[QUOTE=Tamerlane]
Hmmm…intersting choice. I’ve really only been exposed to him tangentially via a single album, this one:
http://www.jeffgower.com/rypdal/revsugar.html
But I remember being impressed by his playing ( this was back when I was going through a heavy ‘fusion’ phase ).
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know that album, but I doubt that it’s typical of Rypdal. His stuff is usually very heavy and dark.
Terje Rypdal and Robin Trower are probably the two guitarists I most wish I sounded like.
[QUOTE=WordMan]
There was a thread a few weeks ago about Robert Smith of the Cure potentially working with Ashlee Simpson - so many wannabee snobs howled compromise. My buddy - *who knows and has worked with Robert Smith * basically said - “get over it - what do you think professional musicians DO for a living?”
[/QUOTE]
Hey I resent that, I’m a real snob (unless there are some rules about snobbery that I am unaware of). I think people understood that he may be in his best interest financially to do it, we just didn’t like it and proceeded to bitch about it.
[QUOTE=guppy]
Hey I resent that, I’m a real snob (unless there are some rules about snobbery that I am unaware of). I think people understood that he may be in his best interest financially to do it, we just didn’t like it and proceeded to bitch about it.
[/QUOTE]
Well said. Bitch away! 
It can be hard when folks hold up their icons to, well, iconic standards - when that person simply wants to practice their craft and make a good living doing so. Both perspectives matter.
I have to agree with wordman on the value of songwriting and infuence over pure shredding. I have nothing against Vai, Satriani or Yngwie. I like all of them and appreciate their technical proficiency. I went through a period in the 80’s where I became especially infatuated with Yngwie. I decided “neoclassical” (really more like pseudo-classical) metal guitar playing was where it was at and started practicing harmonic minor scales and sweep picking.
Eventually, though, I found myself wanting stronger songs and returning to the basic, riff oriented rock that I love.
It’s not that I don’t like listening to shredders but I prefer a good song. a couple of guitarists that I like a lot but didn’t put on my “top 5” (my list would probably change depending on what day or hour you asked me) are Tony Iommi and Angus Young. Neither of them can shred like Steve Vai but both of them have boatloads of memorable riffs and both have been influential. Tony Iommi, in particular, pretty much created the handbook for heavy metal guitar riffs.
Another favorite of mine is James Hetfield, even though he doesn’t play lead. His riffing alone had more influence in the 90’s than all of Satriani and Vai’s crazy noodling combined.
[QUOTE=guppy]
Music theory is fairly finite and does not take much to master (a lot of time yes but it’s not rocket surgery).
[/QUOTE]
I see. We apparently define “theory” and “mastery” in different ways. I posit that there is a difference between knowing what a diminished seventh is, knowing where you might consider employing one, and having a preternatural sense of what to do with it. I guess anyone capable of doing basic arithmetic, familiar with the letters ‘A’ through ‘G’, and able to draw a staff can compose a symphony? That’s like saying, “If you understand that basketballs bounce and fit through a hoop then you ought to be able to make it as a professional player. Afterall, it’s not rocket surgery.”
WordMan, as you correctly notice, we disagree fundamentally on the issue of greatness. It seems to me, that in your mind greatness is equivalent to cultural relevance/influence. I won’t try to dissuade you from that view-- but I will make fun of you for thinking that The Backstreet Boys were one of the ‘greatest’ bands in recent history. But then, you also seem to enjoy Jackson Pollock. 
In my mind, greatness is most reasonably ascribed to those such as Vai who have truly “mastered their craft”, or those such as Slash who are so distinctive as to be largely impossible to emulate.
[QUOTE=WordMan]
They [various musicians] have much more respect for musicians that reach a broad audience while making music they love vs. solid players who never go anywhere (and are frankly a dime a dozen) or talentless hacks who have a corporate machine backing them.
[/QUOTE]
Just out of curiosity, which of these fates has befallen Vai? I don’t think it’s possible to assert that he isn’t “making the music he loves”. Nor can he be said to have “never gone anywhere” with his decade-spanning career, albums, devoted fan base, and collaborations with everyone from Zappa to Alice Cooper to Meat Loaf. I won’t even remark about the “talentless hack” point. In the final analysis, does Vai fail because he isn’t “Top 40” enough? That seems a dubious standard indeed.
