Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
In Defense of Clapton's Layla

By Jason the Mathematical Solo Guitarist in Op-Ed
Sat Dec 04, 2004 at 10:17:13 AM EST
Tags: Music (all tags)
Music

Recently, GuitarWorld magazine published a list of top 100 of the worst guitar solos, riffs and licks of all time. I am a big sucker for this sort of thing, so I swallowed the $7.95 price to purchase it, with a good expectation of what would be included. Just as literary scholars have a canon of great literature, the guitarist community has a canon of really awful guitar solos - including, for instance, Neil Young's infamous one-note Cinnamon Girl solo, anything by Van Halen, and anything played by Kurt Cobain. When I turned to the list, I suffered a cruel, horrible shock.


Their criteria for judging what solos were bad seemed minimal, something along the lines of "OMG 80S HAIR!!!11ONE!". Neil Young's Cinnamon Girl didn't make the list [see footnote], and I was disheartened by some of the bands that did - The Who, for example, was on there for their song "Eminence Front." While there were some bands that made the list who clearly deserved it - Poison - for example, I threw down the magazine confident that it was just a poorly generated list, and that no harm was meant.

Upon second examination, I saw a sidebar that I did not see before - songs renowned for their guitar solos that they considered bad. "Freebird" was on there, as was "Yellow Ledbetter" by Pearl Jam, and one of my favorites - "Green Grass and High Tides" by the Outlaw. But what really crossed the line is Clapton's Layla recorded when he was with Derek and the Dominos.

Their argument? Putting a beautifully recorded piano track while Allman and Clapton were playing slide guitar out of tune.

There are a number of problems with this inappropriate critism. If you are familiar with the remarkable outro to Layla, you are familiar with the slide guitars building to the one. It starts with one slide guitar playing high on the fret board and progressively continues to two or 3 and then more slide guitars (and then a rhythm guitar). Each guitar plays a single note in the ensemble, and they all play their own parts, but what makes it different is that it sounds good. If you've ever tried recording your own music, you know how difficult it is to make 2 instruments playing different parts sound good, much less a plethora of them.

Their main criticism is that the slide guitars are out of tune. The problem with this statement is that it is impossible to prove. By definition, a slide guitar playing individual notes along the fretboard can never be shown to be in or out of tune, unless you are watching the guitarist play it live. Why? Because with a slide, you could hit, for example, a C, and you can hit a C#, but you can also hit every non-note in between, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Guitarists like to hit these notes, which I'll call "tweeners" for now on, and they do it with or without a slide guitar - every time a guitarist bends a string, they are hitting tweeners.

This counterargument doesn't kill the magazine's argument - you could always make the counterpoint, for example, that Clapton and Allman shouldn't hit those notes. Indeed, hitting only tweener's is simply bad guitar playing. And this would be the end of the story, if this were all there were to it.

Of course, there is more. As it turns out, the piano is "out-of-tune" itself. How does this happen? The original outro was recorded in the key of C, but later, during production, it was sped up. And what happens, ladies and gentleman, when you speed up a recording? The pitch becomes higher. This is actually a very common production trick used all the time to fix recordings that just don't sound right; the most popular example of this trick is The Car's "Best Friend's Girlfriend", originally recorded in E but later sped up to F. If you look at the music video, the guitarist is playing the song in E. If you listen to the live recording, the song is played in E (and it doesn't sound right). If you listen on the radio, the song was played in E but it sounds like it was played in F.

This was exactly what was done with the outro to Layla. It was recorded in C, and later sped up so it sounds like it was recorded in a higher key. If you'd like to see an interesting consequence of this, go into Google groups and try to find what key the outro to the song Layla is written in. You will find a whole bunch of people arguing amongst themselves - most of them claiming to have "perfect pitch." Most people argue C# or D, some people still argue C. The answer, of course, is none of those.

If you are a layman, it probably looks like this doesn't kill the magazines argument against Layla. "Surely now - albeit not Clapton or Allman's fault - it is the fault of the producer. They should have 'fixed' it in the production phase so that the instrumentalists wouldn't hit only tweener notes." At this point, though, it doesn't matter. In the original recording, the guitars and pianos were in tune with each other, so after production they are still in tune with each other, although in a key that somewhere in between C and C#. Because they are relatively in tune, the song works - none of the notes sound "sharp" or "off" and, in fact, it takes someone who is very able at guitar or has near perfect pitch to tell the difference.

The argument of the magazine was specious and insulting to one of the greatest guitar legends of all time. Although their mistake was of poor or complete lack of research into their article, it is somewhat embarassing that a magazine devoted to guitar would not know the story about one of the most famous, beautiful rock love songs of all time.

Footnote: At first glance, I was upset that Cinnamon Girl didn't make the list, but the list seemed to redeem itself by putting a Neil Young song in the 60s that, although didn't get much radio airplay, had TWO one-note guitar solos in it. Still, Cinnamon Girl is the classic shit solo and should have made the list.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Google
o Also by Jason the Mathematical Solo Guitarist


Display: Sort:
In Defense of Clapton's Layla | 181 comments (136 topical, 45 editorial, 0 hidden)
Here's a tip (2.56 / 16) (#2)
by debacle on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 04:32:17 PM EST

On how to get people to read kuro5hin a magazine:

Act like everything that anyone really appreciates sucks, use some far out way of acting like you have an authority, and then adamantly and pretentiously forge a vapid "style."

The emperor's new clothes.

It tastes sweet.

Yep. (none / 0) (#4)
by Pxtl on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 05:02:19 PM EST

Without fail, every guitar, music, whatever magasine will be chock full of "lists" like this, which I think are designed for this sort of reaction: people get pissed off and argue over the magazine, perpetuating it by word-of-mouth, thus increasing sales.

[ Parent ]
kitten 1'd this comment (1.50 / 8) (#12)
by debacle on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 06:35:09 PM EST

Because he is an emo little fuck.

It tastes sweet.
[ Parent ]
the term is 'scene.' (2.00 / 8) (#42)
by spooked on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:27:52 PM EST

those cunts dislike it when people point out their habits; as if they arent all obnoxious, arrogant androgynous clones.

Seriously.
[ Parent ]
OMG! (2.00 / 5) (#57)
by Esspets on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:47:02 PM EST

Exactly! Exactly right!


Desperation.
[ Parent ]
Encourage (3) purely on that basis /nt (1.20 / 5) (#61)
by fenris on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 09:33:43 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Links? (none / 1) (#5)
by CivisHumanus on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 05:12:58 PM EST

Where's the rest of the list ?

I doubt its online (3.00 / 2) (#23)
by Jason the Mathematical Solo Guitarist on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:45:09 PM EST

Because its the magnet for the month. But here's the top 11 - you'll forgive me if I chose not to include their "witty" write-ups for each one:
  1. Poison - Guitar Solo
  2. Blue Cheer - Summertime Blues
  3. Carlos Santana - The Game of Love
  4. Cream - Falstaff Beer
  5. The Beatles - All You Need Is Love
  6. Black Flag - Thirsty and Miserable
  7. Ted Nugent - Wango Tango
  8. Rolling Stones - Ain't Too Proud to Beg
  9. Manowar - Sting of the Bumblebee
  10. Lenny Kravitz - American Woman
  11. Megadeth - Crush 'em
Peter Frampton's "Do You Feel Like We Do" is 14. Smashing Pumpkin's "Zero" is 23. AC/DC's "Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap" is 37. Hendrix's "Foxey Lady" is 45. Stones' live version of "Sympathy for the Devil" is 67. And so forth.

In a math sense this sig is just applied group theory: what we are talking about is the decomposition of the direct product of 2 irreducible representations of the rotation group into a direct sum of irreducible representations
[ Parent ]

Forgive you? (3.00 / 4) (#25)
by BadDoggie on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:50:46 PM EST

For excluding their "witty" write-ups? Hell, I'll +1FP you on that basis alone.

woof.

"Eppur si muove." -- Galileo Galilei
"Nevertheless, it moves."
[ Parent ]

heh (3.00 / 2) (#102)
by thekubrix on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 02:46:27 PM EST

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand this is why GuitarWorld magazine is a piece of shit, whose editors are at best hacks who couldn't EVER possibly make it in the real world.....

[ Parent ]
MOTHER. FUCKER! (none / 1) (#111)
by MotorMachineMercenary on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 08:36:04 PM EST

Manowar's Sting of the Bumblebee is on the list? WTF!? If anything, playing that song on a piccolo bass is a feat in itself. I'm sure it was mainly done for show-off.

--
"If you cant think of your own sig, you are nothing." - noogie


[ Parent ]
Synclavier (none / 0) (#124)
by caca phony on Sat Dec 04, 2004 at 12:40:07 PM EST

Dude, they did not play all that shit, they cheated and used a synclavier, the bastards.

[ Parent ]
Umm (none / 1) (#125)
by MotorMachineMercenary on Sat Dec 04, 2004 at 12:46:54 PM EST

I don't know what they used on the album, but I've seen it played live. It looked like a small bass, not a synclaveier, whatever the fuck it is. Not as good as on the album, but pretty damn impressive nevertheless.

