The slow death of the electric guitar(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
The slow death of the electric guitar
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/lifestyle/the-slow-secret-death-of-the-electric-guitar/
342 comments
Finally bought an upright after years of playing bass guitar. Couldn't be happier but transport is a pain. Still play the bass guitar, though, I don't think anything is going obsolete, half of the electric guitars people bought in it's golden years were just collecting dust anyway.
You might enjoy this lightweight upright electric bass. I've performed with the creator of this bass for the past 7 years and it always sounds great and can be carried around very conveniently. http://www.kyddbass.com/models.htm
I play upright (I'm actually getting ready to go my gig for today).
I dunno if it helps, but when I started I did not know I could put it in the front seat of most cars with the seat laid back. That's made transport relatively easy ( though it is a very bulky instrument).
I dunno if it helps, but when I started I did not know I could put it in the front seat of most cars with the seat laid back. That's made transport relatively easy ( though it is a very bulky instrument).
I had a compact sedan for a long time, and can confirm your observation. In fact, it worked best for me to feed the bass into the driver's side rear door (of a 4-door car), scroll first, and then upside down in the passenger seat.
Now I have a little hatchback, and am quite happy. Granted, transportation is still an issue -- I'm floored when I hear about bassists getting around in NYC using cabs, the subway, etc. But it's the only instrument that I play well enough for anybody to actually want me to play it, and I do love the bass.
Now I have a little hatchback, and am quite happy. Granted, transportation is still an issue -- I'm floored when I hear about bassists getting around in NYC using cabs, the subway, etc. But it's the only instrument that I play well enough for anybody to actually want me to play it, and I do love the bass.
A guy I know squeezes his homemade mando-bass (still a large instrument) into a Karman Ghia. Only he knows the magic twists and turns to get it in and out.
I had an old 86 Honda CRX (two seater), and figured out how to fit my bass, amp, and two cellos. I'm pretty sure I couldn't do it again. The main trick, though, is to recline the passengers seat and sit the bass in it.
I have seen a double bass player with a homemade teardown instrument that was claimed to fit into an overhead bin.
Well, fortunately or unfortunately for me, I'm not good enough to get called on a fly gig, but there's some priceless pictures in Rufus Reid's The Evolving Bassist on how to load a bass into an airline seat. I doubt that's still possible today.
I think it's a bit naive to believe that guitar heroes can bring the interest for the guitar back. People look back at the guitar heroes time with a nostalgic fondness for a time that doesn't exist anymore. This was already visible in Wayne's world and became more than obvious in school of rock. Guitar-heavy rock has become a geek genre. Pop has moved on.
There are obviously various reasons for this: 1. Technologically the instrument ran its course. While the tech was still innovative in the 90s with the new digital effects, it hasn't changed much in 20 years. 2. Electronic music however has brought in a lot of new sounds that gave pop music a fresh start in the 2000s 3. People seem to be more interested in 2 things: dancing and lyrics. You could write songs with totally inintelligible lyrics and a good solo, and you'd have a hit. I don't think that's true anymore. Similarly a solo kind of ruins the dancing.
I think die hard rock fans need to get over it, guitar heroes are not coming back any time soon. I don't think it means the electric guitar is going to die. It still is an amazingly cool instrument. But, it means that your average kid may not want to try to play that "ten years after" intro anymore.
There are obviously various reasons for this: 1. Technologically the instrument ran its course. While the tech was still innovative in the 90s with the new digital effects, it hasn't changed much in 20 years. 2. Electronic music however has brought in a lot of new sounds that gave pop music a fresh start in the 2000s 3. People seem to be more interested in 2 things: dancing and lyrics. You could write songs with totally inintelligible lyrics and a good solo, and you'd have a hit. I don't think that's true anymore. Similarly a solo kind of ruins the dancing.
I think die hard rock fans need to get over it, guitar heroes are not coming back any time soon. I don't think it means the electric guitar is going to die. It still is an amazingly cool instrument. But, it means that your average kid may not want to try to play that "ten years after" intro anymore.
The electric guitar is now what the saxophone was in the fifties: the iconic instrument of the hottest music of dad's generation.
Hold on, I am a not very young dad and the music of my youth was with two turntables and a mic. The 90s golden age of hip hop :) There was also electronic music like techno, drum and bass, ...
Guitar music is I'd say evergreen, but hasn't been the hottest thing for much longer.
Guitar music is I'd say evergreen, but hasn't been the hottest thing for much longer.
OK, so it's the music of dad's dad's generation. I was double-extra right. :)
Nirvana, Smashing Pumpkins, Soundgarden, Metallica... 90s were still pretty hot on guitars.
(Maybe less so by the late 90s, so maybe I'm a few years old than you :)
(Maybe less so by the late 90s, so maybe I'm a few years old than you :)
Let's be fair, the saxophone had a quick resurrection in the late 90's/early 00's.
Source: Played baritone sax in an early 2000's ska band
Source: Played baritone sax in an early 2000's ska band
At least we can always count on ska coming back. Isn't it about time for the fourth wave?
That may be an accurate comparison.
I think you're missing the point. The question is certainly not whether the guitar heroes of old inspire new generations to the same extent it did us.
Sure pop has moved on from the image of hairy flashy axe wielding fairies shredding away while 3 other dudes prance around. But that's fashion. It has little to do with the instrument and everything to do with fads and marketing.
Also you can sure as hell not ruin dancing with a solo (Black Sabbath, Led zep, Red Fang more recently!?), the issue is that there are too many fretboard wankers who pushed technical style for technical style's sake. That is what I hope the next generation of metal/rock guitarists will break away from.
Keep it heavy, and keep it coming \m/ (sorry hn)
Keep it heavy, and keep it coming \m/ (sorry hn)
There's a whole section near the end of the article about a noticeable bump in sales of guitars to women, inspired by Taylor Swift. You just have to be more flexible about what "guitar hero" can mean.
I think even the most flexible definition of guitar hero shouldn't include Taylor Swift. I'd say that style of guitar - using it for texture under the song - is antithetical to guitar heroism. The guitar became heroic because it broke out of the background music section of the band that supports the singer and became a star in its own right. It was another avenue of expression just by itself. Strumming some chords on an acoustic guitar as part of a song where the focus is the story of the lyrics doesn't require a guitar. It could be swapped with a keyboard, or a mandolin or a piano and it wouldn't really change the song that much.
There are other approaches to the guitar that are just as historically significant as the Hendrix-style electric solo. Not long before that, in the folk music boom, the acoustic guitar was seen as the ultimate democratic instrument -- you could toss it in the back of your car, drive to a gig or a party, and start playing immediately (rhythm, harmony, melody, whatever you like).
An electric guitar is really just six independent oscillators with an archaic user interface...
And music is really just a the electrical impulses from bunch of soundwaves banging up against the membrane in our eardrums. Jeez, that kind of reductionism really kills the magic (not to mention ignoring the talent and feel involved for an artist to make those oscillators 'speak' to you)
"It is a poor poet that falls silent when he finds out that the sun is actually a massive sphere of hydrogen fusing into helium."
-Richard Feynman
> 1. Technologically the instrument ran its course. While the tech was still innovative in the 90s with the new digital effects, it hasn't changed much in 20 years.
This is... whilst not exactly incorrect, it's not the whole truth either. The article touched a little bit on this with the robotic tuner thing, but didn't fully explain why.
In my experience partaking in internet guitar forums over the decades, the vast majority of guitar players are really conservative. Extremely conservative. Especially people who mostly are into Fender/Gibson/PRS. They shun every new material (graphite/carbon fiber necks/fretboards), even if it has clear advantages (torsion/tensile/impact strength, weight, temperature/humidity insensitivity), often with unscientific emotional-based hand-waving like "it sounds too cold".
Headless guitars also stayed niche, even though they have clear advantages (lighter, shorter, more well-balanced, can't break your headstock off — a quite common way to damage your guitar).
It also took decades for 7-string guitars not to get scoffed at. The first 15+ years you had a lot of guitarists making fun of people with 7-string guitars. After they became somewhat accepted, 8-string guitars had an easier time, mind you.
People are very sceptical of True Temperament (http://www.truetemperament.com/) as well, believing that you can't perform string bending (you can, it doesn't really feel any different), and decided that to be the truth without even bothering to try.
There are still many areas on the guitar you can improve and innovate (and some stuff out there already that primarily Ned Steinberger showed us in the 80s could (and IMO should) be standard), but people want fragile, heavy and climate-sensitive "tonewood" in their guitars. They want soft brass bridges. They want maintenance-heavy soft "nickel/silver" (actually brass and nickel) frets. They want headstocks.
Maybe these old people in the article (I'm 37 so I'm one of them as well, I guess) are the problem, and when younger people that don't revere the word "vintage" so much can usher in the era of the truly modern guitar that Ned Steinberger has shown us glimpses of? One can only hope.
This is... whilst not exactly incorrect, it's not the whole truth either. The article touched a little bit on this with the robotic tuner thing, but didn't fully explain why.
In my experience partaking in internet guitar forums over the decades, the vast majority of guitar players are really conservative. Extremely conservative. Especially people who mostly are into Fender/Gibson/PRS. They shun every new material (graphite/carbon fiber necks/fretboards), even if it has clear advantages (torsion/tensile/impact strength, weight, temperature/humidity insensitivity), often with unscientific emotional-based hand-waving like "it sounds too cold".
Headless guitars also stayed niche, even though they have clear advantages (lighter, shorter, more well-balanced, can't break your headstock off — a quite common way to damage your guitar).
It also took decades for 7-string guitars not to get scoffed at. The first 15+ years you had a lot of guitarists making fun of people with 7-string guitars. After they became somewhat accepted, 8-string guitars had an easier time, mind you.
People are very sceptical of True Temperament (http://www.truetemperament.com/) as well, believing that you can't perform string bending (you can, it doesn't really feel any different), and decided that to be the truth without even bothering to try.
There are still many areas on the guitar you can improve and innovate (and some stuff out there already that primarily Ned Steinberger showed us in the 80s could (and IMO should) be standard), but people want fragile, heavy and climate-sensitive "tonewood" in their guitars. They want soft brass bridges. They want maintenance-heavy soft "nickel/silver" (actually brass and nickel) frets. They want headstocks.
Maybe these old people in the article (I'm 37 so I'm one of them as well, I guess) are the problem, and when younger people that don't revere the word "vintage" so much can usher in the era of the truly modern guitar that Ned Steinberger has shown us glimpses of? One can only hope.
>Maybe these old people in the article (I'm 37 so I'm one of them as well, I guess) are the problem, and when younger people that don't revere the word "vintage" so much can usher in the era of the truly modern guitar that Ned Steinberger has shown us glimpses of? One can only hope.
It's already happening. A huge proportion of young guitarists are playing metal, which is a hugely progressive scene in terms of technology. The coolest young guitarists are playing Strandberg Bodens, Kiesel Vaders and the weird and wonderful stuff from Ibanez's Iron Label. 7, 8 and 9 strings, fanned frets, headless, active electronics, carbon and titanium reinforcement, it's all on the table. They're abandoning valve amps in favour of Helix, AxeFX and Bias. They couldn't give a toss about Hendrix and Clapton - they revere the likes of Tosin Abasi and Rob Scallion.
The baby boomers have disproportionate influence because they've got a ton of disposable income, but big changes are afoot in the guitar business.
The future of guitar looks very much like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMbW4sptVnE
It's already happening. A huge proportion of young guitarists are playing metal, which is a hugely progressive scene in terms of technology. The coolest young guitarists are playing Strandberg Bodens, Kiesel Vaders and the weird and wonderful stuff from Ibanez's Iron Label. 7, 8 and 9 strings, fanned frets, headless, active electronics, carbon and titanium reinforcement, it's all on the table. They're abandoning valve amps in favour of Helix, AxeFX and Bias. They couldn't give a toss about Hendrix and Clapton - they revere the likes of Tosin Abasi and Rob Scallion.
The baby boomers have disproportionate influence because they've got a ton of disposable income, but big changes are afoot in the guitar business.
The future of guitar looks very much like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMbW4sptVnE
Sure. Headless designs is going in the right direction IMO, but other than that, don't fool yourself, the Strandberg and Kiesel guitars etc. are still very traditional designs:
Wooden body, wooden neck, wooden fretboard, and in the case of Strandberg, Ibanez AANJ-style neck joint and silver/nickel frets (Carvin/Kiesel have neck-through and SS frets as options, or at least used to have). Most, if not all parts, you can get from Warmoth/All Parts, no custom designed parts there, apart from maybe the Strandberg's string fastening mechanism/headpiece, but that one is pretty crude, to be honest.
Wooden body, wooden neck, wooden fretboard, and in the case of Strandberg, Ibanez AANJ-style neck joint and silver/nickel frets (Carvin/Kiesel have neck-through and SS frets as options, or at least used to have). Most, if not all parts, you can get from Warmoth/All Parts, no custom designed parts there, apart from maybe the Strandberg's string fastening mechanism/headpiece, but that one is pretty crude, to be honest.
Strandberg use stainless frets and carbon neck reinforcement on everything but the entry-level Classic model. Stainless frets are a $40 option on any Kiesel and carbon reinforcement is standard on any of their extended-range guitars. The Strandberg headpiece and bridge is made in-house; Kiesel use custom headless hardware designed in collaboration with Hipshot. Strandberg use fanned frets throughout their range and Kiesel offer it as an option on most of their solid-body guitars.
There are merits to both the neck-through construction used on the Kiesel Vader and the bolt-on joint used by Strandberg. Through-necks are arguably more stable, but bolt-ons are far easier to maintain and repair.
The Strandberg neck profile is anything but conventional:
https://strandbergguitars.com/strandberg-endurneck/
There's nothing terribly wrong with wood construction. It's aesthetically pleasing, relatively economical and more than strong, stiff and stable enough when used appropriately.
There are merits to both the neck-through construction used on the Kiesel Vader and the bolt-on joint used by Strandberg. Through-necks are arguably more stable, but bolt-ons are far easier to maintain and repair.
The Strandberg neck profile is anything but conventional:
https://strandbergguitars.com/strandberg-endurneck/
There's nothing terribly wrong with wood construction. It's aesthetically pleasing, relatively economical and more than strong, stiff and stable enough when used appropriately.
C'mon, innovation is clearly trickling down. It all began with Ken Parker:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dR01zIjj4_w
Line6 has created the Variax that uses the piezo signal of each string to model other stringed instruments and their electronic system (and even things like banjos and resonator guitars)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYHJaL6g6Jc
and now even Music Man is adopting steel frets lately. Guitars evolve slowly but they do evolve.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dR01zIjj4_w
Line6 has created the Variax that uses the piezo signal of each string to model other stringed instruments and their electronic system (and even things like banjos and resonator guitars)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYHJaL6g6Jc
and now even Music Man is adopting steel frets lately. Guitars evolve slowly but they do evolve.
Thank for the discovery of Covet And Rob Scallon
> can't break your headstock off — a quite common way to damage your guitar
Really? Are people using their guitars as hammers? I think it's pretty damn hard to break a headstock off. Much more common damage to a guitar is denting the frets, distorting the neck or busting the tuning pegs. I'd put "breaking off the headstock" as the 99th percentile of common ways people materially damage their guitar.
Really? Are people using their guitars as hammers? I think it's pretty damn hard to break a headstock off. Much more common damage to a guitar is denting the frets, distorting the neck or busting the tuning pegs. I'd put "breaking off the headstock" as the 99th percentile of common ways people materially damage their guitar.
Gibson guitars are notorious for broken headstocks, due to an archaic and inherently defective design. Modern scarf-jointed headstocks do occasionally break, but they're more prone to cracking around the machine head holes.
https://www.google.com/search?q=gibson+broken+headstock&tbm=...
http://jacksinstrumentservices.com/why-do-les-paul-headstock...
https://www.google.com/search?q=gibson+broken+headstock&tbm=...
http://jacksinstrumentservices.com/why-do-les-paul-headstock...
I stand corrected
I should've said accidental damage. Dropping the guitar. Knocking the stand over. Shipping damage. Guitar trauma, basically.
Tuning pegs don't really tend to fail. Unless you have those "vintage" Les Paul-style ones (yuck), but they're easy to replace.
Frets get worn down, necks tend to bow or arch, or at worst warp (more seldom). Fret recrowning/redressing, truss rod adjustment and fretboard leveling are part of the regular maintenance of a long-lived electric guitar.
Now, headstock breakages are usually pretty easy to fix for a luthier, and the result is stronger, since a glued joint is stronger, just not as strong as a glued scarf joint.
Tuning pegs don't really tend to fail. Unless you have those "vintage" Les Paul-style ones (yuck), but they're easy to replace.
Frets get worn down, necks tend to bow or arch, or at worst warp (more seldom). Fret recrowning/redressing, truss rod adjustment and fretboard leveling are part of the regular maintenance of a long-lived electric guitar.
Now, headstock breakages are usually pretty easy to fix for a luthier, and the result is stronger, since a glued joint is stronger, just not as strong as a glued scarf joint.
It's common with Gibsons due to the angle of the headstock relative to the grain of the wood.
I don't think it's just conservatism. When buying a guitar, most buyers are primarily concerned with three things: does it sound good, is it easy to play, and does it look good.
Graphite and carbon fiber has superior properties in some respect, but substituting carbon fiber for wood doesn't necessarily make the guitar sound or look better or improve playability. Compared to acoustic instruments, electric guitars are low maintenance and durable. People in very humid or very dry environments might prefer carbon fiber to wood, but for most of us, wood is fine.
Robotuners similarly don't solve a significant problem that most players have, and they're complex and probably costly to make and introduce a battery to a guitar that didn't need one before. The convenience of automatic tuners probably aren't worth the costs.
Headless guitars similarly don't solve a particular problem, as far as I can tell. I expect to be able to rest a guitar on leg and not have it tip one way or the other while I'm playing. Most guitars balance fine with a proper headstock. I haven't tried a Steinberger, maybe they're really great guitars, but there's no particular reason for me to expect that I would enjoy playing a headless guitar more than a "normal" guitar. (Note: I have built headless cigar box guitars [1], and I kind of like the design, but that's a bit different than a full-size electric.)
True Temperament is more interesting because that actually is addressing a real problem, sort of. Electric guitars are pretty bad when it comes to tuning, but the problem isn't so much intonation, the bigger problem is that 12-tone equal temperament is a compromise -- you can sound okay in every key (12-TET) or you can sound really good in one particular key (just intonation), but you can't have both. (The latter alternative leads you to some interesting looking fingerboards [2].)
I would be more interested in the TT guitars if they were focusing on temperament rather than intonation errors. (I suspect they may actually be doing that, but their marketing material says they're correcting intonation. I'm skeptical that any normal guitars would need such extreme corrections just to play in exact 12-TET unless the action is set unreasonably high.)
TT also has the problem that normal frets can be repaired or replaced by any competent luthier using ordinary guitar tools, but I wouldn't even know you would do a fret dress on TT guitar. Maybe you'd need a special crowning file that goes around corners or something?
I think there are some ways that the electric guitar could be improved, but to some degree, I think unscientific emotional hand-wavy reasons can be a better guide to making an instrument people want than to approach the problem by using science to optimize specific criteria based on some untested assumption that optimizing that criteria will make the guitar better.
[1] http://jsnow.bootlegether.net/cbg/neck2.jpg
[2] http://jsnow.bootlegether.net/jik/CAM00441.jpg
Graphite and carbon fiber has superior properties in some respect, but substituting carbon fiber for wood doesn't necessarily make the guitar sound or look better or improve playability. Compared to acoustic instruments, electric guitars are low maintenance and durable. People in very humid or very dry environments might prefer carbon fiber to wood, but for most of us, wood is fine.
Robotuners similarly don't solve a significant problem that most players have, and they're complex and probably costly to make and introduce a battery to a guitar that didn't need one before. The convenience of automatic tuners probably aren't worth the costs.
Headless guitars similarly don't solve a particular problem, as far as I can tell. I expect to be able to rest a guitar on leg and not have it tip one way or the other while I'm playing. Most guitars balance fine with a proper headstock. I haven't tried a Steinberger, maybe they're really great guitars, but there's no particular reason for me to expect that I would enjoy playing a headless guitar more than a "normal" guitar. (Note: I have built headless cigar box guitars [1], and I kind of like the design, but that's a bit different than a full-size electric.)
True Temperament is more interesting because that actually is addressing a real problem, sort of. Electric guitars are pretty bad when it comes to tuning, but the problem isn't so much intonation, the bigger problem is that 12-tone equal temperament is a compromise -- you can sound okay in every key (12-TET) or you can sound really good in one particular key (just intonation), but you can't have both. (The latter alternative leads you to some interesting looking fingerboards [2].)
I would be more interested in the TT guitars if they were focusing on temperament rather than intonation errors. (I suspect they may actually be doing that, but their marketing material says they're correcting intonation. I'm skeptical that any normal guitars would need such extreme corrections just to play in exact 12-TET unless the action is set unreasonably high.)
TT also has the problem that normal frets can be repaired or replaced by any competent luthier using ordinary guitar tools, but I wouldn't even know you would do a fret dress on TT guitar. Maybe you'd need a special crowning file that goes around corners or something?
I think there are some ways that the electric guitar could be improved, but to some degree, I think unscientific emotional hand-wavy reasons can be a better guide to making an instrument people want than to approach the problem by using science to optimize specific criteria based on some untested assumption that optimizing that criteria will make the guitar better.
[1] http://jsnow.bootlegether.net/cbg/neck2.jpg
[2] http://jsnow.bootlegether.net/jik/CAM00441.jpg
<I think it's a bit naive to believe that guitar heroes can bring the interest for the guitar back.>
Isn't it the heroes in any field that inspire others to take it up? Or are you saying that there can never be another guitar hero again who will be good enough to inspire another generation? That would be naive, wouldn't it, considering how awesome the electric guitar is?
Isn't it the heroes in any field that inspire others to take it up? Or are you saying that there can never be another guitar hero again who will be good enough to inspire another generation? That would be naive, wouldn't it, considering how awesome the electric guitar is?
> I think die hard rock fans need to get over it, guitar heroes are not coming back any time soon.
I disagree. The guitar isn't gone yet, and even if there are newer instruments, the guitar will be with us for a long time.
And there's more to music than dancing. Even if guitars will be playing second fiddle to computers, they'll remain relevant just like violins are still relevant (and perhaps making a comeback in the hands of people like Lindsey Stirling). Besides, I need guitars in my dance music. Dance music shouldn't be sterile. The dirty, distorted sound of a guitar gives my the energy to dance in a way that an electronic beat does not.
I disagree. The guitar isn't gone yet, and even if there are newer instruments, the guitar will be with us for a long time.
And there's more to music than dancing. Even if guitars will be playing second fiddle to computers, they'll remain relevant just like violins are still relevant (and perhaps making a comeback in the hands of people like Lindsey Stirling). Besides, I need guitars in my dance music. Dance music shouldn't be sterile. The dirty, distorted sound of a guitar gives my the energy to dance in a way that an electronic beat does not.
[deleted]
> Similarly a solo kind of ruins the dancing.
The right kind of solo can accelerate the dancing. 80s pop had it all figured out in this regard: some of the best dance music ever made while also being phenomenal pop music.
The right kind of solo can accelerate the dancing. 80s pop had it all figured out in this regard: some of the best dance music ever made while also being phenomenal pop music.
Nickleback is a good example of a band that keeps the guitar alive. Yes, they don't play ANY soli (or do they?), but they get serious airtime and I haven't heard kids call them old-fashioned..
Of all the examples to pick from...
So I'm downvoted on HN for mentioning Nickleback now?
If you listen to the whole of their albums and not only the commercial hits, it's a really solid rock band.
Now give me some of the other examples of rock bands that regularly make it to the top 10.
If you listen to the whole of their albums and not only the commercial hits, it's a really solid rock band.
Now give me some of the other examples of rock bands that regularly make it to the top 10.
The writing is juvenile, the band's attitude towards other music is insulting, every album sounds more or less the same, and there's an argument to be made that their fame partially stems largely from a Canadian law requiring Canadian music to make up a certain percentage of radio time. According to sources[0], their new album is getting outsold by Jason Isbell & The 400 Unit's new album, they're a fairly straight country act, so I'm not sure I'm even willing to take Nickelback's popularity as a given in 2017.
Like the other commenter said, Foo Fighters would have made a better example. Maybe Coldplay. Chili Peppers. Look, I understand that art is subjective, but at the end of the day, some art is less subjective than others. Nickelback deserves their spot in the pantheon of groups who get shit on whenever you mention them.
[0]https://headlineplanet.com/home/2017/06/20/nickelbacks-feed-...
Like the other commenter said, Foo Fighters would have made a better example. Maybe Coldplay. Chili Peppers. Look, I understand that art is subjective, but at the end of the day, some art is less subjective than others. Nickelback deserves their spot in the pantheon of groups who get shit on whenever you mention them.
[0]https://headlineplanet.com/home/2017/06/20/nickelbacks-feed-...
You have a rational access to music, and I respect that; though not everybody cares about an artist's street cred while listening to their music.
