Guitar Heroes - C4
Bad Ass
that the hardest rockin' guitar hero ever, bar none - Mr. Angus Young -
never got a mention on that sorry-ass programme. Not one clip - unless I
blinked and missed it.
In terms of world-wide entertainment value with over 25 years of soiled
school uniforms and some of the best hard rockin' riffs of all time - shish
kebab - what were those Quo boys thinking!
Hendrix!! - couldn't sing and only had a couple of good riffs - rarely tuned
his guitar. Yuk!
Paul Simpson
interviews, they didn't take the whole thing too seriously (thank god!), a
good evenings entertainment for any couch-bound plank-spanker. Downers?
Never really rated Johnny Marr that much, and why Clapton was at number two
mystifies me (a few years of far-reaching influential trail blazing
brilliance followed by an eternity of blandness - loved Jack Bruces comment:
"Cream was really a jazz band - we just never told Eric" :-) Hey ho,
personal opinion is a funny old thing isn't it? Shame they didn't have time
to fit loads more in, but this one isn't getting wiped from the video I just
taped it on any time soon (hey, it was so good it tore me away from
Counter-Strike - that, and the fact that my team of Counter Terrorists were
getting crapped on from a great height by the terrorists :-)
--
All the best,
Paul.
Pete Spaldin
thats the case, where was Richie Sambora ? Are you telling me that The
Smiths sold more albums than Bon Jovi ? ... I don't think so
Oh, I have just thought of another one too ... EVH ... Van Halen must have
sold a sh?tload too. Top Tens are notorious for omitting "real" contenders,
but I suppose its all a matter of taste.
just my tuppence worth
Pete
PS. Noel Gallagher may not be everyones cup of tea, but surely he must have
sold more albums than Johnny Marr too.
Bad Ass <feed...@assmaster.com> wrote in message
news:tbqbd81...@xo.supernews.co.uk...
John Roberts
and not Beck, a real innovator of the guitar and still doing it today and bloody
well too!
Cheers
John Roberts
PS Where was Eddie Van Halen too? Strange?
Rev. Andy
<feed...@assmaster.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Hendrix!! - couldn't sing and only had a couple of good riffs - rarely tuned
> his guitar. Yuk!
You are a troll and I claim my prize.
Rev. Andy
Bad Ass
More like I belong to the minority that never really understood what all the
fuss about Jimi was for. Sure there's a few things that are great and then
there is a hell of lot more - well crap. But the myth lives on.
Bad Ass
That's right - the show doesn't stand up to any serious critical analysis.
It's just entertainment for the masses who barely know one end of a guitar
from a shovel.
And we all knew that James Marshall Hendrix would be No.1 ' cause some
researcher at C4 says so.
Andy Brooke
chart success in the UK and USA hence the non-inclusion of the likes of Jeff
Beck. In fact, if you were paying attention, the show did draw attention to
the fact that there were a number of renowned guitarists including Beck and
Stevie Ray Vaughan who were not in the chart as they had had next to no
chart success.
There does seem to have been some dubious decision making as to what
constitutes a guitar hero though. I think a more worthy candidate than
Johnny Marr could have been found and then, as an added bonus, Noel
Gallagher probably wouldn't have appeared on the show.
Still, it was an entertaining show and one that I would have videoed if my
VCR had not mysteriously stopped recording sound.
Andy
"Bad Ass" <feed...@assmaster.com> wrote in message
news:tbrik3d...@xo.supernews.co.uk...
excitableboy
johnny marr a little further...
bon jovi ???? lol who gives a ratts ass!!!!! johnny marr had more
influence on guitar playing than bon jovi ever had on young school
girls..........if you got a second look up " girl afraid" by the smiths.
very early smiths single........tell me you've ever heard guitar work like
that before. no one played like that before him and now you hear that on
every single released. he started the "no solo" generation.......
i didnt see the show, and im sure they didnt have everyone on they
could/should have.....but if they had johnny marr on it had to be a helluva
show!!!!!!! would anyone send me a tape?????????
Bad Ass
their
> chart success in the UK and USA
I'm staggered there was no reference to AC/DC and Angus Young in that case.
The Back in Black album sold 18 million in the USA alone. I wasn't really
paying attention but I'm sure that the statistics would prove Angus was a
contender for a mention. But I won't lose any sleep about it!
icarusi
If there was a chart for over-rated guitarists, for me, Hendrix would
be in the top half.
BTW where is Jeff Beck in Guitar mags top 300 of various categories?
Icarusi
--
remove the 00 to reply
.clive.murray.
>the hardest rockin' guitar hero ever, bar none - Mr. Angus Young -
>never got a mention on that sorry-ass programme.
and Pete Spaldin said ...
>where was Richie Sambora ?
>Oh, I have just thought of another one too ... EVH
>Noel Gallagher may not be everyones cup of tea
and exciteableboy said ...
>you guys really should check into the playing of johnny marr a little
further...
and I dozed off.
haven't we been through this enough times on UKMG? top tens of any kind are
subjective with no exception. it is someone's opinion. unless, allegedly in
the case of this C4 program (which I didn't watch btw, I was out), it is
judged on a solid measurable statistic, like album sales.
it really bores the arse (exceedingly) off me when I read posts like "how
come x wasn't in the top 10??? [add as many question/exclamation marks as
you see fit] y sucks and x rules!!! oh, and z never did anything original in
his life..."
yawn. thanks for your opinion, please drive through.
I'm not having a go at anyone, I just felt the need to vent forth on this
tired subject. maybe I'm tired myself.
--c.
PJ
"Andy Brooke" <an...@pingwin.nosppam.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:99knpt$d6n$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I think you'll find that the ratings for each guitar hero are based on
their
> chart success in the UK and USA hence the non-inclusion of the likes of
Jeff
> Beck. In fact, if you were paying attention, the show did draw attention
to
> the fact that there were a number of renowned guitarists including Beck
and
> Stevie Ray Vaughan who were not in the chart as they had had next to no
> chart success.
Well maybe it's my age.......or my memory as a result of it but....wasn't
Dire Straits one of the 'Biggest' bands around the world throughout a great
deal of the eighties? Selling one or two albums I once heard.. And
wasn't their guitarist able to play a little bit? And didn't he
write/create one or two guitar licks that are pretty memorable? Ok, not
the hardest thing to play but Money for Nothing could easily be considered a
defining moment of guitar sound/imagery/cognicance as Whole lotta
love....in my opinion.
Sure, the program wasn't about guitar players but 'guitar heroes' (might not
be the same thing ;-) but I'd of thought Mark Knopfler was a 'guitar hero'
in anyones book...
Regards
PJ
--
To reply... Take out noads.
Bad Ass
> I just felt the need to vent forth on this
> tired subject
I don't think that we were taking about personal top tens - I agree they
are - well - highly subjective and irrelevant.
If the C4 prog ratings were based on USA and UK album sales - I didn't video
it so I can't go back and pay more attention, then I question the figures.
The guy who's been dead the longest won. The guy who has been dying the
slowest came second and Mr J. Marr was included because he's a Brit and the
antithesis of a guitar hero.
But this is Usenet, so we're allowed to discuss shit all day!
Albert Steptoe
pete.s...@ntlworld.com says...
> PS. Noel Gallagher may not be everyones cup of tea, but surely he must have
> sold more albums than Johnny Marr too.
So no Rory Gallagher, I take it?
David Lloyd
I applaud Johnny Marr's inclusion, I just wish he'd been placed at number
eight because I missed the first twenty minutes. I reckon he's done far more
for British guitar-based music than the likes of EVH/Jeff Beck etc. The
guitar work on This Charming Man and Still Ill is flawless.
"Bad Ass" <feed...@assmaster.com> wrote in message
news:tbqbd81...@xo.supernews.co.uk...
David Lloyd
must be a pretty good player by now...
Andy Brooke
"David Lloyd" <david...@tinnedmeatplants.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:99lams$hd8$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> Anybody know what happened to that McRocklin kid they showed the clip of?
He
> must be a pretty good player by now...
He went on do some stuff with Steve Vai - I believe it's McRocklin playing
guitar in a Steve Vai video ("The Audience Is Listening"?), pretending to be
Steve Vai as a kid. He also played in a band (Bad 4 Good?) with a load of
other kids who could play fast but couldn't write a decent song. This band
was around in about 1991 I think. I haven't a clue what he's doing now
though.
Andy
steve_cobham
wrote:
> never one to flame, but you guys really should check into the playing of
>johnny marr a little further...
And amen to that.
The Smiths have an extensive back catalogue that some of their critics
might not have examined. In it there is a plethora of finely-crafted,
brilliantly produced (and JM knew his way round a studio as well as a
fretboard) guitar.
To take just one track - and a well-known one - "This Charming Man";
the guitar is simply breathtaking. OK, there's no lead work in the
accepted sense of the term, but what is played is seriously great
stuff and, above all, an integral part of the song. It isn't just
grafted on because there's a lead guitarist in the band like so many
other acts do.
In its own way, it's as classic a piece of guitar playing than
anything deemed classic by anyone else - Stairway, Smoke, Watermelon,
Purple Haze, Apache, etc, etc.....
(And lest I be dismissed as reactionary, I'm coming 50 this year and
was brought up on all that stuff.)
On the program in general - the chart placings that formed the basis
of the rankings are so easily verified that I have to concede that
Channel 4 got their figures right.
But in the final analysis, so what?
At least it kept those fucking "Popstars" off the TV for an hour and a
half.
Doesn't B.P.Fallon look like Yoda?
NP - Sonny Landreth - Levee Town - sublime slide playing.
Steve.
================================================
Guitar and bass tuition - all styles and levels.
http://users.powernet.co.uk/guitars/tuition.htm
E-mail: st...@XSPAMXguitarsXMAPSX.powernet.co.uk
(Please remove obvious spam deterrent)
Interested in Zappa? Guitar? Beer?
Save money by setting up your own guitar!
How about trading Zappa and Danny Gatton tapes?
http://users.powernet.co.uk/guitars/
Heb de Latz und schpill dini Gitare.
================================================
JNugent
> Am I alone in thinking they got it pretty much right???
> I applaud Johnny Marr's inclusion, I just wish he'd been placed at number
> eight because I missed the first twenty minutes. I reckon he's done far
more
> for British guitar-based music than the likes of EVH/Jeff Beck etc.
I wasn't going to get involved in this, what do you think (American citizen)
Edward Van Halen *should* have done for "British guitar-based music"? :-)
And Jeff has done his share over the years....
toadoftoadhall
the list could go on.
They could have done the top 100 players and still missed some.
Joel Cooney
blah blah blah...
The thing about those Channel 4 top ten lists, there remit is not to be a
serious guage of musical prowess or greatness really; its never claimed to
be anything more than light-hearted idle entertainment on a general musical
subject. It doesn't take itself half as seriously as you say. Did you happen
to chat the "Top Ten Prog rock acts" episode a fortnight ago? I'm sure if
you had you'd probably see the humourous side of it.
SNIP> Hendrix!! - couldn't sing and only had a couple of good riffs - rarely
tuned
> his guitar. Yuk!
As he said himself: "only cowboys stay in tune anyhows". As for "a couple of
good riffs" well.. ach I canny be arsed... the trendy hendrix backlash seems
to be in full effect right now.
David Lloyd
citizen)
> Edward Van Halen *should* have done for "British guitar-based music"? :-)
About as much as Angus Young :-)
> And Jeff has done his share over the years....
Fair enough. I still think Johnny Marr has been more influential. But then,
who really cares?
Jon Boyes
news:qoksbtce040aocmg4...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 13:22:10 GMT, "excitableboy" <aas...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> > never one to flame, but you guys really should check into the playing
of
> >johnny marr a little further...
>
> And amen to that.
Quite.
> The Smiths have an extensive back catalogue that some of their critics
> might not have examined. In it there is a plethora of finely-crafted,
> brilliantly produced (and JM knew his way round a studio as well as a
> fretboard) guitar.
I always found it funny that the macho rock brigade were so put out by
Marr's success. There seems to be real indignation that this little guy with
a polo neck, eyeliner and beads round his neck who formed a band with this
weirdo monotonic singer should actually be considered a good
guitarist/musician. Plus he (gasp) hardly ever played guitar solos.
> To take just one track - and a well-known one - "This Charming Man";
> the guitar is simply breathtaking.
I worked it out a while back when I was putting together a compilation of
famous riffs (don't ask) and remember thinking "This is *really* clever
stuff". Ingenious rhythm guitarist. The compilation 'Hatful of Hollow' is
essential listening for the sheer variety in his guitar work: William it was
really nothing, How soon is now etc,
> In its own way, it's as classic a piece of guitar playing than
> anything deemed classic by anyone else - Stairway, Smoke, Watermelon,
> Purple Haze, Apache, etc, etc.....
Blimey, did you really write that Steve? ;-)
Only kidding - I could have sworn we had a discussion a long while back
where I was arguing that you shouldn't dismiss Marr. I'm obviously mistaken,
or I misunderstood some point you were making at the time.
> On the program in general - the chart placings that formed the basis
> of the rankings are so easily verified that I have to concede that
> Channel 4 got their figures right.