--
"If you cant think of your own sig, you are nothing." - noogie


[ Parent ]
Synclavier (none / 1) (#128)
by naomi385 on Sat Dec 04, 2004 at 01:54:58 PM EST

The synclavier is a programmable synth. It's capable of FM additive synthesis, polyphonic sampling and 16 track direct-to-disc recording. Quite popular in the 1980's. According to his autobiography, Frank Zappa did much of his later composition exclusively on the synclavier.

References:


Propaganda. Questionable Intelligence. The Visitations.


[ Parent ]
number 6? (none / 0) (#120)
by bankind on Sat Dec 04, 2004 at 05:53:04 AM EST

really, including Black Flag in a group that has ka-billion dollar sound engineers and equiptment is a bit shiat.


"Insurgents are blowing up pipelines and police stations, geysers of sewage are erupting from the streets, and the electricity is off most of the time -- but we've given Iraq the gift of supply-side economics." -Krugman
[ Parent ]

Actually... (2.85 / 7) (#6)
by jd on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 05:22:29 PM EST

If you have an analogue system, such as a slide guitar or any analog synthesizer, it is possible to prove whether you're in tune or not. Mathematically, you are ALWAYS out of tune. (An infinite number of possible slider positions, only ONE is valid, in the "pure" sense. The odds of getting to that point - or any other specific point - is essentially zero.)

The point is, it doesn't matter. You're not after the "A" note, you're after the sound in the vicinity of "A" which, when played with other notes also in the vicinity of where they want to be, you meet the geometrical requirements of what sounds good.

(The ancient Greeks, who discovered chords in music, didn't discover them by sacrificing goats to a magazine editor. They got them by playing instruments in various combinations until they understood what harmonics worked well together.)

IMHO, if you want to know if an instrumental piece is "good", in any way that is likely to be agreed upon, you could just get a computer to scan the notes played and compare those with the geometrical descriptions of what actually sounds good. If the error is small to none, the chances are the music'll be pleasent to good.

On the other hand, if the error is anything other than trivial, the combination will sound "sour". Sometimes, that's wanted, so you'd then have to check those hits by hand (or ear).

To build up a list of "worst" pieces, you'd look for such evidence for pieces that are badly played.

It's much harder to detect music that just isn't any good, but there are certain mathematical rules which will be followed. Good music tends to follow a 1/f distribution, but that doesn't make all 1/f music good. However, if you're waaaay off 1/f, then there's a good chance it'll sound screwed up.

Much beyond that, you're getting subjective. However, the universality of the geometry of harmonics and the 1/f distribution, across all cultures and across all music types, suggests that those really are valid ways of building up initial lists of what's good and bad.

or (3.00 / 4) (#14)
by suntzu on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 06:38:45 PM EST

IMHO, if you want to know if an instrumental piece is "good"

or, you could, you know, just listen to it. agreement over artistic quality is vastly overrated. arguing about it without coming to a conclusion is much more worthwhile.

[ Parent ]

True. (3.00 / 3) (#33)
by jd on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:17:15 PM EST

Just sitting there, listening and enjoying it, though, is probably the best option of all.

[ Parent ]
true (n/t) (none / 0) (#67)
by suntzu on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 11:36:42 PM EST



[ Parent ]
100% wrong (1.00 / 3) (#16)
by Jason the Mathematical Solo Guitarist on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:21:35 PM EST

If you have an analogue system, such as a slide guitar or any analog synthesizer, it is possible to prove whether you're in tune or not. Mathematically, you are ALWAYS out of tune. (An infinite number of possible slider positions, only ONE is valid, in the "pure" sense. The odds of getting to that point - or any other specific point - is essentially zero.)

Wrong. Frequency is quantized.

In a math sense this sig is just applied group theory: what we are talking about is the decomposition of the direct product of 2 irreducible representations of the rotation group into a direct sum of irreducible representations
[ Parent ]

I must remember... (none / 1) (#32)
by jd on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:16:11 PM EST

...to tell that to a photon I know. I'll bet a wave-generator that I can create any audible frequency between any two values you care to name.

[ Parent ]
Do you know what the difference (3.00 / 3) (#35)
by Jason the Mathematical Solo Guitarist on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:17:50 PM EST

between a photon and sound wave is?

Do you know what the difference between a boson and fermion is?

In a math sense this sig is just applied group theory: what we are talking about is the decomposition of the direct product of 2 irreducible representations of the rotation group into a direct sum of irreducible representations
[ Parent ]

Differences (none / 0) (#91)
by jd on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 10:51:09 AM EST

The exact difference depends on what model you use for a photon. Roughly speaking, though, a photon is a massless particle of energy that travels over a transverse probability wave, carrying electromagnetic energy. Sound is a concussion effect resulting from the carrying of energy by massful molecules in a longitudinal wave.

Bosons have integer spin. Fermions have half-integer spin.

[ Parent ]

Similarities (none / 1) (#92)
by jd on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 11:02:38 AM EST

All interactions beteen particles, in QM, are quantized. In other words, only certain states are valid. An electron can only have certain energies in orbit around a nucleus, for example.

However, particles in and of themselves are not necessarily quantized. Further, when you move a particle from system A to system B, where valid quantum states are different, QM doesn't violate the law of conservation of energy. Any excess must be distributed and/or emitted.

[ Parent ]

A low-pitched woodwind instrument (none / 0) (#170)
by mpalczew on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 05:31:45 PM EST

> Do you know what the difference between a boson and fermion is?

well it's obvious now that Eric Clapton didn't. He is teh l4m3er
-- Death to all Fanatics!
[ Parent ]

You know, NIWS: (1.27 / 11) (#34)
by Esspets on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:17:36 PM EST

That's a pretty fucking stupid thing for a math major to say.


Desperation.
[ Parent ]
You're a dumbfuck (n/t) (1.11 / 9) (#36)
by Jason the Mathematical Solo Guitarist on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:19:13 PM EST


In a math sense this sig is just applied group theory: what we are talking about is the decomposition of the direct product of 2 irreducible representations of the rotation group into a direct sum of irreducible representations
[ Parent ]

I know, what was I thinking? (1.33 / 6) (#40)
by Esspets on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:23:17 PM EST

I actually thought highly of mathematicians for a second. How idiotic of me. Of course you people have no undertanding of physics whatsoever. 99% of you fags simply duplicate the work of real geniuses.


Desperation.
[ Parent ]
Okay I'll make this simple for you (2.00 / 2) (#43)
by Jason the Mathematical Solo Guitarist on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:28:40 PM EST

I'll make it a word game for you. Simply put the following words together in a cogent sentence and you will understand:

Physical systems
permit
certain
quantized
energy eigenvalues
frequency
of
sound, light
is wholly
determined
by
energy.

Whew! I hope I made that simple enough for you.

In a math sense this sig is just applied group theory: what we are talking about is the decomposition of the direct product of 2 irreducible representations of the rotation group into a direct sum of irreducible representations
[ Parent ]

Hahahahaha (1.12 / 8) (#45)
by Esspets on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:29:49 PM EST

Fucking idiot.


Desperation.
[ Parent ]
I'll take that as a concession. (1.50 / 2) (#47)
by Jason the Mathematical Solo Guitarist on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:32:53 PM EST

Thanks buddy. Now we can be friends again.

In a math sense this sig is just applied group theory: what we are talking about is the decomposition of the direct product of 2 irreducible representations of the rotation group into a direct sum of irreducible representations
[ Parent ]

No, we're not friends. (1.00 / 6) (#49)
by Esspets on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:34:21 PM EST

You're a crapflooder faggot who talks about trolling this trolling that and bites on everything. You get no respect.


Desperation.
[ Parent ]
OMG U DONE TROLLED THE TROLLS (2.40 / 5) (#51)
by Jason the Mathematical Solo Guitarist on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:36:35 PM EST

vlaggot

In a math sense this sig is just applied group theory: what we are talking about is the decomposition of the direct product of 2 irreducible representations of the rotation group into a direct sum of irreducible representations
[ Parent ]

Shut the fuck up. (1.00 / 6) (#53)
by Esspets on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:38:59 PM EST

You're not a troll homo. You never have been, and never will be. Funny that you mention vlaggot, you should really consider making smalltalk at SRU because even these kurobots make a faggot like you look cool.


Desperation.
[ Parent ]
YHBT n/t (1.50 / 2) (#54)
by Jason the Mathematical Solo Guitarist on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:40:50 PM EST


In a math sense this sig is just applied group theory: what we are talking about is the decomposition of the direct product of 2 irreducible representations of the rotation group into a direct sum of irreducible representations
[ Parent ]

I gave you three chances. (1.00 / 3) (#55)
by Esspets on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:43:10 PM EST

You just blew the last one, fag. You're done with. You will have to do something truly awesome in order to reverse my opinion of you. I'm the only one that ever paid you props and now you have nothing.