Indeed, country seems to take over the guitar torch, and why not. Coldplay mostly doesn't even have sounds that resemble a guitar anymore. Chili Peppers, yeah why not! I want guitars to somehow stay in the charts, or I'll feel quite obsolete with my hobby (electric guitar)..
I realize that you qualified your remark about Coldplay with "anymore", but it should be noted that their first two releases were guitar-centric and they were actually musically amazing (imo). I don't know about their more recent releases, although I believe they collaborated with The Chainsmokers for at least one of their latest songs. I'm not sure if this is representative of all their new songs, though.
CanCon, as the process is known, has many problems. It has forced radio stations to constantly play the Tragically Hip as well, who I would argue deserve to be played.
I'm not hating on them. I mentioned it because the hive mind certainly does and so seemed a poor example.
I'm not a fan because they are unoriginal and re-use the same template in their production software for multiple songs.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4258547
They also seemed to take a few to many liberties with their 'inspiration', e.g.
Hero - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuX0RdK0HF8
vs
Kiss From A Rose - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yivLt9cTaio
The melodies are a little too close to gain my respect. It's like they were tasked with making music for a Batman movie and started browsing the previous movie scores.
I'm not a fan because they are unoriginal and re-use the same template in their production software for multiple songs.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4258547
They also seemed to take a few to many liberties with their 'inspiration', e.g.
Hero - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuX0RdK0HF8
vs
Kiss From A Rose - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yivLt9cTaio
The melodies are a little too close to gain my respect. It's like they were tasked with making music for a Batman movie and started browsing the previous movie scores.
Foo Fighters?
Green Day had their moment, although it has passed.
The Black Keys are good, but maybe not that mainstream.
The best show I've ever seen was Avenged Sevenfold, which is definitely in the metal niche. But I'll never forget when they had a break in the middle of the show, and their lead guitarist came out and just solo'd for a while. Incredible talent.
The Black Keys are good, but maybe not that mainstream.
The best show I've ever seen was Avenged Sevenfold, which is definitely in the metal niche. But I'll never forget when they had a break in the middle of the show, and their lead guitarist came out and just solo'd for a while. Incredible talent.
> “John Mayer?” he asks. “You don’t see a bunch of kids emulating John Mayer and listening to him and wanting to pick up a guitar because of him.”
Sorry, but my 17 year old son was so inspired by Mayer about 5 years ago that he invested a LOT of time learning how to play guitar and sing like him, and other artists with similar styles. [0]
He is now building quite a steady music career even while finishing high school (he was booked for 3 gigs just this weekend).
He is also interested in past guitar heroes such as Eddie Van Halen, Mark Knopfler, Angus Young, Andy Summers etc. and spends a lot of time going through 'older' stuff to learn more.
While he has a lot of natural ability, there is no arguing that it takes a LOT of hard work. He practices for a minimum of 2 hours a day - sometimes even up to 4 or 5 hours, not counting gigging time. We often have to call him away from his guitar to do school work or eat.
I envy the time he lives in though - I started playing when I was 15, back in the early 80's and it was really difficult to find decent gear, and the only way to learn anything new was to try and figure it out by ear or find someone else who knew to teach you. Nowadays, the proliferation of Youtube and other online learning resources, the huge selection of reasonably priced gear, and things like software and hardware modelling amps mean players can dial in ANY sound they want under any situation. Unheard of in my time.
It just needs kids who are interested enough to turn it into their passion.
[0] - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJK-R3HGG09uGBRDs7fhpZw
Sorry, but my 17 year old son was so inspired by Mayer about 5 years ago that he invested a LOT of time learning how to play guitar and sing like him, and other artists with similar styles. [0]
He is now building quite a steady music career even while finishing high school (he was booked for 3 gigs just this weekend).
He is also interested in past guitar heroes such as Eddie Van Halen, Mark Knopfler, Angus Young, Andy Summers etc. and spends a lot of time going through 'older' stuff to learn more.
While he has a lot of natural ability, there is no arguing that it takes a LOT of hard work. He practices for a minimum of 2 hours a day - sometimes even up to 4 or 5 hours, not counting gigging time. We often have to call him away from his guitar to do school work or eat.
I envy the time he lives in though - I started playing when I was 15, back in the early 80's and it was really difficult to find decent gear, and the only way to learn anything new was to try and figure it out by ear or find someone else who knew to teach you. Nowadays, the proliferation of Youtube and other online learning resources, the huge selection of reasonably priced gear, and things like software and hardware modelling amps mean players can dial in ANY sound they want under any situation. Unheard of in my time.
It just needs kids who are interested enough to turn it into their passion.
[0] - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJK-R3HGG09uGBRDs7fhpZw
“You don’t see a bunch of kids emulating John Mayer and listening to him and wanting to pick up a guitar because of him.”
Emphasis on a bunch of kids. As someone who likes guitar it pains me to say that this seems true.
My son is 11, in a (very) music-heavy school. When I was his age I think almost every boy (and some girls) in my class learnt guitar - it was the instrument.
In my son's class I think there are 2 learning it.
The guitar will never die, but the popularity isn't what it was.
Emphasis on a bunch of kids. As someone who likes guitar it pains me to say that this seems true.
My son is 11, in a (very) music-heavy school. When I was his age I think almost every boy (and some girls) in my class learnt guitar - it was the instrument.
In my son's class I think there are 2 learning it.
The guitar will never die, but the popularity isn't what it was.
Genuine question: Has your son seen Mayer play? Either on TV or in a live situation? I remember my son being entranced when I brought home the "Where The Light Is" DVD and put it on to watch it myself. He happened to be in the room, and was hooked from the opening song to the last.
Not saying that will be the case in every instance, but I do remember the actual video that got BOTH my sons into music was an "AC/DC Live In Germany" video that I put on TV when they were both toddlers. They were duck walking all over the house and begging me to put the DVD on over and over again until I (who am a huge Angus Young fan) was thoroughly sick of it. Many years later, I took them to an AC/DC live concert in Sydney, during their "Black Ice" tour.
Exposing kids to such raw energy and musicianship on a semi regular basis is critical IMO. What they don't see, they cannot be inspired by. I also know that they won't always be inspired by what I like, and that is fine. Both my sons went through a 'thrash metal' phase, which wasn't my favourite, but it still formed a large part of their musical journey.
Not saying that will be the case in every instance, but I do remember the actual video that got BOTH my sons into music was an "AC/DC Live In Germany" video that I put on TV when they were both toddlers. They were duck walking all over the house and begging me to put the DVD on over and over again until I (who am a huge Angus Young fan) was thoroughly sick of it. Many years later, I took them to an AC/DC live concert in Sydney, during their "Black Ice" tour.
Exposing kids to such raw energy and musicianship on a semi regular basis is critical IMO. What they don't see, they cannot be inspired by. I also know that they won't always be inspired by what I like, and that is fine. Both my sons went through a 'thrash metal' phase, which wasn't my favourite, but it still formed a large part of their musical journey.
There will always be people to get hooked on old artists, but the point remains that we're not in a world where there are guitar heroes like in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, and the numbers of people who become inspired enough to work at the instrument for long enough to achieve proficiency has consequently declined.
I learned in the mid 90s, probably inspired by Oasis, and related Britpop artists. Of course very quickly I was listening to older musicians like Page, Hendrix, and Clapton. Even then though my friends who played music and I were well aware that the age of guitar hero was over and that it was quirkier to want to play guitar music than it had been ten years before. There were no more Slashes on the horizon.
Music scenes seem likely to never be so one dimensional as they were in previous decades, because there's something for everyone online, and I can't see a time when Top of the Pops has three big rock bands playing on the same night ever again.
I learned in the mid 90s, probably inspired by Oasis, and related Britpop artists. Of course very quickly I was listening to older musicians like Page, Hendrix, and Clapton. Even then though my friends who played music and I were well aware that the age of guitar hero was over and that it was quirkier to want to play guitar music than it had been ten years before. There were no more Slashes on the horizon.
Music scenes seem likely to never be so one dimensional as they were in previous decades, because there's something for everyone online, and I can't see a time when Top of the Pops has three big rock bands playing on the same night ever again.
I also saw AC/DC during the Black Ice tour. I've been to many concerts, but never seen anyone else live who could play the guitar like Angus Young. He truly is an amazing guitarist.
Angus rocks, and is underrated even by guitar players. But I would submit that Greg Howe is like one level above Angus.
>Sorry, but my 17 year old son was so inspired by Mayer about 5 years ago that he invested a LOT of time learning how to play guitar and sing like him, and other artists with similar styles.
I'm sure we can find kids into Foxtrot too, but I don't think we'll see a Foxtrot revival.
Emulating Clapton, or Hendrix, or Page, etc was a mass phenomenon, which is what the "bunch" alludes to.
The last to inspire anything of that kind in a mass way would be someone like Jack White, and even that is was more subdued and fragmented that what it used to be.
I'm sure we can find kids into Foxtrot too, but I don't think we'll see a Foxtrot revival.
Emulating Clapton, or Hendrix, or Page, etc was a mass phenomenon, which is what the "bunch" alludes to.
The last to inspire anything of that kind in a mass way would be someone like Jack White, and even that is was more subdued and fragmented that what it used to be.
As fragmented as the music world is now, there is still capacity for a groundswell movement I believe.
In keeping with the 'guitar sales are dying' theme - back in the 80's Fender Jazzmasters, Jaguars and Mustangs were pariah guitars. They were nothing more than the oddly shaped relics from the 'surf music' craze of the 50's and 60's.
Then Kurt Cobain played one on stage in the 90's. And not played like a guitar god either, but all of a sudden, the Jaguar and Mustang offset shaped guitars exploded into popularity again, across more than just grunge bands. My son I mentioned above actually plays a J Mascis Jazzmaster as his main stage electric guitar.
On another note, I really wish I could find the thread on a popular guitar forum that I participated in about 7 or 8 years ago. Back then I predicted that the vinyl market would have a small, if temporary blip again. This was before the whole Hipster fad became mainstream too. I was literally laughed out of that thread by other members claiming, similarly as you did in your reply, that vinyl was about as relevant as be-bop or spandex clad lead singers in music.
Well, we are sitting in the middle of a vinyl resurgence right now. It will never reach the numbers of the heady days, but there definitely is a renewed interest out there. I couldn't believe it last month when I went to my local electronics and whitegoods store and there were as many turntables in the HiFi section as boom boxes and bluetooth speaker systems.
In keeping with the 'guitar sales are dying' theme - back in the 80's Fender Jazzmasters, Jaguars and Mustangs were pariah guitars. They were nothing more than the oddly shaped relics from the 'surf music' craze of the 50's and 60's.
Then Kurt Cobain played one on stage in the 90's. And not played like a guitar god either, but all of a sudden, the Jaguar and Mustang offset shaped guitars exploded into popularity again, across more than just grunge bands. My son I mentioned above actually plays a J Mascis Jazzmaster as his main stage electric guitar.
On another note, I really wish I could find the thread on a popular guitar forum that I participated in about 7 or 8 years ago. Back then I predicted that the vinyl market would have a small, if temporary blip again. This was before the whole Hipster fad became mainstream too. I was literally laughed out of that thread by other members claiming, similarly as you did in your reply, that vinyl was about as relevant as be-bop or spandex clad lead singers in music.
Well, we are sitting in the middle of a vinyl resurgence right now. It will never reach the numbers of the heady days, but there definitely is a renewed interest out there. I couldn't believe it last month when I went to my local electronics and whitegoods store and there were as many turntables in the HiFi section as boom boxes and bluetooth speaker systems.
And back in the late 80s when Les Paul sales were flagging, out stepped a young Slash. And Gibson sales took off for another two decades and a half.
I bought a Gibson SG in high school because Angus Young and the guitarist in my favorite local band played them.
Been playing guitar for 20 years, and this is spot on! The John Mayer comment is ridiculous, he's a great guitarist. Even many of John Mayer's biggest pop radio hits have great chord voicings and writing built-in (No Such Thing, Why Georgia, Neon, Daughters). The YouTube factor you mention is also amazing.
This article was probably right, but it's so focused on the good ole days that it's sad. Times change. Art changes. Diplo and TSwift are as legit as SRV and Dylan. Rock on.
This article was probably right, but it's so focused on the good ole days that it's sad. Times change. Art changes. Diplo and TSwift are as legit as SRV and Dylan. Rock on.
LOL, you've just named the top 4 Mayer covers in my son's regular gigging set. I must say when I first saw Mayer play "Neon" with just the acoustic guitar on "Where the Light Is", I was floored and thought that he must have to have two brains to be able to achieve that. [0]
When my son said he wanted to learn to play that song solo, I told him it would be nearly impossible. But he learned it and plays it just like John does. I have been playing for > 30 years and there is no way I could do that! :)
[0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DfQC5qHhbo
When my son said he wanted to learn to play that song solo, I told him it would be nearly impossible. But he learned it and plays it just like John does. I have been playing for > 30 years and there is no way I could do that! :)
[0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DfQC5qHhbo
Singing / playing requires a split brain. If you think the chord + bass on Neon requires a split brain, check out Charlie Hunter. I just picked one of the first videos that I found on youtube, but he always plays guitar & bass at the same time:
https://youtu.be/-B7btsk6ASE?t=1m
https://youtu.be/-B7btsk6ASE?t=1m
How about Luca Stricagnoli, who tends to play guitar, bass, and drums all at once, with just the guitar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJiok_3B-JA
Or with some extra instruments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxHGyqobsbI
Or Mike Dawes, same deal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYksCAhjthk
Most of the people Candyrat Records sign, really.
Or Mike Dawes, same deal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYksCAhjthk
Most of the people Candyrat Records sign, really.
there's a long lineage of great fingerstyle guitarists in that style, arguably all generated from Tuck Andress of Tuck and Patty.
Tommy Emmanuel is another one, and one of the best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPkQn5nDTZs
Tommy Emmanuel is another one, and one of the best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPkQn5nDTZs
Also check out Andy McKee if you're into this type of thing https://youtu.be/Ddn4MGaS3N4
Neon is a pretty simple tune to learn, really. Here's some Guthrie Govan. Play this with ease and you really are a guitar god:
https://youtu.be/qfNUY8IrJi8
https://youtu.be/qfNUY8IrJi8
>Diplo and TSwift are as legit as SRV and Dylan. Rock on.
First, if they are, then that's part of the focus of the article. That guitar and guitar rock is waning -- and surely Diplo and TSwift are not bringing it back.
Second, no Diplo and TSwift are not as legit as SRV and Dylan. Not because they are different genres, but because they are inferior artistically (regardless of genre).
They might be equally entertaining or whatever, in a "it's a free country and I can listen to whatever I like", but artistically they're not even close (and SRV is not in the same league for cultural impact as Dylan anyway).
It's not about the past. There are contemporary electronic, edm, r&b, hip hop etc artists that are on par with SRV and Dylan on creative merits, but TSwift and Diplo are not them -- like the Monkeys weren't as good as The Beatles, and Frankie Avalon was no Elvis.
First, if they are, then that's part of the focus of the article. That guitar and guitar rock is waning -- and surely Diplo and TSwift are not bringing it back.
Second, no Diplo and TSwift are not as legit as SRV and Dylan. Not because they are different genres, but because they are inferior artistically (regardless of genre).
They might be equally entertaining or whatever, in a "it's a free country and I can listen to whatever I like", but artistically they're not even close (and SRV is not in the same league for cultural impact as Dylan anyway).
It's not about the past. There are contemporary electronic, edm, r&b, hip hop etc artists that are on par with SRV and Dylan on creative merits, but TSwift and Diplo are not them -- like the Monkeys weren't as good as The Beatles, and Frankie Avalon was no Elvis.
how does it feel up on that high horse? there are no absolutes in music (as an art form) so you really can't say that Diplo is less important than Dylan until long after both are dead. even then, Diplo is influencing a ton of kids and will have impact that way for decades to come so where do you draw the line?
Dylan himself probably never thought he'd be as important a musician as his heroes - Elvis, Little Richard, etc. but now they are all in the same conversation.
music is fun. the expected almost never happens.
Dylan himself probably never thought he'd be as important a musician as his heroes - Elvis, Little Richard, etc. but now they are all in the same conversation.
music is fun. the expected almost never happens.
>how does it feel up on that high horse?
It feels great. It's called culture, and being aware of it, not a blind consumer of what tastes good (McDonalds tastes good too).
>there are no absolutes in music (as an art form)
No, but human culture has, and always had, a way to prfioritize what's important and what's not besides mere consumption or influence (crap has also influenced a lot of imitators).
>Dylan himself probably never thought he'd be as important a musician as his heroes - Elvis, Little Richard, etc. but now they are all in the same conversation.
That's irrelevant though, because it's not the artist that determines their own worth but their work, its quality, and its cultural impact.
>music is fun. the expected almost never happens.
Except with TSwift, Diplo and co songs. Where it almost always happens.
It feels great. It's called culture, and being aware of it, not a blind consumer of what tastes good (McDonalds tastes good too).
>there are no absolutes in music (as an art form)
No, but human culture has, and always had, a way to prfioritize what's important and what's not besides mere consumption or influence (crap has also influenced a lot of imitators).
>Dylan himself probably never thought he'd be as important a musician as his heroes - Elvis, Little Richard, etc. but now they are all in the same conversation.
That's irrelevant though, because it's not the artist that determines their own worth but their work, its quality, and its cultural impact.
>music is fun. the expected almost never happens.
Except with TSwift, Diplo and co songs. Where it almost always happens.
>It feels great. It's called culture, and being aware of it, not a blind consumer of what tastes good (McDonalds tastes good too).
oh please, elitism isn't culture it's a perspective. you have a perspective about the things you like which is no more or less valid than anyone else's. no matter how enlightened you think you are when it comes to music I promise there is an entire subculture that finds your tastes closer to "blind consumption" than "true music fan". 100% relative.
>No, but human culture has, and always had, a way to prfioritize what's important and what's not besides mere consumption or influence (crap has also influenced a lot of imitators).
please, please describe for me this mechanism by which "human culture" has prioritized important art. I would love to hear what unassailable framework you think draws a line between "important" and "crap".
oh please, elitism isn't culture it's a perspective. you have a perspective about the things you like which is no more or less valid than anyone else's. no matter how enlightened you think you are when it comes to music I promise there is an entire subculture that finds your tastes closer to "blind consumption" than "true music fan". 100% relative.
>No, but human culture has, and always had, a way to prfioritize what's important and what's not besides mere consumption or influence (crap has also influenced a lot of imitators).
please, please describe for me this mechanism by which "human culture" has prioritized important art. I would love to hear what unassailable framework you think draws a line between "important" and "crap".
[deleted]
If you want to argue that Taylor Swift is technically inferior then that's fine, but tens of millions of young women disagree with assertions of her "artistic inferiority", and I'd be curious to know why your opinion matters more than theirs.
>and I'd be curious to know why your opinion matters more than theirs
Because populism doesn't say much. One can find tens of millions supporting any kind of trash in all areas of public life (wanna talk about politics for example?).
Informed opinions matter more than uninformed ones, and we're beyond the point that the merit of Taylor Swift vs Dylan (or sugary constructed commercial pop for quick consumption and singing songwriting that defined a generation and then some and made it to the Nobel) is seriously argued.
Because populism doesn't say much. One can find tens of millions supporting any kind of trash in all areas of public life (wanna talk about politics for example?).
Informed opinions matter more than uninformed ones, and we're beyond the point that the merit of Taylor Swift vs Dylan (or sugary constructed commercial pop for quick consumption and singing songwriting that defined a generation and then some and made it to the Nobel) is seriously argued.
OP values Dylan over Tay-Tay. That's okay. My daughter thinks the opposite. That's also okay, and evolution of popular music.
> "you really can't say that Diplo is less important than Dylan until long after both are dead"
This a hundred times. If you look at YouTube views, Diplo is orders of magnitude ahead. Do you think YouTube is going anywhere?
So, if anything, the read is indicating the other way.
This a hundred times. If you look at YouTube views, Diplo is orders of magnitude ahead. Do you think YouTube is going anywhere?
So, if anything, the read is indicating the other way.
You envy him for the available content and equipment, but he should envy kids in the 80s of the ease with which you could build a well-paying career if you played well. Nowadays you better produce songs on your laptop because the money earned with streaming might not suffice for 5 people. The trajectory of what is possible is just way flatter.
That's incredible, thanks for sharing!
It's ironic that young people are losing interest in the guitar at a time when there is an amazingly enormous amount of resources freely available for learning it.
When I started to learn guitar several decades ago, I would learn guitar solos off of records by slowing them down to 16 rpm (old turntables could do that) and moving the needle back repeatedly to listen to tricky phrases over and over again. It was frustrating, time consuming, and hell on on the records.
Today, for just about any popular and many obscure guitar-oriented songs, you can find a Youtube video where someone breaks it down note by note and chord by chord. There are all kinds of resources online for learning scales and theory and online communities where an aspiring guitarist can connect with thousands of other like-minded people.
I would like to see guitar-oriented rock and roll make a comeback. The heavy metal subculture is thriving without any mainstream radio airplay to speak of, but aside from that, there's just not that much going on.
If I see a local rock band play in a bar these days, about 80% of the time it will be all middle-aged men who have been playing for decades. Some of them are even retirement age.
When I started to learn guitar several decades ago, I would learn guitar solos off of records by slowing them down to 16 rpm (old turntables could do that) and moving the needle back repeatedly to listen to tricky phrases over and over again. It was frustrating, time consuming, and hell on on the records.
Today, for just about any popular and many obscure guitar-oriented songs, you can find a Youtube video where someone breaks it down note by note and chord by chord. There are all kinds of resources online for learning scales and theory and online communities where an aspiring guitarist can connect with thousands of other like-minded people.
I would like to see guitar-oriented rock and roll make a comeback. The heavy metal subculture is thriving without any mainstream radio airplay to speak of, but aside from that, there's just not that much going on.
If I see a local rock band play in a bar these days, about 80% of the time it will be all middle-aged men who have been playing for decades. Some of them are even retirement age.
> When I started to learn guitar several decades ago, I would learn guitar solos off of records by slowing them down to 16 rpm (old turntables could do that) and moving the needle back repeatedly to listen to tricky phrases over and over again. It was frustrating, time consuming, and hell on on the records.
This made you a much better player than just looking up a video or tab though.
>I would like to see guitar-oriented rock and roll make a comeback. The heavy metal subculture is thriving without any mainstream radio airplay to speak of, but aside from that, there's just not that much going on.
> If I see a local rock band play in a bar these days, about 80% of the time it will be all middle-aged men who have been playing for decades. Some of them are even retirement age.
Sounds to me like you aren't looking very hard. In my city, I can find current, young rock bands playing at multiple venues weekly. Some of my favorite albums have come out since 2010.
Bar bands are dying because the economics don't make sense anymore for bar owners. Why dedicate a ton of space to 3-5 people with tons of equipment when you can just get one guy with a laptop. The latter is probably cheaper, too. In my area, most people don't go to bars for music anyway outside of places like dedicated jazz or piano bars.
This made you a much better player than just looking up a video or tab though.
>I would like to see guitar-oriented rock and roll make a comeback. The heavy metal subculture is thriving without any mainstream radio airplay to speak of, but aside from that, there's just not that much going on.
> If I see a local rock band play in a bar these days, about 80% of the time it will be all middle-aged men who have been playing for decades. Some of them are even retirement age.
Sounds to me like you aren't looking very hard. In my city, I can find current, young rock bands playing at multiple venues weekly. Some of my favorite albums have come out since 2010.
Bar bands are dying because the economics don't make sense anymore for bar owners. Why dedicate a ton of space to 3-5 people with tons of equipment when you can just get one guy with a laptop. The latter is probably cheaper, too. In my area, most people don't go to bars for music anyway outside of places like dedicated jazz or piano bars.
"This made you a much better player than just looking up a video or tab though."
I disagree. Not about the "just looking up a tab" bit, but about the general gist of your argument that "the hard way teaches you better". Easier access to knowledge is always better when you want to learn things, and the internet is absolutely the best access to knowledge that has ever existed.
I've been playing guitar since long before the internet made it easy to find a tab or chord chart for almost any song. I learned the "hard way". I've taught guitar lessons (also before all the modern options for learning came along), took college level music classes (in high school and in college), etc. All that knowledge was hard-earned, and I appreciate the time and effort it took to learn, but if I could go back in time and give my twelve-year-old self Rock Band and the Internet I sure as hell would.
To put it into perspective, in addition to guitar I tinkered with drums even back in high school and college (though I never had my own real drumset until adulthood). When I played in bands, I'd always push for at least one song where we'd switch it up so I could play drums for a little bit. I wasn't good at drums, but it was fun and I could hold down the rhythm for a simple song. As a grown up, I started playing Rock Band. Damned if my drumming didn't go through the roof in terms of quality and confidence. And, it happened fast, too. Within a few months of playing Rock Band maybe three or four hours a week and occasionally watching a video on YouTube about problem areas, I was a completely different drummer.
What I'm trying to say is that educational tools matter and the tools provided by technology today are incredibly better than they were when those of us over, say 30, were learning to play.