Exactly - Ok so the 'Axe points' that came up on the screen was cheesy and
unecessary, and the commentary was opinionated (but at least
tongue-in-cheek), but as you say the chart placings were not just somebody's
opinion. Quite a few people seem to be under the impression that the chart
was constructed either on the basis of someone's opinion either of 'how
good' the guitarists were, or some judgement on their contribution to music.
> But in the final analysis, so what?
>
> At least it kept those fucking "Popstars" off the TV for an hour and a
> half.
Yeah, and they got a whole ****ing series.
How often do we get guitar music given such a high profile?
--
Jon
www.jonboyes.co.uk
ma...@jonboyes.co.spamwithchips.uk
(remove the food to reply by e-mail)
Phil Clarke
> ... I could have sworn we had a discussion a long while back
> where I was arguing that [Steve] shouldn't dismiss Marr. I'm obviously
> mistaken,
> or I misunderstood some point you were making at the time.
unless of course you actually made a decent argument and convinced him - surely
a world first for any newsgroup? :o)
> > At least it kept those fucking "Popstars" off the TV for an hour and a half.
amen.
> How often do we get guitar music given such a high profile?
yeah, we want more C4 late Saturday night slots.
Bad Ass
> to be in full effect right now.
What? Moi! Trendy! I didn't know there was a Hendrix backlash.
I thought there was just a humour backlash in force.
Blah blah blah.
Phil Clarke
> the trendy hendrix backlash seems to be in full effect right now.
either that or people are hearing it for the first time and thinking "this
doesnt live up to the hype". Like me.
The image, package, history is totally rock 'n roll, but the musics not very
good IMHO.
Hendrix is one of those things, like The 3 Stooges and the Goon Show, that
students think they should really "get into" despite the fact they dont really
like it. (I admit to forcing myself to listen to "The Wall" until I liked it,
because I kept hearing how great PF was years after they'd done anything I'd
heard)
Phil
Bad Ass
> Marr's success.
Grunt! Uug! Aarh! Rock guitar is by definition 'macho' and the guitar is
either a 'woman' or a penis extension. Not a very large vibrator. It's a
man's tool - so to speak - C4 even said so.
I always find it funny how people are so put out when Marr is not worshipped
for his 'breathtaking' guitar work. It's a fickle business. I agree Marr is
a hero who plays guitar. He is not the classic guitar hero in the same way
as Page or Clapton to use the commonly accepted stereotypical meaning of the
term. And we were talking stereotypes here as much as playing ability. I
think the Quo boys said that he didn't have long enough hair or do enough
drugs to be a proper guitar hero - and they should know.
da...@power.net.uk
wrote:
I guess that pretty much settles the Bert Weedon issue too ...
Adrian Clark
> Well maybe it's my age.......or my memory as a result of it but....wasn't
> Dire Straits one of the 'Biggest' bands around the world throughout a great
> deal of the eighties?
I think their only fan died in a car crash in Paris in 1997...
Seriously, though, I didn't see the programme - I was in Bruges for a
bit of a pub crawl and faced with the choice of taping either "I love
1989" or the guitar heroes Top 10, the choice was all too painfully
obvious. So tell me, what ten guitarists did they pick?
Adrian
--
**** THE SPAGHETTI FACTORY: http://www.spaghetti-factory.co.uk ****
**** NOW AT MP3.COM: http://www.mp3.com/spaghettifactory/ ****
********* AND... http://www.mp3.com/spaghetti96/ **********
Adrian Clark
> The Smiths have an extensive back catalogue that some of their critics
> might not have examined. In it there is a plethora of finely-crafted,
> brilliantly produced (and JM knew his way round a studio as well as a
> fretboard) guitar.
Nice bunch of Smiths stuff in the latest Mojo - have you seen it yet?
There's a lot of good, exciting, pathfinding stuff going on in the small
"underground" scenes, but as far as big-exposure indie/alterna-pop goes,
there's been nothing since the Smiths to match them. Possibly Blur...
although not all of their output (IMO, at least) has quite the energy of
the Smiths at their prime. The Stone Roses could have done it, but one
good album just isn't enough. Nirvana... half of the output is just too
patchy. Oasis? Not a chance.
>
> To take just one track - and a well-known one - "This Charming Man";
> the guitar is simply breathtaking. OK, there's no lead work in the
> accepted sense of the term, but what is played is seriously great
> stuff and, above all, an integral part of the song. It isn't just
> grafted on because there's a lead guitarist in the band like so many
> other acts do.
And then skip swiftly through "Hand in Glove", "Back to the Old House"
and "How Soon is Now?"... four songs, all with totally different
approaches to the guitar parts and all fantastically
played/arranged/recorded. Classic stuff.
Adrian
NP: The Smiths, "The Queen is Dead"
("Dear Charles, don't you ever crave to appear on the front of the Daily
Mail, dressed in your mother's bridal veil?")
steve_cobham
<ma...@jonboyes.spam&chips.co.uk> wrote:
><Steve Cobham> wrote in message
>news:qoksbtce040aocmg4...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 13:22:10 GMT, "excitableboy" <aas...@home.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > never one to flame, but you guys really should check into the playing
>of
>> >johnny marr a little further...
>>
>> And amen to that.
>> To take just one track - and a well-known one - "This Charming Man";
>> the guitar is simply breathtaking.
>> In its own way, it's as classic a piece of guitar playing than
>> anything deemed classic by anyone else - Stairway, Smoke, Watermelon,
>> Purple Haze, Apache, etc, etc.....
>
>Blimey, did you really write that Steve? ;-)
Yup - using my own brain.......
>
>Only kidding - I could have sworn we had a discussion a long while back
>where I was arguing that you shouldn't dismiss Marr. I'm obviously mistaken,
>or I misunderstood some point you were making at the time.
Nah - not me.
I've not always been a Smiths fan, though.
I remember browsing a record shop in 1995 (about the time of my "Steve
Vai is God and Satriani is Buddha" period) and seeing the "Singles"
compilation on a display stand. I looked at it, read through the
titles and surprised myself by how many I could remember and how many
of them appealed to me.
I bought it and then proceeded to collect all the albums, which all
seemed to be found in the "4 for £20" rack pretty soon afterwards.
I guess that the music must have entered my consciousness subliminally
over the years.
I think that what I most admire about Marr is his inclination to
always play "for the song" and see the guitar as a textural instrument
as well as a melodic one.
(A reason why I also rate Graham Coxon of Blur.)
The fact that he was in the Channel 4 Top Ten and not my favourites -
Zappa, Gatton and Jeff Beck - didn't annoy me in the slightest.
The people who were in there got there by dint of the usual
combination of skill, talent, hard work, mindset, and a degree of luck
- the factors that determine whether you, me, anybody succeeds or
fails in any given endeavour.
They all deserved recognition - along with the other thousands who
could be found in everybody's Top Ten.
You had to limit the number of featured guitarists somehow and chart
positions is as good - or bad - a method as any.
All in all, it was just a treat to watch an hour and a half of TV
devoted to God's own instrument.
Thank you Channel 4!
Maybe - if people are so stirred up about certain ommssions we should
petition Channel 4 to commission a 13 part series about the history of
the guitar and its notable players.
There'd still be people left out, though.
Which just goes to prove the point that "You can't please all of the
people all of the time".
And hurrah, I say, for the diversity of people's musical tastes.
NP - Love - Forever Changes - remastered and expanded reissue. As
good, if not better, as I remember it being at the time of release.
steve_cobham
<lux...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Jon Boyes wrote:
>
>
>> ... I could have sworn we had a discussion a long while back
>> where I was arguing that [Steve] shouldn't dismiss Marr. I'm obviously
>> mistaken,
>> or I misunderstood some point you were making at the time.
>
>unless of course you actually made a decent argument and convinced him - surely
>a world first for any newsgroup? :o)
Eh?
BURNSV930
<feed...@assmaster.com> writes:
>he Back in Black album sold 18 million in the USA alone.
I know AC/DC have sold about 40 odd million albums total world wide according
to the guinness book of hit records. Are you sure that Back in Black sold that
many in one territory? I think that you may be wrong on that. I don't even
think that Michael Jackon Thriller sold that many just in the states (but I may
be wrong).
Big, big albums in the states tend to sell between 8 and 10 million albums.
That is a lot of records.
I do agree that AC/DC have sold a lot more records than most bands
though. There are also bands like Aerosmith who have been selling platinum
albums since the early seventies. I did not see the program. It was just
finishing as I came in but I really do think that Edward Van Halen being
excluded does seem a little strange. Van Halen sold lots of records over a long
period of time and Edward certainly changed guitar. Not just the tapping thing
or the Floyd Rose but up until this time you either played Fender or Gibson.
The only choice on a strat was hard tail or trem. Rosewood or Maple
fingerboard. Since EVH, the choice of strat style guitars exploded. He also had
a great sound.
Strange he was overlooked.
All the best.
Vinny.
Bad Ass
according
> to the guinness book of hit records. Are you sure that Back in Black sold
that
> many in one territory?
I think I'm right about Back in Black. It was a massive seller in the USA
and it's had 20 years to ratchet up the sales.
I'll go and check with a few AC/DC nuts for the exact stats.
That's why I was motivated to mention Angus for his exclusion. At least
Eddie got a mention, even though he's not a big enough seller for the C4
chart.
Phil Clarke
> >> ... I could have sworn we had a discussion a long while back
> >> where I was arguing that [Steve] shouldn't dismiss Marr. ....
> >
> >unless of course you actually made a decent argument and convinced him - surely
> >a world first for any newsgroup? :o)
>
> Eh?
Not refering to you personally Steve....
but if someone, say you, were in a newsgroup discussion and thought "thats a good
point, I stand corrected" this would be a world first, as noone has ever admitted to
having an opinion changed by any newsgroup anywhere.
[fx: limp smiley]
James Screaton
Hendrix is at the top, or did he sell shedloads ? For that matter, would
Jimmy Page be in the chart at all, if it were based on singles sales ?
I still think they must have selected who actually appeared, and they missed
obvious ones out. Perhaps they couldn't get enough film, or the rights to
include people like EVH etc.
Cheers
James
Julian May
"Andy Brooke" <an...@pingwin.nosppam.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:99knpt$d6n$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I think you'll find that the ratings for each guitar hero are based on
their
> chart success in the UK and USA hence the non-inclusion of the likes of
Jeff
> Beck.
Didn't see the prog (waiting for the video, Andy!), but I understand that
Gilmour was nowhere to be seen.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to remember DSotM in the charts for
about 100 years - hands up anyone here who does not or has not owned that
album??
> There does seem to have been some dubious decision making as to what
> constitutes a guitar hero though.
My definition? Someones whose playing inspires non-guitarist to air guitar.
Squillions of folk know every note, bend and harmonic in Sultans of Swing,
but don't ask them to play it.......
>I think a more worthy candidate than
> Johnny Marr could have been found
So JM would not qualify
>
> Andy
>
Just my 2p worth
Julian
Ian Spencer
"Julian May" <jm...@nospamplease.sol.co.uk> wrote in message
news:99nhi1$emf$1...@phys-ma.sol.co.uk...
>
> "Andy Brooke" <an...@pingwin.nosppam.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:99knpt$d6n$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > I think you'll find that the ratings for each guitar hero are based on
> their
> > chart success in the UK and USA hence the non-inclusion of the likes of
> Jeff
> > Beck.
>
> Didn't see the prog (waiting for the video, Andy!), but I understand that
> Gilmour was nowhere to be seen.
>
Bah! Beat me to it.
In the context of the programme, I was convinced that I was going to get a
great air-guitar to Comfortably Numb at the end of the programme.
But as others have said, it was an entertaining look at a number of
characters. I thought Richie B was great for standing up proud and saying he
was the mean sad git that everyone said he was over all those years. Plus
getting into a distinctly barmy phase of his career, and proud of it!
The world is a better place for the programme being shown than not IMO.
Ian
Rick Booth
> Apparantly, the programme was based on album sales and the like. Well, if
> thats the case, where was Richie Sambora ? Are you telling me that The
> Smiths sold more albums than Bon Jovi ? ... I don't think so
Probably not. By the same reasoning, where was George Harrison?
> Oh, I have just thought of another one too ... EVH ... Van Halen must have
> sold a sh?tload too. Top Tens are notorious for omitting "real" contenders,
> but I suppose its all a matter of taste.
They haven't sold all that many in .uk, though, have they? You had to be
successful on both sides of the pond, according to what they said. There
must also have been some pretty heavy opinion-based adjustment to get
Hendrix into number 1, but so what... it's all a bit of fun, no?
> PS. Noel Gallagher may not be everyones cup of tea, but surely he must have
> sold more albums than Johnny Marr too.
I hope not. The Smiths did sell quite well, y'know.
- rfb
--
richar...@umist.ac.uk http://www.ma.umist.ac.uk/rb/
A charmed kingdom: nobody answers the phone...
-- avb on Puerto Rico
Jose I. de las Heras
>
> Still, it was an entertaining show and one that I would have videoed if my
> VCR had not mysteriously stopped recording sound.