Desperation.
[ Parent ]
k n/t (1.50 / 2) (#56)
by Jason the Mathematical Solo Guitarist on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:44:03 PM EST


In a math sense this sig is just applied group theory: what we are talking about is the decomposition of the direct product of 2 irreducible representations of the rotation group into a direct sum of irreducible representations
[ Parent ]

encourage (3), used vlaggot n/t (1.80 / 5) (#60)
by CoolSpot on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 09:10:02 PM EST



[ Parent ]
By the way, I'm a physics major (1.33 / 3) (#46)
by Jason the Mathematical Solo Guitarist on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:31:21 PM EST

Not a math major, LOL!

In a math sense this sig is just applied group theory: what we are talking about is the decomposition of the direct product of 2 irreducible representations of the rotation group into a direct sum of irreducible representations
[ Parent ]

You're also the easiest douche on the earth (1.62 / 8) (#48)
by Esspets on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:33:13 PM EST

to get riled up. You suck and are an amateur.


Desperation.
[ Parent ]
And you sir, try just a little too hard sometimes. (2.00 / 3) (#62)
by Dont Fear The Reaper on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 09:43:45 PM EST

Not enought room to put /nt up there, so I'm putting it down here. Tee hee!

[ Parent ]
newton's gravity is good enough on earth. (none / 0) (#169)
by mpalczew on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 05:29:28 PM EST

>>If you have an analogue system, such as a slide guitar or any analog synthesizer, it is possible to prove whether you're in tune or not. Mathematically, you are ALWAYS out of tune. (An infinite number of possible slider positions, only ONE is valid, in the "pure" sense. The odds of getting to that point - or any other specific point - is essentially zero.)

>Wrong. Frequency is quantized.

change infinite to ,really really alot, and it's 100% correct.   essentially zero is still correct.  
I bet no person can hear the difference between two frequencies that are as close together as they come. For all practical purposes there are an infinite amount.  Your physics education is useless in this argument.

-- Death to all Fanatics!
[ Parent ]

quite the contrary (none / 0) (#171)
by Jason the Mathematical Solo Guitarist on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 06:46:33 PM EST

My physics education has been useful. For example, I caused myself to win this argument, and caused you to (a) concede defeat and (b) change your statement into something that's both weaker and nearly pointless.

Thanks for playing.

In a math sense this sig is just applied group theory: what we are talking about is the decomposition of the direct product of 2 irreducible representations of the rotation group into a direct sum of irreducible representations
[ Parent ]

you forgot Poland. (none / 1) (#172)
by mpalczew on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 07:01:46 PM EST

> For example, I caused myself to win this argument, and caused you to (a) concede defeat and (b) change your statement into something that's both weaker and nearly pointless.

you must be confusing me with someone else, since I didn't make a previous statement.  

Furthermore your statement was completly pointless. There is NO practical difference when it comes to music between quantized frequencies and continuous frequencies.  You never made a point.

Though now I see you may be right that your physics education was not useless.  It allowed you to build a strawman and blow him down.  Good Job!

Perhaps you should go back to thinking about frictionless surfaces.
-- Death to all Fanatics!
[ Parent ]

Yes it is quantized (none / 0) (#177)
by brain in a jar on Thu Dec 09, 2004 at 07:56:33 AM EST

but the quantisation depends on the length of the string.

To borrow QM jargon the only permitted frequencies are those which correspond to wavelengths which can fit a whole number of times into the length of the string. Other frequencies quickly become damped and are therefore only heard for a brief moment directly after the string is struck.

However if you are working with a slide then you are effectively changing the string length and hence the whole basis for the quantisation you describe. Thus as the original post says, you can generate continous changes in pitch, or an artbitrarily large number of very slightly different pitches.

I hope this has enlightened you, and Its a shame for an environmental science major to have to explain this to a physicist.


Life is too important, to be taken entirely seriously.
[ Parent ]

WTF OMG NO! (2.55 / 9) (#8)
by Dont Fear The Reaper on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 05:50:27 PM EST

Tell me you did not just diss Van Halen. Eruption has got to be without question the single greatest thing ever in the history of guitar, and that's just one part of the grand swath Van Halen has carved for themselves in rock music legend. I think you're practicing the same cheap tactics as the music magazines, as far as making controversial statements for the sole purpose of generating noise, and hopefully getting more people to read what amounts to a boring piece of music geekery.

i'm sorry (2.37 / 8) (#19)
by Jason the Mathematical Solo Guitarist on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:27:57 PM EST

But eruption has to be the greatest load of garbage I've ever heard. The only Van Halen songs I can really stand are Running with the Devil and Ain't Talking About Love. Oh and Panama has a nice riff or two.

How any "rock" band can produce "music" like "Dance The Night Away" is beyond me.

In a math sense this sig is just applied group theory: what we are talking about is the decomposition of the direct product of 2 irreducible representations of the rotation group into a direct sum of irreducible representations
[ Parent ]

Anyone can (2.66 / 3) (#97)
by jethro on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 01:33:17 PM EST

Anyone can produce that kind of music, providing they have a distortion and a harmonize pedal...

--
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
[ Parent ]
You are precisely correct, Mr. Tull (3.00 / 3) (#98)
by Jason the Mathematical Solo Guitarist on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 01:37:46 PM EST


In a math sense this sig is just applied group theory: what we are talking about is the decomposition of the direct product of 2 irreducible representations of the rotation group into a direct sum of irreducible representations
[ Parent ]

well (3.00 / 4) (#104)
by speek on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 04:35:38 PM EST

It may not be incredibly innovative stuff, but I don't think any Van Halen belongs on a list of the 100 worst ***. That's letting your somewhat irrational hatred getting in the way of sounder judgement. I mean, c'mon, we have Loverboy and Foreigner to consider...

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

As a pro guitarist of 40+ years... (3.00 / 3) (#144)
by fyngyrz on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 01:28:47 PM EST

...I will consider your opinion significant when I hear you play the Eruption solo, achieving a reasonable colinearity with the original. Very few guitarists have the technical skills to do so. Regardless of that, however, very few people have the combination of soul and technical skills to innovate the way EVH typically does, and did in Eruption, and even if you can play the Eruption solo, I reserve the right to doubt that you could have created it. Finally, in the same spirit that someone above noted that (paraphrasing) "if the people at guitar magazine were any good, why would they be writing a magazine?"... if your skills are on a par with EVH's, it seems reasonable to me to ask, do I own any of your work? I have a little over twenty thousand rock CD's, plus a whole crapload that aren't rock, not to mention several hundred linear feet of vinyl in my studio library. So if you're published, it's possible. I am always interested in the output of people I meet.

Back to Clapton: He has never produced anything of sufficient technical merit to challenge anyone who has been playing blues for about six months. The man is slow -- and I don't mean that as a complement, as in "slow hand." He is, in my opinion, a monostylist of very little merit. I wouldn't go quite so far as to say that he is the Tom Waits of guitar (e.g., entirely without merit) but he certainly is a product of marketing and in-crowd hype rather than a genuine producer of timeless and notable guitar solos.

For everyone else, if you simply want to wallow in ooey-gooey technical rock guitar goodness, I suggest you pick up Joe Satriani's "surfing with the alien" compilation. Then explore the rest of his catalog (my advice is to arbitrarily skip any song where he sings, which thankfully are uncommon.) Or grab anything at all by Tony MacAlpine. If you want to hear soulful innovation that keeps a strong rock basis, pick up any Pink Floyd compilation. It is quite difficult to dislike the guitar work in Pink Floyd unless you actually don't like rock. PF's guitar is not (usually) technically difficult, however it is often quite delicate and tasty. But... if you're looking for that magic combination of innovation, technical fireworks, and a rocking tune -- well, frankly, you can't go wrong with Van Halen. If you like VH, you also should make sure you listen to the first Boston album.

My final chunk of advice is that if ever you have the brutal misfortune to find yourself listening to Bob Dylan or Tom Waits, plug your ears and hum or whistle something from your childhood very loudly until the threat has faded away. These two are proof positive that you will never go broke underestimating the taste of the American public. Saying these two suck is like saying the air in outer space is "a little thin."


Blog, Photos.
[ Parent ]

Hi, you're a total fucking idiot (2.25 / 4) (#145)
by Jason the Mathematical Solo Guitarist on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 01:39:37 PM EST

Your main point is that I shouldn't rip on Eruption until I can play it like Eddie. This is, of course, utterly ridiculous, and makes you look like a fucking moron. For example:
  1. I could EASILY construct a solo that sounds like shit, that isn't in any sort of key or have any sort of musical redemption, that is just a bunch of noise (as is Eruption) that YOU and most other people could not play. Does this mean my work cannot be judged, since no one can play it?
  2. Since when is being able to play a solo a brightline for being able to judge it on music grounds, both technical and asthetic? Does this mean that the millions of people who cannot play guitar have no right to an opinion about what is musically good and what is not?
  3. You're a fucking moron.