Not only that, I can browse YouTube and watch hours of instruction from professionals in any field. I've watched master classes on composition for orchestra by people who do it professionally, for example. I had that kind of access to really knowledge pros for a brief window when I went to a high school for the arts and to a lesser degree during college, but after that and until the Internet, it was something I had to get from books. Learning from professionals who're speaking directly to you in a video is way more valuable than slowing down a record and listening to it a hundred times (though there's value in ear-training, the tools for that are better now than ever) or reading a book about the subject.
Anyway, the point of my rambling is: Don't let nostalgia for how it used to be to cloud your view of how much better it is today. There will likely be younger prodigies in every musical genre than ever before because of the Internet (and Rock Band and apps that let you practice your intervals, etc.) if kids still want to learn how to play instruments. I think about folks like Lorde; she was writing fully formed, mature, and extremely competent, music at a ridiculously young age. I doubt it could have happened without tech.
And, I don't know if it's awful that kids may spend time learning to play other things rather than guitar, drums, bass, and piano; maybe they're learning sequencers and samplers and such instead. It may just be different, not worse. I learned a lot about music making mods in a tracker on my Amiga back when I was a teenager. It allows one to understand the whole song in ways that banging it out by yourself on an acoustic guitar might not.
I try not to let nostalgia cloud my appreciation of art that's happening today. And, there's a lot of great art happening, in music, too, including some real rock and roll played on real instruments. Pop music has never been about the guitar, even though the guitar was ever-present in pop music for a few decades. So, it shouldn't be all that surprising that pop music isn't going to cling to the guitar; all pop really cares about is pretty faces and very catchy repetitive songs.
So, while pop goes wherever the wind blows, there are plenty of guitar rock bands being started even today. Most major cities have a great music scene of real bands playing real instruments. They may never again rule the charts the way album rock did in the 70s, but they aren't extinct.
I disagree. Not about the "just looking up a tab" bit, but about the general gist of your argument that "the hard way teaches you better". Easier access to knowledge is always better when you want to learn things, and the internet is absolutely the best access to knowledge that has ever existed.
I've been playing guitar since long before the internet made it easy to find a tab or chord chart for almost any song. I learned the "hard way". I've taught guitar lessons (also before all the modern options for learning came along), took college level music classes (in high school and in college), etc. All that knowledge was hard-earned, and I appreciate the time and effort it took to learn, but if I could go back in time and give my twelve-year-old self Rock Band and the Internet I sure as hell would.
To put it into perspective, in addition to guitar I tinkered with drums even back in high school and college (though I never had my own real drumset until adulthood). When I played in bands, I'd always push for at least one song where we'd switch it up so I could play drums for a little bit. I wasn't good at drums, but it was fun and I could hold down the rhythm for a simple song. As a grown up, I started playing Rock Band. Damned if my drumming didn't go through the roof in terms of quality and confidence. And, it happened fast, too. Within a few months of playing Rock Band maybe three or four hours a week and occasionally watching a video on YouTube about problem areas, I was a completely different drummer.
What I'm trying to say is that educational tools matter and the tools provided by technology today are incredibly better than they were when those of us over, say 30, were learning to play.
Not only that, I can browse YouTube and watch hours of instruction from professionals in any field. I've watched master classes on composition for orchestra by people who do it professionally, for example. I had that kind of access to really knowledge pros for a brief window when I went to a high school for the arts and to a lesser degree during college, but after that and until the Internet, it was something I had to get from books. Learning from professionals who're speaking directly to you in a video is way more valuable than slowing down a record and listening to it a hundred times (though there's value in ear-training, the tools for that are better now than ever) or reading a book about the subject.
Anyway, the point of my rambling is: Don't let nostalgia for how it used to be to cloud your view of how much better it is today. There will likely be younger prodigies in every musical genre than ever before because of the Internet (and Rock Band and apps that let you practice your intervals, etc.) if kids still want to learn how to play instruments. I think about folks like Lorde; she was writing fully formed, mature, and extremely competent, music at a ridiculously young age. I doubt it could have happened without tech.
And, I don't know if it's awful that kids may spend time learning to play other things rather than guitar, drums, bass, and piano; maybe they're learning sequencers and samplers and such instead. It may just be different, not worse. I learned a lot about music making mods in a tracker on my Amiga back when I was a teenager. It allows one to understand the whole song in ways that banging it out by yourself on an acoustic guitar might not.
I try not to let nostalgia cloud my appreciation of art that's happening today. And, there's a lot of great art happening, in music, too, including some real rock and roll played on real instruments. Pop music has never been about the guitar, even though the guitar was ever-present in pop music for a few decades. So, it shouldn't be all that surprising that pop music isn't going to cling to the guitar; all pop really cares about is pretty faces and very catchy repetitive songs.
So, while pop goes wherever the wind blows, there are plenty of guitar rock bands being started even today. Most major cities have a great music scene of real bands playing real instruments. They may never again rule the charts the way album rock did in the 70s, but they aren't extinct.
I agree with most of what you wrote, but for one aspect that's easy to overlook.
Easy access to information is not always better. A number of reasons: information had easily isn't valued; information that requires effort teaches determination and self sufficiency that will always be required when you get to the limit of easily available info; an abundance of info can be daunting (information overload) and demoralising. Finally, there's less sense of achievement when you e.g. read about something rather than figure it out, and a lower probability of innovation from not knowing the current "best practices".
I still think easy access is better, but mostly because I'm grown up with hard won learning skills. I'm less certain that easy access develops the right kinds of skills. Primarily because not everyone is a genius with exceptional talent; some of us need skills too.
Easy access to information is not always better. A number of reasons: information had easily isn't valued; information that requires effort teaches determination and self sufficiency that will always be required when you get to the limit of easily available info; an abundance of info can be daunting (information overload) and demoralising. Finally, there's less sense of achievement when you e.g. read about something rather than figure it out, and a lower probability of innovation from not knowing the current "best practices".
I still think easy access is better, but mostly because I'm grown up with hard won learning skills. I'm less certain that easy access develops the right kinds of skills. Primarily because not everyone is a genius with exceptional talent; some of us need skills too.
I dont think he meant "better because you did it the hardway" but "better because you spent time on the finer details of the phrasing"
That said, it seems you had a lot on your chest and it feels good to get it off
That said, it seems you had a lot on your chest and it feels good to get it off
What I meant is that learning songs by ear makes you a better musician because you are effectively doing ear training at the same time. Ear training is an important part of growing musically that many people over look because it is tedious, but it's what allows experts to play what they hear in their head when improvising. If you just play what's written out on a page, you won't benefit as much in this regard.
I agree that ear-training is important. I just don't believe struggling through songs while listening to slowed down records is the most effective way to do it.
We don't tell beginning programmers, "Go read the Linux kernel, it's the best way to learn." And, we shouldn't tell beginning musicians, "Go listen to an incredibly complex work recorded on 24+ tracks, with dozens of overdubs, and pitch-correction, and compression, performed by professional musicians with years of experience, and copy them."
I struggled when learning stuff as a kid, for years. I did it, but it wasn't productive practice. If I'd had competent ear-training, interval training, and sight-singing instruction at the beginning of my musical life, I would have found learning from records by ear much easier and much more productive within a year.
Kids today have access to those resources, even if they aren't lucky enough to go to a school for music. Will they do it? I dunno. I did tedious stuff even when more fun stuff was available; I had video games, friends in the neighborhood, a bike and skateboard to ride, etc., but I banged away at my guitar, making slow progress.
Making it less tedious, by making it more productive, seems like it's more likely to work out for more aspiring musicians. Learning by ear, when you don't have a framework of musical knowledge to hang it on, is among the most tedious things I can remember from learning to play guitar...and, it wasn't nearly as productive as it could have been, in terms of learning.
We don't tell beginning programmers, "Go read the Linux kernel, it's the best way to learn." And, we shouldn't tell beginning musicians, "Go listen to an incredibly complex work recorded on 24+ tracks, with dozens of overdubs, and pitch-correction, and compression, performed by professional musicians with years of experience, and copy them."
I struggled when learning stuff as a kid, for years. I did it, but it wasn't productive practice. If I'd had competent ear-training, interval training, and sight-singing instruction at the beginning of my musical life, I would have found learning from records by ear much easier and much more productive within a year.
Kids today have access to those resources, even if they aren't lucky enough to go to a school for music. Will they do it? I dunno. I did tedious stuff even when more fun stuff was available; I had video games, friends in the neighborhood, a bike and skateboard to ride, etc., but I banged away at my guitar, making slow progress.
Making it less tedious, by making it more productive, seems like it's more likely to work out for more aspiring musicians. Learning by ear, when you don't have a framework of musical knowledge to hang it on, is among the most tedious things I can remember from learning to play guitar...and, it wasn't nearly as productive as it could have been, in terms of learning.
So, I tied an onion to my belt, which was the fashion at the time.
I was under the impression that they meant it was good for you because training your ear like that is really good for a musician
I partly disagree. Access to endless information is great, on balance, but other things are equally important: hands-on tuition, peer feedback, competition.
I think about folks like Lorde; she was writing fully formed, mature, and extremely competent, music at a ridiculously young age. I doubt it could have happened without tech.
Kate Bush was 19 when she released Wuthering Heights (and had been writing for years before that).
Stevie Wonder signed to Motown aged 11. Not sure when he started writing his own stuff in earnest.
[Edit to add, from Wikipedia:
In 1961, when aged 11, Wonder sang his own composition, "Lonely Boy", to Ronnie White of the Miracles; White then took Wonder and his mother to an audition at Motown
First self-penned number 1 hit aged 13. Wow!]
I think about folks like Lorde; she was writing fully formed, mature, and extremely competent, music at a ridiculously young age. I doubt it could have happened without tech.
Kate Bush was 19 when she released Wuthering Heights (and had been writing for years before that).
Stevie Wonder signed to Motown aged 11. Not sure when he started writing his own stuff in earnest.
[Edit to add, from Wikipedia:
In 1961, when aged 11, Wonder sang his own composition, "Lonely Boy", to Ronnie White of the Miracles; White then took Wonder and his mother to an audition at Motown
First self-penned number 1 hit aged 13. Wow!]
"Kate Bush was 19 when she released Wuthering Heights (and had been writing for years before that)."
I've been comparing Lorde to Kate Bush for ages now, so I agree with you on that comparison (and I'm a huge Stevie Wonder fan, including his childhood songs..."Up Tight", recorded when he was 15, is among my favorites to holler along with while cooking dinner). But...there's gonna be a lot more of those kids. I'd bet there already are and I just don't follow pop music.
I can name maybe a half dozen super-talented kids that have come along in the pre-internet age; they were exceptional. But, I think they'll be less the exception as time goes on...partly due to tech.
YouTube recommended Grace Vanderwaal to me just last night. Her music isn't really my thing, but it's hard to argue she's not stunningly skilled for her age.
I've been comparing Lorde to Kate Bush for ages now, so I agree with you on that comparison (and I'm a huge Stevie Wonder fan, including his childhood songs..."Up Tight", recorded when he was 15, is among my favorites to holler along with while cooking dinner). But...there's gonna be a lot more of those kids. I'd bet there already are and I just don't follow pop music.
I can name maybe a half dozen super-talented kids that have come along in the pre-internet age; they were exceptional. But, I think they'll be less the exception as time goes on...partly due to tech.
YouTube recommended Grace Vanderwaal to me just last night. Her music isn't really my thing, but it's hard to argue she's not stunningly skilled for her age.
I agree that these kids are all amazing (including Lorde, I hope she has a long and successful career like Bush and Wonder). I just don't buy that modern tech makes that much of a difference. It's just... different! If you see what I mean. :)
My argument has always been about access. Some kids are lucky enough to be brought up in a household with music all around; the internet makes it possible to any kid can surround themselves with brilliant music and musical knowledge. That's all. There still has to be a will to make music (or art, or tech, or whatever). It's just an enabler, a lever that wasn't accessible to most kids in the past, is all I'm saying.
Yeah, I'll buy that.
Not so much tech per se (although I also like your point about apps for music practice and other things) but the social changes and prosperity that are partly driven by tech.
Not so much tech per se (although I also like your point about apps for music practice and other things) but the social changes and prosperity that are partly driven by tech.
Maybe the instant gratification and easier learning curve just doesn't give them the same amount of gratification that we got from tabs an figuring stuff out our self. I've learnt songs from tabs on the internet but the resources people have currently are amazing and make the process big learning easier.
You can also hire someone from anywhere in the world to transcribe songs for you and learn your heart out. As a yuppie with a heavy interest in indie music living in a city still filling to the brim with music this is literally the best time to be a musician.
> It's ironic that young people are losing interest in the guitar at a time when there is an amazingly enormous amount of resources freely available for learning it.
That could be part of it. Demystifying something erodes some of the appeal.
That could be part of it. Demystifying something erodes some of the appeal.
[deleted]
I think there are strong parallels with the tech/startup world here: the often-touted quote "The next Bill Gates won't build an operating system, the next Mark Zuckerberg won't build a social network" comes to mind.
The next Miles Davies won't play the horn, and the next Jimmy Hendrix won't play guitar. There will always be jazz, there will always be rock n roll, but the level of interest in those styles, particularly amongst young musicians, will slide inevitably towards the niche as the next innovative style comes along.
The world keeps turning. This is a great thing for music.
The next Miles Davies won't play the horn, and the next Jimmy Hendrix won't play guitar. There will always be jazz, there will always be rock n roll, but the level of interest in those styles, particularly amongst young musicians, will slide inevitably towards the niche as the next innovative style comes along.
The world keeps turning. This is a great thing for music.
IMHO there will not be a next Miles Davies or a next Jimmy Hendrix. Or rather, they've already been.
The last 40 years of music have experienced such a revolution, we've already had many of those (most of them relegated to obscurity through sheer volume and industrialization of music).
But now that I've re-read your comment you've already mentioned the niche-ization :)
Hip-hop was a revolutionary genre like rock music was to the people. Electronic music turns upside down every 10 years or so (e.g. compare Shpongle to 90's techno).
I find it very funny (/sad) that many jazz listeners (around me, mostly trained musicians in modern curricula that goes classical -> jazz) look down upon electronic music (in a way similar to how jazz musicians were looked down upon by traditional musicians in the early 20th century). Electronic is the new jazz (sometimes people forget electronic music is not a genre, just a medium!) Not to mention how electronic music production finally let musicians experiment on a new dimension (timbre) which was very, very hard to innovate on with traditional instruments.
I'm so excited to see what's coming next. We're living a great age.
The last 40 years of music have experienced such a revolution, we've already had many of those (most of them relegated to obscurity through sheer volume and industrialization of music).
But now that I've re-read your comment you've already mentioned the niche-ization :)
Hip-hop was a revolutionary genre like rock music was to the people. Electronic music turns upside down every 10 years or so (e.g. compare Shpongle to 90's techno).
I find it very funny (/sad) that many jazz listeners (around me, mostly trained musicians in modern curricula that goes classical -> jazz) look down upon electronic music (in a way similar to how jazz musicians were looked down upon by traditional musicians in the early 20th century). Electronic is the new jazz (sometimes people forget electronic music is not a genre, just a medium!) Not to mention how electronic music production finally let musicians experiment on a new dimension (timbre) which was very, very hard to innovate on with traditional instruments.
I'm so excited to see what's coming next. We're living a great age.
> sometimes people forget electronic music is not a genre, just a medium
I was ready to prepare a reply asking you how one could possibly put electronic into a single category until I saw this very important bit. Spot on. In my opinion electronic music isn't in conflict with other musical directions at all. I'd like to think of it as a superset - just pick your preference and you'll surely find it somewhere in electronic music.
> We're living a great age.
Indeed. As an avid music enthusiast and collector I'm enjoying discovering great records, old and new, more than ever. Whether it's browsing Discogs or Bandcamp, to me it feels like a golden age for music discovery, which surely needs a lot of filtering and willingness to dig deeper, but it isn't any less rewarding than it has been in those good old days.
I was ready to prepare a reply asking you how one could possibly put electronic into a single category until I saw this very important bit. Spot on. In my opinion electronic music isn't in conflict with other musical directions at all. I'd like to think of it as a superset - just pick your preference and you'll surely find it somewhere in electronic music.
> We're living a great age.
Indeed. As an avid music enthusiast and collector I'm enjoying discovering great records, old and new, more than ever. Whether it's browsing Discogs or Bandcamp, to me it feels like a golden age for music discovery, which surely needs a lot of filtering and willingness to dig deeper, but it isn't any less rewarding than it has been in those good old days.
I don't listen to much electronic music, but I find no subtleties or sensitivity in what I hear.
I understand that dismissing the new for no other reason is useless but I just don't feel it.
I understand that dismissing the new for no other reason is useless but I just don't feel it.
Could it be that you're uneducated (which is fine, there's so much music produced nowadays that's hard to be educated in all niches) and listening to shitty electronic music that the mainstream industry is advertising endlessly to recycle the same formula again and again for cheap gains? Similar to shitty music like "The Archies - Sugar Sugar" or anything from The Ramones. There's an endless stream of shit music from all years and genres.
Don't expect subtleties from an industrial product, just like you wouldn't expect them from an apartment building (compared to art-chitecture).
As I said, electronic music is a medium, not a genre. You could listen to an electronic version of Bach's Toccata In D Minor played live by a virtuous pianist and it wouldn't lose subtlety or sensitivity due to the electronic process of sound synthesis. If done well, it could actually acquire new subtleties through timbre manipulation techniques.
Don't confuse medium and product.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EaHMq3Jg5E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkMt4GudJzg
Listen to those back to back and if you still find no subtleties or sensitivity go check a doctor ;) Now seriously, it's fine not to like them, but you have to concede these are very well done pieces of art.
Don't expect subtleties from an industrial product, just like you wouldn't expect them from an apartment building (compared to art-chitecture).
As I said, electronic music is a medium, not a genre. You could listen to an electronic version of Bach's Toccata In D Minor played live by a virtuous pianist and it wouldn't lose subtlety or sensitivity due to the electronic process of sound synthesis. If done well, it could actually acquire new subtleties through timbre manipulation techniques.
Don't confuse medium and product.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EaHMq3Jg5E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkMt4GudJzg
Listen to those back to back and if you still find no subtleties or sensitivity go check a doctor ;) Now seriously, it's fine not to like them, but you have to concede these are very well done pieces of art.
How many people in the electronic genre could play Bach ? I mind no medium, no genre, nothing at all. If you give me something musical, even tapping on bamboo, or an old DX7 (see this demo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3rrjQtQe5A, the pianos samples are dense, and the harmonies aren't dull) synth, I'd welcome it.
The link you gave are not bad, but they lack soul, feel, weight. It's a common thing in electronic music, sampled drumbeats, tiny vocals, steady and fragile melodic rhythm.
ps: other electronic sounds that I found a bit more telling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-k7QhOVl4M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgGNZABDqZA
These two are simplistic but have a strong rhythmic backbone and are surprinsgly twisted at times https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4r_94EvDZ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebjXsc0UjdQ
I'd love to keep on but I have to leave, I'll be back in an hour
The link you gave are not bad, but they lack soul, feel, weight. It's a common thing in electronic music, sampled drumbeats, tiny vocals, steady and fragile melodic rhythm.
ps: other electronic sounds that I found a bit more telling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-k7QhOVl4M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgGNZABDqZA
These two are simplistic but have a strong rhythmic backbone and are surprinsgly twisted at times https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4r_94EvDZ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebjXsc0UjdQ
I'd love to keep on but I have to leave, I'll be back in an hour
> How many people in the electronic genre could play Bach ?
How ironic it is that the initial popularization of synthesizers happened with Bach music [0][1].
Also, see [2] at that specific time. The motif in this case being played at the end is an explicit rendering of the theme that occurs throughout the song. Erez Eisen [3] had classical training before moving to the Electronic Music genre.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched-On_Bach
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx5_c4Azn4E
[2] - https://youtu.be/UnHiYfToywo?t=455
[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erez_Einsen
How ironic it is that the initial popularization of synthesizers happened with Bach music [0][1].
Also, see [2] at that specific time. The motif in this case being played at the end is an explicit rendering of the theme that occurs throughout the song. Erez Eisen [3] had classical training before moving to the Electronic Music genre.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched-On_Bach
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx5_c4Azn4E
[2] - https://youtu.be/UnHiYfToywo?t=455
[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erez_Einsen
I find your links completely soulless and unimaginative (mostly rehashing 80s black music) so to each their own I guess :) Not that I dislike them, they're just... plain (to me).
I really like Todd Terje, which you linked, but I wouldn't call it subtle in any way (it's just generic italo-disco updated to sound like 21st century dance music). It's something I'd play to dance on a night out, not to listen and enjoy as art.
> It's a common thing in electronic music, sampled drumbeats
Well, both links feature live drum beats so... ;) Amongst other instruments (Shpongle's flute is analog, Younger Brother features analog instruments both at the studio and live).
Here's Younger Brother rehearsing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIYH6SXdjE0
---
As I expected it's a matter of taste (as expected) more than medium.
I can see you like funk influenced music full of harmonic complexity. You might like some 70s electronic music I guess? Try https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LF438wbUTI (Beaver & Krause, pioneers on electronic music). There are literally too many productions to chose from until I hit the key that tingles your own personal taste :P
We'll never agree but I'm glad we exchanged opinions (and I'll keep an eye on that Redinho guy!)
I really like Todd Terje, which you linked, but I wouldn't call it subtle in any way (it's just generic italo-disco updated to sound like 21st century dance music). It's something I'd play to dance on a night out, not to listen and enjoy as art.
> It's a common thing in electronic music, sampled drumbeats
Well, both links feature live drum beats so... ;) Amongst other instruments (Shpongle's flute is analog, Younger Brother features analog instruments both at the studio and live).
Here's Younger Brother rehearsing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIYH6SXdjE0
---
As I expected it's a matter of taste (as expected) more than medium.
I can see you like funk influenced music full of harmonic complexity. You might like some 70s electronic music I guess? Try https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LF438wbUTI (Beaver & Krause, pioneers on electronic music). There are literally too many productions to chose from until I hit the key that tingles your own personal taste :P
We'll never agree but I'm glad we exchanged opinions (and I'll keep an eye on that Redinho guy!)
I do have very strong funk roots, but I've walked extensively into prog, fusion, and recently classical music (which any sophisticated piece of jazz and fusion will go into once they leave the groove sections a bit aside).
Terje beat is subtle, other than that it's as simple as it can get.
It does influence my needs though, Funk, and Jazz have a swing, a tension that I often need in music, unless it's displaced by classical crescendos.
ps: I wonder if Redinho peaked on his first album, I expected more things to come since but .. anyway.
pps: I'll have to relisten to younger brother now
Terje beat is subtle, other than that it's as simple as it can get.
It does influence my needs though, Funk, and Jazz have a swing, a tension that I often need in music, unless it's displaced by classical crescendos.
ps: I wonder if Redinho peaked on his first album, I expected more things to come since but .. anyway.
pps: I'll have to relisten to younger brother now
Have you tried Floating Points? "Eleania" is a beautiful, rather quiet electronic / jazz mixture and one of my favorite albums in recent years:
- https://floatingpointsluakabop.bandcamp.com/album/elaenia
- https://www.discogs.com/Floating-Points-Elaenia/master/90855...
Another suggestion is Azymuth, a brazilian cult band that blends funk, latin, fusion and electronic music. They have a very long discography but their most recent album is a very good starting point:
- https://azymuth.bandcamp.com/album/f-nix
- https://www.discogs.com/Azymuth-F%C3%AAnix/master/1094986
Let's stay in brazil: Music From Memory, a fantastic re-issue label, recently released a fantastic compilation that collects brazilian electronic, avant-garde music from the late 70s to early 90s. It's more on the experimental, difficult end of the spectrum but very rewarding with repeated listenings:
- https://music-from-memory.bandcamp.com/album/outro-tempo-ele...
- https://www.discogs.com/Various-Outro-Tempo-Electronic-And-C...
- https://floatingpointsluakabop.bandcamp.com/album/elaenia
- https://www.discogs.com/Floating-Points-Elaenia/master/90855...
Another suggestion is Azymuth, a brazilian cult band that blends funk, latin, fusion and electronic music. They have a very long discography but their most recent album is a very good starting point:
- https://azymuth.bandcamp.com/album/f-nix
- https://www.discogs.com/Azymuth-F%C3%AAnix/master/1094986
Let's stay in brazil: Music From Memory, a fantastic re-issue label, recently released a fantastic compilation that collects brazilian electronic, avant-garde music from the late 70s to early 90s. It's more on the experimental, difficult end of the spectrum but very rewarding with repeated listenings:
- https://music-from-memory.bandcamp.com/album/outro-tempo-ele...
- https://www.discogs.com/Various-Outro-Tempo-Electronic-And-C...
> How many people in the electronic genre could play Bach ?
More than you might think. Some, like Isao Tomita, built their careers on electronic versions of classical music, including Bach in Tomita's case (though I don't care much for his adaptations). Others, but many others, like Jean-Michel Jarre has an education in classical music, and took a long time to "break free" from classical formats in his composition.
More than you might think. Some, like Isao Tomita, built their careers on electronic versions of classical music, including Bach in Tomita's case (though I don't care much for his adaptations). Others, but many others, like Jean-Michel Jarre has an education in classical music, and took a long time to "break free" from classical formats in his composition.
