Yahoo Groups archive
Thread
2001-06-23 by Peter Duemmler
Brent Mason (does anybody outside of the Country music universe even know this devil?), Larry Carlton, Robben Ford, ... Peter http://www.merlinsound.de ----- Original Message -----
From: <GAmoore@...> To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2001 12:05 PM Subject: [L-OT] guitar gods > I'm a Hendrix man myself, but no mention of Van Halen or Clapton? Pat > Metheny? Al Dimeola?
2001-06-23 by John Matthews
Van Halen as well , and of course Clapton, though both those artists IMHO were true greats in their first 5-6 years, but I'm not too keen on Clapton, for instance once he started playing a strat. His John Mayall and Cream stuff was simply mind blowing though. as for Pat metheny and Al-dimeola, dont know too much about those guys- I have one album by each of those. I prefer Guitar heros who are also great song/riff writers as well. Maybe should give em another chance? Cheers John Groovey Band website mail to : chickenjohn@... http://www.grooveyband.co.uk/ East Kent Morris Minor Club web site or ; john@... http://www.ekmm.co.uk Shake The Snake web site (other band) or ; john@... http://www.shakethesnake.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: <GAmoore@...> To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com> Sent: 23 June 2001 11:05 Subject: [L-OT] guitar gods > I'm a Hendrix man myself, but no mention of Van Halen or Clapton? Pat > Metheny? Al Dimeola? > > >Hey dont forget three of my personal favourite guitarists- as well as Page, > >Schenker (criminally undererrated, I agree, Strangers in the night had a big > >affect on my playing- at one time I knew nearly every lick!), and Garry > >Moore, what about Hendrix, Brian May, and possibly the greatest living rock
> >guitarist today:- > > > >Eric Johnson > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > >
2001-06-23 by David Eager
Dennis Gunn wrote: > At 6:05 AM -0400 6/23/01, GAmoore@... wrote: > >I'm a Hendrix man myself, but no mention of Van Halen or Clapton? Pat > > >Metheny? Al Dimeola? > > > >>Hey dont forget three of my personal favourite guitarists- as well > as Page, > >>Schenker (criminally undererrated, I agree, Strangers in the night > had a big > >>affect on my playing- at one time I knew nearly every lick!), and > Garry > >>Moore, what about Hendrix, Brian May, and possibly the greatest > living rock > >>guitarist today:- > >> > > >Eric Johnson > > Yeah? And what about Adrian Belew, Richard Thompson, Robert Fripp, > Alan Holdsworth, Peter Townshend not to mention Fred Frith... > > BTW I play guitar in a Backing Band for a kind of major artist here > in Japan, actually I am in two of her bands, but because she is very > well known for her own songs to distinguish one band from the other > one does covers and all the guys in it are kind of progressive and > free music freeks and she is actually a certified schitzoid, I mean > like she has been institutionalized and everything so at the last gig > I said well "why don't we do 21st Century Schitziod Man" so I have > been sitting here all day with the album slowing it down and > listening close. I have it all worked out but hey that unison break > before the guitar solo is a real MOTHER!!! Phew!!! I hope I can > pull it off with out embarassing myself... > -- > > > Dennis Gunn > Mightyjohn@... > My personal pantheon would have to have Zappa sitting at the right hand of Hendrix, with Jeff Beck sitting close by. [and Peter Green still rocks my boat too] Dave Eager
2001-06-23 by Murray McDowall
At 05:49 PM 23/06/01 +0000, Per Boysen wrote: >You should definitely do that. At least for Matheney IMHO. He wrote bunches >of instrumental songs in his own style. His early recordings are the ones I >like best, though. He influenced my playing a lot for a while... Thanks god >I did get over that. ;) Back in that period I used two rigs in stereo split >from a chorus pedal together with a real Elka Hammond Leslie cabinet. Crazy! >I hate chorus now and never use it. I saw Pat Metheny play here in Melbourne in 1985 with his band which included Lyle Mays on keys. Pat played some Synclavier Guitar -- his "signiature tone" and a very convincing soprano sax patch amongst other sounds. At the time I read an interview with him where he said he didn't like chorus -- it just sounded out of tune to him. To me, his guitar sound seemed to have some sort of doubling/ADT and -- of course -- reverb. Pat was an impressive player but what I remember most about that night was the incredible stack of keyboards Lyle Mays had and the warm Oberheim horn sounds he used. Regards, Murray
2001-06-23 by Murray McDowall
At 06:17 PM 23/06/01 +0000, Per Boysen wrote: >Did you notice those small keyed fiddles he kept on top of the grand piano? >Before I saw Lyle using them live I had no idea how they did that sound on >the records. The were tuned into some wide chord and had a drone like sound. Missed that , sorry. Last time I heard their stuff was on the soundtrack for "The Falcon and the Snowman" which was repeated again on TV here a while back. Regards, Murray
2001-06-23 by GAmoore@aol.com
I like Pete Townsend as a songwriter - he's great but guitar... nothing special. Different strokes for different folks, but I have never gotten off on Dylan or Zappa - although many consider them geniuses. I have 2,000 cd's but none of those two. No one mentioned Django Reinhart, Charlie Parker, Chet Atkins, Wes Montgomery, or Satriani either! >My personal pantheon would have to have Zappa sitting at the right hand >of Hendrix, with Jeff Beck sitting close by.