>
> Andy
Did it happen as Noel opened his mouth? then maybe yor VCR has developed
intelligence..
Jose
Brian Cullen
Adrian Clark <adr...@spaghetti-factory.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:1eqvi17.7az6mn1uwr7a6N%adr...@spaghetti-factory.co.uk..
.
> PJ <paula...@noads.wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
. So tell me, what ten guitarists did they pick?
>
>
> Adrian
>
> --
Not sure about the exact order but something like:
1 Jimi Hendrix - not altogether unexpected with Lulu giving
her side of the story
2 Eric Clapton - Jack Bruce with his Jazz Band comment
3 Jimmy Page - Violins at 50 pages
4 Hank Marvin - The Oh sh*t we've ordered a Strat instead
of a Tele
5 Pete Townsend - With a special guest appearance by Jim
Marshall
6 Brian May - and Mrs May- which was news to me plus his
dad/luthier
7 The Edge - I don't get out much
8 Carlos Santana - Who was utterly and completely Upminster
9 Ritchie Balackmore - What station is between Upminster and
Barking?
10 Johnny Marr - The only real surprise in those included
for me- fine playing though but
cheers
Brian
Rick Booth
> Seriously, though, I didn't see the programme - I was in Bruges for a
> bit of a pub crawl and faced with the choice of taping either "I love
> 1989" or the guitar heroes Top 10, the choice was all too painfully
> obvious. So tell me, what ten guitarists did they pick?
Yeah, if I'd have been going out I'd have taped "1989" also. Much more
entertaining, and complete with big Guns'n'Roses feature. Nice to see
that Slash is up to forming coherent sentences, both there and on the
Buzzcocks.
I don't remember the order, but they were
Johnny Marr
The Edge
Hank Marvin
Jimi Hendrix
Richie Blackmore
Jimmy Page
Eric Clapton
Carlos Santana
Pete Townsend
Brian May
There was also quite a bit of footage of EVH and Yngwie, especially the
latter, for his "penis extension? What penis extension?" poses...
Oh, and in terms of record sales and reinvigorating rock guitar, where
was Slash? The Les Paul would be history without him.
- rfb
--
Everyone understands Mickey Mouse. richar...@umist.ac.uk
Many understand Newton. http://www.ma.umist.ac.uk/rb/
A handful understand Einstein.
But nobody understands me.
Rick Booth
> it really bores the arse (exceedingly) off me when I read posts like "how
> come x wasn't in the top 10??? [add as many question/exclamation marks as
> you see fit] y sucks and x rules!!! oh, and z never did anything original in
> his life..."
Yeah, but this has been the busiest thread of the weekend, and has
contained some gold in amongst the other. This is supposed to be a
discussion group, after all, innit?
> yawn. thanks for your opinion, please drive through.
You have a kill-this-thread feature on your newsreader, don't you?
Usenet is unusable without one, imho.
Anyway, isn't the "this is boring and subjective" post just as
boring and predictable as the "how come..." posts?
> I'm not having a go at anyone, I just felt the need to vent forth on this
> tired subject. maybe I'm tired myself.
And nor am I having a go at you. I _am_ tired myself, too.
Q: How many mathematicians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: One. He gives it to six Californians, thereby reducing the problem
to the earlier joke.
Rick Booth
Phil Clarke <lux...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Joel Cooney wrote:
>
>> the trendy hendrix backlash seems to be in full effect right now.
It's trendy to not like Hendrix? Where are you living? Nowhere I've
been, I don't think. The cultural icons of the past are more revered now
than at any time I can remember.
> either that or people are hearing it for the first time and thinking "this
> doesnt live up to the hype". Like me.
Well, of course it doesn't. Neither (in my soon-to-be-flamed-crisp
opinion) do any of the other old classics. Cream, Led Zeppelin, the
Beatles, whatever. In Hendrix's case it's worsened by there being many
many _terrible_ live recordings on the market. It's also worsened by the
culturally all-powerful baby boomers getting excited about the music that
turned _them_ on; just as I can't listen objectively to 80s rock, people
a decade older can't listen objectively to Zeppelin, and a few years
older again it's the Beatles and Cream and the Stones.
For someone like me, who really started to notice music in about 1986,
are you going to get excited about Hendrix? Of course you aren't. When
you're looking back through the history of rock you get to Eddie first
(_Van Halen_ came out before I was in school; this stuff is history to
me!), and if you hear Eddie first Hendrix is not gonna grab you the same
way that he doubtless would have in 1969.
Clapton was apparently celebrated partly for his awesome technique, and
for the time he had that; in those days, the scary guys were in jazz and
country, not rock (and many of them still are). By the time I was
getting serious about the guitar, there were Paul Gilbert instructional
videos in the shops. This makes me much less likely to get excited about
Clapton's technique <grin>.
What we young 'uns have to remember is that these guys started the music
we listen to, and see them in context. Sure, Hendrix sounds like an
out-of-tune, low-technique Eddie without the tapping; the Stones sound
like a low-rent Aerosmith cover band; but without them, we wouldn't have
the stuff that we love. They invented rock, and that's all there is to
it.
I can't listen to Cream; it sounds like some guys at the local jam night
rehashing the same licks I'd heard a thousand times before, admittedly
pretty well. Even the knowledge that the licks were fresh then can't get
me past that blockage. The same is true about the sound; people talk
about the Bluesbreakers album as being a great sound, but put it next to
Eric Johnson and it sounds pretty average. Now, Johnson's sound and
playing are heavily influenced by Clapton and Hendrix, and that's how
this music gets passed on to the next generation. Just as the guitarists
of the 70s heard Howling Wolf and Robert Johnson filtered through in
Clapton and Hendrix, we hear them all filtered through Eddie, Steve,
Satriani and whoever else.
Even listening to, say, Van Halen I, compared to, say, Eat 'em and Smile,
the evolution in rock playing is quite clear. Things _don't_ stay the
same. I love EVH for his songs, his great rhythm playing, his feel; the
technique doesn't grab me much, simply because I heard Vai first, and
he'd already taken it further. Similarly, I can listen to Crosstown
Traffic and hear a great song, with some pretty sloppy guitar on it
(admittedly with loads of feel; I'm used to guitar with loads of feel
_and_ great technique). That's times a-changin'.
Standing on the shoulders of giants, and all that.
Does that mean you should listen to those giants? Maybe. Try it. Do
you like it? Then listen to it. Otherwise, don't. That's how it works,
innit? We don't expect every rock guitarist to have gone back and
listened to Howling Wolf and loved it; why should we expect that of
Hendrix?
Right. This was not a troll; please don't hurt me!
Don't act paranoid - it only attracts Their attention.
Adrian Clark
> but if someone, say you, were in a newsgroup discussion and thought "thats
> a good point, I stand corrected" this would be a world first, as noone has
> ever admitted to having an opinion changed by any newsgroup anywhere.
Au contraire! I used to think that Jarl Sigurd was the greatest shredder
of all time, but then Tzar Zaltan told me that he could easily outshred
Jarl...
(etc)
<g>
Adrian
Jonathan J Quick
news:oiJv6.31843$Q4.55...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> 1 Jimi Hendrix - not altogether unexpected with Lulu giving her side of
the story
> 2 Eric Clapton - Jack Bruce with his Jazz Band comment
> 3 Jimmy Page - Violins at 50 pages
> 4 Hank Marvin - The Oh sh*t we've ordered a Strat instead of a Tele
> 5 Pete Townsend - With a special guest appearance by Jim Marshall
> 6 Brian May - and Mrs May- which was news to me plus his dad/luthier
> 7 The Edge - I don't get out much
> 8 Carlos Santana - Who was utterly and completely Upminster
> 9 Ritchie Balackmore - What station is between Upminster and Barking?
> 10 Johnny Marr - The only real surprise in those included for me
It's all a bit 60s and 70s, with the token "newbie" thrown in just to show
the program compiler didn't actually die in '79... in terms of how each
individual has affected the guitar, I'd put Page right up there at the top
of the list probably with nice uncle Ritchie second, after all without Zep
and Purple the whole heavy rock/heavy metal shebang wouldn't have even
happened. As for Hendrix, a true guitar god but maybe you had to be there.
But where on earth was my hero Nigel Tufnell?
Jonathan
Home (+44) 01237 451033
Mobile (+44) 07715 849913
Email jona...@foxtrot.co.uk
Homepage www.foxtrot.co.uk
steve_cobham
(Adrian Clark) wrote:
><Steve> wrote:
>
>> The Smiths have an extensive back catalogue that some of their critics
>> might not have examined. In it there is a plethora of finely-crafted,
>> brilliantly produced (and JM knew his way round a studio as well as a
>> fretboard) guitar.
>
>Nice bunch of Smiths stuff in the latest Mojo - have you seen it yet?
Oh yes - and also looking forward to the forthcoming Patto article in
the same magazine.
>
>There's a lot of good, exciting, pathfinding stuff going on in the small
>"underground" scenes, but as far as big-exposure indie/alterna-pop goes,
>there's been nothing since the Smiths to match them. Possibly Blur...
>although not all of their output (IMO, at least) has quite the energy of
>the Smiths at their prime.
Well, in short, Blur haven't got a Morrisey.
Like him and/or loathe him (and you can do both - I know I do) you
can't deny his charisma with the Smiths, as well as some of the most
thought-provoking lyrics in the history of pop/rock.
He's nothing without Marr, though.
And vice-versa.
For a few years back then, we had the most significant team since
Lennon and McCartney.
Julian May
> Phil Clarke <lux...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > but if someone, say you, were in a newsgroup discussion and thought
"thats
> > a good point, I stand corrected" this would be a world first, as noone
has
> > ever admitted to having an opinion changed by any newsgroup anywhere.
>
> Au contraire! I used to think that Jarl Sigurd was the greatest shredder
> of all time, but then Tzar Zaltan told me that he could easily outshred
> Jarl...
>
> (etc)
>
> <g>
>
>
> Adrian
And they say the internet isn't educational......
;-p J
Rev. Andy
<ne...@foxtrot.co.uk> wrote:
Nige was there, a shame the list didn't go up to eleven.
Rev. Andy
Joel Cooney
Rick Booth <richar...@umist.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:99nqan$vbj$1...@maclin.ma.umist.ac.uk...
> Dammit. I appear to have had a Thought. Sorry!
>
> Phil Clarke <lux...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > Joel Cooney wrote:
> >
> >> the trendy hendrix backlash seems to be in full effect right now.
>
> It's trendy to not like Hendrix? Where are you living? Nowhere I've
> been, I don't think. The cultural icons of the past are more revered now
> than at any time I can remember.
Hmm I'd say a lot of the opposite:
Its' sort of part of the Stalinist-like musical revisionism thats been
happening over the last few years; folk decide that some group/person is too
popular to like & hence find someone obscure & rarely-heard of to proclaim
as their "fave".
Couple of years ago - Beatles were good, now Beatles=crap &
Lennon/McCartney=overrated according to the trendies. I'd imagine the same
thing is happening with Hendrix & co. Then it will go full circle & it will
be trendy to go against this opinion etc, etc...
> > either that or people are hearing it for the first time and thinking
"this
> > doesnt live up to the hype". Like me.
>
> Well, of course it doesn't. Neither (in my soon-to-be-flamed-crisp
> opinion) do any of the other old classics. Cream, Led Zeppelin, the
> Beatles, whatever. In Hendrix's case it's worsened by there being many
> many _terrible_ live recordings on the market.
Yes I'd agree there are some rather off ones available, particularly
bootlegs - HOWEVER - one just has to listen to something like The BBC
Sessions or watch the Woodstock performance... <lost for words>
> It's also worsened by the
> culturally all-powerful baby boomers getting excited about the music that
> turned _them_ on; just as I can't listen objectively to 80s rock, people
> a decade older can't listen objectively to Zeppelin, and a few years
> older again it's the Beatles and Cream and the Stones.
Hmmm I wouldn't say so...I'm 21 & a lot of folk my age - not all of them,
but a fair proportion - have at least a basic appreciation of the greats -
go into your typical Student Union & I'm sure there will be a copy of "Hot
Rocks" on the jukebox.
> For someone like me, who really started to notice music in about 1986,
> are you going to get excited about Hendrix? Of course you aren't. When
> you're looking back through the history of rock you get to Eddie first
> (_Van Halen_ came out before I was in school; this stuff is history to
> me!), and if you hear Eddie first Hendrix is not gonna grab you the same
> way that he doubtless would have in 1969.
'Tis the opposite for me mate. I'd say I find it hard to get excited about
the 80's rocker sound. To me it sounds like all technique/ no heart. I can
appreciate Van Halen, Vai & Satriani for having great technique, but
listening to it just for pleasure leaves me cold. It sounds like technical
playing as a means to itself; it doesn't feel as expressive to me as ( off
the top of my head) Clapton's playing on "Sitting on Top of the World",
where you can practically hear the blood seeping out of his heartbroken
guitar... ( over dramatic description or what). But I find the 80's stuff
sort of ruined guitar music in that sense - folk got fed up of fretwankery &
started taking ecstacy instead.... ah well.
