I'm not jealous of shredders at all, i don't really have any strong feelings towards them, but I find most of their music utterly tedious. They can sure play some mean guitar but I don't find them very interesting at all.
Hendrix could be considered proto-shred (in the same way that he is proto-metal).
But you are correct, asians wreck everyone ever at guitar, Starcraft and academia.
[Hendrix's] technical mastery was a means towards it and not an end the way it is for the shredders you're talking about.
Here, it isn't so much that you've missed the point.
It's that you have lived in the house next door to the point for some fifteen years without so much as nodding to it when you were out emptying the trash.
Human-oriented is dangerous ground. How, indeed, can you say that any music is more human-oriented than another kind?
one kind of music is deeper-reaching than another based on what is basically popularity and collective perception
his music is capable of reaching deeper into more people than instrumental shred
I never said Hendrix was "better" than anyone. I only pointed out that more people seem to enjoy and connect to his music. I'm pretty sure you can fit your head around the difference between judging an artist as "better" than another, and stating that many others seem to think so.
Quite easily, really. Lets pick Meshuggah's Catch 33 as an example. It's not particularly melodic, it's extremely repetitive, it doesn't have an easily discernable structure. People like melody, they don't like lots of repetition, they like structure. Compared to say, Neutral Milk Hotel, which is melodic, catchy and concise, it is not very human oriented. Simple, really. And you can get that argument and apply it to the shred vs hendrix argument that you seem to be enjoying.
I would be extremely careful saying that music x can reach deeper into more people than music y because that just translates to popularity.
With all due respect,Hey sweet, I am due some respect. :-D :-D :-D
But then what's the alternative? That all music is equally capable of reaching deeply into all people?
Maybe. I'm curious though, do you agree that there is some music that does resonate with more people than other music?
If this is true, why do you think it is so? Is it something to do with individual people as listeners not letting the other kind of music touch them?
Alex, I think you're kind of abusing this term "accessibility" that you're throwing around so much. Maybe you should try to come up with another way of phrasing the idea that you're trying to communicate with that word, because you're starting to make less and less sense every time you use it.
I'd frame the discussion like this: music can be compared to a family of languages, and there are some dialects that most people speak easily and from early in life, and some that require serious study later in life in order to fully comprehend. Artists like Jimi Hendrix and The Beatles knew how to speak the most common forms of music (or at least the dialects that are now the most common, after they popularized them) very eloquently and were masters at communicating to a very broad audience because they knew how to speak a musical language that almost everyone nowadays can understand. Death metal is a dialect that needs pretty serious immersion in order to learn, and people who are unfamiliar with it won't understand anything that anyone says in it. Does this make death metal musicians less musically eloquent? Not any more than it makes James Joyce a poorer writer than William Shakespeare, but you sure don't see "Finnegan's Wake" on any 9th-grade lit curriculum ... nobody would come close to understanding it, and something that isn't understood can't be appreciated.
I think there is something to be said for knowing how to speak a language, musically or otherwise, that anyone (or at least most people) can understand, and anyone who can be understood by a very broad audience and still communicate really powerful emotions without watering down what they're saying must be recognized as an absolute master of their art. I don't think their mastery can be compared to that of a more specialized, less conventional musician, though, because you're never going to find a judge who is equally well-versed in both languages and will still tell you that one is better than the other. Anyone who actually understands the distinction between Hendrix and Petrucci is probably going to say that objectively measuring one against the other is impossible. Why are we trying?
Music at its most detestably phallocentric.What's wrong with phallocentric music? As a dude with a penis and two (count 'em) balls, I don't really see what's so wrong with phallocentric music. It is music designed with a "Hey I have a Penis" sort of viewpoint in mind, and as someone with that, it's certainly something I can identify with. Perhaps this is just my Manowar fanboyism coming out, again.
Obviously, people can listen to whatever they like with my blessing. I think I say that at least once in every thread and eventually I'd like to not have to.There's no need to be nice to each other all the time. Evidently I like some music that you thoroughly dislike and vice versa. Why not have a laugh at each other's expense now and again? I'm sure we're both mature enough to handle a few jokes coming our way :wink:
guitar hero
tl;dr, why are people jealous of shredders' technique
Now he was all like BLACK PEOPLE ARE BETTER AT EVERYTHING EVER
Edit: I'm also saying that this applies to punk. Punk w/leet tech skills >>> Punk w/o leet tech skills. Also: i think I missed your point, and this may be useless but whatever I'M POSTING THIS ANYWAY.
