Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MadassAlex]

Okay this is a large post and I know Tommy at the very least deserves a respectful reply for his effort, so /Alex chillpill

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.

You failed to take into account that "emotion" is a very subjective thing. You can't just say "this is has less emotion" and "this has more emotion" because as I explained before, you cannot measure emotion on popularity. I feel that if at least one person feels strong emotions as a result of a musical piece or phrase, it is just as "emotional" as any other music.
However, to be fair, I just got really annoyed at this point. Having lurked for some time before even signing up a year and a half ago, I  am well aware of your intelligence. I felt that, of all people, you would be the last to try and use an argument based on emotion because it cannot be measured.
Think of it this way: you are the only person in the world to hear a certain song. It is, to your ears, the most beautiful song ever but you cannot replicate it or show it to anyone else. So the song's quality is unshakably linked to your opinion of it. No-one else even knows or care about this song. But its effect is real to you, isn't it? The emotions you felt were valid. So does not being able to share those diminish the music?
Basically I read your post like this: "Shredding is considered worse because it probably has less emotional content". If you intended to communicate something else, then I have misinterpreted you. My apologies.

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.

I think it's important for everyone else to know that my discontent with anything you express doesn't leave this thread, and likewise. I don't want to end this thread regretting anything I said, so I'd like people to know that the above applies to them, too. I consider you guys to be pretty cool. So even if I can't chill, please don't take things personally, unless you live in this thread.

While we are being girly men and talking about feelings, let me get this out of the way: as a musician who writes songs for a number of musical styles, shred being one of them, I feel somewhat insulted at the implications that some people are laying down. Like I've said a bazillion times your opinion is cool with me! As long as it's just your opinion and not a absolute comment, everything is cool with me. I like to consider myself open-minded.

Let's continue.

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.

I believe you set up your post poorly. It effectively opened with, "Well, maybe Steve Vai is just shit?". Perhaps you were meaning to open with a humorous comment but I have to say it got lost on me, because it sounded like you were saying that we should debate under the assumption that shred, is, in fact, bad music. I do apologise for some things I've said, but starting a post like that and then making the implications you did (that objectively, certain music has less emotion) was never going to give you the response you were looking for.

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'. 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 -

Sorry, I thought I could get away with that since the thread had taken a humorous turn at that point. I was perfectly aware at the outset that it was stupid.

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.

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"

The implications of such a comment are thus:

- 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

That is largely how that post read to me. As I said above, I am a "shredder". This personally insults me, and not only that it's as if Johnny C has definite ideas of the correct way to push musical innovation. It seemed ludicrous, derogatory and ill thought out to me.

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.

I feel that stating the reasons that you personally dislike it in such a fashion were overly strong and did little to ease the frustration I felt as a result of being misunderstood/misunderstanding (probably both) by/the rest of the thread. The idea of this thread, however, was less about one's personal opinions about shred (although I definitely do not condemn them, for the umpteenth time) but more about the reasoning behind what I feel is blind hatred towards it.

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.

Somewhat. I think there is a case of miscommunication of both sides, but I believe we are beginning to improve the situation.

[MadassAlex]

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.

Shred is a fairly ambiguous term. In words of Joe Satriani:

"I could be a term of praise, if you're pushing boundaries. But it could also mean that you're doing too much, and not letting the music breathe". Uh, that doesn't help, does it?
Shredding is the act of playing fast music. But the genre "shred" is thought to be instrumental (largely) guitar music that places emphasis on the lead guitar voice and destroying technical boundaries in music, so that you are free to express yourself as easily as possible. This often translates to a lot of speed! But I feel that "shredding" doesn't have to be fast, but could refer to any highly technical, distorted lead guitar.
The distinctions get tricky, though. So for simplicity, shred is really wild guitar playing.

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.

I feel that if you do not communicate well with shred guitar, that's only the failing of the musician some of the time. Sometimes, people just don't like shred, or that type of shred. Read below.

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.