SNIP
> I can't listen to Cream; it sounds like some guys at the local jam night
> rehashing the same licks I'd heard a thousand times before, admittedly
> pretty well. Even the knowledge that the licks were fresh then can't get
> me past that blockage.
My condolences....<sigh>
SNIP
> Even listening to, say, Van Halen I, compared to, say, Eat 'em and Smile,
> the evolution in rock playing is quite clear. Things _don't_ stay the
> same. I love EVH for his songs, his great rhythm playing, his feel; the
> technique doesn't grab me much, simply because I heard Vai first, and
> he'd already taken it further. Similarly, I can listen to Crosstown
> Traffic and hear a great song, with some pretty sloppy guitar on it
> (admittedly with loads of feel; I'm used to guitar with loads of feel
> _and_ great technique). That's times a-changin'.
SNIP
In a sense I can understand where you are coming from - i.e. that things
change & its a good thing - as a caveat to that I think its right that we
don't forget that a good song is still a good song, no matter what light you
view it in. "Rock around the clock" maybe 40+ years old, but its still a
good tune.
Thing I like about the 60's stuff is the honesty of it all.... they had the
same basic guitars, some old amps & very few effects but still managed to
make it sound terrific... I wonder if the players you have cited would still
sound as good if you took their effects boxes & their expensive
guitars-made-by-blind-himalayan-monks away from them....
Rob
>
> > There does seem to have been some dubious decision making as to what
> > constitutes a guitar hero though.
>
> My definition? Someones whose playing inspires non-guitarist to air
guitar.
> Squillions of folk know every note, bend and harmonic in Sultans of Swing,
> but don't ask them to play it.......
>
>
> >I think a more worthy candidate than
> > Johnny Marr could have been found
>
> So JM would not qualify
Why the anti JM stance? I bought my first guitar because of Marr's playing.
IMHO he's more inventive, versatile and original than almost any of the
obvious Rock/Blues alternatives mentioned. He can do metal, listen to the
queen is dead LP for evidence, if that is all that impresses...
Also, surely Scotty Moore could have been listed. How many picked up a
guitar because of Elvis?
Jonathan J Quick
news:n8Lv6.32151$Q4.56...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> > I can't listen to Cream; it sounds like some guys at the local jam night
> > rehashing the same licks I'd heard a thousand times before, admittedly
> > pretty well. Even the knowledge that the licks were fresh then can't
get
> > me past that blockage.
> My condolences....<sigh>
Actually Cream are a bit unique here... I never understood what all the fuss
was about, even in the late 60s when I was exactly the age to be impressed
by an over-hyped, manufactured "supergroup" which is precisely what they
were. Ok they could all play and Clapton was getting new (well new-ish)
guitar sounds, but the music was singularly uninspired even to my young
ears. Mind you the 3-piece format really only worked for Hendrix and Rory
Gallagher. But when people like Zeppelin came along, no-one had to tell you
to like them, the music just "did it" for you...
Joel Cooney
Jonathan J Quick <ne...@foxtrot.co.uk> wrote in message
news:99o107$1v4dt$1...@ID-76383.news.dfncis.de...
> "Joel Cooney" <jco...@NOSPAMntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:n8Lv6.32151$Q4.56...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> >
> > > I can't listen to Cream; it sounds like some guys at the local jam
night
> > > rehashing the same licks I'd heard a thousand times before, admittedly
> > > pretty well. Even the knowledge that the licks were fresh then can't
> get
> > > me past that blockage.
> > My condolences....<sigh>
>
> Actually Cream are a bit unique here... I never understood what all the
fuss
> was about, even in the late 60s when I was exactly the age to be impressed
> by an over-hyped, manufactured "supergroup" which is precisely what they
> were. Ok they could all play and Clapton was getting new (well new-ish)
> guitar sounds, but the music was singularly uninspired even to my young
> ears. Mind you the 3-piece format really only worked for Hendrix and Rory
> Gallagher. But when people like Zeppelin came along, no-one had to tell
you
> to like them, the music just "did it" for you...
Hmm... fair doos mate... but for me I think they are pretty amazing,
particularly the live recordings... I really love the long periods of
blues-rock improvisation; some moments something like "Spoonful" are some of
the greatest moments in rock. Ginger Baker was easily one of the best rock
drummers of the time ( along side Keith Moon & Mitch Mitchell), Clapton
really wailed on the guitar & as for Jack Bruce...well he inspires me
personally in several ways:
a) as a fellow scot
b)as a great singer
c)as a fantastic, highly inventive bass player.
So theres your dinner, as they say round my way. <grins>
As for Rory Gallacher... I love "Taste" but in a sense I don't think they
suceeded in the same way that The Experience or Cream did. I've been
considering having a look at his true solo stuff, would you have any
particular recommendations?
Julian May
>
> Why the anti JM stance? I bought my first guitar because of Marr's
playing.
> IMHO he's more inventive, versatile and original than almost any of the
> obvious Rock/Blues alternatives mentioned. He can do metal, listen to the
> queen is dead LP for evidence, if that is all that impresses...
I am not anti-JM. I just do not think he qualifies as a guitar hero. All
round ace guitarist, yes. Inspirational for air guitarists, no.
>
> Also, surely Scotty Moore could have been listed. How many picked up a
> guitar because of Elvis?
>
>
Completely agree - another ommission.
Top 1000 guitar greats, anyone? (and i I bet we still argue that some folk
have been missed ;-P)
Cheers
Julian
BURNSV930
<feed...@assmaster.com> writes:
>I think I'm right about Back in Black. It was a massive seller in the USA
>and it's had 20 years to ratchet up the sales.
>
>I'll go and check with a few AC/DC nuts for the exact stats.
You may be right. If you are, that is a fantastic number of units for one
territory.
All the best.
Vinny.
BURNSV930
Cooney" <jco...@NOSPAMntlworld.com> writes:
>I wonder if the players you have cited would still
>sound as good if you took their effects boxes & their expensive
>guitars-made-by-blind-himalayan-monks away from them....
EVH did not sound too bad on Spanish Fly :-).
All the best.
Vinny.
Rev. Andy
<ne...@foxtrot.co.uk> wrote:
> "Joel Cooney" <jco...@NOSPAMntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:n8Lv6.32151$Q4.56...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> >
> > > I can't listen to Cream; it sounds like some guys at the local jam night
> > > rehashing the same licks I'd heard a thousand times before, admittedly
> > > pretty well. Even the knowledge that the licks were fresh then can't
> get
> > > me past that blockage.
> > My condolences....<sigh>
>
> Actually Cream are a bit unique here... I never understood what all the fuss
> was about, even in the late 60s when I was exactly the age to be impressed
> by an over-hyped, manufactured "supergroup" which is precisely what they
> were. Ok they could all play and Clapton was getting new (well new-ish)
> guitar sounds, but the music was singularly uninspired even to my young
> ears. Mind you the 3-piece format really only worked for Hendrix and Rory
> Gallagher. But when people like Zeppelin came along, no-one had to tell you
> to like them, the music just "did it" for you...
Speaking as someone who still does listen to Cream I find it's the
songs that still work, the playing is great, sure, but the way the
things are put together is wonderful. Listen to their singles and
they're a great pop band.
And, as well, the solo on Crossroads is the defining moment for guitar.
Rev. Andy
steve_cobham
I thought Noel made one of the more astute comments of the whole deal
- something about the guitar just being "a piece of fuckin' wood with
strings" and then clarifying this with saying that it was just a tool.
I agree.
Much as I like drooling over guitars and pictures of them.
steve_cobham
wrote:
>I can't listen to Cream; it sounds like some guys at the local jam night
>rehashing the same licks I'd heard a thousand times before, admittedly
>pretty well. Even the knowledge that the licks were fresh then can't get
>me past that blockage.
I strongly urge you to get the Klook's Kleek live boot. Recorded at a
'66 gig, Clapton plays a version of "Steppin' Out" which is some of
the most exhuberant and free blowing blues playing I've ever heard and
with a few tricks that might be worth picking up even today.
I don't know what he was on or where his head was at that night, but
he's never played like that before or since.
>The same is true about the sound; people talk
>about the Bluesbreakers album as being a great sound, but put it next to
>Eric Johnson and it sounds pretty average.
Whoa there!
Clapton's sound on that album largely defined the sound of rock guitar
for the next 35 years.
It may sound pretty average to some - although it still remains my
favourite (sweet and sour with a real edge) - but it remains the
cornerstone of modern day guitar tone.
Whilst we're at it, let us not underestimate the almost equally
wide-ranging influence of Mike Bloomfield on the other side of the
Atlantic at round about the same time.
With Clapton mainly influencing heavy rock and Bloomfield the more
freeform - psychedelic if you like - side of things, those two guys
had it all mapped out for later players.
Adrian Clark
> He can do metal, listen to the
> queen is dead LP for evidence, if that is all that impresses...
I'm totally with you on Johnny Marr, but where's the "metal" bit on "The
Queen is Dead"?
Adrian Clark
> >I wonder if the players you have cited would still
> >sound as good if you took their effects boxes & their expensive
> >guitars-made-by-blind-himalayan-monks away from them....
>
> EVH did not sound too bad on Spanish Fly :-).
Agreed; you can't really bring EVH into the old "it's all studio
trickery" argument, can you? What about the entire first album -
slapped-together guitar, Marshall amp and the occasional MXR Phase 90.
Guitar on the left, reverb on the right... POW!
Adrian Clark
> Its' sort of part of the Stalinist-like musical revisionism thats been
> happening over the last few years; folk decide that some group/person is too
> popular to like & hence find someone obscure & rarely-heard of to proclaim
> as their "fave".
However, the good news... it's *very* easy to ignore all this stuff.
Just don't read shit music magazines or watch MTV. To be honest, I
wouldn't know what the latest revisionist line is at the moment; I just
get on with listening to what I fancy - new or old.
I thought Rick's argument about a player's relevance in relation to the
age of the listener was particularly interesting and, in many cases,
apt. For me, though, it's flawed (I mean it's flawed in relation to my
personal experience)... I've always found it fascinating to delve back
into a player's influences, discovering new (and sometimes "better")
players who are under-represented in the current TV and press.
clive.murray (at work)
> BURNSV930 <burn...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >I wonder if the players you have cited would still
> > >sound as good if you took their effects boxes & their expensive
> > >guitars-made-by-blind-himalayan-monks away from them....
> >
> > EVH did not sound too bad on Spanish Fly :-).
>
> Agreed; you can't really bring EVH into the old "it's all studio
> trickery" argument, can you? What about the entire first album -
> slapped-together guitar, Marshall amp and the occasional MXR Phase 90.
> Guitar on the left, reverb on the right... POW!
and several songs done live with no overdubs... (not all of them, but some -
apparently eddie wasn't comfortable with overdubbing, or didn't really *get*
the concept... ;-])
--c.
Rick Booth
> Rick Booth <richar...@umist.ac.uk> wrote:
>> It's trendy to not like Hendrix? Where are you living? Nowhere I've
>> been, I don't think. The cultural icons of the past are more revered now
>> than at any time I can remember.
>
> Hmm I'd say a lot of the opposite:
>
> Its' sort of part of the Stalinist-like musical revisionism thats been
> happening over the last few years; folk decide that some group/person is too
> popular to like & hence find someone obscure & rarely-heard of to proclaim
> as their "fave".
Surely this is the concept on which the NME was founded?
> Couple of years ago - Beatles were good, now Beatles=crap &
> Lennon/McCartney=overrated according to the trendies. I'd imagine the same
> thing is happening with Hendrix & co. Then it will go full circle & it will
> be trendy to go against this opinion etc, etc...
And I say again, where are you living? Not round here. Of course, I'm
in a university and thus surrounded by students, who are much more than
averagelky inclined to go back and listen to the classics.
>> Well, of course it doesn't. Neither (in my soon-to-be-flamed-crisp
>> opinion) do any of the other old classics. Cream, Led Zeppelin, the
>> Beatles, whatever. In Hendrix's case it's worsened by there being many
>> many _terrible_ live recordings on the market.
>
> Yes I'd agree there are some rather off ones available, particularly
> bootlegs - HOWEVER - one just has to listen to something like The BBC
> Sessions or watch the Woodstock performance... <lost for words>
I didn't say there weren't any good ones. Woodstock is certainly
magnificent showmanship, and hugely influential, and there's some pretty
good playing on it too. Inevitably, he's out of tune for quite a lot of
it, but it's hardly his fault he didn't have a Floyd <grin>.
>> It's also worsened by the culturally all-powerful baby boomers getting
>> excited about the music that turned _them_ on; just as I can't listen
>> objectively to 80s rock, people a decade older can't listen objectively
>> to Zeppelin, and a few years older again it's the Beatles and Cream and
>> the Stones.
>
> Hmmm I wouldn't say so...I'm 21 & a lot of folk my age - not all of them,
> but a fair proportion - have at least a basic appreciation of the greats -
> go into your typical Student Union & I'm sure there will be a copy of "Hot
> Rocks" on the jukebox.
As I said above, yes, indeed there will. And you being 21 and liking the
oldies in what way contradicts my claim that people who were there at the
time are going to have a hard time being objective about it? I didn't
say young people can't like that stuff, just the older people almost
certainly do.