Tomita's style is so weird. I didn't know about him until your comment. He seems into pure rendering of classical style in other instruments. But I miss something, it's too precise or constricted.
Yes, Tomita is pretty strange. His rendition of Bolero is perhaps the most stereotypical Tomita you can find [1].
I tend to prefer electronic music that is relatively melodic but at the same time uses electronic instruments to do effects you can't easily do with analog instruments, e.g. like these, which are synth "classics":
* Jarre: Oxygene II: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD4KMp22jBg
* Jarre: Arpegiator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzAui_gcdhM
At the same time as they play with the synth capabilities of the time, they show Jarre's classical background - more so if you see the scores, and just how structured they are (especially if you look at a whole album; especially his earlier albums were thematically consistent, with very structured progressions from piece to piece).
For music that spans the genres, this is one of my all time favourites: [2] Final Rendez Vous (Ron's Piece), also by Jarre, which mixes electronic music with sax.
It was meant to be played for Jarre's Houston concert by Ron McNair while in space. He was due up on Challenger. The concert was almost called off, but people from NASA convinced Jarre to go ahead with it, and it's taken on an extra dimension beyond the already haunting melody...
On the complete opposite end of the spectrum, on the other hand, I also have a soft spot for chiptunes - 8 bit game and demo music, which ranges from trying to emulate classical music, but which are often very inaccessible if you don't know the technical constraints, to going all out with doing weird stuff with the available hardware.
So to give you a taste of something quite different from most modern electronic music:
E.g. this is one of the great triumphs in simulating real instruments on a Commodore 64 [3] (Monty on the Run, by Rob Hubbard). I won't be surprised if you're not impressed, but look at the oscilloscope and consider that it's three voices made on an 8-bit home computer.
Or this "album length" set of tracks from Last Ninja [4]... Both of these are constrained by hardware to 3 voices, no proper samples (sine, triangle, square waves and noise, with some added pulse modulation and lots of dirty tricks).
It does take some effort to look past the tinny sound and limited "instrument", and is probably a greatly acquired taste given that I grew up with it.
But to take two more: Lightforce (C64), by Rob Hubbard [5]. One of the pieces that probably sold more copies of the game than the gameplay did (the game itself was shit), yet which exhibits a lot of similar geometric progressions that the first two Jarre pieces do.
Which brings me to one of the most interesting game music compositions of the era:
Delta (also Rob Hubbard) [6]. It's not really casual listening, but it is extremely fascinating to meditate on. You can really see the limitations in that oscilloscope view: Those are what the other pieces have to work with, stripped bare. In most of the other pieces the composer has worked hard to try to bend it into a richer sound (and sometimes succeeded surprisingly well, like in the case of Monty on the Run - compare the oscilloscope for the middle voice in particular), but in Delta the simplicity is the main feature.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xnt_8bUXVpw
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AublfrOW578
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIA_0cvS2gQ
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_miL3Kd6E6w
[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFnjA0VraDQ
[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh8SIAZfDKs
I tend to prefer electronic music that is relatively melodic but at the same time uses electronic instruments to do effects you can't easily do with analog instruments, e.g. like these, which are synth "classics":
* Jarre: Oxygene II: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD4KMp22jBg
* Jarre: Arpegiator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzAui_gcdhM
At the same time as they play with the synth capabilities of the time, they show Jarre's classical background - more so if you see the scores, and just how structured they are (especially if you look at a whole album; especially his earlier albums were thematically consistent, with very structured progressions from piece to piece).
For music that spans the genres, this is one of my all time favourites: [2] Final Rendez Vous (Ron's Piece), also by Jarre, which mixes electronic music with sax.
It was meant to be played for Jarre's Houston concert by Ron McNair while in space. He was due up on Challenger. The concert was almost called off, but people from NASA convinced Jarre to go ahead with it, and it's taken on an extra dimension beyond the already haunting melody...
On the complete opposite end of the spectrum, on the other hand, I also have a soft spot for chiptunes - 8 bit game and demo music, which ranges from trying to emulate classical music, but which are often very inaccessible if you don't know the technical constraints, to going all out with doing weird stuff with the available hardware.
So to give you a taste of something quite different from most modern electronic music:
E.g. this is one of the great triumphs in simulating real instruments on a Commodore 64 [3] (Monty on the Run, by Rob Hubbard). I won't be surprised if you're not impressed, but look at the oscilloscope and consider that it's three voices made on an 8-bit home computer.
Or this "album length" set of tracks from Last Ninja [4]... Both of these are constrained by hardware to 3 voices, no proper samples (sine, triangle, square waves and noise, with some added pulse modulation and lots of dirty tricks).
It does take some effort to look past the tinny sound and limited "instrument", and is probably a greatly acquired taste given that I grew up with it.
But to take two more: Lightforce (C64), by Rob Hubbard [5]. One of the pieces that probably sold more copies of the game than the gameplay did (the game itself was shit), yet which exhibits a lot of similar geometric progressions that the first two Jarre pieces do.
Which brings me to one of the most interesting game music compositions of the era:
Delta (also Rob Hubbard) [6]. It's not really casual listening, but it is extremely fascinating to meditate on. You can really see the limitations in that oscilloscope view: Those are what the other pieces have to work with, stripped bare. In most of the other pieces the composer has worked hard to try to bend it into a richer sound (and sometimes succeeded surprisingly well, like in the case of Monty on the Run - compare the oscilloscope for the middle voice in particular), but in Delta the simplicity is the main feature.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xnt_8bUXVpw
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AublfrOW578
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIA_0cvS2gQ
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_miL3Kd6E6w
[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFnjA0VraDQ
[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh8SIAZfDKs
>How many people in the electronic genre could play Bach?
More than you might think. A.G. Cook and Danny L Harle are arguably the most influential figures in contemporary pop and are both classically trained composers. Harle has worked with Carly Rae Jepsen and produces some obnoxiously saccharin pop music, but he has also released an album of harpsichord duets.
The heart and soul of electronic music isn't melody or harmony, it's timbre and rhythm. There's a grammar of timbre which completely eludes most classical musicians.
More than you might think. A.G. Cook and Danny L Harle are arguably the most influential figures in contemporary pop and are both classically trained composers. Harle has worked with Carly Rae Jepsen and produces some obnoxiously saccharin pop music, but he has also released an album of harpsichord duets.
The heart and soul of electronic music isn't melody or harmony, it's timbre and rhythm. There's a grammar of timbre which completely eludes most classical musicians.
How many people in the electronic genre could play Bach?
I'm sure there are many. That sort of thing doesn't generally make it to the popular circles. The first one I thought of was an artist named Igorrr. It is quite possibly not your style, as some of the stuff might be difficult to listen to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PmUQU8Mk4o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKp30C3MwVk
I'm sure there are many. That sort of thing doesn't generally make it to the popular circles. The first one I thought of was an artist named Igorrr. It is quite possibly not your style, as some of the stuff might be difficult to listen to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PmUQU8Mk4o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKp30C3MwVk
> How many people in the electronic genre could play Bach ?
You should know that the first record of electronic music to be a hit record, was a record full of Bach music... by musician Walter Carlos (now Wendy Carlos).
You should know that the first record of electronic music to be a hit record, was a record full of Bach music... by musician Walter Carlos (now Wendy Carlos).
I know a fair few electronic musicians that would feel right at home performing bach.
Listen to those back to back and if you still find no subtleties or sensitivity go check a doctor ;) Now seriously, it's fine not to like them, but you have to concede these are very well done pieces of art.
De gustibus non est disputandum...
De gustibus non est disputandum...
>I don't listen to much electronic music, but I find no subtleties or sensitivity in what I hear.
Personally, I listen to whatever triggers the release of happy hormones in my brain. I think this varies from person to person, but for most people (and me) it's close to pop. I'm fine with this being not high culture.
There's lots of sophisticated electronic music, but those are different subgenres to the point where they have less in common with the garden variety techno than they have with other genres. If you want to out-jazz jazz then something like Amon Tobin would probably interest you.
Personally, I listen to whatever triggers the release of happy hormones in my brain. I think this varies from person to person, but for most people (and me) it's close to pop. I'm fine with this being not high culture.
There's lots of sophisticated electronic music, but those are different subgenres to the point where they have less in common with the garden variety techno than they have with other genres. If you want to out-jazz jazz then something like Amon Tobin would probably interest you.
I stopped being a musical snob a while back. I mind no music that gives me chills but often it has to have some ingredients. Now it can be bubblegum pop, it's not an issue, as it should since I have many "ridiculous" songs that I find quite deep to listen too (teen pop idol, old kids shows theme songs).
>I don't listen to much electronic music, but I find no subtleties or sensitivity in what I hear.
Probably because you don't listen much.
There are subtleties in electronic music pieces that go several levels beyond jazz even -- in timbre, rhythm, harmony etc. Compared to something like 70s rock, there's no contest even.
You wont find those in EDM charts though.
Probably because you don't listen much.
There are subtleties in electronic music pieces that go several levels beyond jazz even -- in timbre, rhythm, harmony etc. Compared to something like 70s rock, there's no contest even.
You wont find those in EDM charts though.
Send me names, I'd gladly feed my ears with beyond jazz subtleties. I'm all for the musical experience, as long as it's well done.
But to the point, the thread is about mainstream guitar playing going away. So I was talking about mainstream electro. Surely there are deeply satisfying electronic music out there if you dig.
But to the point, the thread is about mainstream guitar playing going away. So I was talking about mainstream electro. Surely there are deeply satisfying electronic music out there if you dig.
Made a selection with an eclectic variety of modern electronic sounds, enjoy!
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnXVIsMimHY (a gem of prog trance)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyORieDhpkg (dark electronic jazz)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Rk1K5Mmnbg (black metal + breakbeat + classical)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2GDEKCIVTE (amazing psy chill album)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQKsuZ5a3_U
To illustrate how Electronic Music enables you to achieve a wide range of possibilities I've chosen these 2 songs from the same band:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iI96JLR0rXM
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4YvkZeLrjs
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnXVIsMimHY (a gem of prog trance)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyORieDhpkg (dark electronic jazz)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Rk1K5Mmnbg (black metal + breakbeat + classical)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2GDEKCIVTE (amazing psy chill album)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQKsuZ5a3_U
To illustrate how Electronic Music enables you to achieve a wide range of possibilities I've chosen these 2 songs from the same band:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iI96JLR0rXM
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4YvkZeLrjs
Thank you very much, especially for the annotated subgenre :)
I was editing it and it was marked as dupe, here are some additional ones that could not make into it:
- https://soundcloud.com/isqamusic/6_tree-eater (can't describe)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iBaQrDW544 (dark ambient)
- https://soundcloud.com/crazy_astronaut/funky-shit-2014-with-... (well made mainstrean-ish hitech + dubstep)
- https://soundcloud.com/lucasnassar/toadstool-yamavoodoom-cel... (psycore)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyiB_rkob8o (mainstrean-ish well made dubstep)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tb0CwlQW0M (drum and bass)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBUi-ZYN4QM (trip hop)
- https://soundcloud.com/isqamusic/6_tree-eater (can't describe)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iBaQrDW544 (dark ambient)
- https://soundcloud.com/crazy_astronaut/funky-shit-2014-with-... (well made mainstrean-ish hitech + dubstep)
- https://soundcloud.com/lucasnassar/toadstool-yamavoodoom-cel... (psycore)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyiB_rkob8o (mainstrean-ish well made dubstep)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tb0CwlQW0M (drum and bass)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBUi-ZYN4QM (trip hop)
I'll add this, since there's the whole dark electronic dance music scene (the music those kids wearing black with bits of neon on it listen to).
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwuOHgateiw (Synthpop / futurepop / EBM)
(And beyond that, there's the harsh/industrial genres, but I can't think of anything I'd recommend for this discussion.)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwuOHgateiw (Synthpop / futurepop / EBM)
(And beyond that, there's the harsh/industrial genres, but I can't think of anything I'd recommend for this discussion.)
[deleted]
Here are some examples of some classic stuff -- but like anything new, they probably require repeated listenings to get the layers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgzjFCXCA8g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WTxC8wnXQo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnXVIsMimHY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw5AiRVqfqk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7bKe_Zgk4o&index=5&list=RDX...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FGtd3oH_PQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOjWMiPktqw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgzjFCXCA8g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WTxC8wnXQo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnXVIsMimHY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw5AiRVqfqk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7bKe_Zgk4o&index=5&list=RDX...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FGtd3oH_PQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOjWMiPktqw
This shows how subjective things are. I'm really into electronic music, or at least was. Some of your links are absolute masterpieces like autechre or aphex twin. Some of the the other trance stuff is so far below in my opinion that don't belong together.
>Some of the the other trance stuff is so far below in my opinion that don't belong together.
The trance stuff is not that "below" in quality, it's more of the "subjective opinion" thing that's not to taste, if not a reaction to automatically associate "trance == bad".
It's not like I linked to some cheesy GOA stuff. If you look at those "trance" pieces, the craftmanship and complexity is obvious, sometimes to the point that some "higher-quality" Aphex Twin part is just quick farting around with the equipment.
In any case, not knowing what the parent would be interested in, I tried to go for a wider variety. If they were for 70s prog rock for example and "epic" stuff, they might appreciate the Infected Mushroom stuff more.
The trance stuff is not that "below" in quality, it's more of the "subjective opinion" thing that's not to taste, if not a reaction to automatically associate "trance == bad".
It's not like I linked to some cheesy GOA stuff. If you look at those "trance" pieces, the craftmanship and complexity is obvious, sometimes to the point that some "higher-quality" Aphex Twin part is just quick farting around with the equipment.
In any case, not knowing what the parent would be interested in, I tried to go for a wider variety. If they were for 70s prog rock for example and "epic" stuff, they might appreciate the Infected Mushroom stuff more.
Again, that's what I said, it's subjective. To me infected mushroom and splonge (or however it's spelled) is nice sounding gym music, very little complexity or depth. It sounds like 1000 other trance or rave songs and little else than overlying the same synth patterns over and over. Honestly first time I played with a synth and turned on the arpeggiator I suddenly lost a bit of respect to most dance music out there. Nice production, little art. Autechre for example if a completely different thing, people who have created a completely unique and risky musical vocabulary and have been defiantly experimental all their careers.
But this is just like, my opinion :)
But this is just like, my opinion :)
>Honestly first time I played with a synth and turned on the arpeggiator I suddenly lost a bit of respect to most dance music out there.
I can assure you that Shpongle, for one, are nothing like "gym music" or "1000 other trance or rave songs", and have very much complexity and depth (not to mention compositional chops). And it was my younger brother (a conservatory artist and professional orchestra player) that pointed me at them, and he very much admires their rhythmic, melodic and harmonic complexity. It's nothing like assorted arpeggiator patterns above a kick drum, and I think most of your reservations is because of some response against cheesy trance which is totally misapplied here.
(In fact even when most people legitimately identify cheesy trance -- which most of it is anyway -- they are still totally fine for "serious" techno works that have 1/10th the complexity and depth. Because, supposedely, one is "party music" and the other is somber "cerebral" stuff that's Pitchfork friendly).
Autechre definitely have a unique aesthetic but all of their music is mostly tinkering and happy accidents (they are non-musicians in the traditional sense), and all the complexity is "accidental" complexity triggered from merging layers of experiments.
I can assure you that Shpongle, for one, are nothing like "gym music" or "1000 other trance or rave songs", and have very much complexity and depth (not to mention compositional chops). And it was my younger brother (a conservatory artist and professional orchestra player) that pointed me at them, and he very much admires their rhythmic, melodic and harmonic complexity. It's nothing like assorted arpeggiator patterns above a kick drum, and I think most of your reservations is because of some response against cheesy trance which is totally misapplied here.
(In fact even when most people legitimately identify cheesy trance -- which most of it is anyway -- they are still totally fine for "serious" techno works that have 1/10th the complexity and depth. Because, supposedely, one is "party music" and the other is somber "cerebral" stuff that's Pitchfork friendly).
Autechre definitely have a unique aesthetic but all of their music is mostly tinkering and happy accidents (they are non-musicians in the traditional sense), and all the complexity is "accidental" complexity triggered from merging layers of experiments.
Again, this is opinions but I just disagree. I listened to the links you pointed and bit more about spongle. They sound nice, I don't dislike it I will probably listen to them again some time when I want some groove going on, they are definitely on the upper tier of trance/rave stuff. But they are straightforward, low brow stuff to me. Nothing against that, just not in the same league as things like Autechre, Orbital, Aphex Twin, Massive Attack, Mouse on Mars, etc.
Autechre have moved into very experimental stuff lately, which I don't dig as much as their early stuff even though one has to admire their coherence and attitude. They are very serious and spend a lot of time trying new stuff. Their early stuff had the perfect amount of glitchy noises and melody for me. Nothing accidental about those records, they were perfectly planned and executed. Even the stuff they do know I think it's very deliberate even if it's a lot more abstract and difficult to listen to.
Talking about musicians in the traditional sense is usually nonsensical in modern music. What's a musician in the traditional sense? a classical pianist? half of the best punk bands could barely play, still made good songs. Many electronic musicians can't play a traditional instrument, is that what you mean "not in the traditional sense"? Their instrument is the computer. If you claim that they don't know music because they don't have a classical degree or can do guitar solos, it's nonsense at this point.
Autechre have moved into very experimental stuff lately, which I don't dig as much as their early stuff even though one has to admire their coherence and attitude. They are very serious and spend a lot of time trying new stuff. Their early stuff had the perfect amount of glitchy noises and melody for me. Nothing accidental about those records, they were perfectly planned and executed. Even the stuff they do know I think it's very deliberate even if it's a lot more abstract and difficult to listen to.
Talking about musicians in the traditional sense is usually nonsensical in modern music. What's a musician in the traditional sense? a classical pianist? half of the best punk bands could barely play, still made good songs. Many electronic musicians can't play a traditional instrument, is that what you mean "not in the traditional sense"? Their instrument is the computer. If you claim that they don't know music because they don't have a classical degree or can do guitar solos, it's nonsense at this point.
Maybe he tried to give a broad panel of electronic music. Autechre does have its own universe, I didn't listen more than 2 minutes in because the link loaded slowly and 2h made me skip.
It's the whole record that's why it's 2h. If you have Spotify you can listen to them piecemeal. I recommend Tri Repetae. It's my favorite record of them. It's not for everyone, and it's definitely not dance music. To me, they managed to make music that is a strange and poignant mixture of the cold and robotic and warm and human. It's electronic music at its best, something that can't really be achieved in other genres.
IM starts nice, the rest isn't my cup of tea. I'll keep it under my pillow for a second run.
ps: here's a gift https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj3GkvFIqSc
ps: here's a gift https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj3GkvFIqSc
[deleted]
Simon Posford is the Jimi Hendrix of the psychedelic trance genre :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn16TZ2H1Fw
(note, needs to be played as loud as you can get away with!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn16TZ2H1Fw
(note, needs to be played as loud as you can get away with!)
What do you think about this kind of electronic music?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9s6Vi-Ts-k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvmYo3q1qrg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeaGUfZM5hs
https://di.fm/channels is worth checking out BTW, it's a radio network with over 90 genres/channels with electronic music. If you don't find something you like there it's because you're determined to not like it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9s6Vi-Ts-k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvmYo3q1qrg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeaGUfZM5hs
https://di.fm/channels is worth checking out BTW, it's a radio network with over 90 genres/channels with electronic music. If you don't find something you like there it's because you're determined to not like it.
Another recommendation: HEALTH Disco 2 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRIvjnpXOQI
It's actually an album full of electro remixes of songs from the HEALTH album GET COLOR (which is also an incredible album, but rather different in style) by different artists.
One of my favourite albums of all time. You'll find a lot in there if you give it a few listens :-)
It's actually an album full of electro remixes of songs from the HEALTH album GET COLOR (which is also an incredible album, but rather different in style) by different artists.
One of my favourite albums of all time. You'll find a lot in there if you give it a few listens :-)
If you’re looking for an example of subtle and thoughtful electronic music, I recommend listening to recent works of Tipper.
Listen to this Charles Cohen record if you want subtlety and sensitivity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-c5_A2y0JM
I'm pretty sure you're missing the good stuff, hidden a under a sea of mediocrity. That can easily happen as there's simply so much music out there.
Shpongle is from the 90’s (though mostly not techno). Granted, most of their hits came out in the 2000’s.
> the next Jimmy Hendrix won't play guitar
This guy comes to my mind: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCafxR2HWJRmMfSdyZXvZMTw :)
This guy comes to my mind: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCafxR2HWJRmMfSdyZXvZMTw :)
Rock is what's really dying, the guitar will survive this.
The canonical 4 piece band is in decline, as is music that highlights the electric guitar with riffs & a guitar solo. Mass consumption of electric guitar music is what is in decline. Instrument sales are only a symptom and byproduct of changing cultural music tastes. And there's no way to fix it, you can't control what's popular.
As a guitar player, I think electric guitar has enjoyed unfair levels of popularity relative to other instruments for the past 50 years. Among other good reasons I've read in the comments here, this may be an equalizing correction. "Death" seems hyperbolic, there's no evidence guitars will somehow disappear, but a decline was probably inevitable.
I think it's fascinating to read theories about how to "fix" the "problem". If people buy less guitar music, then guitar sales will fall, and with that in mind it seems so quaint and cute and sweetly misguided to focus development efforts on online guitar classes. Do we think online clarinet classes will bolster clarinet sales?
The canonical 4 piece band is in decline, as is music that highlights the electric guitar with riffs & a guitar solo. Mass consumption of electric guitar music is what is in decline. Instrument sales are only a symptom and byproduct of changing cultural music tastes. And there's no way to fix it, you can't control what's popular.
As a guitar player, I think electric guitar has enjoyed unfair levels of popularity relative to other instruments for the past 50 years. Among other good reasons I've read in the comments here, this may be an equalizing correction. "Death" seems hyperbolic, there's no evidence guitars will somehow disappear, but a decline was probably inevitable.
I think it's fascinating to read theories about how to "fix" the "problem". If people buy less guitar music, then guitar sales will fall, and with that in mind it seems so quaint and cute and sweetly misguided to focus development efforts on online guitar classes. Do we think online clarinet classes will bolster clarinet sales?
> you can't control what's popular.
Artists don't, but someone does.
Artists don't, but someone does.
Yes, consumers do, they ultimately have the most control. The guitar manufacturers don't, they are the "you" I was referring to. No one person or company can reverse the decline of Rock music, the public is buying less of it over time despite large scale marketing efforts.
Publishers certainly have some limited influence over which specific artists get traction through promotion and marketing. They can milk extra sales of declining genres for a while, but no amount of promotion and marketing can ever make renaissance or classical or ragtime or doo-wop appeal to the young mass pop-music consuming market again. Rock will eventually be part of that same past.
No amount of money can be spent to create a new style of music that will be guaranteed to be popular. Nobody has the ability to restore the electric guitar to it's former prominence by design. It could happen organically, but it can't be forced.
Publishers certainly have some limited influence over which specific artists get traction through promotion and marketing. They can milk extra sales of declining genres for a while, but no amount of promotion and marketing can ever make renaissance or classical or ragtime or doo-wop appeal to the young mass pop-music consuming market again. Rock will eventually be part of that same past.
No amount of money can be spent to create a new style of music that will be guaranteed to be popular. Nobody has the ability to restore the electric guitar to it's former prominence by design. It could happen organically, but it can't be forced.
Eh, I believe that to some extent. Someone decided that Black Sabbath would be more popular than The Pixies. But I don't think anyone decided that shared style of music would become popular: that was a function of sentiment at the time.
From the perspective of a hypothetical overlord, controlling what people want costs money. It's cheaper to predict what people want and sell them that. Of course if you predict wrong, you have to exert some control to make sure you recoup your investment. But music isn't an industry where you have to manufacture demand, so it's cheaper not to.
From the perspective of a hypothetical overlord, controlling what people want costs money. It's cheaper to predict what people want and sell them that. Of course if you predict wrong, you have to exert some control to make sure you recoup your investment. But music isn't an industry where you have to manufacture demand, so it's cheaper not to.
My generation, the last of generation X, probably wanted to express existential angst with loud music such as altern rock and metal – music centered around distorted guitars. Metal took more hopeful '50s and '60s guitar music and turned it into darkness and despair, just like the hippie philosophy and in a way the general world view did.
The millennial generation – my younger brother – clearly follows a different path, more into electronics, going out, partying, and oriented towards the self. I feel they prefer to (comparatively) focus more their own little bubble and pleasure, and less scream about general misery or the state of the world.
I'm a guitar player and one of the last of generation X, and as an angry aggressive male I simply can't imagine hopping around on electronics as an outlet. I think guitar music and specifically heavy genres are far from dead – especially here in Northern Europe – but young(er) people have a different way of expressing and listening to music which is not very guitar-centric. They don't necessarily want to sit down and listen to a record full of doom music like us metalheads did/do, or at least, that's not the main way of enjoying music. It remains to be seen how much this pattern of music consumption will influence how people experience music in the long term.
The millennial generation – my younger brother – clearly follows a different path, more into electronics, going out, partying, and oriented towards the self. I feel they prefer to (comparatively) focus more their own little bubble and pleasure, and less scream about general misery or the state of the world.
