Guitarists you just don't get!

[Philly Q]

Some folks have pyro and lightshows, some people have banks of dancers and some people fill stages with smoke and wear habits...

... and some people just walk onstage and play guitar with no gimmicks.

They do. And all of things suit different acts. By definition though, some of the above are only gimmicks in the case of some bands. Certainly big lightshows and dancers aren't at big/pop shows since they are standard features. And mystic getup isn't within the dronedoom/black metal/noise etc spheres since again it's the norm, not the exception.

And they at least try to write lyrics that make sense instead of some puerile teenage science fiction black magic fantasy guff about black holes and dragons. With a 20 minute guitar solo. In 7/8 time.

God I hate Rush so much. They're the reason we need Motorhead.

I like that Rush are puerile teenage nonsense (which the early albums certainly are, lyrically) and Motorhead aren't :lol: Puerile teenage nonsense is what makes LOADS of music fun!

For once I'm in total agreement with nfe!  :P

[Gooby]

Don't get:

Kirk Hammett
Slash
Eric Clapton

Clapton is the shocker for most I guess, its not that he is bad but there are so many blues guitarists I prefer. I don't see all the fuss about Eric, however its all down to personal taste as it should be. Except for Hammett, I wonder about peoples musical ears if they like him lol

Martin

[nfe]

Clapton and the like do seem to surprise most, I dunno how to put it, sorta passive guitar fans I suppose? I can't think of a less condescending turn of phrase. When I worked in Sound Control and later Reverb, whenever AC/DC or Clapton or Bonamassa or whoever else was playing in Glasgow we'd have punters just in the city for the show in the shop all day asking if we were going, so you'd have a full day of:

"Going to see XXXXX tonight?"
"Nah."
"But you work in a guitar shop! The other guys get all the free tickets or something?"
"No, none of them are going either."
"Eh? But this is a guitar shop!"

ALL day. Every time. We had a check of Ents 24 every week to try and get the days off to coincide :lol:

[blue]

i think Clapton is important because he found the sound in a Les Paul/Marshall/treble booster combination, and then played it rather nicely on the Bluesbreaker album.  but in 1970 the wrong guitarist choked to death in London.  that's a horrible thing to say!  i know.  but Clapton hasn't done anything useful since, while i suspect Hendrix might well have made music today a different thing.

Kirk Hammett?  again, i loved his playing and tone on the first Metallica album, and he has done some fine playing since.  but the last time he was awake in a recording studio was 1988 when they recorded ...And Justice For All

[_tom_]

this might change your mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-C_pA6WyfA (but maybe not, I personally really like it)

Not really my kind of thing. Schenker was great in UFO and I think influenced my lead playing quite a bit, but I don't like anything he's done outside of that. Over probably the last year my music tastes have shifted over to more punky/hardcore stuff where solos aren't really needed :P

This is the kind of interesting guitar that I love - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHDop-KFb5c

[Elliot]

It seems to me that Clapton bashing is the norm rather than the opposite amongst guitarists at the moment.  Type 'Clapton' into the search engine of most guitar forums and you'll get a chorus of disapproval rather than the opposite.

Personally, I have been learning the Beano album for a while and totally get what makes Clapton cool  - the Dave Rubin analysis in his book on that album has only confirmed that to me.      

[AndyR]

Yeah, I've been known to "bash" Mr Clapton once or twice in my time. It was usually because non-guitarists hold him in such high esteem (especially 20 years or so ago) compared to all-comers... without knowing any of the all-comers they're dismissing, especially my particular fave at the time (whoever that might be) :lol:

But I have to say, even when I was bashing him, he is right "up there" on the table of "dudes" for me. The Beano stuff is stunning, even if I don't want to listen to it very often. It might sound like a pile of old poo to many people now, but it was ground-breaking stuff when they made it. I came to it mebbe even as much as 15/20 years late. I was following the "listen to the old guys" advice, and nearly everything I heard from that period was just too far from what I was trying to achieve. Then I put the Beano album on and it was "aha! the missing link..."

I also liked his mid-70s stuff, the "big three", 461, Backless, and Slowhand especially. And Just One Night is one of my all time favourite live albums. Wonderful Tonight and Let it Grow were staples in my solo acoustic set in the 80s. Early in the Morning, Key to the Highway, and Have You Ever Loved a Woman got played countless times in the band I was fronting then...