Note: I am not calling 40-year-olds not young! Calm down...
> 'Tis the opposite for me mate. I'd say I find it hard to get excited
> about the 80's rocker sound. To me it sounds like all technique/ no
> heart. I can appreciate Van Halen, Vai & Satriani for having great
> technique, but listening to it just for pleasure leaves me cold. It
> sounds like technical playing as a means to itself;
[snip for interjection]
This is a surprisingly common claim. If you can't hear the emotion,
feel, etc in, say,. _For the Love of God_, well, that's a shame. What
are you hearing? Not the same music I am. Are you hearing
preconceptions, or does the technique distract you from the feel? It's
there.
> But I find the 80's stuff sort of ruined guitar music in that sense -
> folk got fed up of fretwankery & started taking ecstacy instead.... ah
> well.
80s guitar music never really got played in .uk anyway, outside the
dedicated rock shows. It had a good long run in .us, until largely
replaced with grunge - guitar music there never died.
>> I can't listen to Cream; it sounds like some guys at the local jam night
>> rehashing the same licks I'd heard a thousand times before, admittedly
>> pretty well. Even the knowledge that the licks were fresh then can't get
>> me past that blockage.
>
> My condolences....<sigh>
And mine on your inability to appreciate the guitar music of your youth.
It's beyond me how people can slag 80s rock as mindless noodling while
listening to the kind of overindulgent blues jams that Clapton
perpetrated in the late 60s (which are kind of fuf, sometimes, but
still...).
> In a sense I can understand where you are coming from - i.e. that things
> change & its a good thing - as a caveat to that I think its right that we
> don't forget that a good song is still a good song, no matter what light you
> view it in. "Rock around the clock" maybe 40+ years old, but its still a
> good tune.
Well, of course it it. So is "Running with the Devil", twenty-odd years
on.
> Thing I like about the 60's stuff is the honesty of it all.... they had the
> same basic guitars, some old amps & very few effects but still managed to
> make it sound terrific...
As opposed to, say, Eddie with his Marshall, or Eric Johnson with his
Marshalls and Fenders, or Vai and Satriani (or Hendrix) with an overdrive
into the front of a Marshall?
> I wonder if the players you have cited would still sound as good if you
> took their effects boxes & their expensive
> guitars-made-by-blind-himalayan-monks away from them....
As Vinnie pointed out, consider Spanish Fly, or the early VH stuff with a
homemade guitar and an old Marshall. Are you saying that, say, a Jem
sounds better than a Les Paul or a Strat? I'm an Ibanez fanboy, and I
wouldn't argue that.
And yes, of course they would. Would Clapton still have sounded good without
his classic valve amps and incredibly-collectable guitars? Yes. Tone's
mainly in the hands; Clapton, Vai, Satriani, whoever, it's the vibrato
that makes them sound the way they do.
The reason that every major university maintains a department of
mathematics is that it's cheaper than institutionalizing us all.
Rick Booth
> However, the good news... it's *very* easy to ignore all this stuff.
> Just don't read shit music magazines or watch MTV. To be honest, I
> wouldn't know what the latest revisionist line is at the moment; I just
> get on with listening to what I fancy - new or old.
Absolutely. Which as I said at the end of my rantette, is exactly the
way one should choose one's listening.
> I thought Rick's argument about a player's relevance in relation to the
> age of the listener was particularly interesting and, in many cases,
> apt.
Why thank you <blush>.
> For me, though, it's flawed (I mean it's flawed in relation to my
> personal experience)... I've always found it fascinating to delve back
> into a player's influences, discovering new (and sometimes "better")
> players who are under-represented in the current TV and press.
As I replied in Joel's reply to me, I didn't deny that at all. What I
did say was that you're not going to be as startled and inspired by
Hendrix until and unless you see him in his historical perspective. I
stand by that.
And yeah, AOL with the influences thing. I'd never have listened to
Zappa without Vai leading me to him, or to Mike Keneally for that matter.
I went out and bought the DLR-era van halen albums when I was getting
serious about the guitar, because people kept namechecking him as a big
influence. In fact, my main feeling on getting "1984" home was curiosity
to hear the guy who Steve had replaced <grin>. Now I love early Van
Halen. Allan Holdsworth is another guy; I'd not have heard him until
much later if Reb Beach hadn't mentioned him in an interview. Wes
Montgomery; what a revelation! And the list goes on. There are other
names to be added to it; I don't have any Al Di Meola yet, I'm a
Steve Morse fan with no Dregs albums (recommendations, anyone?), and many
many more... which is why Amazon send me Christmas presents!
I listen to the Cream and the Beatles and the Stones and what have you
from time to time; partly because the music shines through the
often-primitive production, but mainly because I want to understand the
music that I love. They aren't the music that I love; these are the
roots that it springs from, and that's important to me. But the people
who say, for example, you can't be a good guitar player without studying
Hendrix, well, that's crap.
And as for the people who believe that music ended in '69, or '79, or
whatever; fine. _That's_ the trendy, media-pushed view, as far as I can
see, and it's simply wrong.
Your fighting style smells of Gorgonzola! Now I go to battle She-Bot
Scantily-X! -- Torg, in Sluggy Freelance
Joel Cooney
> Joel Cooney <jco...@nospamntlworld.com> wrote:
> > Rick Booth <richar...@umist.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> It's trendy to not like Hendrix? Where are you living? Nowhere I've
> >> been, I don't think. The cultural icons of the past are more revered
now
> >> than at any time I can remember.
> >
> > Hmm I'd say a lot of the opposite:
> >
> > Its' sort of part of the Stalinist-like musical revisionism thats been
> > happening over the last few years; folk decide that some group/person is
too
> > popular to like & hence find someone obscure & rarely-heard of to
proclaim
> > as their "fave".
>
> Surely this is the concept on which the NME was founded?
<grinz> good point... I hate that fucking magazine.
>
> > Couple of years ago - Beatles were good, now Beatles=crap &
> > Lennon/McCartney=overrated according to the trendies. I'd imagine the
same
> > thing is happening with Hendrix & co. Then it will go full circle & it
will
> > be trendy to go against this opinion etc, etc...
>
> And I say again, where are you living? Not round here. Of course, I'm
> in a university and thus surrounded by students, who are much more than
> averagelky inclined to go back and listen to the classics.
Yeh... I'm not saying this is everyones' viewpoint mind, just fairly vocal
percentage of the posters on some of my university-specific newsgroups. I
come from Glasgow & there's a very strong bias towards electronic &
sequencer-only music - therefore guitar music is old & crap, apparently.
Sometimes if you say you like a particular band its as you are somehow
"flawed" for not understanding how rubbish they are.
> >> Well, of course it doesn't. Neither (in my soon-to-be-flamed-crisp
> >> opinion) do any of the other old classics. Cream, Led Zeppelin, the
> >> Beatles, whatever. In Hendrix's case it's worsened by there being many
> >> many _terrible_ live recordings on the market.
> >
> > Yes I'd agree there are some rather off ones available, particularly
> > bootlegs - HOWEVER - one just has to listen to something like The BBC
> > Sessions or watch the Woodstock performance... <lost for words>
>
> I didn't say there weren't any good ones. Woodstock is certainly
> magnificent showmanship, and hugely influential, and there's some pretty
> good playing on it too. Inevitably, he's out of tune for quite a lot of
> it, but it's hardly his fault he didn't have a Floyd <grin>.
Hehe... as I said to someone else on the group "only cowboys stay in tune"
<grin> [P.S. I don't necessarily agree with this!]
SNIP
> > Hmmm I wouldn't say so...I'm 21 & a lot of folk my age - not all of
them,
> > but a fair proportion - have at least a basic appreciation of the
greats -
> > go into your typical Student Union & I'm sure there will be a copy of
"Hot
> > Rocks" on the jukebox.
>
> As I said above, yes, indeed there will. And you being 21 and liking the
> oldies in what way contradicts my claim that people who were there at the
> time are going to have a hard time being objective about it? I didn't
> say young people can't like that stuff, just the older people almost
> certainly do.
Its strange, some old folk assume that cause I'm young I won't like or have
heard of old stuff & therefore can't appreciate it.
> Note: I am not calling 40-year-olds not young! Calm down...
>
> > 'Tis the opposite for me mate. I'd say I find it hard to get excited
> > about the 80's rocker sound. To me it sounds like all technique/ no
> > heart. I can appreciate Van Halen, Vai & Satriani for having great
> > technique, but listening to it just for pleasure leaves me cold. It
> > sounds like technical playing as a means to itself;
>
> [snip for interjection]
>
> This is a surprisingly common claim. If you can't hear the emotion,
> feel, etc in, say,. _For the Love of God_, well, that's a shame. What
> are you hearing? Not the same music I am. Are you hearing
> preconceptions, or does the technique distract you from the feel? It's
> there.
Who was that by & off what... I think I ought to confess a true lack of
knowledge in this field. I have a friend who is a big Satriani fan who has
sat me down on many occasions & tried to endear me to the music (an album
with what looks like the silver surfer on the cover & another one with him
holding a rather tasty, if cheezily painted, Ibanez) but I just can't get a
feel for it. Maybe its the 80's style over-production, the sheer ridiculous
number of notes he plays, or the over-the-top nature of it but I can't
connect with the music. The rock stuff reminds me of the music they'd play
at the party scenes in 80's teen horror films, the quiet harmonics stuff
reminds me of those "moods" relaxation CDs they sell in giftshops.
Similarly with Vai, although he is more out & out RAWK.... Devils' Guitarist
in "Crossroads" if I recall ?
>
> > But I find the 80's stuff sort of ruined guitar music in that sense -
> > folk got fed up of fretwankery & started taking ecstacy instead.... ah
> > well.
>
> 80s guitar music never really got played in .uk anyway, outside the
> dedicated rock shows. It had a good long run in .us, until largely
> replaced with grunge - guitar music there never died.#
What about folk like Iron Maiden & Def Lepard? I seem to remember them.
> >> I can't listen to Cream; it sounds like some guys at the local jam
night
> >> rehashing the same licks I'd heard a thousand times before, admittedly
> >> pretty well. Even the knowledge that the licks were fresh then can't
get
> >> me past that blockage.
> >
> > My condolences....<sigh>
>
> And mine on your inability to appreciate the guitar music of your youth.
That was very patronising of me, I apologise. But I would recommend some of
the live material for persual. Its VERY loose, but the telepathy-like link
between the three playing together is compelling listening. Thats what I
like about it, each player really excells in his own field & the combination
of it all really blows me away.
The music of my youth? Yes I guess.. I was pretty young & I grew up around
that kind of stuff. My parents where 60's kids so I guess a lot of influence
comes from that direction.
> It's beyond me how people can slag 80s rock as mindless noodling while
> listening to the kind of overindulgent blues jams that Clapton
> perpetrated in the late 60s (which are kind of fuf, sometimes, but
> still...).
Och.. I don't know its somehow different for me... :-) & I wasn't slagging
80s rock as such. It doesn't really appeal to my sensibilities, but I'd be
naive in saying "All 80's rock is rubbish". I can think of a number of
guitarists who played during hte 80s that I think are pretty good, not many,
but a few e.g. Brian May & Slash, The Edge etc, etc however having listened
to some Satriani & Vai records I just can't make the vital connection.
I suppose it depends on the definition of art in general. Its interesting
that my friend who like Vai & Satriani is more interested in technique &
details in art in general - he prefers paintings which are "good" &
"conventional". I tend to prefer the more modern & abstract 20th century
stuff which he can't stand. Maybe this is similar to you? Perhaps its the
fine appreciation of detail which provides the enjoyment & the knowledge
well-crafted & executed music.
SNIP
I'm not trying been trying to flame btw, aside from the "condolenses"
comment ;-). I guess if you come from a position of some ignorance, its not
really possible to have a decent argument. Are there any Van Halen albums
you'd recommend, given what you've said about the early stuff. I've heard
that the stuff of "1984" isn't particularly representative of the output.
Maybe thats part of it, I grew up with "Jump" & "Beat It" & thats coloured
my opinion of him.
Phil Clarke
> However, the good news... it's *very* easy to ignore all this stuff.
> Just don't read shit music magazines or watch MTV. To be honest, I
> wouldn't know what the latest revisionist line is at the moment; I just
> get on with listening to what I fancy - new or old.
I dont know if its *that* easy ....
I'm sort-of-lucky, I sailed through my teens without adopting a favourite sound so
now I like everything (except country and hard-core rap). I dont read Melody
Maker or The Face or NME etc ....
all I know about Jimmy Hendrix is he was famous, had that rock star look, played
at Woodstock and died young. I can name / recognise maybe 4 or 5 of his songs.
So how come I *knew* he'd be #1 on a chart of guitar heroes despite my complete
ignorance of his work and contribution?
Phil
Jose I. de las Heras
>
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 16:40:39 +0100, "Jose I. de las Heras"
> <jose.de...@hgu.mrc.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >Andy Brooke wrote:
> >>
> >> Still, it was an entertaining show and one that I would have videoed if my
> >> VCR had not mysteriously stopped recording sound.