I'm a guitar player and one of the last of generation X, and as an angry aggressive male I simply can't imagine hopping around on electronics as an outlet. I think guitar music and specifically heavy genres are far from dead – especially here in Northern Europe – but young(er) people have a different way of expressing and listening to music which is not very guitar-centric. They don't necessarily want to sit down and listen to a record full of doom music like us metalheads did/do, or at least, that's not the main way of enjoying music. It remains to be seen how much this pattern of music consumption will influence how people experience music in the long term.
I would also argue metal was never mainstream. The mainstream was always further takes on pop, which to an increasing degree draws from all the others innovating, if in a moderately expressed way. Listen to mainstream popular music now and you can often find some of the intensity extreme metal explored.
> I would also argue metal was never mainstream.
Come on, it is/was, at least in Europe. Plenty of famous metal bands in the late 90's early 2000. Even death metal had a few commercial successes.
Come on, it is/was, at least in Europe. Plenty of famous metal bands in the late 90's early 2000. Even death metal had a few commercial successes.
Famous, maybe, but not mainstream. Pretty much the closest thing to ever touch prime time radio are Nothing Else Matters or maybe something by Linkin Park, both of which barely graze into metal.
I would argue that KISS and Van Halen were incredibly main stream and are usually considered metal... at least van Halen
Van Halen and KISS were not really metal in my book -- glam rock/pop, along with most of the other 80s "hair" groups. Guitar-heavy to be sure, but not really metal.
I have to agree that metal was never mainstream. I always looked at metal as an evolution of punk.
Metal shares with punk (unless you're talking about crossover genres like crust) a rejection of the established order and affirmation of the individual against the collective. They both also tend to be angry responses to alienation. The aesthetic of the two is radically different though. Metal is about creating a fantastic, otherworldly soundscape, while punk focuses on capturing the raw quality of life.
I think industrial music was the true successors to punk. They took the raw grit of punk and made it modern and danceable.
I think industrial music was the true successors to punk. They took the raw grit of punk and made it modern and danceable.
Original industrial was far from danceable. It wasn't until the post-industrial in the early 80s w/ groups like Skinny Puppy that what you describe started to happen.
However the first part of your point holds, acts like Throbbing Gristle (who coined the "industrial" term) definitely came out of the British punk community.
However the first part of your point holds, acts like Throbbing Gristle (who coined the "industrial" term) definitely came out of the British punk community.
By many measures metal predates punk
It reminds me a lot of the 80's when synths and keyboards took center stage for a little while. Yet guitar never really died during that time. Guitar is still around its just not center stage.
I think this article misses a key point. It's not all just about a lack of relevant role models.
Today, there are so many things competing for a kids' time - social media and messaging, mobile apps, video games, Netflix - that kids are choosing other activities instead of solitary, frustrating hours practicing guitar technique.
To become a proficient amateur-level guitarist, it takes around 2,000 hours of practice. That's equivalent to an hour a day, EVERY SINGLE DAY, for 5-1/2 years.
90% of kids learning guitar quit in the first 2 months (according to Fender) - most before they can play their first song well. The first few weeks are particularly brutal - it sounds horrible, it's painful on your fingers, and takes hours just get your first chord down.
In one sentence: it's just too hard to learn for the vast majority of people - and it's always been this way. But the difference is that these days, most kids would rather play Pokemon Go or Snapchat - and for kids who are musically inclined, it's so much easier and faster to become a DJ or producer than an instrumentalist, thanks to GarageBand and VirtualDJ and other easy-to-use software apps.
So a lot of musical kids are choosing that route. Why spend thousands of hours alone in your bedroom when you can be DJ'ing your first party in a few weeks?
So, how do we solve the problem of getting more kids to learn instruments, particularly the guitar? Some people have put lights on the fretboard (Fretlight, Gtar, Poputar) but in 25 years, that hasn't proven to make it much easier to learn. Others have gamified the experience (Rocksmith, Yousician) - but the learning curve is still extremely steep.
My company, Magic Instruments, has a different approach. We make it fundamentally easier to learn. Instead of starting by learning traditional guitar chord fingerings, we enable people to start playing chords using just one finger. This gives beginners an instantly positive musical experience - you can start strumming and playing your favorite songs from day one, and start jamming with others in a band in your first week. We then transition people over to learning traditional chords at their own pace.
We've seen 9 year old kids form a band in a few hours. Our hope is that we can inspire these kids to have a passion for practicing music, which will enable them to persevere for the thousands of hours of practice it takes to build the muscle memory to become guitarists.
Today, there are so many things competing for a kids' time - social media and messaging, mobile apps, video games, Netflix - that kids are choosing other activities instead of solitary, frustrating hours practicing guitar technique.
To become a proficient amateur-level guitarist, it takes around 2,000 hours of practice. That's equivalent to an hour a day, EVERY SINGLE DAY, for 5-1/2 years.
90% of kids learning guitar quit in the first 2 months (according to Fender) - most before they can play their first song well. The first few weeks are particularly brutal - it sounds horrible, it's painful on your fingers, and takes hours just get your first chord down.
In one sentence: it's just too hard to learn for the vast majority of people - and it's always been this way. But the difference is that these days, most kids would rather play Pokemon Go or Snapchat - and for kids who are musically inclined, it's so much easier and faster to become a DJ or producer than an instrumentalist, thanks to GarageBand and VirtualDJ and other easy-to-use software apps.
So a lot of musical kids are choosing that route. Why spend thousands of hours alone in your bedroom when you can be DJ'ing your first party in a few weeks?
So, how do we solve the problem of getting more kids to learn instruments, particularly the guitar? Some people have put lights on the fretboard (Fretlight, Gtar, Poputar) but in 25 years, that hasn't proven to make it much easier to learn. Others have gamified the experience (Rocksmith, Yousician) - but the learning curve is still extremely steep.
My company, Magic Instruments, has a different approach. We make it fundamentally easier to learn. Instead of starting by learning traditional guitar chord fingerings, we enable people to start playing chords using just one finger. This gives beginners an instantly positive musical experience - you can start strumming and playing your favorite songs from day one, and start jamming with others in a band in your first week. We then transition people over to learning traditional chords at their own pace.
We've seen 9 year old kids form a band in a few hours. Our hope is that we can inspire these kids to have a passion for practicing music, which will enable them to persevere for the thousands of hours of practice it takes to build the muscle memory to become guitarists.
> 90% of kids learning guitar quit in the first 2 months (according to Fender)
True, just ask anyone who's ever had a teaching career in guitar (or music).
It's hard, everything about it is hard. And I'm not only saying that because I feel confident with my skills; it's quite true. Only with lots of time do callouses form where it doesn't hurt your fingers every time you play. Volume and feedback is another beast to manage. And if you're playing an acoustic, you really need some light gauge strings and good action to ever have hopes for that thing to not feel like a knife to your hands.
My method with beginners was simply to keep them entertained. So many potential Guitar Gods walk out because they go up against a Hal Leonard method book and have all the fun of guitar sucked out of them. If you can get them playing music they want to play; they're much more likely to continue playing it, even through pain, so that they can learn the fundamentals over time.
Your method works really well too, one-finger chords is a great way to get people playing the strummy music they like without the frustration of coordinating all the fingers. In the same light, it's why I've tuned my 4-year-olds guitar to an open D, so that she can "write music and sing" without having to worry about getting a sound of the guitar. If the interest is there, the perseverance will continue.
True, just ask anyone who's ever had a teaching career in guitar (or music).
It's hard, everything about it is hard. And I'm not only saying that because I feel confident with my skills; it's quite true. Only with lots of time do callouses form where it doesn't hurt your fingers every time you play. Volume and feedback is another beast to manage. And if you're playing an acoustic, you really need some light gauge strings and good action to ever have hopes for that thing to not feel like a knife to your hands.
My method with beginners was simply to keep them entertained. So many potential Guitar Gods walk out because they go up against a Hal Leonard method book and have all the fun of guitar sucked out of them. If you can get them playing music they want to play; they're much more likely to continue playing it, even through pain, so that they can learn the fundamentals over time.
Your method works really well too, one-finger chords is a great way to get people playing the strummy music they like without the frustration of coordinating all the fingers. In the same light, it's why I've tuned my 4-year-olds guitar to an open D, so that she can "write music and sing" without having to worry about getting a sound of the guitar. If the interest is there, the perseverance will continue.
"90% of kids learning guitar quit in the first 2 months" - I wonder if when the industry was doing well it mainly just meant that there were a lot more guitars out there collecting dust.
You have a point there- solitary mastering of an art is fought against by social networking.
My opinion is that it's a good time for electric guitar buyers, because factory-made guitars are pretty good and relatively inexpensive. They also last a long time, which means there's a lot of great used guitars out there.
I don't think there will be any major technological advances that make factory-made guitars significantly cheaper and better than they are now. I think a more interesting direction is for guitars to become simpler and easier to build to the point where a non-expert can build one easily without a lot of exotic tools. (In a way, this has always been the case. Cigar box guitars are an old tradition; they're ridiculously easy to make, and can sound very good.)
If you think about it, a Fender Stratocaster is a very minimalistic design that was engineered to be easy to manufacture with 1950's woodshop tools (bandsaws, routers and jigs, etc).. Every Strat clone is a reproduction of a design made for that era of technology. When CNC machines came on the scene, a Strat shape isn't substantially easier to make than any other shape, but we keep using that shape because it works well and because of tradition.
A guitar design that's optimized to be easy for a non-professional to make with a CNC router and a laser cutter and some basic woodworking tools might look somewhat different. This could open the door to extreme customization -- one-of-a-kind harp guitars, unusual pickup arrangements, guitars with three strings and four frets, nine string guitars designed for 31-tone equal temperament or just tunings, or whatever you like.
I expect most guitar buyers will continue to buy traditional Fenders and Gibsons and so on with 6 strings and from 21 to 24 frets and a scale length of 25 inches, plus or minus half an inch. However, for those that want something different, there will always be a minority of tinkerers who build their guitar just the way they like it. That's where I think the most interesting advances are going to happen.
I don't think there will be any major technological advances that make factory-made guitars significantly cheaper and better than they are now. I think a more interesting direction is for guitars to become simpler and easier to build to the point where a non-expert can build one easily without a lot of exotic tools. (In a way, this has always been the case. Cigar box guitars are an old tradition; they're ridiculously easy to make, and can sound very good.)
If you think about it, a Fender Stratocaster is a very minimalistic design that was engineered to be easy to manufacture with 1950's woodshop tools (bandsaws, routers and jigs, etc).. Every Strat clone is a reproduction of a design made for that era of technology. When CNC machines came on the scene, a Strat shape isn't substantially easier to make than any other shape, but we keep using that shape because it works well and because of tradition.
A guitar design that's optimized to be easy for a non-professional to make with a CNC router and a laser cutter and some basic woodworking tools might look somewhat different. This could open the door to extreme customization -- one-of-a-kind harp guitars, unusual pickup arrangements, guitars with three strings and four frets, nine string guitars designed for 31-tone equal temperament or just tunings, or whatever you like.
I expect most guitar buyers will continue to buy traditional Fenders and Gibsons and so on with 6 strings and from 21 to 24 frets and a scale length of 25 inches, plus or minus half an inch. However, for those that want something different, there will always be a minority of tinkerers who build their guitar just the way they like it. That's where I think the most interesting advances are going to happen.
Fender and Gibson are iconic, classic brands. They'll never deviate from what they do; because when they do (look at the double-cutaway Les Paul they just tried to hawk) they get torn to pieces.
If anyone wants to innovate in the industry, they have to come out of nowhere. Strandberg is doing well at this, with concepts you mention. Kiesel/Carvin kinda is too. Line 6 almost did, but cheap-ified the digital transition which made way for Kemper and Fractal (boutique digital brands, LOL, so funny to say) to take the stage and actually change some minds.
Because we all play guitars designed 50-60 years ago we're naturally going to resist change.
If anyone wants to innovate in the industry, they have to come out of nowhere. Strandberg is doing well at this, with concepts you mention. Kiesel/Carvin kinda is too. Line 6 almost did, but cheap-ified the digital transition which made way for Kemper and Fractal (boutique digital brands, LOL, so funny to say) to take the stage and actually change some minds.
Because we all play guitars designed 50-60 years ago we're naturally going to resist change.
When you peak as the most popular instrument in the world and get tons of obsessive people to collect/hoard instruments, there's only one way to go from that peak. Thinking the downturn is death is worthless hype.
Almost every collector I've met usually collects with the market. Not all of them hoard as much as you'd traditionally think. They're always buying/selling trying to get that Holy Grail First Run Sunburst Les Paul. There's plenty of room in the market for everyone willing to put some skin in the game.
Plus, I think the mention of all the boutique brands at NAMM helps with this. We all can't afford a magnificent '55 strat, but with far fewer dollars d'Pergo (or some other amazing strat perfectionist) can make something equally as stunning.
And, with enough time these instruments will hit the market again. When enough of them do; we'll make them affordable again; once everyone is play 7+ strings and doesn't want anything to do with 50's guitar technology.
I bet we'll see that with amplifiers, first.
Plus, I think the mention of all the boutique brands at NAMM helps with this. We all can't afford a magnificent '55 strat, but with far fewer dollars d'Pergo (or some other amazing strat perfectionist) can make something equally as stunning.
And, with enough time these instruments will hit the market again. When enough of them do; we'll make them affordable again; once everyone is play 7+ strings and doesn't want anything to do with 50's guitar technology.
I bet we'll see that with amplifiers, first.
This isn't just collecting as investing. Many players collect not to be collectors but because they just get obsessed with wanting to have certain instruments that they hope to (and in some cases actually do) play.
Allan Holdsworth, one of the most innovative guitar player passed not long ago.
If you feel like discovering a new way around an instrument, and even music in general, and are not repelled by 70s/80s synth feel, enjoy youtubing his name.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXSd-WyrtfA
The man was an extraordinary among extraordinaries. The guitarit's guitarist as they say.
Beside music, the notion of culture itself changed, it's palpable; the previous era was inspired a lot by music; today the passion has shifted down, at least as a mainstream thing. It's an industry in maintenance mode. Youngins may not be thrilled to be a guitar player, but in a way guitar heros aren't that much interesting. The instrument value in itself has not decreased.
If you feel like discovering a new way around an instrument, and even music in general, and are not repelled by 70s/80s synth feel, enjoy youtubing his name.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXSd-WyrtfA
The man was an extraordinary among extraordinaries. The guitarit's guitarist as they say.
Beside music, the notion of culture itself changed, it's palpable; the previous era was inspired a lot by music; today the passion has shifted down, at least as a mainstream thing. It's an industry in maintenance mode. Youngins may not be thrilled to be a guitar player, but in a way guitar heros aren't that much interesting. The instrument value in itself has not decreased.
Oh that sucks, I totally missed that. :(
I especially love the work that he did with Jean Luc Ponty, and UK's Rendez-Vous 6:02.
I especially love the work that he did with Jean Luc Ponty, and UK's Rendez-Vous 6:02.
I missed it too by a week, he has always been in the shadow.
I don't think I've listened to Ponty with him, onto it.
I don't think I've listened to Ponty with him, onto it.
Here is a nice one to start with:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmC5P_85vhc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmC5P_85vhc
I love the first minute.. a very nice Holdsworthy theme.
I like the electronic vibe, kinda like Civilized Evil https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FikOX8KloCk&list=PLzN7jgp6hR...
I see Ponty played with drummer Damien Schmitt, do you know this piece by Schmitt and Feraud ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8au2qIcjJVw
I like the electronic vibe, kinda like Civilized Evil https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FikOX8KloCk&list=PLzN7jgp6hR...
I see Ponty played with drummer Damien Schmitt, do you know this piece by Schmitt and Feraud ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8au2qIcjJVw
I don't know either, thank you! Will listen on headphones later today, on the road now.
I'm still in mourning :(
Software eating the world.
As a guitarist, for some of my years professionally I can only say that this is mostly because you can emulate a lot of things today which normally required different guitars to bring out special sounds and because well most music today don't have guitar solos and thus it's hard to imagine guitar heroes coming out of music which doesn't put guitar in the front.
It's not just guitars though it's most other instruments. The real heroes today are the composers and producers.
As a guitarist, for some of my years professionally I can only say that this is mostly because you can emulate a lot of things today which normally required different guitars to bring out special sounds and because well most music today don't have guitar solos and thus it's hard to imagine guitar heroes coming out of music which doesn't put guitar in the front.
It's not just guitars though it's most other instruments. The real heroes today are the composers and producers.
I for one, welcome the death of the guitar solo.
I say this as a guitarist of more than three decades, and as a lover of great guitar playing. Rock and roll guitar solos are, by and large, the wankiest and most pointless waste of notes I can imagine. If we never get another, say Eruption, in exchange for no more awful weedly-deedly musical maelstroms I believe it is a more than fair trade. Even the good rock and roll guitar solos often aren't all that good compared to the song that surrounds them. (There are exceptions, and there are moments where the only thing that could have possibly worked was a wailing guitar...I'm thinking of something like the ending of The Chain by Fleetwood Mac...but that's not really a solo so much as a real and vital part of the song).
I say this as a guitarist of more than three decades, and as a lover of great guitar playing. Rock and roll guitar solos are, by and large, the wankiest and most pointless waste of notes I can imagine. If we never get another, say Eruption, in exchange for no more awful weedly-deedly musical maelstroms I believe it is a more than fair trade. Even the good rock and roll guitar solos often aren't all that good compared to the song that surrounds them. (There are exceptions, and there are moments where the only thing that could have possibly worked was a wailing guitar...I'm thinking of something like the ending of The Chain by Fleetwood Mac...but that's not really a solo so much as a real and vital part of the song).
If that moment in Sweet Child O' Mine when Slash kicks on the wah and runs up the fretboard doesn't give you chills... well...
But that's a real PART. It's kind of like the Jay Graydon solo in Steely Dan's 'Peg'. Yes, you can have a bunch of exciting notes doing things, but it can't be just any bunch of notes: fast or slow, content matters.
Absolutely, content matters, and so does context. Take the solo in Living Colour's "Cult of Personality", a gibberish mess of seemingly random notes; he abuses that instrument like it owes him a lot of money! It works perfectly in the song however, so I suppose it's all a matter of taste.
p.s. Aja is an absolute classic :)
p.s. Aja is an absolute classic :)
Here's the problem with talking about guitar solos, especially saying, "I hate guitar solos, in the general case": Everyone immediately thinks of their favorite guitar solo, and gets defensive.
How am I supposed to argue against a Vernon Reid solo? Vernon Reid is a brilliant musician. I've loved his playing since I was a kid. He was one of my earliest musical heroes, and unlike a lot of musicians I liked when I was a kid, his playing (and the music of Living Colour) holds up extremely well to adulthood listening, even as someone that's got years of musical training since the first time I heard it and loved it. I might even enjoy some of their songs more today because I understand the depth of it.
If we could have the geniuses without the wankers, I'd have a lot less disdain for guitar solos (though even the Vernon Reids of the world usually have a few pointless rambling solos on record out there). But, we don't. Every wanker who ever picked up a guitar has shared their gifts with anyone who'd listen...sometimes, the world has been unlucky enough for it to have been recorded and somehow become a hit, and now we all have to hear that goddamned Freebird solo every now and then, no matter how hard we might try to avoid it.
Wankers outnumber geniuses by orders of magnitude. The sheer weight of guitar solo mediocrity in this world is staggering.
How am I supposed to argue against a Vernon Reid solo? Vernon Reid is a brilliant musician. I've loved his playing since I was a kid. He was one of my earliest musical heroes, and unlike a lot of musicians I liked when I was a kid, his playing (and the music of Living Colour) holds up extremely well to adulthood listening, even as someone that's got years of musical training since the first time I heard it and loved it. I might even enjoy some of their songs more today because I understand the depth of it.
If we could have the geniuses without the wankers, I'd have a lot less disdain for guitar solos (though even the Vernon Reids of the world usually have a few pointless rambling solos on record out there). But, we don't. Every wanker who ever picked up a guitar has shared their gifts with anyone who'd listen...sometimes, the world has been unlucky enough for it to have been recorded and somehow become a hit, and now we all have to hear that goddamned Freebird solo every now and then, no matter how hard we might try to avoid it.
Wankers outnumber geniuses by orders of magnitude. The sheer weight of guitar solo mediocrity in this world is staggering.
But thats true about almost anything that the people who know how to do something are miniscule compared to those who doesn't. Whether it's design, UX, business, entrepreneurship, football, tennis etc. Hardly an argument for anything.
So you are really back to what you like not an actual argument against guitar solos.
So you are really back to what you like not an actual argument against guitar solos.
Sure, I've never said this is objective. I hate bad guitar solos and most guitar solos are bad. So, I said I welcome the death of the guitar solo as a medium of transmission of shitty ideas into my brain by mediocre musicians.
But, I disagree with your comparison to "design, UX, business, entrepreneurship, football, tennis, etc."
Those are the thing. You can't have design without design. You can have design without the blink tag. You can't have UX without UX, but you can have UX without mystery meat navigation. You can't have business without business, but you can have business without telesales. You can't have entrepreneurship without entrepreneurship, but you can have entrepreneurship without "Why should a programmer get so much equity? It's my idea." You can't have football without football, but you can have football without that John 3:14 guy (who is in prison for multiple kidnapping charges, BTW). You can't have tennis without tennis, but you can have tennis without the tennis community's infuriating refusal to acknowledge Serena as the GOAT. You can't have etc without etc, but you can have etc without people who misspell it "ect". There are things that make UX bad; mystery meat navigation is one of them. There are things that make songs bad; guitar solos are often one of them.
What I'm saying is that guitar solos are the unnecessary, usually unwanted, but too often present, part of an otherwise potentially good thing. They make songs worse in a lot of cases.
But, I disagree with your comparison to "design, UX, business, entrepreneurship, football, tennis, etc."
Those are the thing. You can't have design without design. You can have design without the blink tag. You can't have UX without UX, but you can have UX without mystery meat navigation. You can't have business without business, but you can have business without telesales. You can't have entrepreneurship without entrepreneurship, but you can have entrepreneurship without "Why should a programmer get so much equity? It's my idea." You can't have football without football, but you can have football without that John 3:14 guy (who is in prison for multiple kidnapping charges, BTW). You can't have tennis without tennis, but you can have tennis without the tennis community's infuriating refusal to acknowledge Serena as the GOAT. You can't have etc without etc, but you can have etc without people who misspell it "ect". There are things that make UX bad; mystery meat navigation is one of them. There are things that make songs bad; guitar solos are often one of them.
What I'm saying is that guitar solos are the unnecessary, usually unwanted, but too often present, part of an otherwise potentially good thing. They make songs worse in a lot of cases.
You keep talking as if its objective, its not. Guitar solos are to some what they care about. So sure you have the right to your opinion but its highly subjective not some rational argument.
UX is not objective its contextual. Something being intuitive only means the context is understood.
UX is not objective its contextual. Something being intuitive only means the context is understood.
[deleted]
Thats because most guitar solos are completely mediocre. Most of Brian May's solos in Queen songs are brilliant.
Totally agree, I find nearly no guitar solos that add anything to the song. A few exceptions I can think of are Hendrix, Pink Floyd, and Maudlin of the Well.
There are many types of solos there are many types of music that uses it as an integral part and where it makes sense. Those might be types of music you don't like but that does not make solos pointless.
So each to their own of course but a very weird comment.
So each to their own of course but a very weird comment.
Yes, but most solos by Brian May are hugely musical and compliment the music.
Also, Jeff Beck's records are really interesting, good, entertaining, innovative solo guitar.
Also, Jeff Beck's records are really interesting, good, entertaining, innovative solo guitar.
That's what a good solo does. It shouldn't be a true solo, but part of the music. Maybe the name "solo" is wrong. A good solo doesn't stand on its own, but it's a break in the music that brings you to the next piece.
Too many guitar players think the solo is their time to show off how quick their fingers are without being hampered by the rest of the song. It may be impressive guitar skills, but it's crappy music. That doesn't mean that all solos should die, just that they shouldn't be entirely solo.
Too many guitar players think the solo is their time to show off how quick their fingers are without being hampered by the rest of the song. It may be impressive guitar skills, but it's crappy music. That doesn't mean that all solos should die, just that they shouldn't be entirely solo.
Guitars (and other instruments) will remain even with the prevalence of electronic means of creation, in the same way the paintbrush and pencil are in no danger from Photoshop. The typewriter was replaced by software because instruments and implements offer what a typewriter cannot.
Nuance.
The "art" of paintings, drawings, and music lives in the nuances and life of the art; the imperfections or subtle changes. Writing is an assembly of language characters to convey the art. The nuance is how those character elements are arranged and interpreted, and thus the means of doing so are unimportant. However, an errant bristle or subtle slide down a string give life and nuance to an art without explicitly standing out on its own.
Nuance.
The "art" of paintings, drawings, and music lives in the nuances and life of the art; the imperfections or subtle changes. Writing is an assembly of language characters to convey the art. The nuance is how those character elements are arranged and interpreted, and thus the means of doing so are unimportant. However, an errant bristle or subtle slide down a string give life and nuance to an art without explicitly standing out on its own.