In a math sense this sig is just applied group theory: what we are talking about is the decomposition of the direct product of 2 irreducible representations of the rotation group into a direct sum of irreducible representations
[ Parent ]

Ahem... (3.00 / 2) (#152)
by fyngyrz on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 02:43:13 PM EST

You bill yourself quite prominently as a guitarist; your opinions are therefore taken by me as a guitarist, to a guitarist. No, I don't hold the listening public to this standard. Nor do I hold a non-martial artist to the same standard as a martial artist when they each make a comment of the form "hey, nice kick." Similarly, I don't hold the opinion a martial artist of a non-kicking style to the same standard that I would one who specializes in kicks in the same situation. Nor should I; that would be entirely inappropriate.

So yes, it is absolutely relevant whether you could perform the solo. If you can, then I can be assured that you understand it intimately, and subsequently I would take your comments on EVH's work a lot more seriously. There are always two aspects to a guitar solo; the technical difficulty, and the aesthetic value. Anyone can have an opinion on the aesthetic value, because it is entirely a personal issue; however, only another guitarist can make a reasoned judgment on the technical merits.

Therefore, if you can't perform Eruption (which seems quite likely to me at the moment, given the childish, shrieking tone of your reply) then you're just another listener at that point, and I will, with considerable justification, disregard your technical opinion.

We're not talking about listener issues here; we already know that VH and Clapton both have dedicated listening audiences, and the discussion wasn't about if the non-musically gifted appreciated what they do, or not -- it was about what a guitarists magazine, and a guitarist (you) thought. I responded as another guitarist, and for that matter, as one who can meet the standard I described. I can accurately perform those of EVH's creations that have caught my interest, including Eruption, though I make no representation that my creativity is comparable to his.

Now, you seem to like to throw down the gauntlet -- you made what I consider to be a very broad claim in the parent. As it turns out, I am very competitive, and I like a good challenge. I am also a guitarist with very deep rock roots and an active interest in modern technical performance issues. And a recording engineer. So:

If you you can compose a guitar solo that sounds similar to the Eruption guitar solo, and of similar duration (+/- 20%) that I cannot perform, I will give you $100.00 US. However, if I can perform it, you will give me $100.00 US. I'll give you three days to put this wizard solo together, after which my interest expires.

All I require from you is a recording of your solo (a decent bitrate mp3 will be fine), and an accurate description of the gear you used to perform it. I've got lots of guitars and amplifiers, as well as a whole studio full of interesting processing gear spanning four decades of active playing and collecting. So I think I can probably attempt to re-create your performance configuration with some hope of getting close. Unless you are actually a banjo player or or bouzouki player something equally horrifying. :)

Want to play?


Blog, Photos.
[ Parent ]

Can't play it, but can still appreciate it (2.50 / 2) (#150)
by DaChesserCat on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 02:34:54 PM EST

I don't have much by Clapton. I love the way he can squeeze expression out of his guitar, as well as a capable singer can make their voice evoke far more than just lyrics (Diana Krall comes to mind, as did some of the earlier Melissa Etheridge). It doesn't have to be exceptionally difficult to play to have feeling. I'm acquainted with a few capable guitarists who have a measure of respect for his work, but none of them will talk extensively about how technically difficult it is. Getting the expression out seems to be the most difficult part, not the technique. He doesn't seem to have a big head about it. He recently did an album of Robert Johnson songs, and he told at least one interviewer that he had a hard time doing it because he is "not THAT good." The interviewer was incredulous at that statement, as were (I'm sure) most listeners. Most guitarists I'm acquainted with, though, would probably agree.

I'm not that well versed in Joe Satriani. Based on your suggestions, it sounds like I need to remedy that.

Pink Floyd is frequently enjoyable, not so much for the lyrics as for the feel. To me, good, listenable, music provides an audible snapshot of the emotion, the thought, the feeling (if you'll pardon my mixing metaphors). Pink Floyd knows they don't have to be loud to say something powerful.

Love Boston; my wife doesn't much care for them, but if she's flipping channels on the radio and runs across Boston playing on one of the, she knows to stop and stay there, at least until they're through. I just wish their later albums were as good as the earlier. The last couple have been disappointing. Tom Scholz is arguably skilled, but he tends to go overboard on technical details (he's got HOW many patents for various types of amps and effects?). Their latest album tried to say something, and the musical style is recognizable, but it's become Tom Scholz and Friends, instead of Boston.

1984 came out back when I was in High School. I still have that one and 5150 (the first with Hagar, IIRC) on vinyl. Yes, EVH can play the hell out of a guitar. I firmly believe he will be regarded as a "guitar God" for decades to come.

I'm interested in what you have to say about Eric Johnson (Ah Via Musicom is still his best album, IMHO) and Blues Saraceno (the power and tension in "Before the Storm" is incredible, even if it is a bit repetitious).

Trains stop at train stations Busses stop at bus stations A windows workstation . . .
[ Parent ]
Funny you should mention Eric Johnson... (2.50 / 2) (#153)
by fyngyrz on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 03:01:01 PM EST

...first time I heard Cliffs of Dover, it was on FM. I had to pull the car over and wait for it to finish with my eyes closed. The opening lick grabs me, I stay fascinated, and I'm bitterly disappointed when the piece ends, every damned time. :)

It doesn't have to be exceptionally difficult to play to have feeling

But it can be. Its just that Clapton isn't one of those "difficult" guys. Feeling is all he really has. Counterpoint: ever pay close attention to BB King? He (usually) doesn't play all that fast, but sounding like BB King is no trivial matter. It takes a great deal of technical skill. But Clapton licks can be knocked off in a few minutes, and quite accurately, by any half-decent garage band. It takes a real freak to "knock off" BB King.

I really enjoyed your reading your very thoughtful comment. Thanks for posting.

Blog, Photos.
[ Parent ]

Right on (1.50 / 2) (#163)
by generaltao on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 12:19:22 PM EST

You nailed it.  I agree with you completely.

Eddie V, Satriani, and Steve Vai use a guitar like an impressionist uses a paint brush.

PF's Gilmore and U2's The Edge are masters of simplicity. (In the case of the The Edge, it's mind boggling how he can get away with so much repetition and make it work.)

Personally, I think the end of layla sounds like a bunch of cats in heat.  Seriously.  It hurts my ears.

Other guitarists I like are Vito Bratta (one of my favourites), Reb Beach, Nuno Bettencourt.  Love they way they combine clean and crisp with loud and fat.

Then you have geniuses of another type.. those who keep coming up with catchy riffs.  Catchy is an artform too.  AC/DC,Def Lepard, Poison, Brian Adams.. they score very high there.

Yes, I've got a hair band bias, but that's because that's what I grew up on, and that's what I was listening to when I learned to play.

 

[ Parent ]

Others (none / 0) (#181)
by newuser2004 on Fri Dec 10, 2004 at 11:56:02 PM EST

I'm not a guitar player, though I enjoy listening to the artists you mentioned. I'm a little surprised you didn't mention Danny Gatton. Are you familiar with his work? If not, I would recommend you check it out sometime. Anytime i'm listening to music and something from "88 Elmira Street" comes on, the volume gets turned up an extra notch. Definitely check out some of his live recordings, too. His studio stuff is fantastic, but pales in comparison to his live shows.

If you have heard of him, i'd be interested in reading your opinion of his work.

[ Parent ]
His kid committed suicide because he sucks (1.11 / 36) (#13)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 06:36:33 PM EST

ERIC CLAPTON SUCKS, ERIC CLAPTON SUCKS
ERIC CLAPTON'S GAY, AND HE'S FUCKING GAY
YOUR FATHER IS THE 4TH WORST SONG WRITER
AFTER SPRINGSTEEN, SEGER AND PETTY

YOU WERE SICK OF HIS GAY FUCKING SONGS
SO YOU JUMPED OUT A REALLY HIGH UP WINDOW
YOUR FATHER SUCKS SO FUCKING BAD
YOU KNEW YOU'D GET BEATEN UP AT SCHOOL

YOU WERE SICK OF HEARING "YOU LOOK WONDERFUL TONIGHT"
SO YOU JUMPED OUT A REALLY HIGH UP WINDOW
SOMETIMES I WISH YOU DIDEN'T DIE
BECAUSE I HATE THE SONG "TEARS IN HEAVEN"
I WAS GLAD YOU DIED UNTIL I HEARD THAT SONG
AND KEVIN SHARP IS GAY


I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour

While I love Anal Cunt, (1.33 / 3) (#22)
by Esspets on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:36:04 PM EST

I cannot rate this up. I'm sorry.


Desperation.
[ Parent ]
Why? (3.00 / 7) (#58)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 09:01:55 PM EST

My comment is better than the article itself.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
[ Parent ]
fag (2.00 / 6) (#121)
by noogie on Sat Dec 04, 2004 at 06:19:55 AM EST




*** ANONYMIZED BY THE EVIL KUROFIVEHIN MILITARY JUNTA ***
[ Parent ]
omg eleven (2.16 / 6) (#81)
by noogie on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 07:34:49 AM EST




*** ANONYMIZED BY THE EVIL KUROFIVEHIN MILITARY JUNTA ***
[ Parent ]
stuff like this is silly (2.69 / 13) (#15)
by suntzu on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 06:46:14 PM EST

maybe it's just because i don't know any music theory, but i think using technical merit or theoretical composition quality as any sort of significant judge of the quality of a piece of music is just stupid. technical skill is the icing on the cake. what really matters is whether you enjoy piece of music. trying to make objective judgements about music sucks the fun out of it. bullshitting and arguing without conclusion is much more satisfying.

you know what's ironic? the videogame criticism community understands this better than the music criticism community, and videogames are much easier to judge on technical merits. but i guarantee that a game that looks absolutely beautiful and has great sound will get panned if it's no fun or has no immersiveness or emotional impact.