> >>
> >> Andy
> >
> >Did it happen as Noel opened his mouth? then maybe yor VCR has developed
> >intelligence..
>
> I thought Noel made one of the more astute comments of the whole deal
> - something about the guitar just being "a piece of fuckin' wood with
> strings" and then clarifying this with saying that it was just a tool.
>
> I agree.
>
> Much as I like drooling over guitars and pictures of them.
>
> Steve.
I must admit I missed that comment... I guess even he makes mistakes
sometimes and says something that makes sense... ;-)
(alright alright, so I don't like the guy... :)
Jose
Jose I. de las Heras
>
> Phil Clarke <lux...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > but if someone, say you, were in a newsgroup discussion and thought "thats
> > a good point, I stand corrected" this would be a world first, as noone has
> > ever admitted to having an opinion changed by any newsgroup anywhere.
>
> Au contraire! I used to think that Jarl Sigurd was the greatest shredder
> of all time, but then Tzar Zaltan told me that he could easily outshred
> Jarl...
>
> (etc)
>
> <g>
>
> Adrian
Just add a certain "Carlginger", and you get the perfect cocktail...
...molotov?
Jose
steve_cobham
<an...@dance.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Speaking as someone who still does listen to Cream I find it's the
>songs that still work, the playing is great, sure, but the way the
>things are put together is wonderful. Listen to their singles and
>they're a great pop band.
Hmmm.........
Let's see what their singles were - with B sides (largely) ignored.
1) Wrapping Paper - I remember buying this after waiting to hear what
Cream were going to be like having entered the "Clapton is God" phase
of my life with the Beano album.
Disappointed couldn't begin to describe it. A quick listen to the B
side reassured me, but couldn't get rid of my dreadful memories of the
A side. We used to sing it as "Crapping Paper" - I was only 15 at the
time. I'd probably still sing that if it came out tomorrow
though......
2) I Feel Free - now this was more like it. I read the review in
Melody Maker - Chris Welch wrote it and waffled on about a theremin
sound - actually the piano "morse code" motif.
Great solo and production. A killer single and their best IMO.
Clapton says more in that brief solo than any 16 minute live version
of Spoonful ever did.
3) Strange Brew - back to album tracks......I first heard this on the
coach on the way to see Cream (and also Hendrix, the Move, and the
Floyd) at Spalding. It sounded OK to me back then, but now it seems a
pretty pedestrian 12 bar with a recycled Albert King solo. The only
redeeming feature is the production which is very "ambient".
4) Sunshine Of Your Love - OK, I suppose. Again, Clapton's solo played
with the same variety of microtonal bends that mark his greatest solos
IMO - of which more later. I also liked the "Blue Moon" quote in the
solo. Another album track......
5) Anyone For Tennis - Crapping Paper revisited....... Again, profound
disappointment with Cream not playing to their strengths. Disposable
and even Cream didn't like it by all accounts. Ever seen the video of
them miming to this with tennis rackets? Talk about looking pissed
off!
6) White Room - great, but it was on Wheels Of Fire already released
some 5 months before.
So, that's it, apart from "posthumous" releases of songs also
available on the back catalogue albums and the Fresh Cream version of
Spoonful split between the A and B sides of a November 1967 single
release - although I wasn't aware of it at the time. Anyway, it was
already available.
So, six singles released during their "lifetime", and only one classic
IMO - I Feel Free.
Now, back to those microtonal bends.
Very early on in Cream's career, Clapton started to develop a very
radical and innovative style.
This can be heard to best effect on I Feel Free, Sweet Wine, Sunshine
Of Your Love and I'm So Glad.
Three of those were recorded during the sessions for the Fresh Cream
debut album.
The four tracks represent an attempt by Clapton to break out of the
blues cliche mould and show the staggering variety of bends that gave
his playing a real "voice".
Apart from these four tracks, nothing but empty blues posturing -
exciting - occasionally incandescent - in the case of live versions
(which never displayed "those bends" in quite the same way) but still
cliche-riddled.
The only exception I've heard is that Klook's Kleek version of
Steppin' Out which I've mentioned a few times here before.
Freewheeling playing in a blues format but largely devoid of cliche.
Yes, for a brief time in 1966 there Clapton really was on the verge of
something new and exciting. If only he'd been able to blow that way
live on the often over-extended versions of those songs.
Instead he lapsed back into the pentatonic and merely recycled his
work with Mayall. Apart from maybe the Edge Of Darkness theme, he's
stayed there ever since.
>
>And, as well, the solo on Crossroads is the defining moment for guitar.
It's still one of my all-time favourite pieces of guitar playing ever,
but I'm just too aware of its cliches to put its appeal to me down to
anything other than sheer excitement.
OK, things don't have to be totally radical to be great - there are
plenty of examples of classic cliches on the guitar that still get me
excited - whether they're old or modern, but to combine the two
elements - innovation *and* feel (excitement, soul, call it what you
will) is the mark of a great player IMO.
Who does that?
To me, Jeff Beck is a good example. To take Brush With The Blues from
his Who Else album you have a pretty mundane format, not much going on
from anyone else apart from a framework, but, over the top, you get a
blues played with feel and with some attempt to not just pump out the
pentatonic licks that are suggested by the format.
That *could* be Clapton also going out there and trying to do
something new - that it isn't is the greatest disappointment of my
guitar-loving life.
Brian Cullen
> Adrian Clark wrote:
> > Adrian
>
> Just add a certain "Carlginger", and you get the perfect
cocktail...
>
> ...molotov?
>
> Jose
Hi Jose
Is he still around or what ? It's ages since I looked in
over there and I don't think I could cope with even a peek
now - but that doesn't stop me being just a little bit
curious ;-)
Brian
Adrian Clark
> And as for the people who believe that music ended in '69, or '79, or
> whatever; fine. _That's_ the trendy, media-pushed view, as far as I can
> see, and it's simply wrong.
I'll drink to that!
Rob
> Rob <x...@abc.net> wrote:
>
> > He can do metal, listen to the
> > queen is dead LP for evidence, if that is all that impresses...
>
> I'm totally with you on Johnny Marr, but where's the "metal" bit on "The
> Queen is Dead"?
>
>
> Adrian
You got me! I dug out my smiths collection earlier. and...
There's some fairly heavy playing on Meat is Murder (what she said) but it
isn't as heavy as I remember it.
I guess my sensibilities were more easily offended by rock as a callow
youth.
Imagine how I felt the first time I saw Marr with a Les Paul...
there was some beautiful playing on those old LPs though, specially QID and
The Smiths...
Adrian Clark
> > However, the good news... it's *very* easy to ignore all this stuff.
> > Just don't read shit music magazines or watch MTV. To be honest, I
> > wouldn't know what the latest revisionist line is at the moment; I just
> > get on with listening to what I fancy - new or old.
>
> I dont know if its *that* easy ....
Well, okay... I might have painted an idealistic picture. It does take a
certain amount of effort to develop your own independent musical
tastes, especially for kids nowadays with all the multimedia marketing
shite they get bombarded with. However, it's possible.
> I'm sort-of-lucky, I sailed through my teens without adopting a favourite
> sound so now I like everything (except country and hard-core rap). I dont
> read Melody
> Maker or The Face or NME etc ....
You sound very much like me, although I was snobbishly anti-current-pop
as a teenager. I'd give just about anything else a try, though.
> all I know about Jimmy Hendrix is he was famous, had that rock star look,
> aplayed t Woodstock and died young. I can name / recognise maybe 4 or 5
> aof his songs.
>
> So how come I *knew* he'd be #1 on a chart of guitar heroes despite my
> complete ignorance of his work and contribution?
Well, although I said you can ignore the accepted norms to the extent of
not feeling obliged to join in, you're always going to be aware of them.
In fact, I'd say it's important to know what's out there, even if you
choose not to listen to it. I'm proud to be able to recognize songs by
Steps and Britney. Know your enemy, etc.
As for Hendrix, I've worshipped his playing since I was 14 (nothing to
do with trendy media spoonfeeding... he was about as likely to get a
mention in the popular rock press back in 1983 as the Tygers of Pan Tang
are nowadays) so it seems perfectly right to me that C4 had him at
number 1.
steve_cobham
(Adrian Clark) wrote:
>Rick Booth <richar...@umist.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> And as for the people who believe that music ended in '69, or '79, or
>> whatever; fine. _That's_ the trendy, media-pushed view, as far as I can
>> see, and it's simply wrong.
>
>I'll drink to that!
And I'll have a pint or six with you if we're toasting that
sentiment.......
Strangely enough, I'm sitting here listening to a very "contemporary"
album and enjoying every (almost) guitarless soaked moment of it.
It's "Felt Mountain" by Goldfrapp.
Reminds me of "Exit Music" by t'Head in places - has that same sort of
European, Cold War Berlin, melancholic vibe.
So appropriate as I sit here watching a wet March day just dissolve
into the evening......
Slashed wrists anyone? ;-)
Rick Booth
>> Surely this is the concept on which the NME was founded?
>
> <grinz> good point... I hate that fucking magazine.
I just ignore it, me.
> Yeh... I'm not saying this is everyones' viewpoint mind, just fairly vocal
> percentage of the posters on some of my university-specific newsgroups. I
> come from Glasgow & there's a very strong bias towards electronic &
> sequencer-only music - therefore guitar music is old & crap, apparently.
> Sometimes if you say you like a particular band its as you are somehow
> "flawed" for not understanding how rubbish they are.
Ah. Well, if you will hang out with arseholes <g>...
>> I didn't say there weren't any good ones. Woodstock is certainly
>> magnificent showmanship, and hugely influential, and there's some pretty
>> good playing on it too. Inevitably, he's out of tune for quite a lot of
>> it, but it's hardly his fault he didn't have a Floyd <grin>.
>
> Hehe... as I said to someone else on the group "only cowboys stay in tune"
> <grin> [P.S. I don't necessarily agree with this!]
Well, fetch me my steel horse, then! (That _was_ one of the tracks that
first made me want to pick up the guitar, btw! I played piano before
that.)
> Its strange, some old folk assume that cause I'm young I won't like or
> have heard of old stuff & therefore can't appreciate it.
See last-but-one comment!
>> This is a surprisingly common claim. If you can't hear the emotion,
>> feel, etc in, say,. _For the Love of God_, well, that's a shame. What
>> are you hearing? Not the same music I am. Are you hearing
>> preconceptions, or does the technique distract you from the feel? It's
>> there.
>
> Who was that by & off what... I think I ought to confess a true lack of
> knowledge in this field.
Fair enough. Steve Vai, from Passion and Warfare - it actually charted
fairly well in .us, and got quite a bit of MTV airplay. A shining
example of technique in the service of lyricism and emotion.
> I have a friend who is a big Satriani fan who has sat me down on many
> occasions & tried to endear me to the music (an album with what looks
> like the silver surfer on the cover & another one with him holding a
> rather tasty, if cheezily painted, Ibanez) but I just can't get a feel
> for it. Maybe its the 80's style over-production, the sheer ridiculous
> number of notes he plays, or the over-the-top nature of it but I can't
> connect with the music.
I sometimes struggle with his sound - he tends to use a _lot_ of gain, in
order to get the legato stuff really going.
> Similarly with Vai, although he is more out & out RAWK.... Devils'
> Guitarist in "Crossroads" if I recall ?
Yeah. There's a film I'd like to see again - I haven't seen it for years
and years.
Of course you don't have to like this stuff - and some of the very-fast
eddie and yngwie clones in the 80s were just appalling. I mean, I
sometimes think Yngwie is a parody of himself, but then I remember
Michael Angelo... ouch.
> What about folk like Iron Maiden & Def Lepard? I seem to remember them.
I think they're probably still going. I was never a Maiden fan, but I
certainly enjoyed the Pyromania and Hysteria albums by DL - they really
got the sky-high production thing and did it as well as it could be done.
A little sterile, admittedly, but I think it sounds great.
>> > My condolences....<sigh>
>>
>> And mine on your inability to appreciate the guitar music of your youth.
>
> That was very patronising of me, I apologise. But I would recommend some of
> the live material for persual. Its VERY loose, but the telepathy-like link
> between the three playing together is compelling listening. Thats what I
> like about it, each player really excells in his own field & the combination
> of it all really blows me away.
Yeah, I've listened to a bunch of it; one of my best friends is a big
fan. I've just never really grokked Clapton's playing. I love a lot of
the blues guys, but somehow he just leaves me cold, although I like some
of his songs very much. I don't have any idea why. Now Jeff Beck... I
could listen to him for days on a twelve-bar without getting bored.
Ah, ukmg - civilised discussions, apologising to one another for minor
transgressions... I _love_ this place!
>> It's beyond me how people can slag 80s rock as mindless noodling while
>> listening to the kind of overindulgent blues jams that Clapton
>> perpetrated in the late 60s (which are kind of fuf, sometimes, but
>> still...).
>
> Och.. I don't know its somehow different for me... :-) & I wasn't slagging
> 80s rock as such. It doesn't really appeal to my sensibilities, but I'd be
> naive in saying "All 80's rock is rubbish".