So actually, although I've been an ardent basher over the years... I obviously seriously "got" him as well! :D

[Afghan Dave]

Most of the "big names" I think. To be honest quite recently I've started finding a lot of lead guitar-based stuff really tedious and cr@p to listen to.

this might change your mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-C_pA6WyfA (but maybe not, I personally really like it)

That's fricken cool!

[gwEm]

Most of the "big names" I think. To be honest quite recently I've started finding a lot of lead guitar-based stuff really tedious and cr@p to listen to.

this might change your mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-C_pA6WyfA (but maybe not, I personally really like it)

That's fricken cool!

all the stuff I've heard from his 'Odd Trio' album has been great. i'd love to get copy.

[mikeluke]

I am with Dave - I just don't get Jeff Beck. Seen him live - amazing player - just don't get the music

[JacksonRR]

Most of the "big names" I think. To be honest quite recently I've started finding a lot of lead guitar-based stuff really tedious and cr@p to listen to.

this might change your mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-C_pA6WyfA (but maybe not, I personally really like it)

That's fricken cool!

all the stuff I've heard from his 'Odd Trio' album has been great. i'd love to get copy.

Michael's one of my favs. Will never put him or his brother on the "do not get" list.  :D

[dave_mc]

Well, except that musical taste is subjective and success at a sporting activity is objective.

I don't think so. My favourite tennis player might not be the "best" tennis player, for example. Federer might bore me to tears, say, but, I dunno, Tsonga or someone like that might be more exciting to watch for me.

(a) I agree, but not totally objective in the case of footballers since individual contributions are only meaningful in the context of a team!

Asking "who's the best (or most "liked") footballer" (which I assume is the implication of the Pele/Best comment) is every bit as subjective as asking the same thing about guitarists.  Some people admire the "flair" players with flashy skills, others admire the grafters with high work rates or the midfield generals who can control the pace and shape of the game.  There's no such thing as a one man team (....except maybe Southampton in the Matt Le Tissier era!)

(b) Anyway, it's easy to not like EVH.  He was great, a breath of fresh air and hugely influential for about 10 years.  For the last 20 he's been an annoying, deranged bell-end who can't play live and hasn't recorded anything worth listening to.

IMO, of course.  

(a) exactly :)

(b) Oh sure, I was talking about when he was awesome. :lol:

I find that the faster a guitarist plays, the less I like him/her. That's kind of objective isn't it?

The reason is objective, but whether or not your reasoning is right is subjective.

That's a bit like saying you like books the fewer pages and words they contain. Clearly an objective reason, but also clearly bullshiteeee of the first order. EDIT: just to clarify, I'm not saying your claim about the music is bullshitee. I'm just saying it's not objective, either.

So, no, in other words. :lol:

I've been struggling with this thread - trying to separate out guitarists that I don't get from those I don't like.

I don't LIKE a few - Hammett springs to mind.  I GET him, but I can't stand how he sounds, his tone, his vibrato.

Exactly, that's what I was trying to say.

Though, considering he's been mentioned a fair bit, I'd probably agree with jeff beck, he probably does fit the bill for me. Excellent player, just I'm not too fond of what he's playing. :lol:

[MDV]

I've been struggling with this thread - trying to separate out guitarists that I don't get from those I don't like.

I don't LIKE a few - Hammett springs to mind.  I GET him, but I can't stand how he sounds, his tone, his vibrato.

In fact, the only guitarist that I can think of that I truly don't GET is...

... Derek Bailey.

If we're going with 'get' as in 'see what they're trying to do' then I get bailey. As with everyone mentioned so far, including by me.

But that interpretation of 'get' gave no opportunity to partake, so I took 'get' to mean ' personally appreciate', so add bailey.

This is NOTHING like sunn o))))

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pwn0V9thtM

[AndyR]

Yeah, I've been struggling with "get" as well :lol:

I was about to post: Poor old Jeff Beck, gettin a bit of a slammin here... I definitely get him, just don't particularly like much of what I've heard of him...

But that kind of uses a different meaning for "get" than I've been using so far!

I think I've been kind of using "get" as "I don't get what all the fuss is about concerning xxxx".


It's all Philly's fault, of course - badly titled thread sir! :lol:
(Or maybe not, I dunno... :roll:)

Managed to give us all something to do though :D

[MrBump]

Ah, OK - I don't think that I GOT what was meant by GET.

I now fully GET was was meant by GET.