No one is saying they are going away completely just that they are mostly replaced (just like many other instruments). The number of people who live from playing the guitar has dropped to almost nothing the last 30 years. Even really really great musicians are hardly being booked any more.
At some places, it is the other way round :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwAj-jzeedw
Well, the article says that in a more detailed and nuanced way.
Hands up if you have actually ever thrown away a guitar? It's rather big it's bulky and there's few things that can go badly wrong. You sell it or hand it down. I've just rescued a kickass guitar from a pawn shop and it'll be serving me probably as long as i play. Basically, there are enough guitars out there. The average lifetime of an instrument is going up and that's a trend that is the opposite of what the rest of the consumer goods world is seeing. No wonder business is bad. But don't confuse business with the actual instrument.
They're an investment, plain and simple. The holy grails outlasted their original owners, and with enough care (even playing!) they'll outlast the current owners.
I mean, it's very common to play a 150+-year-old violin. I see what you're saying here. Electric guitar is so new, saturation of the market is only just happening.
I mean, it's very common to play a 150+-year-old violin. I see what you're saying here. Electric guitar is so new, saturation of the market is only just happening.
Gibson and Fender are like the companies that sell exercise equipment: lots of people buy one with the best of intentions, and three to six months later it's collecting dust in the basement.
It's not hard to see why. Playing music is hard. The ratio of effort to reward is just terrible. I totally understand why people quit.
It's not hard to see why. Playing music is hard. The ratio of effort to reward is just terrible. I totally understand why people quit.
> It's not hard to see why. Playing music is hard. The ratio of effort to reward is just terrible. I totally understand why people quit.
Several years ago I worked for Fender on their in-house web development team in the marketing department; it was hell during the holiday turnaround, but there were good times, too. I was one of the few people there who didn't play an instrument. For myself, while I have always wanted to try to play a guitar (who hasn't, right?) - even with an employee discount I couldn't justify yet another expensive hobby (I already have too many expensive hobbies as it is).
You are spot on in saying "playing music is hard" and that the "ratio of effort to reward" is terrible. From what I understand, you throw playing an electric on top of that, and you are only going to have the most dedicated of people willing to keep it up after a few weeks.
Electric guitars are hella-hard on the hands and fingers; I learned quite a lot about guitars and electrics in particular during my time there. I never knew, for instance, that there were so many particulars about the instruments, that could have a great effect on whether you liked to play it or not (like the radius and width of the fretboard (?), for instance); that some of these parts were something you needed to take into account before you purchased a guitar, which is why online purchasing is something that people only did after they went to a store to try out the real instruments (in a way, Fender's online offerings were undercutting their dealer network, but there wasn't any way around that - Fender didn't want that to happen, but that's the way the the market worked).
Then you have the hardness of the strings on the fingers; you literally better be willing to bleed to learn to play an electric. Your hands will turn into claws as you have to build up your finger "muscles" - and there's also the pain of having to really stretch your hand around and apart. Everything I learned about learning made me think "this is something that could really put a damper on my career as a software developer"; it really wasn't for the faint-hearted.
I was let go after a couple of years in a downsizing, with a small severance package; not too long after I had moved on to another employer, Fender had decided to move their headquarters from Arizona back to California, to be closer to one of their main production facilities from what I understand.
I wish them luck, but they were already grousing about getting new players, especially younger ones, when I was there. I wish them luck, because even though I know I'm not likely to ever pick a guitar up and play it (and man, did I choose to lose the opportunity of a lifetime to learn the instrument while working for them), I still love to watch people play the instrument, and listen to the wonderful sounds it can make, in all its variations (oh, and don't get me started on the interesting sound of an electric mandolin!).
I'd hate to see all of that disappear...
Several years ago I worked for Fender on their in-house web development team in the marketing department; it was hell during the holiday turnaround, but there were good times, too. I was one of the few people there who didn't play an instrument. For myself, while I have always wanted to try to play a guitar (who hasn't, right?) - even with an employee discount I couldn't justify yet another expensive hobby (I already have too many expensive hobbies as it is).
You are spot on in saying "playing music is hard" and that the "ratio of effort to reward" is terrible. From what I understand, you throw playing an electric on top of that, and you are only going to have the most dedicated of people willing to keep it up after a few weeks.
Electric guitars are hella-hard on the hands and fingers; I learned quite a lot about guitars and electrics in particular during my time there. I never knew, for instance, that there were so many particulars about the instruments, that could have a great effect on whether you liked to play it or not (like the radius and width of the fretboard (?), for instance); that some of these parts were something you needed to take into account before you purchased a guitar, which is why online purchasing is something that people only did after they went to a store to try out the real instruments (in a way, Fender's online offerings were undercutting their dealer network, but there wasn't any way around that - Fender didn't want that to happen, but that's the way the the market worked).
Then you have the hardness of the strings on the fingers; you literally better be willing to bleed to learn to play an electric. Your hands will turn into claws as you have to build up your finger "muscles" - and there's also the pain of having to really stretch your hand around and apart. Everything I learned about learning made me think "this is something that could really put a damper on my career as a software developer"; it really wasn't for the faint-hearted.
I was let go after a couple of years in a downsizing, with a small severance package; not too long after I had moved on to another employer, Fender had decided to move their headquarters from Arizona back to California, to be closer to one of their main production facilities from what I understand.
I wish them luck, but they were already grousing about getting new players, especially younger ones, when I was there. I wish them luck, because even though I know I'm not likely to ever pick a guitar up and play it (and man, did I choose to lose the opportunity of a lifetime to learn the instrument while working for them), I still love to watch people play the instrument, and listen to the wonderful sounds it can make, in all its variations (oh, and don't get me started on the interesting sound of an electric mandolin!).
I'd hate to see all of that disappear...
I'm sorry I couldn't understand from your comment, are you saying an electric is harder on your fingers as compared to an acoustic? If that's what you meant, I must disagree, and please read the full comment. Else, it's my misunderstanding of your comment, and I shall delete my reply.
Electric guitar's strings are far more easier on your fingers compared to a steel-stringed acoustic (not comparing classical guitars with nylon strings). Just about everything is easier to play on an electric, starting with barre chords to slides to bends.
Maybe one reason for more blistering fingers on an electric is because people are more likely to do stuff like slides and bends in solos whereas many people use an acoustic just for chords. But I assure you, if you attempt to do the same stuff on an acoustic, it's going to be far more taxing on your fingers.
Electric guitar's strings are far more easier on your fingers compared to a steel-stringed acoustic (not comparing classical guitars with nylon strings). Just about everything is easier to play on an electric, starting with barre chords to slides to bends.
Maybe one reason for more blistering fingers on an electric is because people are more likely to do stuff like slides and bends in solos whereas many people use an acoustic just for chords. But I assure you, if you attempt to do the same stuff on an acoustic, it's going to be far more taxing on your fingers.
Correct, I have been playing both electric and acoustic guitar for 25 years and what you say reflects my experience. Playing acoustic guitar is more difficult, requires more strength in the fingers and will give you calluses on the first months of playing.
I put .010 - .046 on acoustics. Problem solved.
You should try lighter gauge strings on your electric, and maybe lower the action (the distance between the strings and the frets). I generally find electric guitars much easier on my fingers than acoustics.
Funny, I just got done playing for an hour. It's a great way to refresh.
If you want to see a resurgence of guitar playing you can't start with stadium guitar gods, you have to have the guitar house-party hero, and the local club hero, and the regional tour hero. And they're out there. Go out and see them play -- a lot of them are incredible.
I grew up in and around Austin so I'm biased and a little spoiled but there's nothing like a live local show.
There are more than a few parallels between putting together a band and becoming a success and putting together a company and becoming a success.
If you want to see a resurgence of guitar playing you can't start with stadium guitar gods, you have to have the guitar house-party hero, and the local club hero, and the regional tour hero. And they're out there. Go out and see them play -- a lot of them are incredible.
I grew up in and around Austin so I'm biased and a little spoiled but there's nothing like a live local show.
There are more than a few parallels between putting together a band and becoming a success and putting together a company and becoming a success.
The article didn't even attempt to answer the question it asked in the ingress - why I should care about a certain thing past its glory days fading in the popularity.
Times change, and that's a great thing, yet people will always complain. It has happened to things I really loved too. That's just life I guess, but I've realized that being upset at culture change is just a self-destructive thought pattern.
The piano is still around, just like the electric guitar will be in the future.
Times change, and that's a great thing, yet people will always complain. It has happened to things I really loved too. That's just life I guess, but I've realized that being upset at culture change is just a self-destructive thought pattern.
The piano is still around, just like the electric guitar will be in the future.
Guitar Center never adapted to the electronic era and are now being run by bankers to squeeze as much money out of the business as possible. They will go the way of Radio Shack.
It's a lot easier these days for young people to mess around with Ableton or Fruity Loops and make music alone than save every last dollar to buy a cheap instrument and try desperately to find the drummer and bass player which were always in short supply.
The guitar will be on more equal footing with every other instrument and hardware that musicians/composers use for live performance. There is still a need to perform music and people like seeing musicians do something, whether it's fiddle knobs or play an instrument. And there will always be something magical about an instrument that fully digital electronics will never have.
It's a lot easier these days for young people to mess around with Ableton or Fruity Loops and make music alone than save every last dollar to buy a cheap instrument and try desperately to find the drummer and bass player which were always in short supply.
The guitar will be on more equal footing with every other instrument and hardware that musicians/composers use for live performance. There is still a need to perform music and people like seeing musicians do something, whether it's fiddle knobs or play an instrument. And there will always be something magical about an instrument that fully digital electronics will never have.
There isn't much evidence that EDM is much more than a passing fad, either. Rock music has held fairly strong on over the past 60-70 years and has been able to accommodate and integrate fads, shed them, and then reincorporate them in throwback form.
70s glam rock gave way to 80s emo synths. Grunge brought things back into simple form, which gave way to the rap/rock craze that then gave in to the Stokes, White Stripes, etc.
We're now at a point where music incorportes a lot of ideas and those ideas don't fit into the molds we are used to seeing. A lot of those molds still have guitars as a key ingredient and live music is as popular as it's ever been.
70s glam rock gave way to 80s emo synths. Grunge brought things back into simple form, which gave way to the rap/rock craze that then gave in to the Stokes, White Stripes, etc.
We're now at a point where music incorportes a lot of ideas and those ideas don't fit into the molds we are used to seeing. A lot of those molds still have guitars as a key ingredient and live music is as popular as it's ever been.
You never can tell how long a fad will last, but to be fair, EDM aka House aka Techno has been around in one form or another since the late 80's or early 90's depending on who you ask. That's almost 30 years right there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_dance_music
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_dance_music
Instruments decline in popularity. It happens to everything. I play several instruments of rather low popularity: Highland Bagpipes, tin whistle, bodhran, and pipe & tabor. The last (pipe & tabor) is a medieval instrument pair of a three-holed pipe played in the left hand and a small snare drum hung from the left arm and played with the right hand. Its popularity died out several hundred years ago, yet some people still play and you can still buy them. The industry has shrunk a lot though.
WRT guitar I very much like acoustic fingerstyle, mostly the virtuosic type as played by Luca Stricagnoli, Michael Chapdelaine, Mike Dawes, and others. For electric I prefer Symphonic Metal or Folk Metal (Epica, Eluveite, etc).
I'd say there's plenty of room for electric guitar, it's a long way from being as obscure as the pipe & tabor, crumhorn, shawm, or theorbo!
I'm a millennial (well, Oregon trail generation, caught in the gap between gen X and millennials). My tastes are odd for my generation. Electric guitar isn't dying, it's just shrinking in popularity. Some electric guitar manufacturers will surely die though.
WRT guitar I very much like acoustic fingerstyle, mostly the virtuosic type as played by Luca Stricagnoli, Michael Chapdelaine, Mike Dawes, and others. For electric I prefer Symphonic Metal or Folk Metal (Epica, Eluveite, etc).
I'd say there's plenty of room for electric guitar, it's a long way from being as obscure as the pipe & tabor, crumhorn, shawm, or theorbo!
I'm a millennial (well, Oregon trail generation, caught in the gap between gen X and millennials). My tastes are odd for my generation. Electric guitar isn't dying, it's just shrinking in popularity. Some electric guitar manufacturers will surely die though.
I would have thought "Oregon Trail" was solidly Gen-X? I think I played that in the mid-1980s?
Early '90s. There are lots of versions of it. I played the tail end.
One can't just look at revenue, debt and Moody's rating of guitar makers and dealers and proclaim the guitar, the most popular instrument today by a huge margin, is dying.
But the lack of prominence of the guitar in the top charts and the way social pop culture influences people today does have a significant impact in new guitar purchases. When I was a kid learning the guitar, dad's old Fender wouldn't do. I HAD to have a Satriani-style Ibanez, my guitar hero at the time. I have a friend that, throughout the years, has invested over $100K getting himself each and every one of his heroes guitars over and over. As guitars are not as prominent in mainstream music anymore guitar sales dwindle.
Add to that a huge "installed base" of used guitars, a good that is unparalleled in durability, and you have a very stale market for new guitars that will generate a gap for years to come.
But the lack of prominence of the guitar in the top charts and the way social pop culture influences people today does have a significant impact in new guitar purchases. When I was a kid learning the guitar, dad's old Fender wouldn't do. I HAD to have a Satriani-style Ibanez, my guitar hero at the time. I have a friend that, throughout the years, has invested over $100K getting himself each and every one of his heroes guitars over and over. As guitars are not as prominent in mainstream music anymore guitar sales dwindle.
Add to that a huge "installed base" of used guitars, a good that is unparalleled in durability, and you have a very stale market for new guitars that will generate a gap for years to come.
Really what you want to look at is sales of guitar strings as an indicator of how much guitar is being played.
Long-lasting alloys/coatings/technology will skew your results. Especially considering all they had back in the heydey was Nickel (soft). But that's a great idea!
Factoring in relative longevity of different string types would not be too hard, but as with all these things it's just getting your hands on some high quality, representative data...
>One can't just look at revenue, debt and Moody's rating of guitar makers and dealers and proclaim the guitar, the most popular instrument today by a huge margin, is dying.
The "most popular instrument today" is misleading, considering modern R&B, Hip Hop (and to a lesser degree) EDM dominate everything charts and sales wise, and they use mostly computer DAWs and plugins, something that wont register in "instrument sales" lists or music schools.
The "most popular instrument today" is misleading, considering modern R&B, Hip Hop (and to a lesser degree) EDM dominate everything charts and sales wise, and they use mostly computer DAWs and plugins, something that wont register in "instrument sales" lists or music schools.
Can't compare a DAW to an instrument though. Lots of guitar players use DAWs as well, so that's not really comparable. It's a whole different segment in fact.
To correctly account for "computer-only musicians" we would have to also eliminate electronic artists that have a primary instrument such as keyboards or drums/percussion. And in any case, computer-based instruments do register sales and have their place in most music schools.
To correctly account for "computer-only musicians" we would have to also eliminate electronic artists that have a primary instrument such as keyboards or drums/percussion. And in any case, computer-based instruments do register sales and have their place in most music schools.
>(Can't compare a DAW to an instrument though. Lots of guitar players use DAWs as well, so that's not really comparable.*
Yes, but they use it as a recording/mixing device, whereas for electronic musicians they use it for music generation.
Yes, but they use it as a recording/mixing device, whereas for electronic musicians they use it for music generation.
Yawn... after the 70s the guitar had a similar decline and in the mid eighties everyone and his dog wanted to be a keyboard or sax player, then came the nineties with grunge etc and guitars became hot sellers again. History repeats itself, so I expect the trend to change in a few years according to what the marketing droids will feed the the radio and TV stations with.
Let us assume for a second that we don't have a vested interest in any of the music companies, or in guitars, or even in music... the underlying question then becomes simply whether or not the youth of today still have passions that are sparked, and if they still follow them as fervently as we did in our youth, and pursue new skills as much as we did. Do they pick things up and drive their lives towards perfecting a craft? I know this might sound blasphemous to some, but... so what if it isn't guitars? As long as they do have passions to follow, and they produce creative works, its all good.
The clarinet industry went through a similar decline. Seems like people just don't want to pick up the old liquorice stick.
Not necessarily saying the electric guitar isn't dying, but the economic argument isn't very convincing. There are a lot of guitars in the world now and we keep making more, consequently people aren't prepared to spend as much money on them. The people who are willing and able to spend $1000 on a new Les Paul or USA Strat are an aging generation for sure, but maybe their grandchildren are just playing guitars that cost $200 instead? You can get a pretty decent guitar for peanuts these days - I bought a perfectly playable strat copy for like $40 (actually 30GBP) off Ebay a while ago, with a (small, tinny) amp thrown in.
I've been expecting the death of the electric guitar since the '80s, but it seems surprisingly resilient.
Edit: In addition, although I'm incredibly old and don't claim to have my finger on the pulse of the zeitgeist, it seems to me that in the post White Stripes era playing shitty second user equipment is widely considered cooler than playing expensive new equipment.
I've been expecting the death of the electric guitar since the '80s, but it seems surprisingly resilient.
Edit: In addition, although I'm incredibly old and don't claim to have my finger on the pulse of the zeitgeist, it seems to me that in the post White Stripes era playing shitty second user equipment is widely considered cooler than playing expensive new equipment.
LOL, $1k on a new Les Paul.
Serious players will still spend serious money on stuff. I think it has a lot do with oversaturation of the market.
In the beginning, when White Stripes/Black keys was still regional and people were getting these unique sounds out of old, unwanted gear the cost was cheap. But that drove Silvertone's/Sears/etc prices out of the ballpark when enough people got the read on where that market was going.
Serious players will still spend serious money on stuff. I think it has a lot do with oversaturation of the market.
In the beginning, when White Stripes/Black keys was still regional and people were getting these unique sounds out of old, unwanted gear the cost was cheap. But that drove Silvertone's/Sears/etc prices out of the ballpark when enough people got the read on where that market was going.
Naive question: Do these various electric guitar models (Gibson, Fender, etc) actually sound distinctive? Or is it all about brand cachet?
It's a bit of both, to be honest. E.g., the Fender Stratocaster and Gibson Les Paul have very different sounds due to different pickups, electrics, tone woods, etc. People will buy a particular type of guitar because they want a particular sound. Choice of amplifier also comes into play here.
OTOH, there is definitely brand cachet/snobbery. A Gibson Les Paul will almost always get more respect than a Les Paul copy from another brand.
What I'm less aware of, except from perhaps a few niche guitar makers I know, is brand snobbery of the form of, "Well, Fender are better than Gibson and Gretsch because blah", or vice versa (people do tend to be a bit snobby about Ibanez though, for some reason).
Most people I know buy premium guitars (and that's a loaded term in itself) for the sound rather than the brand... except that, as I've already suggested, they will often prefer a well-known brand over a "knock-off" or lower end brand: so "serious" musicians will generally buy Fender rather than Squire (low end brand owned by Fender).
Different genres of music can lead to different brand preferences. More "classic" music genres tend to favour Gibson, Fender, Gretsch, Rickenbacker, and so on, whereas newer or more experimental genres tend to favour Ibanez, ESP, PRS, Jackson, etc. This is more of an observation than a hard and fast rule though, and there will always be exceptions, like the Fender Jaguar which has been a firm favourite of some more alternative bands since the late 80s.
Hopefully that rather rambling answer makes some sense.
OTOH, there is definitely brand cachet/snobbery. A Gibson Les Paul will almost always get more respect than a Les Paul copy from another brand.
What I'm less aware of, except from perhaps a few niche guitar makers I know, is brand snobbery of the form of, "Well, Fender are better than Gibson and Gretsch because blah", or vice versa (people do tend to be a bit snobby about Ibanez though, for some reason).
Most people I know buy premium guitars (and that's a loaded term in itself) for the sound rather than the brand... except that, as I've already suggested, they will often prefer a well-known brand over a "knock-off" or lower end brand: so "serious" musicians will generally buy Fender rather than Squire (low end brand owned by Fender).
Different genres of music can lead to different brand preferences. More "classic" music genres tend to favour Gibson, Fender, Gretsch, Rickenbacker, and so on, whereas newer or more experimental genres tend to favour Ibanez, ESP, PRS, Jackson, etc. This is more of an observation than a hard and fast rule though, and there will always be exceptions, like the Fender Jaguar which has been a firm favourite of some more alternative bands since the late 80s.
Hopefully that rather rambling answer makes some sense.
There are distinct sound differences, although they may be less obvious to a layman, the same way functional programming vs OOP would just "look like code" to someone who was not a developer.
For example, Fenders, especially models like the Telecaster, have a "twangier", more treble-forward tone (they're used a lot in country music), where as a Gibson model, say the SG, would have a "meatier" more bass-forward tone and generally longer sustain (used more in rock, e.g., AC/DC is a good example).
For example, Fenders, especially models like the Telecaster, have a "twangier", more treble-forward tone (they're used a lot in country music), where as a Gibson model, say the SG, would have a "meatier" more bass-forward tone and generally longer sustain (used more in rock, e.g., AC/DC is a good example).
Another big difference is the scale length between a Fender and Gibson (the length of playable string between the nut and where the string contacts the bridge saddle).
On a Fender Telecaster, Stratocaster, or Jazzmaster, it's longer than on, say, a Gibson Les Paul or ES-335. This means there's more string tension and "snap" on those Fenders, which some players prefer. J Mascis of Dinosaur Jr (who plays a Fender Jazzmaster) says, "I like to be at war with the guitar." It also makes the guitar a little harder to play and a bit less forgiving when you make a mistake.
On a Fender Telecaster, Stratocaster, or Jazzmaster, it's longer than on, say, a Gibson Les Paul or ES-335. This means there's more string tension and "snap" on those Fenders, which some players prefer. J Mascis of Dinosaur Jr (who plays a Fender Jazzmaster) says, "I like to be at war with the guitar." It also makes the guitar a little harder to play and a bit less forgiving when you make a mistake.
The original models of the 50s and 60s sounded very differently. Modern incarnations of the old classics (Telecaster, Stratocaster, Les Paul, SG) are still produced and sold in large numbers, but it's mostly for the brand, as you mentioned.
Nowadays modern electric guitars are much more versatile. They generally can emulate the sound of the classics easily, but they play differently, they lack their slow, thick necks, their poor tuning, their noisy pickups... :)
Nowadays modern electric guitars are much more versatile. They generally can emulate the sound of the classics easily, but they play differently, they lack their slow, thick necks, their poor tuning, their noisy pickups... :)
They absolutely sound different. A Fender Jazzmaster doesn't sound like a Fender Telecaster, and even within the same model, a Squier won't sound like a guitar build in US. A good guitarist can tell. But the most important things is that they also play differently. Some models are better suited for some genres too. This is mostly true for every acoustic or electric instrument by the way. The brand actually matters.
BUT a lot of guitarists also forget is sound is as good as the weakest link in the sound chain.
A $10.000 electric guitar will not sound good on a shitty amp.
BUT a lot of guitarists also forget is sound is as good as the weakest link in the sound chain.
A $10.000 electric guitar will not sound good on a shitty amp.
Guitars that are substantially different in terms of construction or components do sound different from each other. However, electric guitarists have access to a tremendous variety of tools to alter their sound, so the differences in the basic sound of the guitar might be dominated by effects pedals or choice of amp and gain/EQ settings, or just simple things like which pickup you're using or how close to the bridge you pluck the strings.
The electric guitar is everywhere. It's just not the central piece anymore. It's mainstream, get over it.
I think a large part of this might be the outlets that are available to the major introverts because of tech. All of the best guitarists I knew as a kid were major introverts who would lock themselves away and practice for large parts of the day. Kids that are like that have so many more options now.
The parallels to technology careers and music backgrounds is staggering, for sure.
I think the drop in revenue is because the market is really saturated. All those millions of guitars produced are not destroyed, it's not the kind of product that you can apply 'planned obsolescence' to. Instead, the vintage one's are often better sounding and therefore more popular. Also, if you find a good vintage guitar you are almost assured it will remain good as the wood has proven to be stable.
If there is a slow death to guitar than it is because it's almost impossible to earn any money with it, except for the lucky few. Learning an instrument like guitar takes many, many years, which is quite a hobby.. If you would spend the same amount of time in learning software development you are almost assured to have a solid income as result.
If there is a slow death to guitar than it is because it's almost impossible to earn any money with it, except for the lucky few. Learning an instrument like guitar takes many, many years, which is quite a hobby.. If you would spend the same amount of time in learning software development you are almost assured to have a solid income as result.
As long as we're talking slow death and electric guitars, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL3pP29N-Wc.
That was legit
I've been saying this for a couple of years now. None of the music I listen to anymore features an electric guitar; it's all made on laptop computers. The fun part about knowing how to play guitar is that you can learn how to play your favorite songs. But if none of your favorite songs feature an electric guitar, what fun is it anymore? I'm 30 years old and have been playing the guitar since I was 12, but it's just not as fun anymore... I'm thinking about learning how to make music on my macbook so I can stay young and hip :)
I give you Daft Punk with Nile Rodgers as a counter example.
On the other hand, you have to be a Nile Rodgers to groove harder than robots and sequencers.