Keep in mind that Steve Vai started playing in an era where fairly technical lead guitar was the norm. So to write instrumentals, not only did he have to keep up with them in terms of technicality, he had to exceed them to make his music stand out. This is a stance he has carried on since, I believe. I do not believe he writes for guitar players, I merely think he writes technical music and a communication failure isn't his fault so much as you do not like the music. For instance, if you know nothing about death metal, you do not accuse a death metal band of being bad because your understanding/connection of the music is limited. And largely, you don't care.
I think this is a healthy stance to take in this case, too. Certain people do not connect with the music. That is evident, but not the fault of the musician.

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.

But then start to say that shred is the enemy, a form of music only for the elite, a representation of musical oppression. But hey! Didn't shredders work their arses off to get that good? Putting in years of their lives to hone their skills to give the best performance possible and to write the best music they could? So taking the punk's stance is belittling their skill and dedication. The "punk" stance seems to be pretty popular right now, concerning shredders, but in that case, doesn't that make shredding punk? Don't shredders refuse to accept the technical mediocrity of many modern bands? To a shredder, being technical is a way of breaking boundaries, and, just like the punks of the 70s, showing people that music doesn't have to be a certain way and doesn't have to follow rules that popular music sets out to create. Indeed, I believe the very essence of punk is necessary for shred to exist. If you shred, you do not accept the standard views of music.

[a pack of wolves]

Thanks, I think I've got a better idea of what shred is now.

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.

[MadassAlex]

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.

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.

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.

I define a musical boundary as something no-one thinks will work musically, or what people think isn't reasonable in terms of technicality. Shredders have shown that they can break said boundaries. For instance, on Surfing With The Alien, Satriani's second release, he wrote a song called "Midnight". He first wrote it normally, then rearranged it so the whole thing had to use the tapping technique.
It was wildly different to what had been done with tapping beforehand. Where tapping once was a part of solos and interludes, Satriani turned the technique towards an entire song without distortion, in a style totally alien to rock in a context the technique had never seen before. He imposed a technical handicap on himself just so he could experiment with composition.
Yngwie Malmsteen brought classical phrasing to rock-oriented music. He was also the first of his kind, really. His complete technical mastery of the instrument was an example of what was humanly possible and ground he covered, simply by being an example, allowed listeners to question exactly what was possible with this instrument.
I could go on, a lot. Shredders like Jason Becker, Marty Friedman, Steve Vai, John Petrucci, Dimebag Darrel (overrated but still applicable), Rusty Cooley, and that dude from Nevermore who's name slips my mind. And more. They've all contributed to shred in their own ways.

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.

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.

I would argue that a shredder is, at most, as egotistical as a singer that writes their own vocals. Both are expressing themselves, and both are the central voice of the music. Both of them have complete creative control over what they are doing. The difference it that the shredder suffers from none of the technical limitations of the human voice, but doesn't have the advantage of verbal language, so must use other techniques to express themselves in purely instrumental music.

[Patrick]

I'm still pretty bothered by one thing here:

My whole point to you in the MSN conversation, Alex, was that I, and I alone, can't stand musicians who are primarily known for their technical ability. I never said that you had to feel the same way. You are completely at liberty to listen to Slash or Steve Vai or Randy Rhoads as much as you want, I really don't give a damn. But you spent the bulk of 30 minutes linking me to videos of Steve Vai and, upon statement of the fact that my mind was unchanged, you kept saying "Are you KIDDING me, how can you not like this" and as a result I told you that I felt it was utterly devoid of emotional content on the part of the musician. Because, well, you asked me.

Whether or not I discount an entire genre as being boring and uninspiring is my own deal. I have my own tastes, so let me have them! I don't like shred because I am still firmly of the belief that it's about as emotional as a Jenna Jameson skin-flick, but you say you love it. Similarly, you may hate country for twangy instrumentation or the fact that a lot of it is just plain campy. I happen to love country.

All of that's fine, it just means that we don't have certain musical tastes in common. But an entire discussion on whether or not my specific motives for not liking shred are relevant to every living human being on this earth? Man, I am not at liberty to speak for 6.5 billion one-of-a-kind human beings, the overwhelming majority of whom I've never so much as met. I can just tell you why *I* don't like shred.