So... (2.28 / 7) (#73)
by rusty on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 01:11:58 AM EST

...will you be watching Spike TV's Video Game Awards 2004 then?

Yeah, I just wanted to bring up Spike TV's Video Game Awards 2004. Hosted by Snoop Dogg, no less. It'll be off the shizzle.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

maybe... (3.00 / 8) (#78)
by suntzu on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 05:40:10 AM EST

i'm not even sure whether i get spike tv where i am now. but i'm a big fan of both videogames and snoop, so i'll probably check it out if i remember.

(it's "off the heezy", btw; heezy=hinges, shizzle=sure; "off the heezy fo shizzle" would work, but that's a little more awkward than the more standard "off the heezy fo sheezy", though i haven't heard that one in a while; talk about a run on parenthetical)

[ Parent ]

+3 for the parenthetical (none / 1) (#89)
by Fon2d2 on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 09:45:56 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Kids today! [shakes cane] (3.00 / 4) (#99)
by rusty on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 01:55:15 PM EST



____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
shakes camel? What? (none / 1) (#151)
by Russell Dovey on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 02:35:26 PM EST

My eyes are tired.

And yes, kids today have no respect for their camels.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

gabe newell meeting snoop (3.00 / 2) (#141)
by auraslip on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 06:08:50 AM EST

classic
124
[ Parent ]
reality (2.66 / 3) (#129)
by PigleT on Sat Dec 04, 2004 at 02:30:20 PM EST

> what really matters is whether you enjoy piece of music

Don't have much exposure to classical music, do you?

An awful lot of the reason why much music is enjoyable is *because* there are rules for composition, harmony, etc, in order to define what may "sound good"; from these rules, you step away at your peril. There is a whole science about pitch and tuning that you would do well to research before dismissing it[0].

Of course, the k5 article also suffers from a gross ignorance of musicality, with this statement:

| how difficult it is to make 2 instruments playing different parts sound good,

to which the answer is "go learn about counterpoint".

[0] You wouldn't say "biology is bunk as long as you enjoy a good shag", would you?

 
~Tim -- We stood in the moonlight and the river flowed
[ Parent ]

music as rule worship (2.60 / 5) (#132)
by klash on Sat Dec 04, 2004 at 04:21:14 PM EST

You've got it completely backwards.

Music isn't enjoyable because it follows rules. Rather, it just so happens that "rules of thumb" often fall out of music that is enjoyable.

Twelve-tone and pitch-class set theory are totally elegant and consistent systems of rules for composing music. But music written to use them sounds like ass. That's what happens when logically minded people get too excited and decide that the rules are the point, rather than the byproduct.

You ought to read the 1958 article by Milton Babbit called Who Cares if you Listen?. It's where this crazy road of music-as-abstract-mathematical-expression leads. Babbit argues that modern, serious music is too complicated for laypeople to enjoy, and that's how it ought to be.

I have a lot of exposure to classical music, and I would eagerly support the statement "what really matters is whether you enjoy a piece of music." Great composers achieve greatness by tapping into some feeling that already exists in most people, not by demanding that their audience study some abstract property that makes their music interesting.

[ Parent ]

sdrawkcab (none / 1) (#135)
by PigleT on Sat Dec 04, 2004 at 07:46:14 PM EST

I have not got anything backwards.

You might like to read what I wrote, for starters, that you "deviate from the rules at your peril". This does not preclude having a good noise emanate from the bent rules, but you do have to know what you're doing *first*.

There is an analogy in photography - there is a balanced attitude to hold about things such as the "rule of thirds", insofar as a picture composed according to that rule will *very* often simply look better than a careless snap; again, it's not always the case that the "rule" should be followed blindly, but I suggest you learn it first before learning when to break it.

You should consider what happens if "enjoyment" is the only criterion; rather than any useful criticism as to whether a given piece is good or not, all you can do is choose a population-size and see if most of them liked it or not. That way, like "pop idol" and the ilk. <shudder>.
~Tim -- We stood in the moonlight and the river flowed
[ Parent ]

You dont HAVE to know (none / 1) (#139)
by nanobug on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 12:06:46 AM EST

It helps, but a lot of great things have been done by people who had no formal musical education.  Hendrix, for instance.


[ Parent ]
oh, right... (none / 1) (#148)
by suntzu on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 01:59:42 PM EST

You should consider what happens if "enjoyment" is the only criterion; rather than any useful criticism as to whether a given piece is good or not

and without criticism, what would music be worth?

all you can do is choose a population-size and see if most of them liked it or not. That way, like "pop idol" and the ilk.

and then you'd have nothing to lord over the proles! trust me, i don't like the vast majority pop music, and especially american idol and such, any more than you. that stuff's bullshit. but the difference is, deep down, i know that i can't call it "bullshit" in any sort of objective way. it's just something that i and the people who share my taste dislike. and that's good enough for me. it's fun to be elitest, but it's healthy to realize that it has no objective foundation. also, i realize that the reason i dislike american idol and the vast majority of pop/mainstream music is because it's all so pre-packaged and cookie cutter. it has no feeling. it's derivitive sound is a result of that.

i don't doubt that intellectual enjoyment can translate to visceral emotional enjoyment, and that something that's theoretically enjoyable can be emotionally enjoyable for just that reason. as an example, i really like prefuse 73 (who does some really jerky and cut-up sample based instrumental hip-hop), but there's a good chance i wouldn't have liked him 5 or 10 years ago when i knew less about sampling. mostly, i just like how he sounds, but there are moments when i say "that's a neat idea" and it's still emotionally satisfying. but that's still about enjoyment. aphex twin's another good example. his song "ventolin" is a really cool idea, musically recreating the claustrophobia of a sever asthma attack and the effect of the ventolin inhaler. but i find it quite hard to listen to. it'd be fine if the high-pitched ringing in the background was removed, but then the song just wouldn't be the same would it? so i count that as something that's a cool idea that i just can't quite enjoy in the same way as some of his other music.

[ Parent ]

and without criticism, what would music be worth? (none / 1) (#176)
by mikelist on Wed Dec 08, 2004 at 11:37:32 AM EST

All music listeners are critics, deciding by type and by hype what styles and artists fill their entertainment purposes, By definition, a great number will be left standing there as not of interest to anyone. Professional reviewing for purpose of critique is different and its validity is not even a good model, often much less well implemented. But when someone releases a CD or whatever, it's a risk worth taking, some critics can be taken as mirror image pretty reliably. So, I guess financially, it would be worth much less for some artists.

[ Parent ]
exactly (none / 1) (#149)
by suntzu on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 02:05:04 PM EST

Music isn't enjoyable because it follows rules. Rather, it just so happens that "rules of thumb" often fall out of music that is enjoyable.

exactly...

Babbit argues that modern, serious music is too complicated for laypeople to enjoy, and that's how it ought to be.

ugh, what an asshole. that's like saying you can't enjoy videogames unless you understand how dynamic lighting and bezier curves.

[ Parent ]

re: classical music (none / 1) (#147)
by suntzu on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 01:47:53 PM EST

you're right, i don't have much exposure. i'm not crazy about it, but that's just because it doesn't do much for me emotionally.

i will stand by this: there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that makes classical music inherently better than any other genre. it's all about what you like. some people like certain stuff more, and some people have better lines of bullshit to justify what they like (i happen to think my lines of bullshit are pretty good, but i like what i like and come up with the justification later; i'd imagine that's what most people do, even if it's subconscious).

would you like a piece of music if you didn't enjoy it emotionally but your musical rules told you it was good?

music theory should be descriptive, not proscriptive. end of story. music is about enjoyment.

i don't see why people feel they so desperately need to classify and rate art in general. if you enjoy it, good enough. if you can tie it in to the greater truths of the world, even better. if you can share it with like-minded people, that's probably as good as it gets.

here's a question: can you come up with a proof that music following a certain form or technical structure is inherently better? i mean a real, mathematical proof that anyone who accepts basic rules of logic would accept as valid. if so, why not just let computers churn out "great" works of music?

music is heuristic. simple as that. there's plenty of great music by people with no formal musical training. no, i don't listen to classical, but from talking with my friends who do, i get the same deep emotional experiences out of the hip-hop, electronic, and rock that i do listen to. i'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that you don't write me off because i put those "popular" genres on par with the "greatest" classical music. i'm interested to see the reply.

you're ending question is misleading. it'd be better worded as "is it necessary to understand biology to enjoy a good shag?" no. could it add enjoyment from an intellectual perspective? sure, but it's not necessary. your last sentence almost implies that the only sex that would be enjoyable would be that which is adaptively advantageous, which seems somewhat ridiculous and obviously false. do drug users have to understand biology to enjoy drug use? no. could understanding pharmacology enhance your enjoyment of drugs? sure. it could also turn you into an elitest asshole that won't shut up about stereoisomers. do you have to know how a to judge various cuts of meat to enjoy a fine steak? absolutely not, but it can help. or turn you into an elitist asshole. conisuership (sp?) is great, insofar as it adds to your enjoyment of something. after that, it's nothing but a burden.

i really don't believe you can seriously judge art objectively. when you're bullshitting about it with your friends, it's more fun to talk about it as if you can, because that's the vocabulary we're used to. but that doesn't mean you can actually make objective judgements about it. if you could, you'd have proven theorems, based on generally accepted axioms, and you'd be able to write theoretically solid music that would appeal to everyone in experimental trials. but that doesn't happen, which should tell you something.

note, i'm a computer nerd, so i'm not on some fuzzy everything in life is relative thing. but, um, art is. don't try to trick yourself into thinking it's a hard science, or even on the same level of rigor as something like computer science. that doesn't in anyway detract from it, but you wouldn't know that from the music critics who try to come up with objective reasons for why their opinions should be treated as hard facts.