As for whether or not 99.9% of people “care”… Apart from being fallacious and somewhat irrelevant in my reckoning-- do you think this is a good standard for determining “great”? There are a lot of people who like a lot of crap. TV ratings indicate that American Idol is essentially better than… well, everything.
I disagree.
[QUOTE=recessiveMeme]
I see. We apparently define “theory” and “mastery” in different ways. I posit that there is a difference between knowing what a diminished seventh is, knowing where you might consider employing one, and having a preternatural sense of what to do with it. I guess anyone capable of doing basic arithmetic, familiar with the letters ‘A’ through ‘G’, and able to draw a staff can compose a symphony? That’s like saying, “If you understand that basketballs bounce and fit through a hoop then you ought to be able to make it as a professional player. Afterall, it’s not rocket surgery.”
[/QUOTE]
Music Theory is the study of the mechanics of music. What you describe as theory I would describe as music. You may argue that Steve Vai has a fluency in the language of music and you might be right about that. That of course does not mean people will like what he has to say.
Your analogy is off too. Basketball theory would be the study of the physics, strategy and rules of basketball. One could be intimately familiar with these things and not be able to play or even bounce the ball themselves. Conversely one can be very good at basketball (and music for that matter) and know little of the theories behind them.
[QUOTE=recessiveMeme]
Why is it so trendy for the internet guitarati to dish on Steve Vai these days?.. I’ve never seen another player so perfectly represent himself as a human being through the instrument.
[/QUOTE]
It isn’t a recent knock. The best quote I ever saw was some reviewer who said that Steve skipped the roots of what made rock fun and needed to “…enroll in remedial Angus Young.”
He is a technical wizard admittedly, and if there is anyone that can play note-perfect anything, it is him. For me however, what he chooses to play is dry and emotionless, although highly complex. It’s similar (IMO) to how I view Mariah Carey, an incredible technical talent but ultimately creatively forgettable and unemotional compared to others with less range, but more “soul” in their music.
Ten seconds of EVH or SRV solos moves me far more than any full song or album of Steve Vai music.
Of course, art is all about subjective perception, it’s all about what the listener finds value in.
[QUOTE=recessiveMeme]
WordMan, as you correctly notice, we disagree fundamentally on the issue of greatness. It seems to me, that in your mind greatness is equivalent to cultural relevance/influence. I won’t try to dissuade you from that view-- but I will make fun of you for thinking that The Backstreet Boys were one of the ‘greatest’ bands in recent history. But then, you also seem to enjoy Jackson Pollock.
In my mind, greatness is most reasonably ascribed to those such as Vai who have truly “mastered their craft”, or those such as Slash who are so distinctive as to be largely impossible to emulate.
Just out of curiosity, which of these fates has befallen Vai? I don’t think it’s possible to assert that he isn’t “making the music he loves”. Nor can he be said to have “never gone anywhere” with his decade-spanning career, albums, devoted fan base, and collaborations with everyone from Zappa to Alice Cooper to Meat Loaf. I won’t even remark about the “talentless hack” point. In the final analysis, does Vai fail because he isn’t “Top 40” enough? That seems a dubious standard indeed.
As for whether or not 99.9% of people “care”… Apart from being fallacious and somewhat irrelevant in my reckoning-- do you think this is a good standard for determining “great”? There are a lot of people who like a lot of crap. TV ratings indicate that American Idol is essentially better than… well, everything.
I disagree.
[/QUOTE]
The Backstreet Boys, as you no doubt well know, come under the category of hacks with corporate backing, or, at best, bubblegum that appeals to a demographic not known for having trained ears.
Vai, to me, comes under the category of “cult icon,” like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Watchmen, or, in the world of guitarists, Adrian Belew or even Peter Green of the first-gen Fleetwood Mac. For the folks that know about these cult figures, they are famous, iconic and worshipped. To everyone else - even folks who know the genre pretty decently - meh.
My usage of “99.9%” was not to state that the American Idol crowd doesn’t know about Steve Vai, therefore he must not count. Forgive me if that is how it comes across. Allow me to clarify: I know a ton of folks who know music, know why they love that music and can place the music they love in a thoughtful context. Most of those folks simply don’t care about Steve Vai - they know who he is and respect his abilities, but nothing beyond that.
