Is Rock Guitar Dead?

[Quencho092]

Re: Is Rock Guitar Dead?

I totally agree-compare how many local bands/giggers cop a Slash/GNR sound vs. the thousands of 'urban blues' players that work bars every night. He really kicked blues up a notch and made it a larger phenomenon, especially as someone for blues players to look up to.

 

[flank]

Re: Is Rock Guitar Dead?

SRV had lots of fans, and clones, but he was hardly revolutionary. Classic sound, classic gear, classic style.

i agree, heck of a player, put all his soul into his playing

if we want to talk about someone who came after early EVH, i think The Edge can be considered......throw out whether you like his band or not, he created a completely signature sound, and explored landscapes of the electric guitar that were not explored before, and he didn't have to wank around either!

 

[Lewguitar]

Re: Is Rock Guitar Dead?

SRV had lots of fans, and clones, but he was hardly revolutionary. Classic sound, classic gear, classic style.

I disagree. SRV had an instantly recognizable tone and style of his own. Much more so than Slash. I mean, I hear studio guys copping SRV licks and tone on beer commercials and what not all the time...and they don't sound like the guys that influenced Stevie...(Hendrix, Albert King, etc.)...they sound like SRV.

 

[Zhangliqun]

Re: Is Rock Guitar Dead?

the baseball analogy works ok, except distinguishing having numerical evidence as opposed to whether the music created is "revolutionary" or not as evidence is too blurry of a line, for me anyways

If you are a true music fan and you hear someone who is a true musical revolutionary or genius in the style(s) of music you like, you know it. You may not be able to quantify it in numbers, but it's unmistakable. Like the old saying about the judge who says "I can't give you a precise legal definition of obscenity but I know it when I see it."

 

[Zhangliqun]

Re: Is Rock Guitar Dead?

if we want to talk about someone who came after early EVH, i think The Edge can be considered......throw out whether you like his band or not, he created a completely signature sound, and explored landscapes of the electric guitar that were not explored before, and he didn't have to wank around either!

Yeah, you definitely know it's him without having to look. And he's another good example of a minimalist.

 

[Mincer]

Re: Is Rock Guitar Dead?

I disagree. SRV had an instantly recognizable tone and style of his own. Much more so than Slash. I mean, I hear studio guys copping SRV licks and tone on beer commercials and what not all the time...and they don't sound like the guys that influenced Stevie...(Hendrix, Albert King, etc.)...they sound like SRV.

Really? Im not a big Slash fan, who I would also put in the 'not revolutionary' catagory, but SRV played electric blues using the same vocabulary (scales, licks, song forms) and image of lots of people before him. I liked his playing, and you are right, it is instantly recognizable, but it is derivative of his influences... and there were lots of people in the late 70s/80s that were playing on the bluesier side of rock- he happened to be one that got famous..and of course, death automatically makes you super famous too. I guess I was thinking more in line of people like Allan Holdsworth, Robert Fripp, Adrian Belew, John McLaughlin...people who use a completely different vocabulary, challange our thinking as to what a 'song' is, and have a few schools of playing that they can honestly say they *invented*. New tones, with gear they had to essentially invent to get their ideas across, and they stick with it (and make a living) despite most *guitarists* never having heard of them.

 

[flank]

Re: Is Rock Guitar Dead?

If you are a true music fan and you hear someone who is a true musical revolutionary or genius in the style(s) of music you like, you know it. You may not be able to quantify it in numbers, but it's unmistakable. Like the old saying about the judge who says "I can't give you a precise legal definition of obscenity but I know it when I see it."

is this applied to Nirvana? i forget what your original statement was in response to. If it was about Nirvana, i do see some musical revolution within that band and Cobain......i don't particularly like Nirvana, but i can and have listened to them. I think it can definately be agreed that Cobain was not a "musical" genius, in the literal sense, since the music wasn't particularly arranged brilliantly or with any complexity......but at the same time, there was brilliance in the fact that the songs were arranged with simplistic power chords, but the progressions were not normal......even the early punk stuff was more "grungy" and "rough" compared to the music at that time, but it was all still blues based progressions and aggrangements.....its just there wasnt the swing of blues of music, it was harder sounding, and of course, the attitude was different.......but with Cobain, he arranged the power chords in ways that were not particularly blues based at all.....i'm not even sure what category they would fall into

 

[Quencho092]

Re: Is Rock Guitar Dead?

I disagree. SRV had an instantly recognizable tone and style of his own. Much more so than Slash. I mean, I hear studio guys copping SRV licks and tone on beer commercials and what not all the time...and they don't sound like the guys that influenced Stevie...(Hendrix, Albert King, etc.)...they sound like SRV.

DING DING DING DING!

Yes, he had a classic vocabulary, yes he had many influences, but when I first saw Austin City Limits I just fell in love with his style. It's almost like a funk blues/rock. And the people that copy him don't sound like hendrix or albert king at all, so you got it Lew!