2001-06-23 by Peter Duemmler
You mean Charlie Christian, not Parker, don\ufffdt you? ;-) Peter http://www.merlinsound.de > No one mentioned Django Reinhart, Charlie Parker, Chet Atkins, Wes > Montgomery, or Satriani either!
2001-06-23 by Per Boysen
> Från: "John Matthews" <Groovey@...> > as for Pat metheny and Al-dimeola, dont know too much about those guys- I > have one album by each of those. I prefer Guitar heros who are also great > song/riff writers as well. Maybe should give em another chance? > You should definitely do that. At least for Matheney IMHO. He wrote bunches of instrumental songs in his own style. His early recordings are the ones I like best, though. He influenced my playing a lot for a while... Thanks god I did get over that. ;) Back in that period I used two rigs in stereo split from a chorus pedal together with a real Elka Hammond Leslie cabinet. Crazy! I hate chorus now and never use it. per [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2001-06-23 by Per Boysen
> Från: Murray McDowall <murraymc@...> > At the time I read an interview with him where he said he didn't > like chorus -- it just sounded out of tune to him. To me, his guitar sound > seemed to have some sort of doubling/ADT and -- of course -- reverb. > > Yes, you're right. Even at the early days he did not use chorus effect, > although it kind of sounded that way. I was told he simply split his guitar > signal into two lines adding a slightly of pitch digital delay to both of them > before the two amps (Peavey combos when I saw him in Kopenhagen 1981). And > lots of reverb of course. > > > Pat > was an impressive player but what I remember most about that night was the > incredible stack of keyboards Lyle Mays had and the warm Oberheim horn > sounds he used. Did you notice those small keyed fiddles he kept on top of the grand piano? Before I saw Lyle using them live I had no idea how they did that sound on the records. The were tuned into some wide chord and had a drone like sound. Regards Per Boysen [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2001-06-23 by litepipe
Peter Duemmler wrote:
> Brent Mason (does anybody outside of the Country music universe even know
this devil?)
Yes, he's a great guitarist!!
Speaking of bending strings and great vibrato.... I saw B.B. King about
two months ago. I must say it was quite impressive. (To say the least). He
came out and played for two hours straight and he's like what 76? I was
amazed at how fluid his playing was. He has such smooth vibrato. When he
bend strings he seems to squeeze the notes out so effortlessly. I get this
vibe from a lot of guitarists that seem to think B.B. is sub par or
something just because he's not flashy. There really aren't that many guitar
players that can express themselves as clearly as B.B. does. And with such
finnesse and grace.
I sat there watching him thinking about how some guitarists learn every
note from albums and only learn the notes. They never really *play* the
notes. They just know the movements and say hey this is sooooo easy because
it's just a pentatonic scale. To someday be at that place where you can play
exactly what you feel (Not think). Is there anything more pure than that?