On the other other hand… guitars still make some of the best 'pluck' sounds. And I say that as someone who owns a x0xb0x, a JP-8000 and an Alpha Juno. People spend a lot of money on synthesizers that can get even close to the immediacy of an electric string. And modern samplers are so accessible you can take that electric string and do whatever you like with it.
On the other other hand… guitars still make some of the best 'pluck' sounds. And I say that as someone who owns a x0xb0x, a JP-8000 and an Alpha Juno. People spend a lot of money on synthesizers that can get even close to the immediacy of an electric string. And modern samplers are so accessible you can take that electric string and do whatever you like with it.
Anything Niles produces or works on features his guitar, even the stuff he does with people half his age or less. You don't have to be a great soloist to add value to a song, even a modern dance type of music.
lol, I did learn that song on guitar when it came out! But the majority of the songs I listen to now no longer feature a guitar part to learn.
Norman's Rare Guitars is a fantastic YT channel for us who still enjoy guitars [0].
Thanks $deity not all new generation is into electronic. I have great hope when listening bands like Greta Van Fleet (ages between 18-21 years old) [1].
[0] https://www.youtube.com/user/NormansRareGuitars/videos
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJg4OJxp-co
Thanks $deity not all new generation is into electronic. I have great hope when listening bands like Greta Van Fleet (ages between 18-21 years old) [1].
[0] https://www.youtube.com/user/NormansRareGuitars/videos
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJg4OJxp-co
Slightly related, and assuming you like Blues, have you seen Joe Bonamassa's videos and tours of his collection? Very cool, too. Emphasis on Fender/Gibson, but still quite entertaining. I appreciate player-collectors.
Oh yes I do love Blues.
Joe Bonamassa's Nerdville is like I pictured heaven.
Joe Bonamassa's Nerdville is like I pictured heaven.
In my opinion boutique competition, economic hardship, drop in quality, and an active used market are what's killing Gibson and other big companies. Not EDM.
Huh, and all this time I thought "rock and roll" and playing electric guitar was all about sex. At least, that's why we learned to play guitar when I was a kid...
Guitar playing lost its mojo when it was usurped by aficionados enamored by theory and technique and repulsed by swagger.
If I was 14 today, I'd grab a Maschine, load up some tracks in launchpad, and start emulating Avicii until I could pack a small dance hall.
Guitar playing lost its mojo when it was usurped by aficionados enamored by theory and technique and repulsed by swagger.
If I was 14 today, I'd grab a Maschine, load up some tracks in launchpad, and start emulating Avicii until I could pack a small dance hall.
The headline is a bit silly, the electric guitar isn't going anywhere.
The actual point it is trying to raise is the guitar is losing it's position as the centerpiece of pop music. The guitar solo, rhythm and lead guitars at the forefront. That's the element that's changed over the years.
Guitars still play a role in popular music, but they're just one part of a multi faceted layer of instruments and sounds.
The actual point it is trying to raise is the guitar is losing it's position as the centerpiece of pop music. The guitar solo, rhythm and lead guitars at the forefront. That's the element that's changed over the years.
Guitars still play a role in popular music, but they're just one part of a multi faceted layer of instruments and sounds.
One thing this article mentions, in an offhand way, is the effect of media outlets on mass appeal. There was a time where things like Dick Clark and Ed Sullivan were not just major tastemakers - they were some of the only tastemakers. The internet cracked this singular, self-reinforcing media loop wide open by allowing people to explore alternative genres and art forms. That's not to say that people aren't still influenced by guitars and guitarists; they're still selling almost a million of them every year! But I can't help but wonder how many of those other sales got robbed by people inspired by other artists.
Anecdotally, my own experience confirms the "robbed interest" theory. I got into bluegrass music early in college, found and listened to a bunch of it online, and ended up learning to play the dobro. I doubt I'd have ever managed that if I hadn't had the internet to interact with the genre's community, or consume more media in the same vein.
Anecdotally, my own experience confirms the "robbed interest" theory. I got into bluegrass music early in college, found and listened to a bunch of it online, and ended up learning to play the dobro. I doubt I'd have ever managed that if I hadn't had the internet to interact with the genre's community, or consume more media in the same vein.
When I was teaching guitar, the overarching trend I saw again and again, from the South the Midwest (so not a complete profile, but one large enough) was an interest in playing guitar but no real influences to latch onto.
My first question to a prospective student was "who are some of your favorite bands?". With enough blank stares I changed it to "what is some of your favorite music" with equal stares.
Kids (and adults) want to play guitar, but the initial excitement and rush comes and goes fast as they have no real guitar music to get into anymore.
Pop music has changed, and that's fine. It gets hard to find a memorable or "cool" guitar part in pop music. The last one I can think of is "Party in the USA", and that, of course, is subjective (and quite old now).
My first question to a prospective student was "who are some of your favorite bands?". With enough blank stares I changed it to "what is some of your favorite music" with equal stares.
Kids (and adults) want to play guitar, but the initial excitement and rush comes and goes fast as they have no real guitar music to get into anymore.
Pop music has changed, and that's fine. It gets hard to find a memorable or "cool" guitar part in pop music. The last one I can think of is "Party in the USA", and that, of course, is subjective (and quite old now).
Well for one, Bieber is doing quite a bit of guitar stuff these days. I've actually been surprised by the amount of very obvious guitar sounds in pop in the last ~12-18 months or so. Try your local top 40 station with fresh ears, it's really quite prevalent.
You can argue about whether it's influential of course. Guitar isn't really being used in these songs in a way that carries the entire production, so tough to play on your own with any degree of satisfaction (again though Justin Bieber is an exception).
You can argue about whether it's influential of course. Guitar isn't really being used in these songs in a way that carries the entire production, so tough to play on your own with any degree of satisfaction (again though Justin Bieber is an exception).
I was speaking more about "riffage" over presence, but I'll keep an ear out for it. If anything to say, "here, listen to this".
Songs and bands with good guitar parts:
Pink Floyd - Wishe You Were Here
Modest Mouse - Missed The Boat
Young The Giant - Apartment
The Joy Formidable - The Ladder is Ours
Death Cab For Cutie - Soul Meets Body
José González - Crosses
Maybeshewill - Red Paper Lanters
the list goes on and on and on and on and on and on and all you need to do is look for it.
Pink Floyd - Wishe You Were Here
Modest Mouse - Missed The Boat
Young The Giant - Apartment
The Joy Formidable - The Ladder is Ours
Death Cab For Cutie - Soul Meets Body
José González - Crosses
Maybeshewill - Red Paper Lanters
the list goes on and on and on and on and on and on and all you need to do is look for it.
Drums.
In 1980-82, many people in the recording industry thought that drums (as an acoustical instrument played by a human) were going to disappear. 1980s drum machines (starting with the Linn) were big hits and used everywhere. Entire records done with the Linn drum machines.
Even extraordinary, in-demand studio drummers like Jeff Porcaro, started buying their own and learning how to program it, advertising his "drum programming" services.
Yet, it is 2017 and drums are still a popular instrument.
The bottom line is -- it is really difficult to "kill" a musical instrument. I can think of only some instruments that have been really "killed" -- perhaps the Harspsichord and the lyra. This means you need 300 years to kill an instrument...
In 1980-82, many people in the recording industry thought that drums (as an acoustical instrument played by a human) were going to disappear. 1980s drum machines (starting with the Linn) were big hits and used everywhere. Entire records done with the Linn drum machines.
Even extraordinary, in-demand studio drummers like Jeff Porcaro, started buying their own and learning how to program it, advertising his "drum programming" services.
Yet, it is 2017 and drums are still a popular instrument.
The bottom line is -- it is really difficult to "kill" a musical instrument. I can think of only some instruments that have been really "killed" -- perhaps the Harspsichord and the lyra. This means you need 300 years to kill an instrument...
A lack of builders can kill an instrument eventually. As far as I know, there isn't anyone building reed organs anymore, even though they were popular about a hundred years ago. They're complex enough that you'd have to be pretty motivated to build one as a hobby project and it's hard to imagine a business making money selling reed organs, unless it were transformed into a substantially different instrument.
The article mentions Guitar Center's $1.6 billion debt, but doesn't say why it has so much. The instrument market is flat, and online is taking a bite, but all of that debt is from a leveraged buyout by Bain Capital.
I ponder GC's choices. It was like a cancer in my major metropolitan area. Within 5-10 years all the mom-and-pop stores with a good solution of beginner and high-end equipment left and these things moved in. Coming from a millennial, it really isn't he way it used to be. Sad.
It's obvious why:
1. How much does an electric guitar cost? Comparatively, how much does it cost to pirate music software on the device you already own?
2. How many people do you need to form a rock band? Comparatively, how many people do you need to start producing?
3. How many sounds can an electric guitar make? Comparatively, how many sounds can a computer make?
Using a computer is cheaper, easier, more versatile, and more original than an electric guitar. Let it die.
The only argument to be made for the electric guitar is that you actually play it, and this applies to every other instrument, so I see no reason to mourn for the electric guitar in particular.
1. How much does an electric guitar cost? Comparatively, how much does it cost to pirate music software on the device you already own?
2. How many people do you need to form a rock band? Comparatively, how many people do you need to start producing?
3. How many sounds can an electric guitar make? Comparatively, how many sounds can a computer make?
Using a computer is cheaper, easier, more versatile, and more original than an electric guitar. Let it die.
The only argument to be made for the electric guitar is that you actually play it, and this applies to every other instrument, so I see no reason to mourn for the electric guitar in particular.
I think that the very act of playing an instrument is much less impressive than it used to be, and that's because of computers and electronic music. Back in the day, the only way to make those heavenly sounds was to a human to pick up an instrument and play, and that's why musicians were considered demigods - they were the only thing in the world that could render music. And then the computers came and playing music became one of those "a computer can do that" activities, and thus is much less impressive.
IMHO the obvious reason for the downfall of the guitar is the complete collapse of the music market, especially the "rock market". Who dreams of being a rockstar today? Nobody, you'll make more money playing jazz these days than rock, and in jazz the guitar is optional. I lived the whole Nirvana craze in the 90's and every kid out there dreamed of becoming Kurt Cobain. A shitload of guitars were sold at the time. These were the good times though.
Put simply, guitars have a terrible user interface. I have "taught" Korg Kaossilator to a dozen people and they have all picked it up and started making not-terrible electronic dance music within an hour of first using it.
Edit: Maybe explain why I'm supposedly wrong instead of downvoting?
Edit: Maybe explain why I'm supposedly wrong instead of downvoting?
I didn't downvote, but pegging the guitar as something with a "terrible user interface" was probably your problem.
The guitar suffered one of its biggest losses with the recent passing of Allan Holdsworth.
my (somewhat) unpopular take on this is that guitar heroes are made when new genres break into the mainstream. or at least it has been that way for the last 60 years or so.
Delta blues, British invasion, white blues, hair metal, punk, grunge - new sounds were making waves and getting popular on the radio so kids latched on to them (partially because their parents hated it). but we haven't had a new guitar-based genre break the pop charts in the last 15-20 years so kids are only hearing new takes on old styles, like Mayer. brilliant musician but not nearly as exciting as the stuff their parents hate - EDM.
Delta blues, British invasion, white blues, hair metal, punk, grunge - new sounds were making waves and getting popular on the radio so kids latched on to them (partially because their parents hated it). but we haven't had a new guitar-based genre break the pop charts in the last 15-20 years so kids are only hearing new takes on old styles, like Mayer. brilliant musician but not nearly as exciting as the stuff their parents hate - EDM.
Thankfully, it's slow enough that we get to enjoy some new gems. Like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axdNAyeLpcE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axdNAyeLpcE
This is evolution in the industry. It opens itself up to another whole population that wasn't seriously marketed before (Pink cheap guitars, Guitar World Swimsuit edition buyers' guides, "really good for a girl" comments)
I think the trend will continue down for guitar playing, and for all musical instruments.
My theory is based on the fact that learning to play well is difficult and time consuming.
Popular music is by and large not the product of humans, moving muscles, energizing mass, thus generating sound waves. "Sounds" that we hear in pop music are in main generated digitally, usually with software instruments, in a computer.
Pop music is still uses the more traditional aspects of music composition, but only as a component of an ever expanding sonic palette.
Modern production is based increasingly on the ability to manipulate "sound" in a computer, and assemble it into listenable compositions.
The human voice remains one elements that is still generated by biological processes. But even the voice is subjected to increasing amounts of digital manipulation.
Learning to produce music in the modern style is also difficult, though in a different way from learning to play an instrument. Specifically, it is not a realtime process.
Given the finite amount of time and resources available to individuals, especially young people, it is inevitable that learning more modern pop production will be at the expense of investing in the extensive training needed to perform music in realtime.
This is compounded by the fact that the economic weight of the music industry is in the world of pop music, meaning the various strains of digitally created music. This is where the money comes in. People that want to make of a living doing music will increasingly need to be proficient in modern music production.
This creates a "virtuous cycle" which directs more resources towards this aspect of music, and a "vicious cycle" towards the traditional aspects of musical performance.
There are actually two significant technological forces that enable this structural shift in music creation. The first was the advent of recording, and mass distribution of music. It broke music away from the need to have human performers, playing in realtime, to hear music. This dramatically lowered the marginal cost of experiencing music.
The twin forces of time shifting and mass replication were turbocharged with the advent of digital audio. This, combined with the ever increased use of digital manipulated in music generation, amounts to a "singularity" in humans relationship with music. A line has been crossed that is permanent, it can never be uncrossed.
To be sure (ha ha), music will continue to be performed (and listened to) by live musicians, indefinitely. But it will be in the context of decreasing cultural influences.
The financial resources needed to support the creation of skilled musicians will continue to dwindle. This effect has been ongoing for decades in the world of orchestral music; now it has come for the world of all performed music.
One might think, what about live music? Won't there always be a demand for live, performed music? I don't think so. Or rather, it will continue the dramatic decline illustrated in the article by guitar sales.
Audiences seeme to respond just as well to shows that use essentially pre-recorded music. As long as there is a show of some kind, most of the music consuming population will not mind if the music heard at a show is "canned".
This makes me a bit sad, but ultimately the endeavors of human creativity will march on, inexorably charting new paths using the astonishing arsenal of software applications that are available these days at a very low cost.
My theory is based on the fact that learning to play well is difficult and time consuming.
Popular music is by and large not the product of humans, moving muscles, energizing mass, thus generating sound waves. "Sounds" that we hear in pop music are in main generated digitally, usually with software instruments, in a computer.
Pop music is still uses the more traditional aspects of music composition, but only as a component of an ever expanding sonic palette.
Modern production is based increasingly on the ability to manipulate "sound" in a computer, and assemble it into listenable compositions.
The human voice remains one elements that is still generated by biological processes. But even the voice is subjected to increasing amounts of digital manipulation.
Learning to produce music in the modern style is also difficult, though in a different way from learning to play an instrument. Specifically, it is not a realtime process.
Given the finite amount of time and resources available to individuals, especially young people, it is inevitable that learning more modern pop production will be at the expense of investing in the extensive training needed to perform music in realtime.
This is compounded by the fact that the economic weight of the music industry is in the world of pop music, meaning the various strains of digitally created music. This is where the money comes in. People that want to make of a living doing music will increasingly need to be proficient in modern music production.
This creates a "virtuous cycle" which directs more resources towards this aspect of music, and a "vicious cycle" towards the traditional aspects of musical performance.
There are actually two significant technological forces that enable this structural shift in music creation. The first was the advent of recording, and mass distribution of music. It broke music away from the need to have human performers, playing in realtime, to hear music. This dramatically lowered the marginal cost of experiencing music.
The twin forces of time shifting and mass replication were turbocharged with the advent of digital audio. This, combined with the ever increased use of digital manipulated in music generation, amounts to a "singularity" in humans relationship with music. A line has been crossed that is permanent, it can never be uncrossed.
To be sure (ha ha), music will continue to be performed (and listened to) by live musicians, indefinitely. But it will be in the context of decreasing cultural influences.
The financial resources needed to support the creation of skilled musicians will continue to dwindle. This effect has been ongoing for decades in the world of orchestral music; now it has come for the world of all performed music.
One might think, what about live music? Won't there always be a demand for live, performed music? I don't think so. Or rather, it will continue the dramatic decline illustrated in the article by guitar sales.
Audiences seeme to respond just as well to shows that use essentially pre-recorded music. As long as there is a show of some kind, most of the music consuming population will not mind if the music heard at a show is "canned".
This makes me a bit sad, but ultimately the endeavors of human creativity will march on, inexorably charting new paths using the astonishing arsenal of software applications that are available these days at a very low cost.
Given the finite amount of time and resources available to individuals, especially young people, it is inevitable that learning more modern pop production will be at the expense of investing in the extensive training needed to perform music in realtime.
And even if you have trained musicians, the are all kinds of social factors that can make things hard, especially in a pop/rock group: infighting, drug abuse, wanting a higher pay, band members that drop out mid-tour, etc.
I think Frank Zappa embodied this realisation: you can deal with all that shit or get a Synclavier [1] and get your ideas played by a full orchestra without the social hassles and pay.
Although I do like a lot of rock music, I think this is a fantastic development. It means that some musically brilliant kid can bootstrap their career in an attic without dealing with all the hurdles they would have to deal with before.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synclavier
And even if you have trained musicians, the are all kinds of social factors that can make things hard, especially in a pop/rock group: infighting, drug abuse, wanting a higher pay, band members that drop out mid-tour, etc.
I think Frank Zappa embodied this realisation: you can deal with all that shit or get a Synclavier [1] and get your ideas played by a full orchestra without the social hassles and pay.
Although I do like a lot of rock music, I think this is a fantastic development. It means that some musically brilliant kid can bootstrap their career in an attic without dealing with all the hurdles they would have to deal with before.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synclavier
To be fair, Zappa had a full-time employee helping him with the Synclavier, so he couldn't cut everyone off :)
The human voice remains one elements that is still generated by biological processes.
That's being fixed.[1] That's a Vocaloid, which is a 10 year old technology. You can buy the software for about $100, from Yahama. "Just put in a melody and lyrics and your virtual singer will sing for you." Vocaloid still requires a cooperative live singer to train the system, but there are research papers which indicate that automatic singer model extraction is not far away.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhYaX01NOfA
That's being fixed.[1] That's a Vocaloid, which is a 10 year old technology. You can buy the software for about $100, from Yahama. "Just put in a melody and lyrics and your virtual singer will sing for you." Vocaloid still requires a cooperative live singer to train the system, but there are research papers which indicate that automatic singer model extraction is not far away.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhYaX01NOfA
The thing is, if EDM's trained probably two generations of producers, DJs and listeners to distinguish the quality of beats based on inhuman, machinelike perfection, you can't really roll that back and try to groove with fallible humans and call that better. So 'canned' only means 'created properly, at leisure, to produce an artifact that's ideal'.
You can manipulate elaborate networks of machines and some of the trance guys are very into that, and it takes a different type of skillset. I've got some ideas on how to incorporate live musical performance into this kind of bionic music flow, but it's important to understand most people won't respond positively to a 'human element' tacked awkwardly onto a machine beat: you need very practiced humans to fit into a context like that, and you need very practiced humans to put together a 'Daft Punk' type human context that grooves as hard as the machines.
And if you work that hard on the human groove it leaves no time to be innovative in the tonal/arrangement zone that EDM absolutely requires, so you end up being like 'wow that's good retread funk' but the real progress is being made elsewhere, in areas you can't really reach.
It's interesting. But just as you can't undistort the electric guitar, you can't un-rhythm the quantized robot rhythm. I'm actually fascinated and delighted with what's been done in trance and psytrance: it's not JUST robot rhythm, it's a very carefully crafted and incredibly demanding thing with no margin for error. You can put a-rhythmic texture stuff across it all you like, but you just can't 'play an instrument' as part of that mix, the timing is way way too tight.
You can manipulate elaborate networks of machines and some of the trance guys are very into that, and it takes a different type of skillset. I've got some ideas on how to incorporate live musical performance into this kind of bionic music flow, but it's important to understand most people won't respond positively to a 'human element' tacked awkwardly onto a machine beat: you need very practiced humans to fit into a context like that, and you need very practiced humans to put together a 'Daft Punk' type human context that grooves as hard as the machines.
And if you work that hard on the human groove it leaves no time to be innovative in the tonal/arrangement zone that EDM absolutely requires, so you end up being like 'wow that's good retread funk' but the real progress is being made elsewhere, in areas you can't really reach.
It's interesting. But just as you can't undistort the electric guitar, you can't un-rhythm the quantized robot rhythm. I'm actually fascinated and delighted with what's been done in trance and psytrance: it's not JUST robot rhythm, it's a very carefully crafted and incredibly demanding thing with no margin for error. You can put a-rhythmic texture stuff across it all you like, but you just can't 'play an instrument' as part of that mix, the timing is way way too tight.
I agree, the timing is way too tight, only master level musicians can approach it. Though they can.
Having grown up listening, and producing, rock music, and related forms, I find the rigid timing of EDM to be unpleasant. Except for occasional dancing, where it seems to work well.
So I don't see it as "correct" timing, just a different feel.
There was a real shift once the music started being produced in the computer, and you could repeat, bit for bit, chunks of audio.
This contrasts heavily with a lot of the best Hip-Hop production of the 90s. I'm thinking of groups like Public Enemy. Because of the nature of the production tools, the timing on their sample based music is inherently "loose."
I have a theory that part of what makes music/art interesting is the ability to perceive how an artist engaged with the limitations of their medium.
Prior to DAWs, having music that was precise, and had precise repetition was hard. Artists often did try, and achieve, some very tight productions, but it was an effort. The effort happens at a boundary, which is what allows us to perceive it.
Now, instead of being hard, getting music to be precise, and to repeat sections exactly, is trivial. There's no challenge to inherently make sound repeat anymore. So it's easy to wind up with loop based music that is super boring, because it lacks the needed variation to keep it interesting. The more interesting producers of various flavors of EDM grapple with this challenge directly, and it is upon this boundary that we, the listener, can share in their expression!
Having grown up listening, and producing, rock music, and related forms, I find the rigid timing of EDM to be unpleasant. Except for occasional dancing, where it seems to work well.
So I don't see it as "correct" timing, just a different feel.
There was a real shift once the music started being produced in the computer, and you could repeat, bit for bit, chunks of audio.
This contrasts heavily with a lot of the best Hip-Hop production of the 90s. I'm thinking of groups like Public Enemy. Because of the nature of the production tools, the timing on their sample based music is inherently "loose."
I have a theory that part of what makes music/art interesting is the ability to perceive how an artist engaged with the limitations of their medium.
Prior to DAWs, having music that was precise, and had precise repetition was hard. Artists often did try, and achieve, some very tight productions, but it was an effort. The effort happens at a boundary, which is what allows us to perceive it.
Now, instead of being hard, getting music to be precise, and to repeat sections exactly, is trivial. There's no challenge to inherently make sound repeat anymore. So it's easy to wind up with loop based music that is super boring, because it lacks the needed variation to keep it interesting. The more interesting producers of various flavors of EDM grapple with this challenge directly, and it is upon this boundary that we, the listener, can share in their expression!
> you just can't 'play an instrument' as part of that mix, the timing is way way too tight.
Live drumming has been part of "live performance" of electronic music for decades now. The drummers follow a click track. It doesn't seem to bother audiences.
Live drumming has been part of "live performance" of electronic music for decades now. The drummers follow a click track. It doesn't seem to bother audiences.
Very valid remarks and that resonate a lot with digital photography as well. These days making a good picture is more about using photoshop and the like than actually making a good picture in one shot.
The person every kid wanted to be in the 70s was Jimi Hendrix. The person every kid wants to be in 2017 is Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerburg. The zeitgeist has moved on.
Dan Auerbach of the Black Keys is about as close to a modern guitar hero as I can think of.
It's not as if there haven't been many forms of the "Rock Is Dead" rant for decades now. For instance, see producer (cough "engineer" cough) Steve Albini's diatribe on the subject from back in the early '90s, "The Problem With Music":
http://www.negativland.com/news/?page_id=17
Rock music has become more niche as the recording industry has moved away from the old model of AOR and LPs, where there would be a few good singles on a record at best, to the new model that streaming music has enabled with songs standing on their own merits, and the financial model that necessitates touring and live music.
It seems as if the downward pressure on guitar sales is a money and business problem, not a music problem. There's simply a glut of gear on the market. Reverb and eBay have made it a simple matter to pick up a quality used electric guitar.
Confession: I've been playing since I was 16 years old, and I didn't buy a new guitar (an acoustic) until I was over 30 years old. There was no need to. I could get whatever kind of guitar I could afford, at the price I wanted to pay, in excellent condition on the used market. And I still can. It made no sense for me to buy new. And it makes even less sense when it comes to amps. I know places where you can find a huge variety of amps in good to new condition.
The downward pressure is increasing now as the baby boom generation is retiring or passing on, and a lot of those guys who are still around are thinning out their collection which means many quite nice, well-cared-for instruments are coming onto the market all the time.