Rock isn't about how amazing or complex you can make something, the genre in itself was meant to be a simple form of music from the get go. All these artists that use all these midi devices, song techniques, etc are very impressive, but I think that they lack the soul of a barebones player. It wasn't about the licks that SRV played, it's the way that he played them and dug into them that made him so great.

 

[Mincer]

Re: Is Rock Guitar Dead?

I never thought 'soul' could be attributed to how much equipment you use. Or how it is controlled. Gibsons and strats are made by machines too.
I think 'rock' guitar is a broad enough term to encompass many types of approaches, none more valid or with more 'soul' than the other. If it touches you, thats great. Blues based rock never really did it for me, and I rarely use hallmarks of that style in my playing. I appreciate when other people do, but it really has no 'soul' for me.

 

[big_black]

Re: Is Rock Guitar Dead?

Even here he's not original, or even what you claim. He was putting out these huge walls of sound with his guitar -- nothing wrong with that, that's what makes a power trio so cool. But that's not minimalism.

Andy Summers in his Police days was a supreme minimalist. He was always doing very subtle things with the tone and texture, taking so few solos that Cobain looked like Vai by comparison, and coming up with chord voicings that you rarely if ever heard on a guitar. He was so subtle that he was like the ref at a basketball game -- you don't notice them 'til they either screw up or they're not there. Then suddenly you notice how important they are.

Andy summers is indeed great. Well, the issue here is not being "the first". The issue is how influencial the artist is/was. You may not like Cobain, but the fact is, he was hugely influencial.

I've never heard of Glenn Branca so I can't comment on him. The mere fact that he uses 100 guitars in a symphonic arrangment doesn't make him revolutionary or brilliant -- it's what he DOES with the 100 guitars that would determine whether his idea was revolutionary or brilliant. It's like a baseball player who claims that because he hits the ball with the other end of the bat, he is a genius and a revolutionary. Not if his batting avg is .034...

If that player was able to hit a home run almost everytime, that would be pretty amazing...and, well...revolutionary. Of course Brannca needs to have some sort of skill in his arrangement, but the idea behind his music is what is brilliant to me. It's a little more than surface level. Again, you just miss the artist's point- no problem. Art is all about personal interpretation. We can all get something different out of it and it's ok. There is no right and wrong answer.

 

[big_black]

Re: Is Rock Guitar Dead?

If you are a true music fan and you hear someone who is a true musical revolutionary or genius in the style(s) of music you like, you know it. You may not be able to quantify it in numbers, but it's unmistakable. Like the old saying about the judge who says "I can't give you a precise legal definition of obscenity but I know it when I see it."

With all due repsect, that is a pretty narrow view. Two people can listen to the same song, yet "hear" different things. The same sound goes in, but that does not mean we will all process it in the same way. We are all affected by art differently, as I said there is no right and wrong. I don't think that has anything to do with being "a true music fan". If it was so unmistakable this thread would have ended at page 2.

 

[FamousForSustain]

Re: Is Rock Guitar Dead?

what i meant is that i think "rock" guitar is dead, and i don't care if it comes back either! .....i prefer playing rhythm guitar rather than lead guitar

And I thought I was alone on that one.

 

[Zhangliqun]

Re: Is Rock Guitar Dead?

Andy summers is indeed great. Well, the issue here is not being "the first". The issue is how influencial the artist is/was. You may not like Cobain, but the fact is, he was hugely influencial.

I don't have anything against Cobain, and if anything I'm glad he helped bring down the curtain on hair-metal. He did have a raw, big, straight-ahead sound which was fine by me. And on a personal level, I feel a great deal of sorrow for him because he was apparently a depressive (like me) who wasn't able to get help in time.

If that player was able to hit a home run almost everytime, that would be pretty amazing...and, well...revolutionary.

You better believe it -- exactly my point. It would be the results he got, not just the mere fact that he was doing something different. This doing something different has to give you something great that wasn't there before and couldn't be done any other way.

Of course Brannca needs to have some sort of skill in his arrangement, but the idea behind his music is what is brilliant to me.

Again you make my point for me.

It's a little more than surface level. Again, you just miss the artist's point- no problem.

If you re-read my post, you'll recall that I said I never heard of the guy and couldn't comment one way or the other on whether any of his stuff was any good.

Art is all about personal interpretation. We can all get something different out of it and it's ok. There is no right and wrong answer.

That is only partially true. If it were absolutely true, we couldn't even have a discussion about art at all because it would be just a tower of babel where everyone speaks a language completely so foreign to everyone else that there is no possibility of communication. It would mean we really couldn't tell a bad guitar player from a good one. It would mean that you could not say, as you did above, that I "missed the artist's point" because there would be no way of really knowing what the artist's point is.

It's one thing to look at the ocean and perceive different shades and colors of the water from someone standing next to you. It's another thing entirely to look at the ocean and say it's a desert.