[Dimmukane]

Let me give this another go.

A few years back, I was big into melodeath, stuff like Arch Enemy, In Flames, Nevermore, Kalmah, what have you, so I was big on Michael Amott and Alexi Laiho.  Me and a kid in my dorm were talking about guitar players one night and he's like "Oh, you should check out Joe Satriani".  So he gave me basically the guy's discography.  He's got a couple hooks, a couple good songs, but the ones I liked were typically the ones that had less soloing.  I can abide Midnight, and a lot of the stuff on Strange Beautiful Music.

The rest of the stuff (which I didn't like) can be summed up with a programmer term: Spaghetti Code.  It's clunky, inefficient, and hard to read and fix.  A lot of the solos are like functions that return to void.  A lot of this kind of music just doesn't seem to take the musical ideas anywhere.  Or if they go somewhere, the directions given are ass-backwards.

To put it bluntly, people don't wanna have to work to listen to music.  To use Cliffs of Dover as an example, you can write a technical song that has a hook to it, and people will like it because of the hook.  Otherwise the technicality of the song obscures the emotion behind it and very few people can draw it out.  Half of the fans of Satch/Vai/Yngwie/Dream Theatre/etc. seem to like this music solely because they know how technical it is, not because they understand it.  To be honest, you're the first person I've talked to who has even claimed Satch's music to be emotional.  I think there are a few that might have a little bit of emotion in them, but all in all I haven't heard that much emotional music from him or any other 'shredder'.

And I've since found most soloing to be altogether pointless (this is just my opinion this time, not my guess at why people don't like them).  They may be pushing some kind of technical or musical boundary, but if it doesn't fit within the context of the song, I just won't like it.

[nufan]

Gonna keep it short: I don't like shred guitar 'cos it doesn't affect me in any way. Pretty much all the music I listen to makes me feel something, any emotion, whether it be sadness, happiness, regret or shame. Whatever the emotion is, shred just doesn't do it for me.

[a pack of wolves]

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.

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.

*examples of how shred guitarists have done new things*

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.

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.

I don't know what Steve Vai intends with his music. Psychoanalysis through someone's art has never been something I've been very interested in. For all I know Steve Vai's work is intended to glory in the splendour of the natural world and all he wants to communicate is his feeling of wonder when he gazes upon an oak tree, and he couldn't care less about technical guitar playing except as a means of describing the perfection he sees in the shape of a leaf. My problem is with the effect the music produces when I listen to it. It's not a criticism of the man himself, just his work. With Behold... The Arctopus their music is technical and not terribly accessible. But what it produces for me is a feeling of unease and otherworldliness in a manner not entirely dissimilar to a surrealist painting. For both technical skill is required but it isn't the point of the work, just a way to get there. The same applies to death metal, grunts and speed are a means to an end and nothing more. With a guitarist like Vai I can't see what place they reach with all their technical ability except glorification of that ability itself. I doubt this is what they intend but that doesn't really matter to me, their work seems like an artistic dead end.

[Johnny C]

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"

Alex, I'll try and not cuss in this post, since it's my last post in this thread for sure and since you went out of your way to actually construct a well-measured set of posts that reasonably address the other posts.

However, first I have to say that part of the reason you are probably not learning as much from this thread as you feel you ought to is because you are making literally every other post. Let the other posters have some discourse and learn from that. Interject when you have something new to bring to the conversation. You've taken the role of an aggressive defender of shred music and as such people don't move much forward on their arguments because they're too busy poring over every word of your post that pores over every word of their post and then they're poring over every word of their post again. You dig? The best threads on this forum are ones that suggest a topic for discussion and then let the forum discuss it. It might seem like we're piling on you here for your love of shred (and we're not, really - at no point in my post, for example, did I suggest that you can't listen to or like shred), but that's partially because your sheer volume of posts in this thread has made it a statistic inevitability that, if someone is responding, they are responding to you.

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.

- 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

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 was

It'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.