[ Parent ]

The best classical musicians broke the rules... (none / 0) (#165)
by RadiantMatrix on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 02:36:07 PM EST

An awful lot of the reason why much music is enjoyable is because there are rules for composition, harmony, etc, in order to define what may "sound good"; from these rules, you step away at your peril.
And every classical[0] musician whose name we recognize became well-known for breaking the rules of the day.  Granted, music is somewhat like poetry: you should understand the rules before breaking them, or you will likely produce crap.

[0]: By "classical", I mean what you might find in a record-store section with that label,which will probably include Baroque, Romantic, and Modern music in addition to strictly Classical.  Damned operator overloading. ;-)
--
I'm not going out with a "meh". I plan to live, dammit. [ZorbaTHut]

[ Parent ]

I agree with everything you say, (1.28 / 7) (#20)
by Esspets on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:28:49 PM EST

except for Freebird. Really, the Freebird guitar solo is totally out of control. +1FP


Desperation.
Um... (2.60 / 10) (#21)
by trhurler on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:34:56 PM EST

Who cares?

Seriously, magazines covering popular music are, always have been, and always will be complete shit. So what?

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

vapid, even for you. (1.40 / 22) (#24)
by the ghost of rmg on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:47:26 PM EST

wow.

also, i'd just like to interject the following:

KURT COBAIN WAS A HERO WHO DIED FOR HIS MUSIC!

FUCK YOU AND ANYONE WHO SAYS OTHERWISE!!


rmg: comments better than yours.

IAWTP (2.00 / 6) (#101)
by thekubrix on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 02:42:50 PM EST

And if the story author wants to use all his dupe accounts to mod bomb me too, then bring it on...

To say or even imply that Kurt Cobain was some sort of talentless hack is simply ignorant and stupid, not to mention closed minded.

godamn ass burger

[ Parent ]

Kurt Cobain and Talent (3.00 / 3) (#138)
by nanobug on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 12:02:29 AM EST

Kurt Cobain was talented, but talent and technical ability are not the same thing.  Kurt wasn't a very good guitarist.  He wasn't bad, but he wasn't very good either.  His songs were simple and his guitar playing was sloppy.

Whether or not this was an intended revolt against the precice synthesizer sound of the 80s or just plain old lack of ability is up to interpretation. I think it equal parts of both.  Either way you look at it, I call it art.

I believe the point however was that Kurt never showcased any outstanding technical ability to play guitar.  Broken down to just the guitar element, Nirvana songs are incrdibly simple and most people with a year or two of playing under their belt can handle playing their stuff.  Thats why you'll never see Kurt listed as one of the greatest guitarists in any publication that tries to appeal to the guitar playing community.

[ Parent ]

Third option.... (2.50 / 2) (#154)
by SvnLyrBrto on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 03:38:38 PM EST

> Whether or not this was an intended revolt against the precice
> synthesizer sound of the 80s or just plain old lack of ability is
> up to interpretation.

Could be that he HAD the ability, but as time went on, was too juiced up on smack to be able to express it.  Or am I alone in thinking that Nirvana sounded progressively worse and worse with each new release/show?

cya,
john

Imagine all the people...
[ Parent ]

Talent is not technical... (none / 1) (#175)
by mikelist on Wed Dec 08, 2004 at 11:18:27 AM EST

Talent is the capability to be concise and make a statement. Curt, like a lot of rock musicians with a moderate degree of technical proficiency, had a distinctive sound shaped partially by their particular lack of technical skills. I think that this can be a good thing, if the result is equally evocative or attractive to the ear, technical merit is irrelevent. Tell anyone you know that BB King is a lamer cuz he only plays those same tired old riffs... Having said that, I think that any artist of any kind, can benefit from directed practice and training.

[ Parent ]
another guitar magazine article ... (2.60 / 5) (#26)
by pyramid termite on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 07:58:48 PM EST

... designed to cause silly arguments ... they have to do this a few times a year it seems ... the live version of "sympathy for the devil" a bad guitar solo? ... puh-leeze ... and even though i'm tired of peter frampton's "do you feel", i've got to admit there's some pretty phrases in there when he isn't abusing the talk box

oh, and a real close listen to cinnamon girl, which rocks, will reveal that neil's letting a couple of the other strings resonate as he's playing that "one note solo" ... so it really isn't a one note solo at all, is it?

i guess if you weren't able to hear that, then you aren't really qualified to comment on it


On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.

Actually, the point of the article: (1.09 / 11) (#27)
by Esspets on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:03:28 PM EST

Neil Young fucking sucks and only idiots listen to his crap "music" and enjoy it.


Desperation.
[ Parent ]
Keep on rocking in the free world <n/t> (2.50 / 4) (#88)
by Fon2d2 on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 09:42:45 AM EST



[ Parent ]
The "other notes" you refer to (2.50 / 2) (#28)
by Jason the Mathematical Solo Guitarist on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 08:06:07 PM EST

are being played by the rhythm guitar, ie not Neil Young.

In a math sense this sig is just applied group theory: what we are talking about is the decomposition of the direct product of 2 irreducible representations of the rotation group into a direct sum of irreducible representations
[ Parent ]

In the day (2.60 / 5) (#59)
by minerboy on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 09:05:50 PM EST

When Layla was recorded, music was sold on Vinyl. Turntables could be adjusted for speed, so pitch could be corrected as much as half a tone - I wonder if the problem these so called experts had is that they used the remastered digital recording, rather than listening using the original analog ?



wrong use (none / 1) (#162)
by tuj on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 12:57:53 AM EST

the use of the pitch adjustment on a turntable is to correct for varying drag on the stylus by different types of vinyl, as well as minor electrical differences (60 hz isn't always exactly 60 in all parts).  There's typically a series of dots on the patter which appear to freeze when the table it adjusted to the correct RPMs.  Also, the range of adjustment is usually much more than one semi-tone.

Of course, you're right that you could use this feature to correct the pitch of the record.  But how many people do you think got out their Strobocon tuner, found a long isolated tone, and tuned the speed of the record?  Who really cares if the recording is out of tune with regards to standard tuning, unless you're trying to transcribe/play along with it?  As long as everything is in tune relative to each other in the recording, no big deal.  

[ Parent ]

Um (2.40 / 10) (#64)
by felixrayman on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 10:13:11 PM EST

Wow. I haven't learned anything about guitar solos from reading the comments to this, but I have learned, with a high degree of confidence, that Esspets is a big fat fucking whiny bitch.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

Get your kicks at ABC No Rio. (1.07 / 14) (#65)
by Esspets on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 10:58:08 PM EST

Moralist fuck.


Desperation.
[ Parent ]
LOL! Its so easy to get you riled up (1.12 / 8) (#68)
by Jason the Mathematical Solo Guitarist on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 11:37:30 PM EST

amateur. YHBT again.

In a math sense this sig is just applied group theory: what we are talking about is the decomposition of the direct product of 2 irreducible representations of the rotation group into a direct sum of irreducible representations
[ Parent ]

Nigger. (1.06 / 15) (#80)
by Esspets on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 06:51:52 AM EST

You have nothing.


Desperation.
[ Parent ]
Where's the Malmsteen? (2.50 / 2) (#66)
by Grahhh on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 11:02:04 PM EST

Sure, he's been doing the same stuff for years, his lyrics are total cheese, and, from the last picture I saw of him, he's gotten fat, but the guy can play like no other.

Yay. Scooped fretboards man! <nt> (none / 1) (#71)
by GenerationY on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 12:26:19 AM EST



[ Parent ]
D to C-C# (3.00 / 6) (#70)
by Blarney on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 12:05:52 AM EST

The outro of Layla is actually in a different key from the rest of the song - the song is in D, with a typically rock styled major-minor ambiguity.