 

[Zhangliqun]

Re: Is Rock Guitar Dead?

With all due repsect, that is a pretty narrow view. Two people can listen to the same song, yet "hear" different things. The same sound goes in, but that does not mean we will all process it in the same way. We are all affected by art differently, as I said there is no right and wrong. I don't think that has anything to do with being "a true music fan". If it was so unmistakable this thread would have ended at page 2.

Again, you did not carefully read my post. I qualified it by saying this musical revolutionary is playing in a style or styles you are a fan of; I concede it's far less likely that I would recognize a musical revolutionary in the salsa genre than in styles I'm familiar with.

I think it has everything to do with being a true music fan. If we are really such absolute strangers to each other that we can't even be sure that most of us would recognize greatness within our own favorite musical style, then nihilism reigns and -- the one point where we agree -- this thread really would have stopped at page 2. And probably never would have started to begin with.

 

[Guest]

Re: Is Rock Guitar Dead?

I think rock guitar isn't dead, more like preparing itself to come out fighting.

We're talking right here, knowing what's wrong with music today, sooner or later something's gonna change, either the record companies get it (I'm not holding my breath), there's a change in mentality or in the distribution (something to do with the Internet).

Hip-hop and crap-rock will be with us for a while but the fad will die off.
Emo (I finally figured it out) is just to pathetic to even be remembered and I'm sure the afflicted in 20 years will be ashamed to remember their ill taste.
I'm not saying there will be a new golden age of rok it will just be better treated, not so commercial.

As for today, true, Slas was never Clapton or hendrix or [insert guitar god name here] but he has skill, taste and the spirit and he's influentional as any of the greats. True, Golden Boy's description of Tremonty's tone is accurate but he has [don't know if the terminology doesn't seem awkward in English but...] kind of a lyrical quality to his playing that many like.

One guy that's been around for a long time and still keeps rock up and running might be Carlos Santana. I distincly remember accounts that Hendrix was amazed at Woodstock by his performance and his tone, and playing style give me the shivers. Lets not forget supernatural kind of launched a new interest in the guitar when it was launched. And this is what is needed, some artist to have the luck of having the right company, the right band or guest musicians ant the right time and launh something so powerfull that it just kicks everyone's @$$ and makes them beg for more.

As to how the copy cats will be dealt with...

 

[mmguz]

Re: Is Rock Guitar Dead?

I agree that Slash is not revolutionary. But he did some remarkable things:
1) Inspired legions of people to not only start playing guitar, but he singlehandedly brought the Les Paul back from the dead.

QUOTE]

I´m one of them

 

[Zhangliqun]

Re: Is Rock Guitar Dead?

I still stick to the premise that popular music has evolved into so many different types and subtypes with significant followings that no particular style will ever dominate the way it once could.

So if sheer overwhelming mass popularity is the measure of a musical style's alive-ness, then I guess another way to answer the question is to say that if rock guitar is dead, so is everything else.

 

[Pink Unicorn Horsey]

Re: Is Rock Guitar Dead?

I still stick to the premise that popular music has evolved into so many different types and subtypes with significant followings that no particular style will ever dominate the way it once could.

So if sheer overwhelming mass popularity is the measure of a musical style's alive-ness, then I guess another way to answer the question is to say that if rock guitar is dead, so is everything else.

And the way information flows today it's easy for myriad disparate influences to create more and more of these sub-genres. In the 18th and 19th centuries, Austria absolutely dominated Western music. Had those compositions spread as easily across the world as music does today, that dispersal may have caused more rapid change. In fact, the entire landscape of music might look altogether different today.

What's alive today is a diversity of music enabled by technology. Technology is effecting wholesale changes on societies across the globe, and I like to think of music -- and art in general -- as echoes of those societies.

 

[ErikH]

Re: Is Rock Guitar Dead?

I agree that Slash is not revolutionary. But he did some remarkable things:
1) Inspired legions of people to not only start playing guitar, but he singlehandedly brought the Les Paul back from the dead.

QUOTE]

I´m one of them

Not quite singlehandedly. Zakk Wylde was right next to him. Zakk started with Ozzy around the same time GNR hit the scene. The two of them brought back the coolness of playing a non-Floyd Rose guitar, not just a Les Paul.

 

[Zhangliqun]

Re: Is Rock Guitar Dead?

And the way information flows today it's easy for myriad disparate influences to create more and more of these sub-genres. In the 18th and 19th centuries, Austria absolutely dominated Western music. Had those compositions spread as easily across the world as music does today, that dispersal may have caused more rapid change. In fact, the entire landscape of music might look altogether different today.

What's alive today is a diversity of music enabled by technology. Technology is effecting wholesale changes on societies across the globe, and I like to think of music -- and art in general -- as echoes of those societies.

It also makes it easier for these sub-genres to survive and even thrive, because the access between fans and groups is much, much easier.