stupid dogbot
Haughty and Superior
In your opinion.
In mine, he's a technically capable guitarist, but the music is utterly dull.
what intruments can you play..........................
- Thread starter internetstalker
- Start date
In your opinion.
In mine, he's a technically capable guitarist, but the music is utterly dull.
You're right in that first and foremost it's about music. But you're wrong in suggesting that I might feel in any way differently if I'd just heard him play, rather than watching him. His music's horrible, boring and music-studenty. Joyless, in much the same way Newton Faulkner is.
I personally don't give a stuff about technique, and received opinion about what constitutes good technique. I like Derek Bailey and Cedell Davis and Keith Rowe. They all play a lot less conventionally, and a damn sight more imaginately, than that guy does. I couldn't care less if someone used their knob to play guitar.
But the people that bang on about how great so-and-so is at playing guitar tend to be precisely the people that really do fetishize conventional guitar technique (and I include banging the guitar's body among conventional guitar techniqes - it's common currency in flamenco).
There's no melodic jollies to be had from Andy McKee, no succulent goose-pimply chord changes or anything. But the tunes aren't what generally attracts the the Widdly Malmsteen Guitarist Weekly brigade anyway. What really surprised me is that he wasn't even all that technically amazing.
For the record, current guitarists I really rate would include Martin Rossiter, Jason Steel and Serious Sam Barrett. Oh and the Boycott Coca Cola Experience. And Duke Garwood.
5t3IIa
Registered User
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
5t3IIa
Registered User
mattie
missing in inaction
Currently 'learning' piano. Quite reasonably, the missus bought me some headphones for the electric piano. The only drawback is it sounds even bloody worse through a set of cans.
I cna play 4 chords on guitar, given time and a few attempts. Really canes the fingers though.
I cna play 4 chords on guitar, given time and a few attempts. Really canes the fingers though.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
I bet you're not any good at it though
one handed percussive playing style. I assume you play it as a wind instrument?
El Sueno
Dabbler
That'll do ya - you can now play Noel Gallagher's entire back-catalogue. Although why you'd want to is your own business.
My point is exactly the same as yours. Whether or not you like the actual music is really rather irrelevant.
Saying that the music is rubbish because he's slapping his guitar and not playing in on orthodox fashion is however mind numbingly stupid.
Your entire reaction is based on the visual. You obviously did give a stuff about technique because you commented on it.
I have never heard of heard of this guy before watching that. I can't comment on whether his music lacks goose pimply chord changes. That's one piece. Why should that piece alone be any different? Have you heard every piece he's written?
How are you able, having watched one single video, to determine if he's not technically amazing? Should the piece have been more technically challenging? I bet then you'd moan the music was all technique and no soul or something equally trite. The technique used was enough to perform the piece. Since there were no mistakes I can't really understand how you can say it wasn't all that technically astute.
Really you aren't making any sense and are just dressing up the fact you don't like the piece with a load of bollocks.
this thread is full of the most ridiculously contradictory bollocks. people are so full of themselves. music is art and as such should be a little showy, a little escapist.
Minnie_the_Minx
someinenhhanding menbag and me ah bollox
Bloody show off............
can't play anything or sing...........
same as, I was disappointed when I discovered my b/f couldn't either, especially after him telling me that his father could play absolutely anything that was put in his hands.
stupid dogbot
Haughty and Superior
In your opinion.
not everything is opinion.
stupid dogbot
Haughty and Superior
In this case it is. What music means to you isn't necessarily the same for others.
yeah, it frequently is, and I don't think anyone's said otherwise.
I don't just dislike that piece, i really hate it: I think it's utterly worthless, as are the other items he's posted up on youtube which I had a quick listen to.
I don't know how to put it any clearer. Me, I don't personally give a damn about technique or how anyone plays. But seeing as the music that guy made was so MOR and soulless, I presumed that there'd be at least some kind of jaw-dropping guitar fireworks, in that Rock School way that people who widdle in guitar shops like.
Or, to put it another way, I am indeed saying it is "all technique and no soul" as you put it. Only I'm going further and saying there's not even very much technique.
Or, to put it another way, that guy could be playing kazoo and he'd still be rubbish, because the clammy hand of adult-oriented-Radio-2-singer-songwriter muzak is too firmly clasped about his soul. It's terminal.
I haven't disputed that.
the Black Lips do that, it is a good live show.
there is nothing remotely like that ever played on radio 2.
granted it might not be the most harmonically sophisticated music ever, but so what? There's room for everything. What's important is this guy is doing his own thing. I assume he wasn't some Simon Cowell pop factory discovery or creation.
I like a lot of music; some of it is more harmonically challenging than others. Big woop; it's no less valid. Is there a limit then to how many times in the world and throughout history the C major chord can be played or something?
But to denigrate the technique is just ignorance: the piece has no mistakes, bum notes, sloppy timing, or anything else. Therefore it's technically spot on.
The Groke
hot hail/Paging Dr. Beat
Wuh?
My post very clearly gave props to his technical proficiency. I thought it was a shit piece of music though.
It still is a shit piece of music.
I don't get yer point?
Yes, yes it is. I don't recall saying anything like that though.
And again - "wuh?"
I very clearly stated "I didn't like it"
Not sure at which point my Denigration Through Ignorance began.
You really do seem too eager read what you want to read across these boards, rather than what has actually been written.
Art pretty much is*. Which is what we are discussing.
*The only aspect which wouldn't be are evident, physical truths of course; "This painting is oil on canvass" etc.
Yeah I know it barely seems worth pointing this out, but I do think you need assistance sometimes...
stupid dogbot
Haughty and Superior
Well, I took your "not everything is opinion" comment to suggest you were dealing in facts here, which I disagreed with. But if that's not the case, then we're all good.
There are frequently things like that played on Mike Harding's show on Radio 2: music-school-graduate contemporary folk sort of thing, such as Lau, Usicedwr, Kriss Drever, John McCusker et al. Horribly clean stuff that sounds like it was recorded in airless recording studios even when it actually wasn't.
That guy reminded me of both Newton Faulkner and John Smith, both of whom have been played on Radio 2 a fair bit. John Smith has his moments, actually, he's slightly more edgy and has a bit of more welcome rougher edge (particularly when he goes a bit bluesy and plays slide guitar).
ericjarvis
give a feck for the feckless
Differently from anyone else. That's all I've ever really been concerned about.
This is like an argument on realism vs. expressionism.
e.g. To me, being able to draw/paint realistically sets a foundation of creating abstract art.
Having the technique in playing an instrument helps a musician to evolve their performance/composing a piece of music.
Without the technique, they're just fooling themselves in doing something wacky thinking they're being different and creative.
On the other hand, technique alone doesn't equate to being fantastic neither when there no 'soul' (like other said) in the music.
e.g. To me, being able to draw/paint realistically sets a foundation of creating abstract art.
Having the technique in playing an instrument helps a musician to evolve their performance/composing a piece of music.
Without the technique, they're just fooling themselves in doing something wacky thinking they're being different and creative.
On the other hand, technique alone doesn't equate to being fantastic neither when there no 'soul' (like other said) in the music.
Similar threads
