog-standard pentatonic-blues scale whilst pulling some silly faces, I'll do that for you. Singing-vibtrato on those high-bends? Sure, I'll add those in, too, because that proves that I have "feel" and "emotion," right? The problem with the blues pentatonic scale is that it is extremely limited. Once you've played a handful of Clapton, Green, BB King, Muddy Waters, Albert King, etc numbers, you've soon covered every blues lick in the book. Having good technique releases a player from the shackles of the blues. And, for the record, my guitar heroes - the guys that inspired, and continue to inspire me to play - are the likes of Hendrix, Page, Mick Ralphs, and especially Gary Moore. The latter, as an example, was able to blend superb technical wizardry with stunning pentatonic-blues licks. As for Hendrix, apart from being a musical genius, he took most of his guitar influences from the great blues and jazz players of his youth, and is, therefore, fully and firmly routed in the kind of "feel" players that the technically inept nay-sayers often bleat on about and hold up as examples of "how it should be done." The audiences that come and watch my band play love classic rock, and they love hearing a guitar played with both feeling and flair. I try my hardest to give them both, to the best of my (undoubtedly limited) abilities.
He has forgotten more than you will ever know - he was a genius! Or or are you now saying that you are better than Page in his prime ?
Technically, Page was not a great guitarist. Was he great player? Undoubtedly. Did he influence my playing? You bet! Led Zep were one of the key bands that I used to listen to. We play a couple of their tracks in my band. I play Page's solos note-for-note, and then, later in each song, I have a go at playing my own interpretation of Page. You'd have to be the judge as to whether or not what I do is both tasteful and full of outlandish flair, but I've had enough compliments from punters over the years to give me all the confidence I need to keep doing what I do. And I love doing it. Am I a better play than Page in his prime? How on Earth would I know! And who cares, anyway? People coming to watch my band play want to hear me play. I doubt their decision to do that (and, hopefully, enjoy what they hear) is based on their view as to whether or not I play better or worse than Page in his prime.
I have to entirely disagree with you, HIAG, mate. The essence of music comes from inside you. Have you ever listened to the subtlety of that intro, obviously not! Or you'd get what I mean. If you don't, then I feel sorry for you. I also am a tecnically proficient musician, I attended the London College of Music. But, I couldn't replicate what Peter used to do, it came from inside him. You do either feel it, or you don't. The truly gifted are those that do!
Sorry, that's complete bull! Music is inside all of us, whether we like or not. We can't choose not to have music inside us, we can merely deny it a channel. Musicians choose to channel that music, whatever their level of proficiency, through their playing. Anyone playing an instrument with any degree of sincerity is "feeling" the music. You, the listener, might not like the way they are "feeling" their music, but that's an entirely esthetic and/or subjective choice. You find Green's music more esthetically and subjectively appealing than, say, the music of Satriani, well, good for you! But to try to argue, for example, that Green had more "soul," "feeling," or what other mystical adjective you want to apply to his playing, than Satriani merely because Green played slower and with greater simplicity, is completely and utter ridiculous! And, for the record, I listen to both Green and Satriani. Which player do I prefer? Satriani. Why? Because I find him to be more interesting and innovative, whereas Green, I find, is safe and restricted. That doesn't mean that I cannot appreciate the beauty in the simplicity of Green's playing. Being technically proficient doesn't render one either stupid or blind to beauty.
The music conversation is interesting, I love music but don't play any instrument. I listen to all sorts and find the argument regarding technical profficiency and feeling quite dull and uninteresting and also very egotistical. Who really cares? Music is down to the individual and what one person finds great music another will hate. Who's the best guitarist of all time? Who gives a ****, that's not what music is about. I would have to say that I enjoy and hate both sides of the argument, there are technical musicians that I hate and so called emotional musicians that I find gut wrenching. Find your own flow and if someone hates it then fine that's their choice.
And why would you want to replicate Green's (or anyone's) playing? I don't understand that argument. "You can't play what Green plays like Green, therefore, you're not as good a player as Green!" It's an utterly ridiculous argument! For a start, I don't want to play like Green; he was unique. Why would the world want two Greens in it, when the one of them is more than enough? I don't want to play what Green can play exactly like he plays it. At most, what I'd like to be able to do is take some of Green's ideas, learn from them, and incorporate those ideas into what I play and the way I play, and grow as a player in my own right.