Just as naive as I'd be saying that all 60s blues is rubbish - which of
course is very very far from being true. Sturgeon's Law: 90% of
_everything_ is crap. It's just we tend to forget about the 670s crap,
whereas the 90s crap is still fresh.
> I can think of a number of guitarists who played during hte 80s that I
> think are pretty good, not many, but a few e.g. Brian May & Slash, The
> Edge etc, etc however having listened to some Satriani & Vai records I
> just can't make the vital connection.
Which again is fair enough - just like me and Clapton.
> I suppose it depends on the definition of art in general. Its interesting
> that my friend who like Vai & Satriani is more interested in technique &
> details in art in general - he prefers paintings which are "good" &
> "conventional". I tend to prefer the more modern & abstract 20th century
> stuff which he can't stand. Maybe this is similar to you?
I like abstract art probably more than representational art, but I'm no
expert - according to all those bloody tests managers make you take, I'm
a very non-visual person.
> Perhaps its the fine appreciation of detail which provides the enjoyment
> & the knowledge well-crafted & executed music.
That certainly helps, I think - though in the end it all comes down to
what you like. Thank God...
> I'm not trying been trying to flame btw, aside from the "condolenses"
> comment ;-).
Nor I you.
> I guess if you come from a position of some ignorance, its not really
> possible to have a decent argument. Are there any Van Halen albums you'd
> recommend, given what you've said about the early stuff. I've heard that
> the stuff of "1984" isn't particularly representative of the output.
> Maybe thats part of it, I grew up with "Jump" & "Beat It" & thats
> coloured my opinion of him.
For my part, I'd say Van Halen and Van Halen II are raw, exciting, and
groundbreaking; the freshest take on the blues since the 60s (they are
really blues albums). I'd also say "Eat 'em and Smile", the first David
Lee Roth band album with Steve Vai is an _astounding_ album - the highest
point of band-centred, vocal, virtuoso rock. These three are also albums
revered by my blues-fan, Robben Ford and Eric Clapton-idolising mate
downstairs, so they maight be ones to have a look at.
Incidentally, I leant him my Satch and Vai albums and he wasn't really
that keen - he said that he couldn't see past the technique to the music,
which is absolutely fair enough; doesn't make him a bad person. The guy
we absolutely agree on is Eric Johnson - I just don't understand why he
isn't more famous.
In any other newsgroup, this would be an enormous flamewar by now. As I
said before, I _love_ this place!
Cheers,
- rfb
--
richar...@umist.ac.uk http://www.ma.umist.ac.uk/rb/
I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there
that they might escape the lusts of the flesh.
-- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"
Jose I. de las Heras
I haven't been back to rmmg for ages, and don't feel the urge to try
again anytime soon. I must admit I found it amusing for a short while...
but that must have been the short while when I was very bored and I had
a lot of time in my hands.
I'm just so happy he hasn't got clones over here!
Jose
JNugent
> Joel Cooney <jco...@nospamntlworld.com> wrote:
> > Its' sort of part of the Stalinist-like musical revisionism thats been
> > happening over the last few years; folk decide that some group/person is
too
> > popular to like & hence find someone obscure & rarely-heard of to
proclaim
> > as their "fave".
> Surely this is the concept on which the NME was founded?
The NME (and the MM) were not "founded" on such concepts. They both used to
be about the music scene(s), rather than about yoof culcher.
The MM in particular was the only serious UK periodical publication on jazz,
folk and blues throughout the second half of the sixties and the first half
of the seventies. It was possible to take it seriously in those days and it
had a dedicated following among the Archer Street Brigade. The MM was the
industry standard marketplace for classified ads. It was the Melody Maker
which brought the news of the blues boom to the provinces and which forged
the reputations of Clapton, Beck and Page (as well as the Les Paul and the
Marshall amplifier).
Later on, they both became self-consciously unreadable.
steve_cobham
wrote:
>> I
>> come from Glasgow & there's a very strong bias towards electronic &
>> sequencer-only music - therefore guitar music is old & crap, apparently.
>> Sometimes if you say you like a particular band its as you are somehow
>> "flawed" for not understanding how rubbish they are.
My, how things have changed in 35 years - NOT!
steve_cobham
AND it had gear ads!
We used to comb the gig ads to see who on and then get the "Night
Rider" train to London for a stupid amount like 5 bob.
With beer at under 2 bob a pint - even in London - and a ticket to the
Marquee or similar between 5 bob and 7/6, you could have a seriously
good night out.
(Thank you Mr. Cobham......time for your blanket bath......)
>
>Later on, they both became self-consciously unreadable.
Fit for sticking under the cat tray.
Michael Cowley
----- Original Message -----
From: Joel Cooney <jco...@NOSPAMntlworld.com>
Newsgroups: uk.music.guitar
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: Guitar Heroes - C4
>
> Rick Booth <richar...@umist.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:99po22$c1$1...@maclin.ma.umist.ac.uk...
.
>
> Yeh... I'm not saying this is everyones' viewpoint mind, just fairly vocal
> percentage of the posters on some of my university-specific newsgroups. I
> come from Glasgow & there's a very strong bias towards electronic &
> sequencer-only music - therefore guitar music is old & crap, apparently.
> Sometimes if you say you like a particular band its as you are somehow
> "flawed" for not understanding how rubbish they are.
>
glasgow? mogwai? arab strap? delgados? (chemikal undeground, then).
i like both (new) guitary stuff and electronic/sequencer stuff (Air,
anyone?). i don't think if you like on you aren't allowed to like the
other. basically, i like whatever i think is good, it just so happens that
older guitary stuff doesn't really do it for me (i think the oldest band i
like is The Smiths - sub argument: were they the first indie band?).
erm... I can listen to the beatles and see why people think its good, and to
some extent i enjoy it, but it doesn't make me laugh as much as pavement do,
and it doesn't blow my head off as much as mogwai do, and it doesn't make me
feel as sad as The Smiths do.
I went to watch Low last night (they are an american band with 3 people -
guitarist/singer/keyboards, bassist/keyboard, drummer/singer. the drummer
and guitarist are married. i think they're very good). The drumkit
consisted of a snare, a floor tom (?) and one cymbal. the guitarist had a
delay pedal and nothing else. i think the best way to describe them is
probably neo-folk, but that makes them sound crap. Basically: they were
well good.
And as for it being trendy to not like old music? i am at the university of
york and i don't think this is the case, its just that most people (who i
know0 don't actually listen to it... perhaps i am getting a different
perspective being involved in the york uni bandsoc stuff... i tend to hang
around with other music fans. i can't vouch for the opinions of trendy
clubbing FHM reading mobile phone using students (of which there are,
unfortunately, far too many).
ramble ramble ramble
anyway
Mike
Andrew Sinclair
<Steve Cobham> wrote in message
news:43u0ctgb8fpie0e80...@4ax.com...
[cut bits you've already read.....]
| 3) Strange Brew - back to album tracks......I first heard this on the
| coach on the way to see Cream (and also Hendrix, the Move, and the
| Floyd) at Spalding. It sounded OK to me back then, but now it seems a
| pretty pedestrian 12 bar with a recycled Albert King solo. The only
| redeeming feature is the production which is very "ambient".
|
errr, I always thought this was pretty much a straight lift from Buddy
Guy...I've got on old live recording of BG doing what is almost exactly the
same song, with a few lyrics changed. How about including Buddy Guy in a
list of the greatest ? Clapton always lists him as a major influence, and
when you listen to his early stuff it's easy to hear where EC got his ideas
from.
(btw - I'm a huge EC fan, although I kinda lost him with Pilgrim)
[cut lots more suff you've already read..... ]
I agree with what Steve's saying though, EC hasn't done much that's
dramatically different since his early days, although for me some of the
interplay with Duane Allman on the Layla album is as good as anything else
he's played.
<tongue in cheek mode> where can one get a copy of the Klooks Kleek version
of Hideaway ? <tongue in cheek mode off>
just my 6p worth.
cheers
Andrew
steve_cobham
<and...@sinclair.sol.co.ukspamfree> wrote:
><tongue in cheek mode> where can one get a copy of the Klooks Kleek version
>of Hideaway ? <tongue in cheek mode off>
Never recorded by Cream, studio or live - although the Live Cream Vol
II sleeve notes would have you believe otherwise.
<tongue in cheek mode> However, if anyone does have a recording of
Clapton playing it live with Mayall, I'd like to know where I can get
a copy of that. <tongue in cheek mode off>
Steve.
================================================
Guitar and bass tuition - all styles and levels.
http://users.powernet.co.uk/guitars/tuition.htm
E-mail: st...@XSPAMXguitarsXMAPSX.powernet.co.uk
Adrian Clark
> You got me! I dug out my smiths collection earlier. and...
> There's some fairly heavy playing on Meat is Murder (what she said) but it
> isn't as heavy as I remember it.
Maybe not metal, but there's certainly some meaty stuff on QID - the
title track. It's kind of heavy in a Lou Reed/Velvets sort of sense.
> I guess my sensibilities were more easily offended by rock as a callow
> youth.
> Imagine how I felt the first time I saw Marr with a Les Paul...
>
> there was some beautiful playing on those old LPs though, specially QID and
> The Smiths...
Definitely - I've been in a bit of a Smiths reverie all day. I've
listened to all four studio albums, plus "Hatful of Hollow". Fantastic
stuff... if I had Morrissey's knack for humourously downbeat lyrics, I'd
be happy.
Adrian
NP: The Smiths, "Meat is Murder"
icarusi
The guy
> we absolutely agree on is Eric Johnson - I just don't understand why
he
> isn't more famous.
From what I've read it's because he chooses not to be more famous?
Icarusi
--
remove the 00 to reply
Adrian Clark
> Strangely enough, I'm sitting here listening to a very "contemporary"
> album and enjoying every (almost) guitarless soaked moment of it.
>
> It's "Felt Mountain" by Goldfrapp.
Hurrah! My g/f bought me that for Xmas, having had it recommended to her
by an ex-colleague. I like that sort of chance approach to new music -
reminds me of when, at age 15, I bought Gong's 'Camembert Electrique'
from a local secondhand vinyl shop because I liked the sound of the song
titles. Took it home and loved it to death. But I digress...
>
> Reminds me of "Exit Music" by t'Head in places - has that same sort of
> European, Cold War Berlin, melancholic vibe.
And Portishead... or rather, it reminds me of that first, flushful
excitement of hearing the first couple of Portishead singles before
everyone realised that was *all* they did. Interesting to note that
(Portishead's) Adrian Utley is on the Goldfrapp album.
She's at the Union Chapel in Islington sometime in early May - I managed
to miss the ULU gig a couple of months ago (sold out like wildfire) so I
intend not to miss this one. The venue ought to be perfect for her
music.
Adrian Clark
> older guitary stuff doesn't really do it for me (i think the oldest band i
> like is The Smiths - sub argument: were they the first indie band?).
Nay, lad - you'd have to go back a lot further than that. Also, in the
strictest sense of the word, the Smiths weren't even "Indie" - they were
signed to Warner right from the start.
Taking "Indie" as a rough indication of musical style (rather than size
of record label**), they were nowhere near the first... they're part of
a lineage which stretches at least back to punk. And the whole
anti-establishment attitude of that can be traced back to... well, 50s
rock'n'roll, I suppose. Maybe even jazz.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the "Indie" concept is so loose,
you'd have trouble identifying where it all started.
> erm... I can listen to the beatles and see why people think its good, and to
> some extent i enjoy it, but it doesn't make me laugh as much as pavement do,
> and it doesn't blow my head off as much as mogwai do, and it doesn't make me
> feel as sad as The Smiths do.
You haven't listened to the White Album, then! I love the Beatles easily
as much as I love a ton of modern bands (and much more in some cases)
and I get the same from them as I do from the more modern bands.
> I went to watch Low last night (they are an american band with 3 people -
> guitarist/singer/keyboards, bassist/keyboard, drummer/singer. the drummer
> and guitarist are married. i think they're very good). The drumkit
> consisted of a snare, a floor tom (?) and one cymbal. the guitarist had a
> delay pedal and nothing else. i think the best way to describe them is
> probably neo-folk, but that makes them sound crap. Basically: they were
> well good.
YEAH! I saw them at the Shepherds Bush Empire last Thursday. Bloody
incredible... and even if you stripped them down to just Mimi's voice,
there'd still be enough to carry the songs. Mormons can be cool!
Adrian
** Back when I was about 12 or 13, I used to read Smash Hits
occasionally, in the vague hope there might be something about Motorhead
or Status Quo (yeah, okay... I'm sorry, right?) instead of Adam and the
Ants or whatever. In the back, they had loads of charts... singles,
albums and "Indie". This was new to me, but I remember being surprised
at the number of Asian pop stars...
Joel Cooney
Michael Cowley <mjc...@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:tc1qmhh...@corp.supernews.co.uk...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joel Cooney <jco...@NOSPAMntlworld.com>
> Newsgroups: uk.music.guitar
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 12:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Guitar Heroes - C4
>
>
> >
> > Rick Booth <richar...@umist.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > news:99po22$c1$1...@maclin.ma.umist.ac.uk...
> .