Well! Alas! Ladylike two-time loser. The ogreish jerk.No. Never. :-P Sorry I took your comment out of context. Never mind.
Short answer - I think really interesting art comes from catharsis, which in turn relies on some sort of hardship. That's why a lot of really incredible music comes from people who have suffered persecution. Typically, this isn't white men because historically, they have had a comparatively easy ride. Women, the Irish, African-Americans - these groups have been continuously fucked over by the establishment, which is one of the reasons white males tend to mimic them in an attempt at authenticity.
There are exceptions but I maintain that the above is typically true.
Where did I say that?
I think a re-reading is in order.
And Rush? Rush are freaking EXCELLENT.Haha, good one, man
guitar tone is utter ASS.
I don't really like music where the whole point is the guitar solo. This includes shredders like Vai, blues people like SRV, and whatever the fuck you'd call mutants like Eric Johnson. Yeah, they're all great guitarists, but it's just not very compelling to me.Yeah. I think one of the reasons Fripp or King Crimson is the only music like that I can stand is because you know he/they could do a lot more but he/they just decide to be a little more artful. Still I don't know how long it has been since I listened to an entire Fripp or KC album. A while...
Whose ass did you pull this out of? We don't like shred music, and as such must be jealous?
Their music lacks soul, it lacks emotional bite, it lacks depth. Music at its most detestably phallocentric. I don't really understand why we're comparing Steve Vai to Hendrix or Page but I would say the important difference is that the latter duo knew how to write decent songs with more than a thimble-full of the milk of human compassion. Or steal better songs in the case of Page.
Or alternately, not as many people like Steve Vai because his music is a bag of arse? The fact that he can masturbate at hyperspeed with his fretting hand doesn't make a lot of difference if it is placed in the context of terrible music. This is an example of what I call 'The Rush Defence'. Technical wizardry does not equal good. In many cases in actually means the reverse. Like Rush, Dream Theatre or y'know, Steve Vai. It's music that could not get any whiter if it tried. I don't even mean that in terms of race, I mean it in terms of the total emptiness and overall vapidity that it shares with the colour white. Their music lacks soul, it lacks emotional bite, it lacks depth.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v114/Nanimar/Forum%20Misc/malmsteen.jpg)
Basically what you said is "BLAH BLAH BLAH I DISLIKE THIS MUSIC BLAH BLAH BLAH EMOTIONALLY INVALID BLAH BLAH CLASSICAL CREDENTIALS BLAH BLAH BLAH I AM AN ELITIST ASSHOLE".
The main problem I have with Steve Vai is that his guitar tone is utter ASS. The whammy/sustainer stuff he does is quite literally the most annoying sound I have ever heard come out of a guitar.
I actually want to be serious for an instant and ask, alex, are you sure this is a good place for you? You seem to not agree with anything or relate to other people. I'm not saying this just because i dislike you, but as a serious question
Pulling the elitist card is pretty epic fail, man. You can do better then that. Well, I hope so anyway.
I'm saying that objectively they put their skill at the guitar before anything so plebeian as a hook
Joe Satriani - Always with me, always with you (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4fPv450OYM)
Or alternately, not as many people like Steve Vai because his music is a bag of arse? The fact that he can masturbate at hyperspeed with his fretting hand doesn't make a lot of difference if it is placed in the context of terrible music. This is an example of what I call 'The Rush Defence'. Technical wizardry does not equal good. In many cases in actually means the reverse. Like Rush, Dream Theatre or y'know, Steve Vai. It's music that could not get any whiter if it tried. I don't even mean that in terms of race, I mean it in terms of the total emptiness and overall vapidity that it shares with the colour white. Their music lacks soul, it lacks emotional bite, it lacks depth. Music at its most detestably phallocentric. I don't really understand why we're comparing Steve Vai to Hendrix or Page but I would say the important difference is that the latter duo knew how to write decent songs with more than a thimble-full of the milk of human compassion. Or steal better songs in the case of Page.
This is brutally frank and highly subjective but I feel like this is an argument that deserves to be made in the face of an implication that Steve Vai is less popular because stupid people just can't grasp the delicate nuanced intricacies of his six string self-fuckery.
Yes, but kids tend to like their music as recent sounding as possible. Give a kid a song that was a classic more than 20 years ago, and they'll probably hate it.