My point is that for someone like Eddie Van Halen, you can be one of those music types who frowns at power-pop/hair metal and therefore snob-out at the mention of Van Halen - but you CAN’T deny his huge footprint in the world of guitar-based popular music and rock. If you are a music snob and confronted with Steve Vai, however, you can step briefly to one side, maybe sniff “hmm, good guitarist” and then go on your way. As most music nuts that I know do.
And what’s the famous line about the Velvet Underground “not many people saw them - but everyone that did started a band.” Again, influence matters - sure Boy Bands or American Idol feels like popularity has completely compromised quality, so there must be a balance. But who has had a greater influence - Johnny Ramone (or a descendent of his like Billie Joe Armstrong - both simple rhythm pluggers) - or Vai, Belew, Steve Howe, etc.?
Look - I own Vai’s Alien Love Secrets, Flex-able and some other one-off tracks and can expound for days on the coolness of the monkey grip routed into Steve’s signature Ibanez Jem - I get it okay? But I’m telling you, he is a guitar-geek’s wet dream and a cult figure to Zappa heads (who are a cult to begin with) and other fans of specific artists. But that’s it.
Disagree away…
Guppy, if you take the stance that it is possible to be an amazing musician w/o formal training, I’ll agree whole-heartedly. Slash is a fine example of this. If you also feel it is possible to be well-versed in the technical aspects of music theory but unable to creatively snatch “music” from the ether, I’ll agree to that as well. And yeah, people may not like what Vai has to say-- what of it? This seems to be an argument that “greatness” (however nebulous it may be) is afforded only to things that gain easy, popular acceptance. Perhaps a thread dealing in the “Nature of Greatness” is warranted. Seems doubtful a satisfactory conclusion will be reached though.
[QUOTE=GargoyleWB]
For me however, what he chooses to play is dry and emotionless, although highly complex.
[/QUOTE]
Submitted for your approval, a list of Vai songs which adequately demonstrate the depth of Vai’s emotional content in my opinion:[ul][li]Essentially anything off Passion and Warfare, though particularly ‘For the Love of God’ or ‘Blue Powder’[]Alien Love Secrets has ‘Juice’ or ‘Tender Surrender’[]Fire Garden with the ‘Dyin Day’, ‘All About Eve’, or ‘Brother’[]The Ultra Zone has ‘Windows to the Soul’ and ‘The Silent Within’-- two of the most touching “guitar songs” around[]Real Illusions with ‘Lotus Feet’ and ‘I’m Your Secrets’[/ul][/li]…if you can honestly characterize any of that as “dry and emotionless”, then the disconnect you and I share regarding “feeling” is even larger than the disconnect I share with WordMan regarding “greatness.”
[QUOTE=WordMan]
The Backstreet Boys, as you no doubt well know, come under the category of hacks with corporate backing…
[/QUOTE]
Ah, then influence is only relevant if it is organic? May we disregard the cultural impact of The Beetles (history’s greatest boy-band) and officially deny them “greatness”? (Because I’d like to. :D)
I’ll just suggest something and drop it…
I’m evolving a theory that people hate the caricature of Vai rather than the man himself. He strikes me as an artistically honest, creative, passionate, wonderful musician. Frequently people on the internet characterize him as some sort of technically proficient but emotionless robot that blasts scales all day for the benefit of tone-deaf morons impressed only with the number of notes he can fit in a measure. As you say, 99.9% of people begin any discussion of Vai with this preconception. Though I wonder-- how many of them are familiar with his catalogue? I’ll just suggest that there are a lot of people who have foregone actually listening to the man in favor of parroting a variety of dismissive remarks made by anonymous music reviewers or their “friend who plays the guitar.” Hey, maybe I’m coming way out of left field, but I think it might serve a lot of people to actually give him a listen.
Interesting discussion anyway.
</vaiLovefest>
It’s tough to compare Japanese rock musicians to their foreign contemporaries, since a lot of Japanese musicians heavily imitated foreign styles during the 80s and 90s, but based on technical ability I’d nominate Hideto Matsumoto.
[QUOTE=WordMan]
Zappa heads (who are a cult to begin with)
[/QUOTE]
Wanna buy some flowers? A pamphlet? A rancid poncho?