I'll put it this way. I have a friend who loves the Mars Volta.

When I tell him, "No, I can't stand the Mars Volta," he asks, "Why not?"

I say, "I just don't."

He says, "You have to have a reason."

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. If you do, that's fine, but sometimes it just doesn't happen. Earlier this year I was supposed to review a Hawksley Workman record for the student newspaper but when I listened to it I found out that there was literally nothing I could say either way about it because it just rolled inoffensively off me, like Muzak. I sat down with my editor and explained it and he was cool with it. Music criticism and discourse sometimes has a wrench thrown into it in that way, especially considering how tremendously subjective the whole thing is.

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 appreciate that you've measured your responses considerably.

[Chad K.]

Music for me is largely a vehicle for conveying emotions.  You hear musicians who share a similar view talking about "playing to the song".  For instance- my band plays a style of music that is tailored toward setting a particular mood within each song.  There is a conscious effort to focus on dynamics.  To that end, we have numerous conversations about whether a particular bassline, guitar riff, or drumbeat, or the manner in which they are executed is competing with whatever is typically taking the lead with the creation of that mood, which is usually vocals. 

Now, compare that to shred. Obviously, I'm generalizing here, but to even use a moniker like "shred" is inherently to generalize.  Typically, dynamics are not in play, it's all loud, all fast, and in fact it would sound downright stupid to pull 32nd note sweeps over anything but loud and fast.  Typically, there is less of an emphasis on setting a mood, and a much greater emphasis on virtuousity.  I have never heard a "shred' song that actually made me feel deeply and truly sad.  I have heard numerous rock, blues, jazz, country, post-rock, etc. songs that just slay me.  I realize this is anecdotal, but I think it's a shared reaction by most people to this style of music.  I believe the difference is that the sheer focus on a guitar solo, coupled with the lack of dynamics, removes the listener form any self-contemplation or attempt to relate to the song, and focuses that attention on the musician.  It is, in essence, music played for the musician's benefit, with the listener's enjoyment being a byproduct.  If you are into virtuosity for virtuosity's sake, then this music is for you. 

In sum, I think the reticence to "shred" is the lack of challenge to the listener.  It's analoguous to an action movie.  It's obvious what you're getting with an action movie- a lot of bombast, and a little plot.  Some people love this style of movie, even though it doesn't really challenge the watcher, but rather bombards them.  Similarly, there's nothing really to "get" with shred, it's obvious.  Either you like the bombast, or you don't. 

[diablo_man]

it's unfortunate that most of you have been recommended satriani's older stuff to try and get you into instrumental music. his last couple albums have been a lot more melodic, hook driven and less wanky than his older stuff (which i still like, but i realize its not as accessible).

that being said, i uploaded his latest album, Professor Satchafunkilus And The Musterion Of Rock, so you guys could here what i am talking about.
this is everything that an instrumental album should be. Lots of great hooks, well defined song structure, exotic sound, a variety of genres(funk, rock, world, etc) really dance-able rhythm, great melodies and solos, mostly very restrained and just letting the tone and notes speak. this album has a huge emotional impact for me, makes me all happy! everyone i have played this album for (kids, parents, older people, younger people have really liked it and none of them liked shred. actually im going to include it on a radio show i am doing later)
so, people who as of yet don't like instrumental stuff, please give this a go.
Joe Satriani

Code: [Select]

http://www.mediafire.com/?qjzw9any9ia

 i realize this isnt the mediaf!re thread, it will find its way there, but i felt this really applied to the thread so hope you dont mind me putting it up.

[MadassAlex]

Patrick says stuff

That's your opinion and it's cool with me.
But I felt that you were being unfair with the aggression you displayed towards shred. You don't have to like it at all, but I was bothered how you were implying that it was unquestionably lesser, "the new hair metal", that kind of thing.

Which is basically what annoys me. That people feel such a strong need to qualify their hostility for shred. Instead of people saying, "well, it does nothing for me", I get people saying, "it accomplishes nothing". This thread is largely a prime example, I think.

[MadassAlex]

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.

Whether a shred guitarist makes good music or not, I feel it is somewhat unfair to lay the blame on their high level of technical skill. There is the possibility that they are just not a good songwriter, for instance. That has nothing to do with shred. And you'll find that there are a lot of non-shred musicians that write bad songs, too.
Basically, I'm saying that the capacity or incapacity to shred has little to do with being able to write a good song or not.

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.

The thing is, "hey, look, new tapping" is worthwhile in itself because it opens a whole new avenue for phrasing. Discovering a new way to apply tapping is like discovering a new way to apply harmonics, or chords, or what-have-you. So there is suddenly a completely new way to express a musical phrase. In my mind, a new application of tapping is as relevant as the application of bending, sliding, or any expressive technique.

Stuff about BTA and Steve Vai

You ended the paragraph by saying that you feel that the artistry of Steve Vai is hidden from you if it exists.

Which is perfectly fine. I'm not going to try and convince you to enjoy his music, but my stance on that is something I've said in this thread beforehand, but hopefully this time it is clearer.

I feel that the emotion you get out of music is a byproduct of yourself far more than the musician playing. So, when you hear Jimmy Page ripping out a bluesy lead, you're feeling emotion less because of Page's communication skills, but because that kind of music is something you get a lot out of, personally.
Under the assumption that emotion comes more from the listener than the musician, we can say that no-one is devoid of artistic merit or emotion as long as at least one person enjoys their music. Their music is as emotional as the people listening to it.

At least, that's how I see it.


This post is basically the crux of my opinions. If you disagree with me here, we are going to have to agree to disagree.

[MadassAlex]

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.

Agree to disagree? Every time a Nevermore album or Galneryus album or an Atheist album or a Vai album ect. is released, I see constant progression. I don't listen to the music you do, so I can't comment on it. But the same way, you do not listen to shred, so I doubt that you are in a position to comment on its progression.

For the record, I think there is misunderstanding on both of our parts here. I can understand people not liking shred. But why condemn it?
Consider this course of events:

1. Patrick and I aggressively destroy each other over music taste. PATRICK ANGUS YOUNG RAPES JIMMI HENDRIX ECT
2. I start a thread with the same general ideas in mind
3. I receive a bunch of responses trying to tell me that shred is less human than other music.

Musical opinions are fine, but trying to explain a stance on that last event baffles me. How can any music be less human than other music?

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 was

It's complete and utter masturbation

I don't see a difference between "masturbation" and "bullshit" in music.

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.

They are playing technical guitar, I believe, because they like it, the same way you like a simpler form of guitar playing. I hate to be completely contradictory but I must disagree with that entire paragraph. Agree to disagree again, I suppose.

I think shred guitar is far from lazy, especially from a songwriting aspect. If you decide to stick around, please explain? I am not giving you attitude, I am genuinely ignorant of what you are saying in terms of songwriting.

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.

A lot of these posts act as if shred guitar lacks something in essence rather than lacking in the ability to please them. Mostly, I've heard of a lot of "shred doesn't connect" and such comments. It would be better I guess, if people phrased their posts better, but to me it sounds a lot like people are trying to say that shred just lacks some ability that is inherent in all other music. So if people would say that "I dislike shred because..." rather than "Shred lacks..." I would be a lot happier! Because then I would know that people were talking about their opinions instead of them trying to say that there is objective truth to music.

Also, I can listen to the "shred lacks emotion" argument that a lot of people love to lay down (I recognise your stance on emotion now) on any forum on the internet. It was very frustrating to start this thread and find that many comments here were no more well-thought-out than the average YouTube comment about Yngwie Malmsteen, especially as this is a forum largely made of music fans.

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.

I agree! But what I disagree with is when people say silly things about a genre to explain why they don't like it, when it is really as simple as them not liking the music. As I referenced before, the YouTube video thing. A lot of people say they dislike shred because they think it lacks emotion. I think that's stupid, because these people are obviously trying to qualify their opinion when they don't need to.
So instead of looking at the music and finding specific, describable things they dislike about it, they tend to ambiguously reference "emotion" and think people will get what they're saying, as if it is a universal term. The better option for them would be to say "I personally dislike this music", rather than trying to say it lacks something.

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.

See my paragraph directly above.

[supersheep]

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.

This makes no sense to me. Why is the musician with more technical ability better than the musician with less if they both write equally good music? I mean, if some objective or subjective scale rates them both the same, why can you say that one is better than the other? Unless you mean 'more technically accomplished' by 'better,' which I guess you might be?
Also, I think this thread might be less acrimonious if all the statements in it that seem objective were read as subjective. I mean, just because the vast majority of people dislike shred because they believe it lacks emotion say that it does, doesn't mean that it actually lacks emotion. It merely means that for those people, it lacks emotion. I'll say that shred is boring and unemotional but this does not make it objective fact. In the same way, I believe that the people saying X or Y about shred are merely trying to convey popular impressions of it which answer your original question.

[Patrick]

(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

[Spluff]

Despite the fact that it is at least as old and a completely different style.

[MadassAlex]

Supersheep:

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.

You can, however, argue the quality of music they make. And a lot of people think Page makes better music than Steve Vai.

And they are wrong.

'Cause it is :B

Heyheyhey, it's perfectly okay to be jealous of superior musicians like Yngwie.

[Caspian]

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.

[Patrick]

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.

[MadassAlex]

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.

f5f5f5f5f5f5f5f5f5f5f5f5f5f5f5f5f5

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.

So Jimmy goes to hell and Vai takes a nap. And more importantly, lives to rock another day.

Steve Vai wins.

Seriously my fucking grandmother plays better rock guitar than Jimmy Page, eat shit.

[Patrick]

Steve Vai overexerted himself. He tore all the muscles in his hand. Draw!

[Caspian]

What? Page is heavily, heavily overrated (as is Zep in general), but despite his sheer overrated-ness he DID write Immigrant Song. Immigrant Song kills grandmothers.

[MadassAlex]

Immigrant Song must be the shittiest note (F#) I've ever had the misfortune of learning of on guitar. I mean, dude, at least pick a song with MULTIPLE NOTES. Black Dog kicked some ass, Whole Lotta Love just took some ass, and Immigrant Song was just ass in and of itself.

But basically Rock 'n' Roll is where it is at, but I may be biased. That is the first song I learned, ever.

[supersheep]

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.

I think this thread was people explaining their reasoning as to why people think it lacks emotion. Personally I find it methodical, monotonous, and joyless. I know this is strange for a person who likes to dance around to synthesizer beats, but that is how it goes I guess.

Also, I guess that you are assuming that better = more technically able? That's not necessarily the case, though. I mean, better could also mean "more able to evoke emotion," which is nothing to do with technical ability (I think they are inversely correlated, but that's me.) I can very easily argue that Jimmy Page is a better musician than Steve Vai - I like his music more. I won't argue with the claim that Steve Vai is more technically accomplished, but I will argue the toss if you say he's better musically. Immigrant Song is a perfect example here, actually. Jimmy Page managed to evoke more music with the one note than Steve Vai does with all of the notes.
Technical ability is pretty objective. You can either do some things or you can't. Musical quality is subjective. You like shred, I like beeperythumpery.

[duallain]

My problem with shred is how much air guitar it makes me play.  Man that shit will fuck your hand up!

More seriously, I have trouble listening to classical and shred because I get all focused on the playing (notes, chords, separating instruments out) that I can't actually enjoy the song.  And maybe that's part of the lack of emotional response for shred.  You're devoting so much brain work to picking up the notes it's hard to see what emotions the composer/guitarist is attempting to convey.  Missing the forest for the trees and all that.

Also, Puppy!
http://www.images-photography-pictures.net/dog-picture-look-what-i-can-do-Phil-Roman-dog.jpg

[MadassAlex]

Supersheep:

Jimmy Page managed to evoke more ASS with one note than Steve Vai can evoke with the billions he plays daily.

Dude, you basically just rephrased what I said. What I said was that the musical merit is debatable, but the skill they have with their instrument isn't. Steve Vai plays the guitar better than Jimmy Page does. Not debatable. You can only debate how well they make music.

Immigrant Song sucks shit.

[Caspian]

immigrant song is TWO notes, fellas.
(this formatting could be interesting)
-------------4------------------4-----------------4------------------4-----
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-2---2-2----2--0-2---2-2---2--0-2---2-2----2--0-2---2-2----------2--

At least that's how I always played it.

[valley_parade]

That's pretty much three notes, dude.

Anyway, who says simplicity sucks?

[Caspian]

That's pretty much three notes, dude.

Anyway, who says simplicity sucks?

well, it's only two notes in that it's an F# and an E.

Also: let it be known that I like simplicity. I'm a huge drone fan. My favourite riff of all time goes D/F# D/G over and over again for 4 or so minutes.

[valley_parade]

Don't have to quote the post above you, dog. *thumbs up*

[MadassAlex]

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.

[Patrick]

I like simplicity too. This here SG in my lap? It's simply the rockingest motherfucking guitar on the face of the planet.

SEE WHAT I DID THERE

[MadassAlex]

Basically, the Gibson SG is the Best Rock Guitar. Strats are okay for blues I guess.

[doombilly]

Guys, the most important thing is Yngwie is fat.

[KickThatBathProf]

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.

Tritones are neat!

[Dimmukane]

Guys I just listened to Satch's new album and his guitar tone still sucks.  But it's definitely more likeable than anything else I've heard out of Vai or Petrucci.

[Patrick]

Basically, the Gibson SG is the Best Guitar.

fix'd

[MadassAlex]

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.

[pwhodges]

Also, Puppy!

So like mine!

http://cassland.org/album/Polly/Yet%20More/slides/PICT7185_DCE.JPG
http://cassland.org/album/Polly/Yet%20More/slides/PICT7131_DCE.JPG

Paul

[valley_parade]

How do you play that thing? I don't even see any strings.

[Patrick]

lol, a 4th guitar topic. GUITAR IS THE ONLY GOOD INSTRUMENT, GUYS

[valley_parade]

WHAT ABOUT SOUSAPHONE?

[Chad K.]

On a related note, my friend actually owns John Petrucci's Mesa Boogie Triaxis and pre-programmed processors, bought off ebay.  He got to meet him after a show.  Apparently he's a good dude.  The Triaxis looks like this -



and, one of 500 Satriani Chromeboys, which looks like this -



And yes, those are two (2) Orange Matamp 4x12s.   

[Loungehound]

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.

"Not very compelling" is exactly how I've described these types of guitarists. Vai is actually pretty impressive (and I mean outside his sheer technical ability) when he's playing for others- I saw him with Whitesnake, of all things, and he made an otherwise dull band quite enjoyable. I've seen him five times over the years, not especially intentionally- and the only time he really sucked was the solo show I saw. I have to agree about the tone. While he's a million times better with his tone than Johnson/Yngwie etc he still basically sounds like ass.

[KickThatBathProf]

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.

Agreed, now just put a 7 and a b6 and then you get amazing.

Or, alternatively, let's have fun with polychords!

Root-3-5 + b3-5-b7 + #4-#6-#8 = Glorious

And don't even get me started on tone rows

[Johnny C]

I should note that I love emotionless music. Kraftwerk are fucking ace.

[RedLion]

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.

[diablo_man]

Diabolus in Musica is another phrase for it.


one thing we should remember here, just because some great songs are simple doesnt mean that only simple songs are great. or that most simple songs are great (seriously a lot are boring as hell, im looking at you punk and grunge). also some really great and timeless songs are complex too.
so lets not all go, "insert shredder here" is bad because simple songs are the best!

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.
"i like to play with my pocket calculator... beep boop doodlyoodly oop!"

[E. Spaceman]

I contest the idea of Kraftwerk being emotionless. Have you ever listened to the awe and naivete that is Neon Lights? The sheer beauty of Ohm Sweet Ohm, a track which was honest to god made me cry.