wahwah
GumbyLoveologist
Re: Hey, guys who were playing in the 80's....
This is a commonly repeated argument from a lot of dedicated instrumentalists. It was the same argument that emerged in 1977 when the Sex Pistols became huge. Dedicated musicians complaining that these hacks were getting the fast track to success while those who had sweated over their technique and playing skills were getting pushed aside and ignored. However, I think it misses the point completely. The fact is, the general public couldn't care less about technique or skill, playing speed, chops, tone or any of the things that instrumentalists dedicate their time to studying and practising. The general public, as is reflected in record sales, are more attuned to songs, lyrics and fashion. The reason why the hair metal and shredding phase was so short lived is that none of the shredders were writing songs that the general public could relate to or found interesting. The songs were simply a backdrop for a guitar solo, to demonstrate the egocentric perspective of the guitarist, and to provide a platform for the self promotion of their skills. Banal, meaningless cliched lyrics, predictable arrangements, fabricated emotion and laughably pubescent videos. In essence, this isn't giving the listening public anything, instead it is asking them to admire the artist.
Bands like Nirvana and the Sex Pistols were the antithesis of that. They spoke through their songs and careless style, at the level of the lowest common denominator, to and for the younger generation of their time. They reflected the anger, disillusionment, and sense of displacement of their listening audience in a way that made their audience feel like they were getting something from them, like they were being given something through the songs. It was about the SONGS, not the guitar playing or the posturing, not the speed or technique or any other factor to which the general public can't relate. Rightly so then, that the shredders would only ever capture a niche market, other guitarists and pubescent boys, and the acts who were capable of writing SONGS would garner mass, global appeal.
Without songs to play and an audience to hear them, all of the technical skill on an instrument is virtually useless in providing a service to the public. It may serve as a personal discipline, or as a form of self indulgent entertainment for a small sector, but it has no mass appeal, and never will. For musicians to have missed this vital point is like being detached from reality. Sure, everyone is entitled to pursue whichever avenues of music they choose, but no-one should be surprised when they find that their egocentric approach receives little response from the public. Those who choose the path of providing a service to others with their abilities will increase their chances of being rewarded for it. This is not just an opinion, this is an observation throughout my own lifetime and career, through 26 years of being a professional musician with no other source of income. To the masses, music is about songs, not instrumental playing skills. If you want to argue that point, argue with the record sales of the past 50 years.
Cheers....................wahwah
Many of us players who'd spent hours every single day woodshedding to be good enough to "make it" felt apalled at such mediocrity. At least I could accept the slop that Jimmy Page put out in the 70's because what he did was so revolutionary and ecclectic. But Kurt Cobain did nothing for me. I think that he made it cool to just be a crappy musician and so many kids felt like they had been "let off the hook" in terms of having to pay their dues and put in the time and practice that it took to be a good musician BEFORE they made it to the big time. I've been "paying my dues" live for 20+ years. I don't think of it as a chore. I do it because I LOVE doing it. But I have to chuckle when I see "kids" who can barely play a pentatonic lick strutting around arena stages like they're great players and guitar gods.
As a songwriter, I understand that music is an art and therefor is subjective and open to many differen interpretations as to what is of value and what is good. I can deal with that. But as a guitar player and instrumental musician, the state of guitar for the past decade+ has been generally appaling. At least when you turned on the radio or video channel in the 80's and saw the current top 100 bands you saw guitar players who were of phenominal talent. That just isn't so now. There are a select FEW nu-metal guitarists who are "pretty good". But coming from the 80's with guys like Vai, Yngwie, Holdsworth, Bettencourt, Sykes, Gary Moore, Van Halen, etc... "pretty good" just doesn't cut it.
This is a commonly repeated argument from a lot of dedicated instrumentalists. It was the same argument that emerged in 1977 when the Sex Pistols became huge. Dedicated musicians complaining that these hacks were getting the fast track to success while those who had sweated over their technique and playing skills were getting pushed aside and ignored. However, I think it misses the point completely. The fact is, the general public couldn't care less about technique or skill, playing speed, chops, tone or any of the things that instrumentalists dedicate their time to studying and practising. The general public, as is reflected in record sales, are more attuned to songs, lyrics and fashion. The reason why the hair metal and shredding phase was so short lived is that none of the shredders were writing songs that the general public could relate to or found interesting. The songs were simply a backdrop for a guitar solo, to demonstrate the egocentric perspective of the guitarist, and to provide a platform for the self promotion of their skills. Banal, meaningless cliched lyrics, predictable arrangements, fabricated emotion and laughably pubescent videos. In essence, this isn't giving the listening public anything, instead it is asking them to admire the artist.
Bands like Nirvana and the Sex Pistols were the antithesis of that. They spoke through their songs and careless style, at the level of the lowest common denominator, to and for the younger generation of their time. They reflected the anger, disillusionment, and sense of displacement of their listening audience in a way that made their audience feel like they were getting something from them, like they were being given something through the songs. It was about the SONGS, not the guitar playing or the posturing, not the speed or technique or any other factor to which the general public can't relate. Rightly so then, that the shredders would only ever capture a niche market, other guitarists and pubescent boys, and the acts who were capable of writing SONGS would garner mass, global appeal.
Without songs to play and an audience to hear them, all of the technical skill on an instrument is virtually useless in providing a service to the public. It may serve as a personal discipline, or as a form of self indulgent entertainment for a small sector, but it has no mass appeal, and never will. For musicians to have missed this vital point is like being detached from reality. Sure, everyone is entitled to pursue whichever avenues of music they choose, but no-one should be surprised when they find that their egocentric approach receives little response from the public. Those who choose the path of providing a service to others with their abilities will increase their chances of being rewarded for it. This is not just an opinion, this is an observation throughout my own lifetime and career, through 26 years of being a professional musician with no other source of income. To the masses, music is about songs, not instrumental playing skills. If you want to argue that point, argue with the record sales of the past 50 years.
Cheers....................wahwah
). 