Richard Ash says: "Our customers are getting older, and they’re going to be gone soon." Baby boomer guitarists tend to have a lot of disposable income. They're far more likely to cruise right into a GC or Sam Ash store and make a GAS-induced impulse purchase of an additional guitar. But that doesn't change the fact that a lot of musicians don't have a lot of dough, and they're surfing eBay for deals.
Parallel to this phenomenon, the amount of information that buyers have at their fingertips, via the internet, has never been more abundant. Guitarists know more about the instruments than they did in the past. They know what woods, frets, necks, bodies, pickups, and electronics do and will work, and in what combinations they will be optimized. See the "partscaster" hobbyist trend.
After all, an electric guitar is essentially a plank of wood with a bolt-on neck and simple electronics and hardware. If you have one you like, and chances are you do if you're a musician who plays a lot, there's no urgent reason to let it go. If you love how it sounds, you just keep playing it.
On top of all that, there's additional downward pressure coming from the low end of the market, and the improvement in quality of guitars from Mexico and China. Just look at all the love for the Fender Squier line and instruments such as the Classic Vibe Telecaster.
To sum up, I'm not worried about electric guitar music. Rock music has been in a bad place before. In fact, there's been more than one dark age. It's cyclical. If you're a music history buff, you'll know the significance of this date: February 3rd, 1959. It was called "The Day the Music Died" for a reason. Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, the Big Bopper—gone. Elvis was in the Army. Little Richard had quit. Jerry Lee Lewis was in career trouble because he married his cousin. Rock 'N' Roll seemed like it was over in the early 1960's—as if it had all been a novelty from the start. The charts were swamped by sweater singers and crooners. The rough, raw, and electrifying music of the late 50's looked like it was gone forever.
Then the Beatles, the Stones, the Kinks, the Who, the Yardbirds, the Animals, and all the other British Invasion groups re-invigorated the genre.
The same thing happened, to a lesser extent, with punk rock, and then grunge.
So I'm not worried about rock music. It's not dead. You can find it if you know where to look.
http://www.negativland.com/news/?page_id=17
Rock music has become more niche as the recording industry has moved away from the old model of AOR and LPs, where there would be a few good singles on a record at best, to the new model that streaming music has enabled with songs standing on their own merits, and the financial model that necessitates touring and live music.
It seems as if the downward pressure on guitar sales is a money and business problem, not a music problem. There's simply a glut of gear on the market. Reverb and eBay have made it a simple matter to pick up a quality used electric guitar.
Confession: I've been playing since I was 16 years old, and I didn't buy a new guitar (an acoustic) until I was over 30 years old. There was no need to. I could get whatever kind of guitar I could afford, at the price I wanted to pay, in excellent condition on the used market. And I still can. It made no sense for me to buy new. And it makes even less sense when it comes to amps. I know places where you can find a huge variety of amps in good to new condition.
The downward pressure is increasing now as the baby boom generation is retiring or passing on, and a lot of those guys who are still around are thinning out their collection which means many quite nice, well-cared-for instruments are coming onto the market all the time.
Richard Ash says: "Our customers are getting older, and they’re going to be gone soon." Baby boomer guitarists tend to have a lot of disposable income. They're far more likely to cruise right into a GC or Sam Ash store and make a GAS-induced impulse purchase of an additional guitar. But that doesn't change the fact that a lot of musicians don't have a lot of dough, and they're surfing eBay for deals.
Parallel to this phenomenon, the amount of information that buyers have at their fingertips, via the internet, has never been more abundant. Guitarists know more about the instruments than they did in the past. They know what woods, frets, necks, bodies, pickups, and electronics do and will work, and in what combinations they will be optimized. See the "partscaster" hobbyist trend.
After all, an electric guitar is essentially a plank of wood with a bolt-on neck and simple electronics and hardware. If you have one you like, and chances are you do if you're a musician who plays a lot, there's no urgent reason to let it go. If you love how it sounds, you just keep playing it.
On top of all that, there's additional downward pressure coming from the low end of the market, and the improvement in quality of guitars from Mexico and China. Just look at all the love for the Fender Squier line and instruments such as the Classic Vibe Telecaster.
To sum up, I'm not worried about electric guitar music. Rock music has been in a bad place before. In fact, there's been more than one dark age. It's cyclical. If you're a music history buff, you'll know the significance of this date: February 3rd, 1959. It was called "The Day the Music Died" for a reason. Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, the Big Bopper—gone. Elvis was in the Army. Little Richard had quit. Jerry Lee Lewis was in career trouble because he married his cousin. Rock 'N' Roll seemed like it was over in the early 1960's—as if it had all been a novelty from the start. The charts were swamped by sweater singers and crooners. The rough, raw, and electrifying music of the late 50's looked like it was gone forever.
Then the Beatles, the Stones, the Kinks, the Who, the Yardbirds, the Animals, and all the other British Invasion groups re-invigorated the genre.
The same thing happened, to a lesser extent, with punk rock, and then grunge.
So I'm not worried about rock music. It's not dead. You can find it if you know where to look.
> Confession: I've been playing since I was 16 years old, and I didn't buy a new guitar (an acoustic) until I was over 30 years old. There was no need to.
When I started playing guitar, and took it seriously, my teachers always insisted to buy up and used, instead of something you can afford new. Now, with the salary of a software engineer, I still do it today.
When no one will buy a new car they have blowout sales on the lot. Perhaps that's what we're trying to force, here :) Sadly it doesn't work that way.
When I started playing guitar, and took it seriously, my teachers always insisted to buy up and used, instead of something you can afford new. Now, with the salary of a software engineer, I still do it today.
When no one will buy a new car they have blowout sales on the lot. Perhaps that's what we're trying to force, here :) Sadly it doesn't work that way.
Clickbait. Rumors of the guitar's death have been greatly exaggerated.
Learning an instrument requires commitment and a lot of practice. And more practice. And more practice. And a lifetime of learning.
How many people have the patience for that? Particularly in Generation Internet Points Right Now?
How many people have the patience for that? Particularly in Generation Internet Points Right Now?
Lots of them. There are tons and tons of pretty incredible guitarists, young and old, male and female, all over youtube. None of them are blowing up huge with original work, but they can cover well-known tunes impecably.
Search for guitar licks and chord sweeps, and follow a few different branches of linked playlists offered up in the sidebar.
Search for guitar licks and chord sweeps, and follow a few different branches of linked playlists offered up in the sidebar.
"Impecably" comes from the latin root for sin. It must be the problem, goody two shoes ain't rock 'n' roll. It used to be about a rebellious nature. If it's right then it's all wrong, you know?
There's a whole subculture of bedroom producers making instrumental guitar driven music.
a few examples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ipv_l7KoSI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18yiVSX7oQk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK5P94toDkI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBztSKccrDE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY63_QR6toA
a few examples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ipv_l7KoSI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18yiVSX7oQk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK5P94toDkI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBztSKccrDE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY63_QR6toA
The thing about the "guitar hero" phenomenon of the 1980's. Let me relay a perspective from someone who plays guitar and who was there:
It was a phenomenon fueled purely by MTV and the record companies. And, nothing is different from today in the following regard: all the heroes were current musicians. The teens I was surrounded with were largely ignorant of even the immediately previous generation of rock and roll.
Rock listening teenagers in the 80's weren't listening to Clapton. Most wouldn't have known who the heck is Ritchie Blackmore of Deep Purple or what have you; that had been a hundred years ago (i.e. some ten).
Most of the guitar heroes were only some 5 to 15 years older than the teenaged worshippers. They constantly changed. One year you'd go to music stores, and every kid walking in there would pick up a guitar and be doing some Van Halen thing. A few years later, every kid wanted to be Slash from Guns and Roses. Later still, Metallica made a bit of a comeback and you'd hear nothing but Enter Sandman covers.
Another thing to know is that there was a lot of criticism of the whole phenomenon while it was happening, even from the musicians themselves.
The following is an absolute must read to anyone interested in this topic. A 1987 Guitar Player magazine interview with Frank Zappa, titled "The 80's Guitar Clone".
http://www.afka.net/Articles/1987-01_Guitar_Player.htm
I remember this well, because I read it in print when it came out and it made an impression. I respected Zappa. I was one of the fairly rare teens of the generation who actually knew who Zappa is. My dad got me into Zappa. Because of Zappa, I knew who Stevie Vai was before he was a houshold name among guitar players.
Quotes:
Well, the one thing that seems to be more prevalent today is imitation. I think that the amount of copycat players in the marketplace today is significantly higher than it's ever been before. You see very few truly original guitarists and a whole bunch of people who wish they were Eddie Van Halen.
Q: [In the same way that Olympic records are always being broken, guitar playing seems to be getting faster and faster.]
Not only is it getting faster, but the solos themselves are becoming gymnastic routines – basically 8- and maybe 16-bar gymnastic routines that are stuck in the middle of songs about fairly common topics. The whole concept of extended improvisations that are compositions in progress is something that is pretty much gone from the pop music scene. That's one of the major losses for the '80s, I think. That's what I was addressing in the old article, talking about the process by which the kid sitting at home listens to a tape, and although he couldn't read it off the piece of paper, learns it by rote like a parrot, and winds up playing faster and faster and faster. I think that's really what's taking place.
It was a phenomenon fueled purely by MTV and the record companies. And, nothing is different from today in the following regard: all the heroes were current musicians. The teens I was surrounded with were largely ignorant of even the immediately previous generation of rock and roll.
Rock listening teenagers in the 80's weren't listening to Clapton. Most wouldn't have known who the heck is Ritchie Blackmore of Deep Purple or what have you; that had been a hundred years ago (i.e. some ten).
Most of the guitar heroes were only some 5 to 15 years older than the teenaged worshippers. They constantly changed. One year you'd go to music stores, and every kid walking in there would pick up a guitar and be doing some Van Halen thing. A few years later, every kid wanted to be Slash from Guns and Roses. Later still, Metallica made a bit of a comeback and you'd hear nothing but Enter Sandman covers.
Another thing to know is that there was a lot of criticism of the whole phenomenon while it was happening, even from the musicians themselves.
The following is an absolute must read to anyone interested in this topic. A 1987 Guitar Player magazine interview with Frank Zappa, titled "The 80's Guitar Clone".
http://www.afka.net/Articles/1987-01_Guitar_Player.htm
I remember this well, because I read it in print when it came out and it made an impression. I respected Zappa. I was one of the fairly rare teens of the generation who actually knew who Zappa is. My dad got me into Zappa. Because of Zappa, I knew who Stevie Vai was before he was a houshold name among guitar players.
Quotes:
Well, the one thing that seems to be more prevalent today is imitation. I think that the amount of copycat players in the marketplace today is significantly higher than it's ever been before. You see very few truly original guitarists and a whole bunch of people who wish they were Eddie Van Halen.
Q: [In the same way that Olympic records are always being broken, guitar playing seems to be getting faster and faster.]
Not only is it getting faster, but the solos themselves are becoming gymnastic routines – basically 8- and maybe 16-bar gymnastic routines that are stuck in the middle of songs about fairly common topics. The whole concept of extended improvisations that are compositions in progress is something that is pretty much gone from the pop music scene. That's one of the major losses for the '80s, I think. That's what I was addressing in the old article, talking about the process by which the kid sitting at home listens to a tape, and although he couldn't read it off the piece of paper, learns it by rote like a parrot, and winds up playing faster and faster and faster. I think that's really what's taking place.
Is it just me, or are HN links increasingly often to material behind paywalls?
It's more that all content is increasingly behind paywalls, no?
There are some amazing players out there: Guthrie Govan, Nick Johnston, Plini... The old guard (Satriani, Vai, Gilbert) are cranking out great albums from time to time. Truth be told, people who really know how to play and write guitar music always were in short supply. They're just in slightly shorter supply now for (IMO) two reasons: 1. One no longer needs to know how to play an instrument to be considered a musician: people are perfectly willing to pay for "music" that's just computer drums and bass, and 2. Kids have the attention span of a house fly, and guitar requires daily practice. Even so, YouTube is full of amazingly talented kids.
I clicked because I was curious what number of strings guitars were all secretly switching to. Why include such a superfluous detail in that headline? The cynic in me thinks this just clickbait getting harder to identify.
8. The answer is 8. 7 was so late-90's/early-00's. 9 string still gets laughs. But wait long enough and everyone will want to get lower.
DUPE's DUPE ( 1 day ago) => https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14621515
DUPE ( 2 days ago) => https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14617079
DUPE ( 2 days ago) => https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14617079
HN only considers a story a dupe when it has had significant attention. Those submissions didn't quite cross the threshold.
Therefore we'll leave this post up, but merge the previous comments in to unify the threads.
Therefore we'll leave this post up, but merge the previous comments in to unify the threads.
> but merge the previous comments in here.
Pretty cool! I did not know that you could do that.
Pretty cool! I did not know that you could do that.
I posted this story first! My shit should of made it to the front page of hacker news :(
You actually have to practice and have some skill to play guitar... not to mention finding a bassist, and an actual, real-life drummer, at minimum, for a full band.
Compared to dicking around with a laptop and calling yourself a DJ, or slapping some drum loops and autotune on top of some vocals, rock music does require some actual work.
Compared to dicking around with a laptop and calling yourself a DJ, or slapping some drum loops and autotune on top of some vocals, rock music does require some actual work.
As someone who plays guitar and writes electronic music, getting good at the latter takes a comparable level of effort. I think you're underestimating how difficult it is to make electronic stuff that isn't terrible.
Yeah. A very capable (platinum record making) engineer friend of mine recently linked to a facebook video, a friend of his who'd done a parody song about how easy it was to make a pop song, with just a four on the floor beat and simple chords and less than twenty-five words. It was one of those snarky songs, a parody thing about how trivial and easy it was to do it.
The kick was absolutely potato quality, like something off a Casio. Even I could tell the 'so easy' backing track was garbage. It wasn't even intentionally awful, it was just so horribly meh and uninspired as far as sound choices and the way it didn't groove or show any interest.
LOTS of old school instrumentalists look down on EDM while being completely blind to how it works or how it's done.
The kick was absolutely potato quality, like something off a Casio. Even I could tell the 'so easy' backing track was garbage. It wasn't even intentionally awful, it was just so horribly meh and uninspired as far as sound choices and the way it didn't groove or show any interest.
LOTS of old school instrumentalists look down on EDM while being completely blind to how it works or how it's done.
[deleted]
rock n' roll will never die as Neil Young put it. Its just taking a break and going to hell to reorganize. Rock is here to stay and is out of fashion now but the cycle will come back and just like clothing fashion 20-30 years from now a new wave will happen.
Speaking of 20-30 years, you get peak revenue off collectibles and aspiration-ables about 40 years out, notice how we're at "peak star wars" right now? You can predict 80s home computers and early video games are also going to peak real soon now.
We've now had over 30 years of house music. They won.
I'm pretty sure southern hip-hop has officially 'won' [1].
[1] http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2017/03/06/518780898/f...
[1] http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2017/03/06/518780898/f...
In what country is that? It became popular in NL 24 years ago. One year before that I was listening to Slayer in a Portugese club and Neil Young at a camping disco. The year after, the same places were playing house. Taste is taste and winning whatever, but that was a loss to me.
Pretty sure rock has existed for longer than that.
A large percentage of what was considered rock and roll in the 70s has migrated to be essentially under the country pavillion. The next Neil Young, or Greg Allman, or Bruce Springsteen will be lumped as a country singer.
Previous discussion yesterday:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14621515
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14621515
Slash was the last famous guitarist. There's your proof that guitarists used to be a big deal, but are no more.
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-guitari...
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-guitari...
A more apt description would be "Slash was the last famous guitarist that non guitar players would probably ever remember being mentioned in the popular press".
It's along the same lines of saying "McDonalds is the fast food most people have heard of" or "BASIC is the most common programming language that everyone has heard of, so it must be the best".
Within each sub-culture, there are dedicated fans that go deeper and have a set of idols that they look up to. I can readily identify fellow guitar players (AND the genre of music they prefer) by mentioning names like Joe Bonamassa, Doyle Bramhall II, Brad Paisley etc. Blank stares just mean that the person is not involved in the guitar world at all. Someone who gets excited when I mention Paisley, I know is into the pop/country stuff.
I've heard people write off John Mayer as a 'non guitarist' even on guitar forums, but when I show them this clip [0] and tell them to come back to me when they have mastered playing that particular off beat riff and sing the melody at the same time, like he does, then I will gladly pay them $10. My money has been safe in my wallet for years.
[0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DfQC5qHhbo
It's along the same lines of saying "McDonalds is the fast food most people have heard of" or "BASIC is the most common programming language that everyone has heard of, so it must be the best".
Within each sub-culture, there are dedicated fans that go deeper and have a set of idols that they look up to. I can readily identify fellow guitar players (AND the genre of music they prefer) by mentioning names like Joe Bonamassa, Doyle Bramhall II, Brad Paisley etc. Blank stares just mean that the person is not involved in the guitar world at all. Someone who gets excited when I mention Paisley, I know is into the pop/country stuff.
I've heard people write off John Mayer as a 'non guitarist' even on guitar forums, but when I show them this clip [0] and tell them to come back to me when they have mastered playing that particular off beat riff and sing the melody at the same time, like he does, then I will gladly pay them $10. My money has been safe in my wallet for years.
[0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DfQC5qHhbo
Guitar players are usually not remembered by the general public unless they have something else (like being cute). Worse for bass players and drummers, but the frontman/singer gets remembered. It was always a fight. Singer/guitarists is always easier but, like you said, usually considered non guitarist. I listened to the youtube you included and disclaimer taste/I am old, but then I listened to a lot of what he did: it is not very impressive. Sure, if you can do that live and long stretches that is talent but a good guitarist (what is the definition outside taste? that is a question, taste should not have anything to do with that)? Do you have something that shows he can do something? And the singing is just taste but without it would be better if you have.
Well, as far as musicianship, this is the best case of '3 guys really deep in the pocket with a tight groove' that I have ever seen... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vlBGk9qCio
As far as a nice, tasteful guitar solo at 03:25... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG6GKh3NWkQ
As far as a nice, tasteful guitar solo at 03:25... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG6GKh3NWkQ
Another guitarist/singer that is a favourite of mine is Joe Bonamassa. He is almost invisible outside of the guitar player or blues/rock enthusiast field, but is VERY successful, and busy touring the world... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-69Djk5HdQ
Again, I might be old or weird but all you posted is nice but something not, to me, interesting to play. This is all personal taste and whatever, but as a guitar player, I can not only feel what they will play but also just play it. And, as it goes with many things, if I can do it, it cannot be all that special(that is probably something people take pills for these days ;)
So some things I find amazing:
https://youtu.be/v1c1SaG_gKA (with his huge fingers, playing one note with feeling you cannot copy)
https://youtu.be/9IrWyZ0KZuk
https://youtu.be/3l0BLog1rQY
Also blues but
https://youtu.be/G3LvhdFEOqs
I like bass (I only have a bass left anyway);
https://youtu.be/w_8NtbKsYuA
https://youtu.be/Kyw-Lere8Kc (did not watch this but any Steve Harris)
and drums
https://youtu.be/nC0QUrya3eA
https://youtu.be/LQqNJwa5lig
Like said my definition is surely different than yours. And a lot of it is taste.
So some things I find amazing:
https://youtu.be/v1c1SaG_gKA (with his huge fingers, playing one note with feeling you cannot copy)
https://youtu.be/9IrWyZ0KZuk
https://youtu.be/3l0BLog1rQY
Also blues but
https://youtu.be/G3LvhdFEOqs
I like bass (I only have a bass left anyway);
https://youtu.be/w_8NtbKsYuA
https://youtu.be/Kyw-Lere8Kc (did not watch this but any Steve Harris)
and drums
https://youtu.be/nC0QUrya3eA
https://youtu.be/LQqNJwa5lig
Like said my definition is surely different than yours. And a lot of it is taste.
But that's a weird bet to make. What are you trying to prove with that? Why would anyone learn to play something with a very personal style that has taken the artist probably a decade to master... for $10? Of course it has been safe in your wallet. It doesn't prove _anything_ about the versatility or technical skills of that particular artist.
Purely to prove a point to some salty poster on a forum who bangs on about John Mayer "not being a real guitarist and not really doing anything that anybody else can't do".
A simple "Well, post a video of you doing that and I will Paypal you $10 as a token of appreciation" is just a simple challenge guaranteed to weed out anyone who is even remotely qualified to make such a call.
So far, none of the more trollish posters have ever come back with evidence of them being able to do it. Better players however (who usually NEVER talk smack about another player of Mayer's calibre, thus never have the challenge gauntlet thrown at their feet) have done so.
A simple "Well, post a video of you doing that and I will Paypal you $10 as a token of appreciation" is just a simple challenge guaranteed to weed out anyone who is even remotely qualified to make such a call.
So far, none of the more trollish posters have ever come back with evidence of them being able to do it. Better players however (who usually NEVER talk smack about another player of Mayer's calibre, thus never have the challenge gauntlet thrown at their feet) have done so.
Whoa... is there a slap bass guitar player hiding behind him for the solo at 4:00, or is that really possible on an acoustic?
I had the same reaction as you when I heard it the first time - I never thought one person could make all those sounds on the guitar AND sing. And if you listen you will hear that the singing melodic line is a completely different rhythmic feel from the guitar riff. How he syncs the two of them together is beyond me.
But I know it is possible, and not dubbed at all because I've seen and heard my own son do it as part of his repertoire now...
But I know it is possible, and not dubbed at all because I've seen and heard my own son do it as part of his repertoire now...
That has more to do with the propaganda apparatus of producers and promoters cherry-picking virtuosos and taking them on a fame ride to demonstrate the miracle unicorn lotteries of capitalism's permissive pop culture, when contrasted against the typical realities of the meritocracy-oriented communist worker.
Matt Bellamy of MUSE was my last guitar hero.
Was?
???
Jack White
John Mayer
Are they on the list?
Jack White
John Mayer
Are they on the list?
They're famous, and they play guitar, but they aren't famous for their guitar playing
"fell in love with a girl" is an awesome song but not so challenging to play:
https://youtu.be/95HRZ2SLMJk
"fell in love with a girl" is an awesome song but not so challenging to play:
https://youtu.be/95HRZ2SLMJk
Contrast with this though: https://youtu.be/mto7vBtabEU?t=24s
Seeing Jack White play live with the White Stripes was one of the greatest musical experiences of my life. Part of the beauty of their style is that it is built on very simple fundamentals - literally an enumerated set of rules - which form a platform on top of which Jack White can experiment with incredible virtuoso stuff (the best of which is obviously observed in the live performances).
You are 100% spot on though that Jack White isn't famous for this. In their popular singles really only the basic song frameworks, and not so much of the experimental stuff, are exposed. I think it might be some mixture of intentional artistic obscurity, and fitting to the 'radio market' for economic reasons, but either way if you're not familiar with them I really suggest giving all the albums (and some of the live shows e.g. Live Under Blackpool Lights) a deep listen through - really quite incredible stuff :-)
Seeing Jack White play live with the White Stripes was one of the greatest musical experiences of my life. Part of the beauty of their style is that it is built on very simple fundamentals - literally an enumerated set of rules - which form a platform on top of which Jack White can experiment with incredible virtuoso stuff (the best of which is obviously observed in the live performances).
You are 100% spot on though that Jack White isn't famous for this. In their popular singles really only the basic song frameworks, and not so much of the experimental stuff, are exposed. I think it might be some mixture of intentional artistic obscurity, and fitting to the 'radio market' for economic reasons, but either way if you're not familiar with them I really suggest giving all the albums (and some of the live shows e.g. Live Under Blackpool Lights) a deep listen through - really quite incredible stuff :-)
Mayer is an amazing blues guitarist, and recognized as such. He tours with Pino Paladino as his bassist, a testament to his own chops!
And Jack White, while not a "virtuoso" has mastery of the rock guitar language. It's not immediately obvious to everyone, but his technique is flawless.
And Jack White, while not a "virtuoso" has mastery of the rock guitar language. It's not immediately obvious to everyone, but his technique is flawless.
I'll add Angus Young. A guitar hero if ever there was one and pretty well known outside of narrow music niches.
https://youtu.be/skoZ7j5PBE8
https://youtu.be/skoZ7j5PBE8
Electric guitar (and electric bass) enjoyed their day in the sun, and it was well deserved. When the Fender guitar came on the scene, a dance band required as many as 19 musicians, all playing instruments that took years of training just to even make a decent sound, much less to play at a performance level.
The electric guitar and bass had a much different learning curve (not better or worse, like C vs Python) and 3 or 4 musicians could take the place of 19. Of course changing musical styles played a role in this transition as well, so I'm really over-simplifying here. The simpler harmonic structure of songs made it easier to crank out hits, and the manipulation of electronic effects allowed the creation of new styles such as hard rock, heavy metal, and so forth.
Rock music also had a certain social appeal. As opposed to taking lessons and then sitting at home and practicing scales, you joined a bunch of friends, and all learned together in the absence of any adult supervision. Many bands create new songs together by trial and error. Styles and songs were learned by ear -- the folk music tradition, which certainly has its own historical precedent.
It couldn't last forever. Fifty years is a pretty darn good run. New instruments have emerged, with their own learning curve and cultural appeal. That's great. Meanwhile, playing an obsolete instrument can still have its own attractions.