Yes, but kids tend to like their music as recent sounding as possible. Give a kid a song that was a classic more than 20 years ago, and they'll probably hate it.
Oh come on, that's when you're an adolescent/teen/preteen. Little kids don't care about how recent music is.
Oh come on, that's when you're an adolescent/teen/preteen. Little kids don't care about how recent music is.
Alex, remember, you're the dude who spent the entire argument yesterday saying pretty much "Yeah? Well, man, that's, you know, just your OPINION, man." You yourself said you have no point to make, so why be condescending to those who do?
We mean to say: We hear no emotion!
You hear: There is no emotion!
I think shred guitar play has little merit, but that is my opinion, and I have no problems understanding that other people think it's amazing.
You really lost me, here. I mean, I'm trying to actually discuss this and last time I checked no-one really asked for your opinions on what is emotionally relevant or not.
This is the discussion! You make a premise and we talk about whether we agree or disagree with it. It's not personal, this is the debate.
I'm going to ask you to understand something here because I think it's crucial you know this before we proceed. I genuinely have no opinion of you or your taste in music. It genuinely doesn't matter to me. I just like talking about music. I will never judge you as a person for anything you say here. I'm an incredibly amiable person. I'll buy you a drink tomorrow. It doesn't matter in the slightest to me. You're a human being and therefore you are absolutely okay with me. We're best internet buddies. I think you are absolutely rad. This will always be true so don't worry about it.
The problem seems to emerge because you aren't actually reading other people's posts or you don't fully understand what they are saying so you just gloss over them. There's nothing wrong with that but it does mean you nearly always miss the point. My post was a direct response to the post above yours whereby you put forth a point I happened to strenuously disagree with, so I answered it using personal experience. Actually read my posts in this thread if you like. I haven't actually called anyone anything. I just talked about music. That's what I do. I've been doing it here going on five years. I'll carry on doing it as long as this forum exists.
Again, I haven't actually said any of the above. Have another glance at my posts. I'm not being a dick, I'm participating in a discussion about music, which I assume is pretty much what you wanted with this thread. I didn't say a certain type of music was more valid than another. What you've done there is misrepresent what I've said rather than address my actual counter-argument. That's what is called a 'Straw Man' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). Purposefully ignoring a legitimate point for another which hasn't been posited but is easier to debase. If you want another example of this, here's a good one -
Here you have intentionally misrepresented JC's post rather than actually read what he posted. You've decided what you think he's posted rather than actually make an attempt to understand what he's written. Then you've called him an asshole for good measure. This is the sort of thing you should probably avoid if you want to make any headway in a rational debate, namely because it robs your theories of legitimacy regardless of how relevant they might be.
The implication here is that some folks don't listen to shredders because they aren't 'accessible'. As Joe pointed out at length, that isn't why some people thoroughly dislike this music and I thought a literal opinion on why I don't like it would be more effective. It's not because I find it 'inaccessible'. It's for the reasons I pointed out in my first post in this thread. I think that's fair enough. It's a solid opinion based on evidence which I have amassed and presented.
Is this better? I don't mean to be overbearing, I just think this is an important distinction which if people aren't clear on could think I'm saying something I'm not.
There's something I'd like to clear up. What exactly are we discussing here? I could easily be wrong on this because my technical knowledge of guitar is extremely limited but shred appears to be a style of guitar used by a lot of bands, but what people are discussing when they say they don't like shred appears to be the likes of Steve Vai and Dream Theatre. This has me a little confused, so a bit of clarification on that would be useful.
I think I like shred. From what I've managed to look up it appears that it's a word that can be used to describe the guitar playing you get in tech grind bands like Executive Distraction Tasks and Narcosis, or whatever the hell you want to call Tangaroa (I know they use sweep picking, which according to wikipedia is a shred thing). I like this music, and watching the guitarists fly all over the fretboards is a bit of the appeal. However, at one point I didn't like Tangaroa. They seemed to descend into being nothing more than a guitar masterclass. Very skilled, yes, but the effect was the same one that people have been complaining about all the way through this thread: it was empty. They failed for a while to construct anything out of their skill that could communicate anything other than the fact that they were good at playing the guitar. They haven't toned down that aspect of their music, they just got better at doing something with their skill.