> >
> > Yeh... I'm not saying this is everyones' viewpoint mind, just fairly
vocal
> > percentage of the posters on some of my university-specific newsgroups.
I
> > come from Glasgow & there's a very strong bias towards electronic &
> > sequencer-only music - therefore guitar music is old & crap, apparently.
> > Sometimes if you say you like a particular band its as you are somehow
> > "flawed" for not understanding how rubbish they are.
> >
>
> glasgow? mogwai? arab strap? delgados? (chemikal undeground, then).
Oh I love those bands, particularly Mogwai & Belle & Sebastian. But
generally a lot of the glasgow 'scene' seems to consist of commercial dance,
"serious" house & techno ( trezor & all that), a small (but growing) bit of
funk ( which I love), a smattering of indie-pop, a teenyweeny "real Ale"
indie crowd & a few other miscleaneous scenes.
Not much room for funk/blues/psychedelic rock... but hey!
>
> i like both (new) guitary stuff and electronic/sequencer stuff (Air,
> anyone?).
Fandabbydozy... I wish they'd come out with a new album ( not counting hte
soundtrack they did)
> i don't think if you like on you aren't allowed to like the
> other. basically, i like whatever i think is good, it just so happens
that
> older guitary stuff doesn't really do it for me (i think the oldest band i
> like is The Smiths - sub argument: were they the first indie band?).
Oh absolutely I agree with that. But it seems to be the case that folk that
are into the newer, ecstacy-based music seem to be starting from year zero
(1988 presumably) & not accepting anything before that.
> erm... I can listen to the beatles and see why people think its good, and
to
> some extent i enjoy it, but it doesn't make me laugh as much as pavement
do,
> and it doesn't blow my head off as much as mogwai do, and it doesn't make
me
> feel as sad as The Smiths do.
Need to get a hold of the White Album... But having said all that, do you
expect one band to do all the things you've listed there? Thing about the
Beatles for me, they've been there for so long in my concious memory, I
can't imagine a musical world without it. They are a musical lodestone for
me - if everything else is crap, or tired or boring at the moment, I know I
can stick on one of their albums & be entertained. Other bands of the era
like Cream, The Who, The Rolling Stones, The Kinks & the Small Faces have
come to my attention later & have be absorbed into my collective musical
psyche, but the beatles have a special place.
> I went to watch Low last night (they are an american band with 3 people -
> guitarist/singer/keyboards, bassist/keyboard, drummer/singer. the drummer
> and guitarist are married. i think they're very good). The drumkit
> consisted of a snare, a floor tom (?) and one cymbal. the guitarist had a
> delay pedal and nothing else. i think the best way to describe them is
> probably neo-folk, but that makes them sound crap. Basically: they were
> well good.
Yes, I;ve heard good things about Low, they sound quite interesting.
> And as for it being trendy to not like old music? i am at the university
of
> york and i don't think this is the case, its just that most people (who i
> know0 don't actually listen to it... perhaps i am getting a different
> perspective being involved in the york uni bandsoc stuff... i tend to hang
> around with other music fans. i can't vouch for the opinions of trendy
> clubbing FHM reading mobile phone using students (of which there are,
> unfortunately, far too many).
Too right... I thought students were supposed to be
rabble-rousing-angry-young-talkin'-'bout-my-generation types. A lot of uni
folk I see about just seem to be the middle-aged in training; just out to
make a fast buck & in a hurry to get the beer belly, the mortgage & the
screaming weans.
Bad Ass
It's way higher than I thought - 19 million for BIB - sixth highest
certified album of all time!
Hence - no mention on the Channel4 prog for Angus was strange.
To quote from this URL
http://www.riaa.com/PR_Story.cfm?id=366
Elektra Records Upgrades AC/DC Catalog To 63 Million "Back In Black" Jumps
to 19 Million
WASHINGTON, January 31, 2001 -- Australian rockers AC/DC received a belated
holiday gift from Elektra Records when 14 titles were upgraded increasing
their certified sales from 46.5 million to 63 million according to the
Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). Representing actual units
in excess of 70 million, the band is now tied for ninth place on the RIAA's
Top Grossing Artist list and stands as the fifth highest certified band in
U.S. music history behind The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and Elektra
label mates The Eagles.
Leading the charge was the band's 1980 hard rock classic, "Back In Black,"
which is now certified for sales of 19 million copies and is currently the
sixth highest certified album of all time. Also climbing the multi-platinum
ladder were "Ballbreaker" (two million), "For Those About To Rock (We Salute
You)" (four million), "The Razor's Edge" (four million), "Who Made Who"
(five million), "Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap" (six million), "Highway To
Hell" (six million) and "Live" (three million) while the double disc
"Live -- Collector's Edition" simultaneously certified gold, platinum and
two times multi-platinum.
Rick Booth
>> why he isn't more famous.
>
> From what I've read it's because he chooses not to be more famous?
There's certainly some truth in this, but I really mean "famous among
guitarists". He seems to by one of those people most guitarists have
heard of, but relatively few have actually heard - which is a crying
shame. IMNSHO.
It is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy by a
resort to mathematics, though she is still forbidden to resort to
physics and chemistry. -- H.L. Mencken
steve_cobham
wrote:
>Rick Booth <richar...@umist.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:99q9rp$ig$1...@maclin.ma.umist.ac.uk...
>
>The guy
>> we absolutely agree on is Eric Johnson - I just don't understand why
>he
>> isn't more famous.
>
>From what I've read it's because he chooses not to be more famous?
But with his new album and band - Alien Love Child (what a terrible
name!) - he seems to be attempting to capture a part of the "I'm gonna
play da blooz" market.
The band also covers Cream and Hendrix live - Wind Cries Mary,
Crossroads, Politician, Sitting On Top Of The World, etc.
Strange guy - gets a chance to really capitalise on the G3 tour and
then doesn't, records album #3 twice and starts from scratch, etc,
etc.
Personally speaking, he peaked with his first proper solo album,
"Tones" and just tinkered around the edge of that general concept
thereafter. Maybe if it had been more than a "cult" success then he'd
have gone on to greater things.
Still, maybe he doesn't want fame - although the new ALC album would
suggest otherwise.
Ian Spencer
I've got a bone to pick with Mr Carlos 'Devadip' Santana. He said his album
was proven to be a solution to world peace. Well... [fill in your own world
disaster here]
Ian
steve_cobham
Well, "Supernatural" went some way to doing that - it made me doze
off, anyway, and I'm sure I wasn't the only one......
steve_cobham
<jco...@NOSPAMntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>Rick Booth <richar...@umist.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:99nqan$vbj$1...@maclin.ma.umist.ac.uk...
>> Dammit. I appear to have had a Thought. Sorry!
>>
>> Phil Clarke <lux...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> > Joel Cooney wrote:
>> >
>> >> the trendy hendrix backlash seems to be in full effect right now.
>>
>> It's trendy to not like Hendrix? Where are you living? Nowhere I've
>> been, I don't think. The cultural icons of the past are more revered now
>> than at any time I can remember.
>
>Hmm I'd say a lot of the opposite:
>
>Its' sort of part of the Stalinist-like musical revisionism thats been
>happening over the last few years; folk decide that some group/person is too
>popular to like & hence find someone obscure & rarely-heard of to proclaim
>as their "fave".
I remember when Chicago brought their first album out - and if all you
can remember of them is that terrible "If You Leave Me Now" hit, then
check their first release out. It's a seriously great album.
Anyway, I was quite the local "celeb" having that album - A GATEFOLD
DOUBLE! - took it with me to parties, went round to friends' houses
for listening sessions along with some of the old jazz woodbines,
invited the local talent round for a quick "listen"........
As soon as their second album came out and they had a chart hit with
"I'm A Man", you couldn't mention the name "Chicago" without getting
laughed out of the room.
Then somebody appeared with a Soft Machine album and it was their turn
to be asked along to listening/herbal baccy sessions.
Nothing changes.
icarusi
> But with his new album and band - Alien Love Child (what a terrible
> name!) - he seems to be attempting to capture a part of the "I'm
gonna
> play da blooz" market.
AFIK he's manged to sideline the 'perfectionist' bit, at least in his
latest recording efforts, so he might get around a bit more. AFIK from
his website he gets around fairly regularly in the US albeit low key
gigs, but al least the fans get to hang out and talk with him after
the gig, rather than helicoptered away like the 'famous'. I don't know
if he's ever left the states?
Nobody else seems to be playing the super accurate folk-modal-blues
mix that he does? He can sing a bit too. Guitarists who sing always
seem to sell better to the mainstream? IIRC He's on Hank B Marvin's
top 2 with Robben Ford.
Adrian Clark
> >I've got a bone to pick with Mr Carlos 'Devadip' Santana. He said his album
> >was proven to be a solution to world peace. Well... [fill in your own world
> >disaster here]
>
> Well, "Supernatural" went some way to doing that - it made me doze
> off, anyway, and I'm sure I wasn't the only one......
And he did say "solution *to* world peace"... Carlos obviously sees
world peace as a problem, and his albums are the <BOOOMM!!!> solution to
<CRASSSHHHH!> that.
Not to diss any Santana fans, but his albums certainly make me want to
go and commit random acts of violence (which brings us nicely round to
the Celine/Mariah thread on AFFZ eh, Steve?)
Adrian
steve_cobham
(Adrian Clark) wrote:
><Steve> wrote:
>
>> >I've got a bone to pick with Mr Carlos 'Devadip' Santana. He said his album
>> >was proven to be a solution to world peace. Well... [fill in your own world
>> >disaster here]
>>
>> Well, "Supernatural" went some way to doing that - it made me doze
>> off, anyway, and I'm sure I wasn't the only one......
>
>And he did say "solution *to* world peace"... Carlos obviously sees
>world peace as a problem, and his albums are the <BOOOMM!!!> solution to
><CRASSSHHHH!> that.
>
>Not to diss any Santana fans, but his albums certainly make me want to
>go and commit random acts of violence (which brings us nicely round to
>the Celine/Mariah thread on AFFZ eh, Steve?)
OK then, Clarkey........
If you had a gun with one bullet and Celine Dion was an easy target
singing that Titanic song right in front of you, but then Mariah Carey
tapped you on the shoulder and melisma'd in your ear with Carlos
Santana riding piggy back on her shoulder playing the Soul Sacrifice
solo, who'd eat lead?
BTW, Carlos' PRS has to emerge out of all this in relatively good
nick.
Julian
<Steve Cobham> wrote in message
>
> OK then, Clarkey........
>
> If you had a gun with one bullet and Celine Dion was an easy target
> singing that Titanic song right in front of you, but then Mariah Carey
> tapped you on the shoulder and melisma'd in your ear with Carlos
> Santana riding piggy back on her shoulder playing the Soul Sacrifice
> solo, who'd eat lead?
>
> BTW, Carlos' PRS has to emerge out of all this in relatively good
> nick.
>
> Steve.
It's obvious - you shoot yourself. Any other solution leaves you listening
to the survivors!!
;-)
J
steve_cobham
<and...@sinclair.sol.co.ukspamfree> wrote:
>
><Steve Cobham> wrote in message
>news:43u0ctgb8fpie0e80...@4ax.com...
>| On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 22:17:34 +0100, "Rev. Andy"
>| <an...@dance.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>|
>
>
> [cut bits you've already read.....]
>
>| 3) Strange Brew - back to album tracks......I first heard this on the
>| coach on the way to see Cream (and also Hendrix, the Move, and the
>| Floyd) at Spalding. It sounded OK to me back then, but now it seems a
>| pretty pedestrian 12 bar with a recycled Albert King solo. The only
>| redeeming feature is the production which is very "ambient".
>|
>
>errr, I always thought this was pretty much a straight lift from Buddy
>Guy...I've got on old live recording of BG doing what is almost exactly the
>same song, with a few lyrics changed.
In which case, Buddy must have been listening to some Albert King
because that SB solo is 100% AK-inspired.
What date is the BG live recording?
>How about including Buddy Guy in a
>list of the greatest ? Clapton always lists him as a major influence, and
>when you listen to his early stuff it's easy to hear where EC got his ideas
>from.
Clapton once described BG's playing as "dangerous" and I see what he
meant. Those huge overbends really get that old meltdown vibe going.
I like the early BG stuff, but his recent(ish) output leaves me cold.
Too many guest musicians and not enough playing of substance from the
man himself.
>(btw - I'm a huge EC fan, although I kinda lost him with Pilgrim)
I lost him with his first solo album.........
>
>
>[cut lots more suff you've already read..... ]
>
>
>I agree with what Steve's saying though, EC hasn't done much that's
>dramatically different since his early days, although for me some of the
>interplay with Duane Allman on the Layla album is as good as anything else
>he's played.
It's a great band effort, although if you listen carefully Clapton
actually says nothing new. the songwriting is the high point for me
and I wouldn't want to take any credit away from Eric for that. Great
album and songs and Clapton never sang better, before or since -
especially on the title track. There's true desperation in his voice.
Steve.
================================================
Guitar and bass tuition - all styles and levels.
http://users.powernet.co.uk/guitars/tuition.htm
E-mail: st...@XSPAMXguitarsXMAPSX.powernet.co.uk