There's a sort of a fade before the outro starts up with the controversial call-it-a-C/E chord on the piano. So the song has moved down from a D to a C for the outro, down a whole step - an interesting contrast to the great many songs which go up a whole step in their outro. With this sharpening of the piano, it's more like the song goes down by a "blue" interval, not quite a whole step but more than a half step - and no other song that I know of does this. Maybe it's a studio accident, but it's a very original move just the same and it makes the initial piano chord stand out more than it otherwise would. Going down by a blue interval is a classic part of a blues turnaround, and the outro of Layla becomes a turnaround that goes on, and on, and on.....

So my opinion would be that the outro of Layla is not out-of-tune, it's just a modulation which doesn't exactly fit the 12-tone system. And it does, to my subjective senses, have musical merit.

If you want to hear what is, in my view, a less musical example of the same sort of studio mishap, check out the Beatles Strawberry Fields. It is stitched together from two slightly detuned performances as well. But it doesn't really have the same impact as the Layla example, in my humble opinion of course.

Its no studio accident (2.50 / 2) (#72)
by Jason the Mathematical Solo Guitarist on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 12:28:29 AM EST

The piano track of the outro was originally recorded to be its own song, but Clapton liked it so much that he added it to the end of Layla. That's the story, anyway. Don't know if its true or not.

In a math sense this sig is just applied group theory: what we are talking about is the decomposition of the direct product of 2 irreducible representations of the rotation group into a direct sum of irreducible representations
[ Parent ]

The piano track was actually (2.60 / 5) (#87)
by GenerationY on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 09:32:14 AM EST

composed by the drummer (Jim Gordon) who was using "after hours" studio time to record a few personal tunes for his own amusement. Unfortunately he developed schizophrenia and murdered his own mother with a hammer in the early 1980s.

[ Parent ]
schizophrenia -> drug-induced schizophrenia nt (2.66 / 3) (#94)
by Jason the Mathematical Solo Guitarist on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 11:10:50 AM EST


In a math sense this sig is just applied group theory: what we are talking about is the decomposition of the direct product of 2 irreducible representations of the rotation group into a direct sum of irreducible representations
[ Parent ]

Layla, in D? (none / 1) (#131)
by smithmc on Sat Dec 04, 2004 at 03:56:55 PM EST


The outro of Layla is actually in a different key from the rest of the song - the song is in D, with a typically rock styled major-minor ambiguity.

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, it alternates between C#m and E in the verses and Dm in the choruses.

[ Parent ]

minor i guess (none / 1) (#168)
by Blarney on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 02:23:36 AM EST

But clapton does hit a few rather sharp "F" notes on his lead, which sort of lend major character to the chorus chords. it doesn't seem all black-and-white to me.

[ Parent ]
My nore penta tonic (none / 0) (#174)
by mikelist on Wed Dec 08, 2004 at 08:32:28 AM EST

I don't even play guitar anymore (just dobro). 32nd note wonders versus those who can pour their heart out with one note, neither is complete but the one note guys are closer, IMHO.

[ Parent ]
ambiguous? not at all (none / 1) (#173)
by mikelist on Wed Dec 08, 2004 at 08:24:20 AM EST

Buncha guitar players so talented they can rate other player's clunkers, but can't recognize a minor pentatonic run. None of you people should be doing anything at all with a guitar. -5 4all

[ Parent ]
Just couldn't let it rest, could you? (2.25 / 8) (#74)
by Kasreyn on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 03:54:06 AM EST

You know, you might have gotten my +1SP if you had been content merely with posting a smug, patronizing, partisan geek rant. That's one of our specialties here at k5. But then you had to go and allow yourself to be baited by the biggest idiot currently operating here.

For shame, sir. FOR SHAME. -1

P.S. The main upshot here is that you spent $7.95 to feel superior to us. I hope you at least wiped your monitor. Another satisfied suckercustomer.


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
-1, guitars (2.00 / 11) (#79)
by nebbish on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 05:59:55 AM EST

We have sequencers and stuff now grandad.

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee

Oh, so that's why (2.00 / 2) (#90)
by minerboy on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 10:37:31 AM EST

All today's music sounds the same. Its just a big programmed loop - <queue Lambchop> This is the song that doesn't end, it just goes on and on my friends . . .



[ Parent ]
what (3.00 / 4) (#106)
by Delirium on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 05:26:07 PM EST

Most of the crappiest music coming out these days is made by guitar, and is termed "nu-metal".

There might be some crappy techno that can compare, but fortunately no radio stations play it here in the US, so it's not hard to avoid.

[ Parent ]

yeah (none / 1) (#109)
by minerboy on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 07:29:39 PM EST

For some reason none of the newer musicians play very good guitar - maybe it doesn't help get girls anymore.



[ Parent ]
nu-metal has crappy techno too (none / 1) (#142)
by auraslip on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 06:12:36 AM EST


124
[ Parent ]
did you just diss Kurt Cobain? (1.91 / 12) (#100)
by thekubrix on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 02:40:40 PM EST

You're a dipshit, and I have NO respect for you or your poorly written article.

-1 for you asshole

No, you're the dipshit (2.80 / 5) (#123)
by h4xx0r on Sat Dec 04, 2004 at 11:15:48 AM EST

Kurt Cobain was indeed a legend, and the inspiration for a whole new generation of musicians.

But please, just listen to any Nirvana record.  He was technically a very poor guitarist.

[ Parent ]

omg it's punk to suck (none / 1) (#143)
by auraslip on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 06:13:04 AM EST

no shit really?
124
[ Parent ]
Let's see here (3.00 / 5) (#103)
by codejack on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 03:59:00 PM EST

First off, all you had to do was say was "these dipshits are saying that Eric Clapton and Duane Allman don't know how to play guitar! Let's drive to their homes, shoot their dogs, and seel their children into slavery!"

Other than that, I have a few little nitpicks:
  1. Say what you will about Eddie van Halen, the mofo can play the guitar; Just don't listen to anything he did after David Lee Roth left the band.
  2. If the people at Guitarworld magazine really knew how to play guitar, what the fuck would they be doing writing a magazine? Fuck them!
  3. Unless you have, somewhere, the original sheet music, or a quote from Clapton saying what key it was written in (not Allman; If he'd been asked, he would probably have said E#), who knows which it was?
  4. Did the Violent Femmes make the list?
Other than that, good article.


Please read before posting.

'scuse me? (none / 0) (#105)
by speek on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 04:40:11 PM EST

Eddie only got better as time went by, end of story. The album with Gary Cherone was the most interesting album Van Halen ever did.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

You sick, little, monkey! (none / 1) (#114)
by codejack on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 08:52:43 PM EST

Eddie can play the fucking guitar, no doubt, and I can see him getting better with time, but Roth knew how to make the music; Besides, are you going to sit there and tell me that Sammy Hagar was an improvement?!


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
yes, I am (2.33 / 3) (#117)
by speek on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 09:24:12 PM EST

How many Roth shrieks can you take? And albums don't get much crappier "Diver Down" or "Women and Children First". Seriously, the Hagar era was much much better, overall (1984 was a great album though, no doubt).

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Neil Young Solo (none / 1) (#127)
by stardog70 on Sat Dec 04, 2004 at 01:04:05 PM EST

On Cinammon Girl, it is Danny Whitten, not Neil Young, who plays the solo. Refer to the book "Shakey" by Jimmy McDonough.
maz
[ Parent ]
I agree +1 FP (none / 0) (#108)
by SaintPort on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 06:19:59 PM EST

with your accessment of the article and now provide a link to

guitarbar.sourceforge.net as mentioned in my earlier story and diary.

Have not done anything new or useful with guitarbar lately, but if there are any aspiring guitarists out there who like 16bit textmode software, well, here it is.

<><

--
Search the Scriptures
Start with some cheap grace...Got Life?

The real Clapton critisism (1.30 / 13) (#112)
by balsamic vinigga on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 08:44:57 PM EST

Why is it when Michael Jackson, with a firm grip on Blanket, his baby, holds him out to a crowd below his balcony eager to see the him people call him a crazy child-endangering looney who should be prosecuited....... and then when Clapton is irresponsible enough to let his son fall to his death out of a window it's "ohhh poor Clapton, there will be no more tears in heaven! :`(((((("

Fuckin double standard racist hypocrites.

---
Please help fund a Filipino Horror Movie. It's been in limbo since 2007 due to lack of funding. Please donate today!

Who's the racist? (2.00 / 3) (#126)
by MotorMachineMercenary on Sat Dec 04, 2004 at 12:53:53 PM EST

Why don't you actually learn what happened? Clapton wasn't even near the scene of the accident, and the housekeeper, or even better, the stupid brat himself is responsible for the accident.

Nevertheless, the whole hulabaloo about Jackson dangling the baby over the railing was fucking ridiculous. But then again, I support anything that's used to discredit that child-molesting sicko.

--
"If you cant think of your own sig, you are nothing." - noogie


[ Parent ]
Oh that's right I must have forgotten that there's (1.80 / 5) (#130)
by balsamic vinigga on Sat Dec 04, 2004 at 03:41:21 PM EST

nothing at all irresponsible with having a bastard son out of wedlock, and then not being around when he needs you.  Like, oh i don't know, to secure the home and make sure it's safe for children.  Something that a responsible father that's present in the family would do.