This is my problem with people like Steve Vai. Someone used the metaphor that guitarists like him were speaking a certain dialect and should not be criticised for the inability of people unfamiliar with that dialect to comprehend what was being communicated. I can only agree with that up to a point. True, genres like death metal or grind will be hard for someone unfamiliar with them to judge and they shouldn't be condemned for that, it's a byproduct of the art and not its point. But if musicians like Steve Vai can only be understood by people with a great knowledge of guitar then I do see this as an artistic failure. Just like high modernism they've narrowed the potential appreciators of their work to a small elite, although they have succeeded in avoiding the class distinction that those painters put into who could and couldn't understand their art. It nonetheless seems to be too great an exercise in exclusion.
Another reason I see for their failure and the hostility they attract is the great value they appear to place on technical ability. Punk rock was, in part, an artistic exercise against this, an attempt to open up the production of music and move it away from being the preserve of a musical elite. The work of the people criticised in this thread often appears to be a refutation of this, a renewed claim to the superiority of those who can be the most technical in their playing. A negative reaction from those who prefer the opposite idea is inevitable. Whatever the intention of the musicians themselves (who are probably just rocking out, having a grand old time) their music exults in the idea of the guitarist as an unattainable figure to be placed on a pedestal, and it does so with a bombast that's unappealing.
The effort involved by the musicians to play the music doesn't mean much to me. It would be relevant if I thought shred had no skill or was easy but that isn't the case. If I think the work produced is poor then it's wasted effort, since a high level of technical skill at the guitar doesn't have to be used to the particular end they put it to. And the refusal to accept the technical mediocrity of many bands is to my mind an extremely bad thing. This is something that should be embraced not rejected, and just because a piece of music is reacting against something doesn't make it punk. As I said, art that places technical skill in a superior position is a negative thing. Technical skill is neither good nor bad, it is simply something to be used to create art just like a guitar or a flute.
You say it's a means of breaking boundaries and that's a positive thing, a definitely good use to put the tool of technical skill to. But what boundaries are actually being broken? You mentioned Steve Vai beginning his work in a different era, and while that's a good explanation for his music to sound the way it does the perpetuation of an artistic approach doesn't make it a good thing. Perhaps there are new elements of composition being used but as someone with no knowledge of what those could be this means nothing, and it serves no purpose of breaking down any boundaries that might be of use to create an interesting new area for music. It's yet again placing technical ability on a pedestal, as something to be worshipped in and of itself. If boundaries are not being broken as a means of communicating new ideas or of opening art up to the understanding and potential utilisation of more people then the breaking of those boundaries is a waste of time, an exercise in self-indulgence since the boundaries broken were never of any real importance. They weren't boundaries at all, just things nobody had happened to do yet.
As for the communication failure, I think there's a key difference between the music of someone like Steve Vai and that of a death metal band like Nile for example. Making something difficult for the unfamiliar to understand isn't the point of Nile, nor is it necessarily the resultant effect. It's a byproduct of being fast and heavy, but that's necessary for them to convey the ideas and feelings they wish to with their music. What is it that the music of Steve Vai says? To me, all it ever conveys is that supremacy of the skilled, the dominance of the technical elite over musical production. It doesn't have to. Jazz, death metal, grindcore... all these genres are packed with people who are extremely skilled musicians. But when I listen to Behold... The Arctopus I hear more than just skill, I hear skill being used to convey ideas. So the problem isn't with the techniques or abilities of guitarists like Vai, it's with the ends they have put their talents to.
I disagree here. I believe that of two musicians that write music of equal quality, the musician with more technical ability is better, because he/she has more options when deciding how to express themselves. That's the long and short of it as far as I am concerned. That said, I don't believe that music has to be technical to be good but, suffice to say, being really good at your instrument helps.
*examples of how shred guitarists have done new things*
Steve Vai being hard to understand to some is a byproduct of his composition methods. I disagree entirely with the idea that Steve Vai composes in order to show off his ability. If he did that, his songs would be much faster and more technical, but as it is he has plenty of very varied music.
Please trust me when I say that Steve Vai is possibly the last shredder you'll see showing off for no reason, except on one track, which he admits is nonsense anyway. It seems to be a popular opinion of Vai in particular, but I really see no reason why people think that way because the majority of his songs are melodious and don't display an overwhelming degree of technicality (well, usually there are a few points in each song that display high skill, but it's not something that he throws about willy-nilly).