My sentiments exactly! Technical wizardry, played for its own sake, is dull. Sure, it has some initial appeal, like those jugglers who juggle chainsaws, but after a while it becomes monotonous. Listen to Gary Moore's album "Still Got The Blues" and tell me that he was not both a fantastically gifted and technical player but who nonetheless played with his heart and soul every time he picked up his guitar (which, incidentally, on that album, happened to be the '58 Les Paul that Peter Green gave to him as a gift).
Sorty . Sorry, but it's you that's talking bollocks, IMO. Peter Green is considered, not just by me, but by many, many musicians to have been one of the all time great blues guitarists - black or white. I know the guy. I've met Page several times on the session circuit that I & he used to earn money on. He's good, but even he would tell you of his admiration for Green. As a musician, I can appreciate technical proficiency. I would site Emerson, Lake & Palmer as an example. Great technical musicians all - Emerson a graduate of RCM. As a musician I can listen and admire their technical ability. But then I sit again and listen as a layman, and think, but it's boring! No feel, no soul, whatever you want to call it.
Oh, and as you brought up the name of Gary Moore. Who do you think dedicated a whole album to Peter Green? It's called blues for Greenie!
Why? Because he was in a popular and commercial band? There are loads of people out there that can play guitar to start labelling who is better than who just takes away from the music and the listener. I think Fleetwood Mac are ****, you may love them. He may be very good at what he does but to my ears that music is dull.
NSS, I understand you wanting to defend Green's corner, especially if he's a friend of yours, but I do think it is skewing your point of view in this argument. No one is saying that Green isn't a very fine guitarist - he clearly is, as is patently obvious from the very fact of listening to him. If he came to any venue near to where I live I would buy tickets to go and see him, and I am sure I would be blown away (as I am by many musicians, both fully pro and semi pro). But to say that Green is better or worse than this or that guitarist can only ever be a subjective call, because we all have different tastes. That is a completely different thing so saying that one player is more technically proficient than another, which is something that can easily be tested objectively. However, I am more than prepared to agree with you that technical proficiency is no guarantee of musical artistry.
Yes, Peter is a mate, as I say. Not that I see much of him nowadays and when I do I never know what state he'll be in. But, I've sat and listened and played with the guy. His touch, his phrasing were just remarkable. B.B. king himself said that Peter was THE only guitarist who gave him the cold shivers when he heard him play. Of course it's subjective and if you're not into that type of music, you're never going to necessarily appreciate his genius. But ask anybody who knew or ever played with the guy, they would all tell you that he really was special. Yes, I think ELP is a great example of that, for me, anyway. Technically brilliant, but leaves you cold. In their case it was a form of musical snobbery. Sort of, 'look how good we are' but it was the 70's and you could get away with that Bollocks then I'm talking about the original Fleetwood Mac. Not the one that's touring now. Not just because he was in a popular band. Despite the name, he made it popular with his music. If you're not into that type of music and you don't feel it, no you won't understand just how good he was.
I'm with you on this. Our drummer is a massive fan of the English progressive rock bands of the late 60s and early 70s. He will massively disagree with you about the lack of feeling and emotion, though. For him, the dedication to technical excellence was the feeling and the emotion, and he'll tell you that merely bending a string a tone or two and using vibrato is not necessarily an indication of emotion or feeling. He also plays coronet and jazz guitar, and formerly played both (though not at the same time) in his own jazz fusion band, before turning to drums. I understand his point of view, and there is much that I like and admire about some of the progressive rock music from that time, but I am far from being a massive fan, and it most certainly is not the first musical genre that I turn to when I want to listen to music.
Yes, the idea was initially good. progressive (prog) rock. But, it disappeared up its own arse, IMO. At the end of the day (sorry!) if you're going to earn your living from the business, it's the punters you have to impress. Not yourselves. As I say, you could sell that to them in the '70's and they'd convince themselves that because some twat at the Melody Maker had told him it was great, that they enjoyed it too. I don't think you'd find it that easy to get away with today.
That's the point though no matter how good you think he is, technically or emotionally it's lost on someone who doesn't like the music. I'm aware you were referring to the older music. There are bands that I like that you may hate it doesn't mean that the musicians are of any lesser ability again technically or emotionally than Peter Green or anyone else you like just because you don't like the music, the style of play or any other aspect of what they do.