---
Please help fund a Filipino Horror Movie. It's been in limbo since 2007 due to lack of funding. Please donate today!
[ Parent ]
I'd be interested to hear... (none / 1) (#137)
by nanobug on Sat Dec 04, 2004 at 11:45:42 PM EST

about your perfect family life, and what path you took to reach your moral high ground.  Please sign me up for your newsletter.


[ Parent ]
fallacy (1.50 / 2) (#155)
by balsamic vinigga on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 03:43:50 PM EST

I don't claim to be any saint.  If you get pulled over for doing 70, you can't say "look officer that dude's doing at least 70, probably 80."  It doesn't matter.  What you did was still wrong.

---
Please help fund a Filipino Horror Movie. It's been in limbo since 2007 due to lack of funding. Please donate today!
[ Parent ]
uh no (3.00 / 4) (#158)
by etherdeath on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 07:28:18 PM EST

actually if everyone else is doing 70-80 and only you get pulled over for it, that is a problem.

[ Parent ]
How is it a problem (1.50 / 2) (#159)
by balsamic vinigga on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 07:39:56 PM EST

when you knew it was wrong to go over 65?  You have no logical ground to stand on.  Only some whiney shit about some other faggots being just as wrong as you.

---
Please help fund a Filipino Horror Movie. It's been in limbo since 2007 due to lack of funding. Please donate today!
[ Parent ]
Selective enforcement (2.50 / 2) (#166)
by Fountain Pen Converter on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 03:42:33 PM EST

Well, a), I would say there is a fundamental difference between breaking the law, and doing something that is morally or ethically wrong. It may be the case that people identify the two, but they aren't fundamentally the same, unless one of your foundational ethical principles is to obey the law at all times.

But more importantly, b) the principle is equal protection under law. It's not a question of whether or not you were breaking the law by speeding so much as a question of if everyone receives the same consequences for the same behavior. If traffic on a given road consistantly violates the speed limit, and only you get pulled over, you are being singled out for enforcement. Same thing if you consistantly get away with breaking a law for which everyone else is punished.

Equal protection under law is (I believe) a constitutionally-guarenteed right. If the police are showing preferential treatment based on race, creed, or color, that's a civil rights violation. I am not sure if sexual orientation or gender are currently included in most federal laws; certainly they aren't in the constitution, yet, though they should be.

Your ad hominom attack is as worthless in this context as it would be in any other rational, reasonable debate.



----------------------------------------
Always striving to have a point.
[ Parent ]
It's not selective fucking enforcement (2.66 / 3) (#167)
by balsamic vinigga on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 04:26:03 PM EST

it's limited police resources.  Bust a few people as a deterent.  They tell eerybody else.. "yo, i got hit with a 200 dollar fine out on highway 22."

Speeds decrease.

They got singled out randomly.  That's not selective enforcement, that's feeble enforcement.

And that has nothing to do with the point.  Just because other people are wrong doesn't mean it's ok to be wrong.  Wrong is wrong is wrong.

Is it ok to rape your daughter on pitcairn island because everybody else is doing it?  No it's not.  Raping people is wrong, not by popular opinion but by the consequences of such actions.

So everybody is a bad dad especially that crazy canuck that knocked up clapton's mom.  THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S OK FOR CLAPTON TO BE A BAD DAD!  OR FOR ANYBODY TO BE A BAD DAD.

---
Please help fund a Filipino Horror Movie. It's been in limbo since 2007 due to lack of funding. Please donate today!
[ Parent ]

you have a real problem admitting mistakes eh? (none / 0) (#178)
by spacemoose on Thu Dec 09, 2004 at 12:15:01 PM EST

While you may have basis to critisize Clapton for not being there as much for his kid as he should have been, it's irrelevant to the initial thread of your argument, which was a comparison between M.J. intentionally hanging his kid out of a window, and Clapton [allowing his son to fall out of a window through neglect].

Like it or not, you were incorrect in your assumptions of what happened to Claptons kid. An enlightened response would have been a simple 'oh, my mistake', and not an attempt to find some basis by which you wouldn't be wrong. A surey sign that this kind of thing is happening is the argument drift, as we see here with the driving metaphor. You are saying things that have merit, but are not applicable to your initial argument.

The fact is you were wrong in your assumptoins about Claption. It's cool, shit happens. Not admitting your errors is always worse than making them in the first place.

G

[ Parent ]

What the fuck are you talking about? (none / 0) (#179)
by balsamic vinigga on Thu Dec 09, 2004 at 04:54:35 PM EST

How can I admit to something that never happens?

---
Please help fund a Filipino Horror Movie. It's been in limbo since 2007 due to lack of funding. Please donate today!
[ Parent ]
Amazingly OT, but I love the nick BV (n/t) (none / 0) (#180)
by TaoJones on Thu Dec 09, 2004 at 07:48:06 PM EST



[ Parent ]
I posted the top 100 list in my diary (3.00 / 3) (#134)
by Jason the Mathematical Solo Guitarist on Sat Dec 04, 2004 at 04:47:00 PM EST

You can get it here:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/4/164535/181

In a math sense this sig is just applied group theory: what we are talking about is the decomposition of the direct product of 2 irreducible representations of the rotation group into a direct sum of irreducible representations

the Cobain slam (2.55 / 9) (#160)
by tuj on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 12:45:53 AM EST

I know its already been posted, but this hit me hard.  Ok, so music is pretty personal, you either liked Nirvana or not.  I read so many comments about what a terrible guitarist Kurt Cobain was.

I truly disagree with that.  While no one denies that Kurt couldn't play quintuplet tapping licks like Van Halen, he did have something special.  His touch and sound were remarkable.  I haven't heard many people who've had as raw and aggressive a sound.  His solo's were always simple, tasteful things.  I feel like the best one he did is on the No Alternative Albini recording of Verse Chorus Verse.  Check it out if you haven't; its probably the best Nirvana song ever.

He was also masterful at feedback sounds.  Sure, laugh if you want, its actually quite hard to get some of those sounds, and be able to control them, and conjure them at will.  Sonic Youth is probably the best at this nowdays.  Kurt had some very interesting techniques for getting his sounds, like tapping the back of the neck at the 4th fret.

So what makes a good solo?  I appreciate technical skill as much as anyone, but I feel strongly that solos are in the tradition of jazz/blues players, meant to express emotion.  Technical proficiency is just like having a larger vocabulary; that in itself doesn't make what you say any more profound.

Judging solos seems kind of moronic to me.  I mean, I hate the masturbatory crap that is the solo of Freebird, but I'm sure there's plenty of people who think that's ace.  I can understand the perspective of guitar players who've spent lots of time perfecting their technique, to be incensed at the fame of relatively unschooled folks like Cobain or Greenday.  Guess what?  Fuck you.  Their music appeals to people at some level, and that's what really matters.  

So call the masses stupid and uneducated; at the end of the day I don't really care if some guitarist is playing in the wrong position, or if he's playing easier chord shapes (and yes I played guitar for a number of year, so I have an appreciation of the technical skill of people like Van Halen, even if I don't like their music).  If it sounds good, the means to the end don't matter.  And complexity does not make music better in and of itself.  Judging music is so personal that's its asinine to think that your opinion on music, in terms of one piece being better than another, has any relevance to anyone else.  The only real standard you can apply is how many people like a piece of music; that's the true measure of its impact.  And in a world of pop superstars, that can be a scary standard.  Its totally right and necessary to have your own opinions on art, but don't ranking shit and expect people to agree with you.

Anyway, love em or hate em, you can't deny Nirvana's impact.  Now you can attribute that to slick marketing, or appealing to dissaffected youth or great, honest, emotional song-writing.  In they end, millions of people were affected in some way or another by what they did, and there's only maybe a hundred other bands in history that you can say the same about.

most of y'all (1.00 / 4) (#161)
by elpgrrrl on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 12:52:37 AM EST

need to take a dump and get that crap out of your systems. this has got to be the lamest post i've ever read, from the top down. you've all either still have a hangover or you need to get one now. and i should be in the crapper too for writing this. but you've left me recourse but to post to this entry. so i'll just sign off and go get a big martini, extra dry.

Cats in heat (none / 0) (#164)
by generaltao on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 12:26:37 PM EST


The end of layla sounds like cats in heat.  It's easily one of the most annoying solos ever made.

The Freebird solo gives me a headache.  Just a bunch of cheesy licks, each repeated 4-8 times and chained together without any regard for where the whole mess is going.  

Eddie Van Halen kicks ass.

Poison kicks ass.

One of my favorite solos, for technical reasons partly, but mostly for how well it captures and enhances the mood of the song, is the solo in "I remember you" by Skid Row.

And yet, the guitarist who plays it doesn't even make my top 20 list.  (Hell.. not even sure I remember his name.. Rachel or something?)


In Defense of Clapton's Layla | 181 comments (136 topical, 45 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!