[QUOTE=recessiveMeme]
Guppy, if you take the stance that it is possible to be an amazing musician w/o formal training, I’ll agree whole-heartedly. Slash is a fine example of this. If you also feel it is possible to be well-versed in the technical aspects of music theory but unable to creatively snatch “music” from the ether, I’ll agree to that as well. And yeah, people may not like what Vai has to say-- what of it? This seems to be an argument that “greatness” (however nebulous it may be) is afforded only to things that gain easy, popular acceptance. Perhaps a thread dealing in the “Nature of Greatness” is warranted. Seems doubtful a satisfactory conclusion will be reached though.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed.
[QUOTE=recessiveMeme]
Regarding ‘Catherine’…
What I saw when I watched that was six and a half minutes of thematically incomplete noodling…
(…and no, I’m not Steve Vai, nor do I know him.)
[/QUOTE]
I think that’s part of the problem…
You seem too busy watching. You should try listening. Compare Vai and Halen’s collective tone over the past 25 years, for instance. Vai’s tone from day one has been the product of an amalgam of over processed rack effects and copious amounts of exotic and in some cases bizarre studio techniques. When I listen (and I have all of his albums–don’t confuse me with someone that doesn’t have respect for the man) to Vai, I feel like I am hearing a man who has found a way to make a keyboard sound kinda, sorta like a guitar, but what I realize is that what I am really hearing is a man that has made a guitar sound kinda, sorta like a keyboard.
He sounds as if he is just trying too hard to sound as different as possible in an effort to hide the fact that he is doing nothing much more than a hybrid of Eddie Van Halen and Malmsteen. It’s like a Lamborghini without an engine. It looks sexy as hell. It just doesn’t go anywhere.
Compared to the raw, weighty, energetic, smash-the-dashboard and kick-your-teeth-in sound of almost any Van Halen album, and what you have with Vai is really limp in comparison. This is precisely why Halen went on to influence a generation or two, while Vai has been nothing more than a hired gun in a circus act a couple of times over.
Look at Paul Gilbert. Here is a guy that has all of the technical skills of Vai and Satriani and could shred rings around the two of them on stage, yet he is also a better musician, and as Wordman has accurately pointed out, that is what matters above all else.
What I meant was that he was a great only in a sense that he was almost as influential as Halen and the others in that he blazed a new trail that many others followed. Like EVH, Malmsteen redefined the guitar at a critical time. You can trace the path of shredding and neo classical fusion directly to the puddle of drool at his feet. Other than that, he is a colossal idiot and a world-class asshole.
And I think we can all agree that Chet Atkins is a guitar god.
[QUOTE=Euthanasiast]
I think that’s part of the problem…
You seem too busy watching. You should try listening. Compare Vai and Halen’s collective tone over the past 25 years, for instance. Vai’s tone from day one has been the product of an amalgam of over processed rack effects and copious amounts of exotic and in some cases bizarre studio techniques. When I listen (and I have all of his albums–don’t confuse me with someone that doesn’t have respect for the man) to Vai, I feel like I am hearing a man who has found a way to make a keyboard sound kinda, sorta like a guitar, but what I realize is that what I am really hearing is a man that has made a guitar sound kinda, sorta like a keyboard.
He sounds as if he is just trying too hard to sound as different as possible in an effort to hide the fact that he is doing nothing much more than a hybrid of Eddie Van Halen and Malmsteen. It’s like a Lamborghini without an engine. It looks sexy as hell. It just doesn’t go anywhere.
Compared to the raw, weighty, energetic, smash-the-dashboard and kick-your-teeth-in sound of almost any Van Halen album, and what you have with Vai is really limp in comparison. This is precisely why Halen went on to influence a generation or two, while Vai has been nothing more than a hired gun in a circus act a couple of times over.
Look at Paul Gilbert. Here is a guy that has all of the technical skills of Vai and Satriani and could shred rings around the two of them on stage, yet he is also a better musician, and as Wordman has accurately pointed out, that is what matters above all else.
What I meant was that he was a great only in a sense that he was almost as influential as Halen and the others in that he blazed a new trail that many others followed. Like EVH, Malmsteen redefined the guitar at a critical time. You can trace the path of shredding and neo classical fusion directly to the puddle of drool at his feet. Other than that, he is a colossal idiot and a world-class asshole.
And I think we can all agree that Chet Atkins is a guitar god.
[/QUOTE]
Who is Chet Atkins?
[QUOTE=GNR JUNKIE]
Who is Chet Atkins?
[/QUOTE]
Are you serious?
[QUOTE=GNR JUNKIE]
Who is Chet Atkins?
[/QUOTE]
:smack: