Quote:
Originally Posted by GuitarBizarre
I disagree. Virtuosity is not a crime. Its an essential part of quite a large amount of music, particularly in the classical and calssically influenced genres, where works by composers and artists such as Rachmaninoff, Lizst, and Paganini are held among the highest regard.
|
Great, but wasn't this thread greatest
ROCK guitarists?
If you like virtuosity then thats fine but it's not really that important in a medium thats primarily based on writing simple catchy memorable songs (Or at least much simpler than classical music) instead of having songs filled with long virtuoso performances & solos. I'm not saying you can't have them but I would imagine for most rock fans that isn't what they want from rock music. Some might , and the artists you posted cover that demand. But lets be honest we're not going to be getting another Beatles or another Clash from these neo classical fret wankers.
Quote:
|
The large backlash against virtuosic stylings didn't come about because of malmsteen and his more popular contemporaries, but because of those imitators of those artists who mistook the techicality as the substance of their works.
|
Personally I think they're as bad as each other but that's just my interpretation so I won't argue with you here.
Quote:
|
Musicians such as paganini and lizst didn't get their status purely on technicality, but if they were releasing music today they'd be shouted down because the DIY ethic of rock seems to be taking offense to the idea of technical skill as a worthwhile tool for expression.
|
I don't take offence to technical skill. I take offence to EXCESSIVE technical skill at the expense of things like songwriting. I'd much rather hear a competent guitarist play a well written song than a virtuoso play an awful one.