Behold... The Arctopus are more technical than most of Vai's music, for instance. And definately, their melody and rhythm is less accessible. A lot of people don't get anything out of them. That doesn't mean there aren't ideas there, it just means the individual does not connect with the music.
As I said before, I strongly believe this is the case for most shredders. People who do not like death metal do not respond well to death grunt vocals and steam-train-at-200km/h guitar riffs. Same applies to shred.
Calling him an "asshole" was out of line. I do apologise for that. However, it was one of the posts that personally insulted me as a musician. I cannot accept that any musician views music as a tool for technicality or as a set of theoretical rules. JC's post seemed little but inflammatory to me, and him calling the music, in general, "bullshit" was just as poor in taste as any post I have made in this thread. He is quite welcome to argue his reasons for not liking the music, but going on a spiel the way he did was a poor way to communicate to me, because I heard something along the lines of this:
"Shredders and shredding are bullshit because music as a means of technicality in that environment"
- Since shredders tend to push the boundaries of musical expression via extreme technicality, they are bullshit!
- Pushing the boundaries of musical expression via extreme technicality is bullshit!
- Simple musical expression is a superior way to communicate
It's complete and utter masturbation
http://www.mediafire.com/?qjzw9any9ia Patrick says stuff
That's fair enough, I reckon you see where I'm coming from with my rejection of technical skill as a positive in and of itself (in fact, I think it can often be a hindrance). I think this difference in what we want to see in artistic practice gets to the root of why you really like these musicians but people like me react quite strongly against them.
My problem is, what have these innovations led to? What's being said by them, and by those who've run with these ideas? Is it just more technical innovation? Doing new things with tapping is great if that leads you to be able to say something interesting, but if the end result is just "hey, look, new tapping" then I find it to be a pretty poor artistic venture.
Stuff about BTA and Steve Vai
That said, my post. I was trying to convey the idea that I'd tried to get into it before and it just didn't work, not out of a lack of emotion on the part of Vai or Satch or whatever but because I felt that their songwriting was severely lacking. You have to understand that I approach music from a very pop mindset, and that doing something interesting technically in a song isn't as appealing to me as a song which is simply written very well from start to finish. Certainly, the work of shred instrumentalists is technically impressive, but as a five-minute composition it's a little grating and the notion of even a forty-five minute performance of it is utterly baffling to me in the same way that it is baffling to you that I do not like shred music. I do understand the appeal of shred music and that is the idea that it is pushing musical boundaries and exploring new musical territory. Fair enough. May I posit to you that these guys have been doing this for years and in fact are no longer pushing boundaries the way that, say, Dirty Projectors do, or the way Mclusky did, or the way Sloan continue to reinvent the pop album literally every few years? Just some food for thought.
Alex, these are severely loaded and biased responses. They don't take into account what I said at all and in fact you have used every opportunity here to summarize my points by actually just restating your own points. I didn't say any of this and in fact they are largely your words. What I said wasQuoteIt's complete and utter masturbation
And I stand by what I said. There's nothing wrong with pushing the boundaries of musical expression via extreme technicality, but there is something wrong with just playing extremely technical guitar for the sake of extremely technical guitar, and unfortunately that's all that Satriani and Vai do. I'm not saying here that they are emotionless. Not in the least. Not at any point. I'm saying they've taken an approach to songwriting which, as a songwriter, I find incredibly tedious at best and supremely lazy at worst.
Alex, you say that you I am welcome to argue my reasons for not liking the music, but so far your approach in this thread has been to attack everyone who has claimed to not like shred and then asked them to justify it, and when they've justified it you've gone ahead and suggested that their reasons for not liking it are invalid.
This is a real conversation! I've had it before! But what he doesn't understand is that in the end nobody needs to have a reason to like or not like music.
The problem with everyone being entitled to their own opinion is that sometimes people might disagree with you. That can be pretty upsetting especially when the topic is something that people identify themselves as closely with as music. Unfortunately, sometimes you just have to concede that other people have their opinion, have thought about it, have looked at the other side and at the end of the day come out firmly on the same side they started on. It's just as valid as your own position.
I disagree here. I believe that of two musicians that write music of equal quality, the musician with more technical ability is better, because he/she has more options when deciding how to express themselves. That's the long and short of it as far as I am concerned. That said, I don't believe that music has to be technical to be good but, suffice to say, being really good at your instrument helps.
(blah blah blah blah) ...but I was bothered how you were implying that it was unquestionably lesser, "the new hair metal", that kind of thing. (blah blah blah fuckity blah)
'Cause it is :B
Madass, have you slept, at all, since you started this thread? I have bad images of you sitting on your computer chair and constantly clicking refresh.
Okay. So it's Steve Vai vs. Jimmy Page in a guitar-off. Who wins?
Steve Vai's got the ability to turn his guitar into a surrogate penis, and he can't get off unless he nails every note. But Jimmy Page has black magic on his side, and the heroin can keep him going way longer than Vai.
I say draw, Vai will overexert himself trying to stay awake long enough for Jimmy to finish, and Satan will come claim Jimmy's soul immediately afterward.
Then, if someone else is going to say "I think it lacks emotion" or a similar comment, can you explain why?
Also, it's common sense. A musician with more technical skill is just, well, better at his instrument. How can you argue against that? Steve Vai is a better guitar player than Jimmy Page. You can't argue against that, because Steve Vai can just play the damn thing better than Page can. Hell, a lot of guitarists are better than Page.
That's pretty much three notes, dude.
Anyway, who says simplicity sucks?
I like simplicity too. Sometimes. The best Doom riff ever is G, G up an octave, C#! It kicks ass and sounds like hell. It is basically a fantastic example of writing a simple riff that eats nuns.
Basically, the Gibson SG is the Best Guitar.
Tritones are neat!
Also, Puppy!
The main problem I have with Steve Vai is that his guitar tone is utter ASS. The whammy/sustainer stuff he does is quite literally the most annoying sound I have ever heard come out of a guitar.
I don't really like music where the whole point is the guitar solo. This includes shredders like Vai, blues people like SRV, and whatever the fuck you'd call mutants like Eric Johnson. Yeah, they're all great guitarists, but it's just not very compelling to me.
Tritones are neat!
Tritones go well with flat 2nds. Actually the great thing about a b2 power chord is that both the regular and flat 5 are harmonically correct in a minor scale. So if you hit the b5 you're using the regular 5 of the scale, but it's the b5 of the b2, so its dissonant. But if you use the regular 5 of the power chord you're using the b6 of the scale, so it sounds dissonant ANYWAY.
/theorygeek
Basically the b2 kicks as much ass at the b5 but in a vaguely more exotic manner.
Kraftwerk are fucking ace.that is the truest statement ever. ill have to go find my vinyl albums from them (that right!) and give them another listen.
Just don't play tri-tones in a Dark Ages cathedral. They wouldn't even bother to tie you to a stake before setting you on fire. Tritones were known as "wolf notes" or the "interval of the devil" until the last 2 centuries or so. No joke.
So THAT'S why the church hates rock music.Also Polyphonic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphonic#Polyphony_and_the_Church) music was banned. Only Homophonic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophonic) music was permitted. Which explains a lot about priests. :evil:
Also: While they may still have been called the interval of the devil etc. 200 years ago, generally people stopped getting burned for it at least 400 years ago :-P
Michael Angelo Batio should be lit on fire.
The exception of course is contemporary Rap
For example, while free jazz is arguably just as wanky as shredding metal, it enjoys a lot more artistic legitimacy, precisely because of it's yuppie fanbase.
Meh. THEORETICAL GIRLS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_Girls) v ShredzFor example, while free jazz is arguably just as wanky as shredding metal, it enjoys a lot more artistic legitimacy, precisely because of it's yuppie fanbase.
Ah, but John Zorn knows that free jazz + shred = genius (http://www.macfound.org/site/c.lkLXJ8MQKrH/b.2066197/k.3F6D/2006_Overview.htm).
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/AnonymousNoob/madassalexbatio.jpg)
Michael Angelo Batio should be lit on fire.
Ambidextrously!
Actually, as far as I know, Catsby ISN'T the Cat.
Checkmate.
You know I would ;)
You know I would ;)
Man if you're gonna spend so much time wanking maybe at least learn anything by Jimmy Page like ever
Unless you don't give a shit about solos or 'rawk!!!!'.
FACT:
Stephen Malkmus is the Best Guitarist.
Your telling Jimmy Page how he should have played. Poor show man.
I wish Jeff Beck was here.
Everyone who plays shred sucks his cock and say he is an influence to them.
When in reality Jeff Beck hates shred more or less calling it "Emotionless Bullshit"