There are many guitar players that do this in all styles of music. B.B. is
not the only one. I'm just saying as a guitar player my mouth dropped when I
saw him. I came home, looked at my Strat and said we gotta' have a talk:))
--Roger2001-06-23 by John Matthews
thoughts from the keyboard of litepipe ;- "When he > bend strings he seems to squeeze the notes out so effortlessly. I get this > vibe from a lot of guitarists that seem to think B.B. is sub par or > something just because he's not flashy." that to me is what is so magical about the guitar- the personal expression that is possible. The favourite players I mentioned all definitely have that. The guitar to me is probably the closest instrument in terms of expression you can get to the human voice, and, incidentally, most of my favourite guitar players are also good singers as well. The rest maybe are frustrated/not confident singers?????? Yes BB king is fantastic. the abillity to say it all with one bent note with vibrato. and a great blues singer as well... Sad to hear that John Lee died recently, ........ It may be a cliche, but the players I admire the most are the ones who really make the guitar "sing". thats what I strive for in my lead playing as well. Cheers John Groovey Band website mail to : chickenjohn@... http://www.grooveyband.co.uk/ East Kent Morris Minor Club web site or ; john@... http://www.ekmm.co.uk Shake The Snake web site (other band) or ; john@... http://www.shakethesnake.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: litepipe <litepipe@...> To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com> Sent: 23 June 2001 22:23 Subject: Re: [L-OT] guitar gods > > Peter Duemmler wrote: > > Brent Mason (does anybody outside of the Country music universe even know > this devil?) > > Yes, he's a great guitarist!! > Speaking of bending strings and great vibrato.... I saw B.B. King about > two months ago. I must say it was quite impressive. (To say the least). He > came out and played for two hours straight and he's like what 76? I was > amazed at how fluid his playing was. He has such smooth vibrato. When he > bend strings he seems to squeeze the notes out so effortlessly. I get this > vibe from a lot of guitarists that seem to think B.B. is sub par or > something just because he's not flashy. There really aren't that many guitar > players that can express themselves as clearly as B.B. does. And with such > finnesse and grace. > I sat there watching him thinking about how some guitarists learn every > note from albums and only learn the notes. They never really *play* the > notes. They just know the movements and say hey this is sooooo easy because > it's just a pentatonic scale. To someday be at that place where you can play > exactly what you feel (Not think). Is there anything more pure than that? > There are many guitar players that do this in all styles of music. B.B. is > not the only one. I'm just saying as a guitar player my mouth dropped when I
> saw him. I came home, looked at my Strat and said we gotta' have a talk:)) > --Roger > > > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > >
2001-06-24 by Dennis Gunn
At 1:10 PM -0400 6/23/01, GAmoore@... wrote:
>I like Pete Townsend as a songwriter - he's great but guitar... nothing
>special.
To be a rock guitar God is not just a matter of moving your fingers
fast it's *what* you play, when you play it, and the attitude you
play it with, and on those criteria alone Pete rules. But even on a
technical level I think if you take the time to check out some of the
interlocking rhythms and riffs he came up with you might revise your
opinion. If you really get into playing them as he played them you
see they are a lot more tricky than they seem. The rhythm work he
did in the 60s and 70s was quite unique at the time and has had a
massive influence on everything that came after. Jimi Hendrix
claimed Pete Townshend as an influence. When their record company
sent the master for the single "I can see for miles" to the States
the first time the mastering company sent it back because they
thought there was a technical problem on it, they had never heard a
record with all that feed back, they didn't realize it was
intentional. Nothing special? pffff
>No one mentioned Django Reinhart, Charlie Parker, Chet Atkins, Wes
>Montgomery, or Satriani either!
>
The original poster said "rock" guitarist. The only one of these
guys that would qualify would be Satriani who is an alright player
but as far as putting across the emotion falls a little short. Deep
Purple did a reunion tour a couple of years ago and apparently Richie
Blackmore (how did we all forget him?) was such a plain old asshole
that the other guys decided they just couldn't stand it anymore half
way through the tour and they tried to find someone else to play
guitar so they could fulfill their commitments Satriani got the job.
But, although he could probably play circles around Blackmore
technically, in the end it turned out he just did not have the "umph"
to fill Blackmore's shoes. Oh well. BTW I have heard stories of
Blackmore's legendary abrasiveness from various sources including a
personal acquaintance who was his sometimes guitar tech.
--
Dennis Gunn
Mightyjohn@...
check out MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head"
info at
http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html2001-06-24 by GAmoore@aol.com
.>Deep >Purple did a reunion tour a couple of years ago and apparently Richie They just played in India recently -although I don't know who was guitar. >Blackmore (how did we all forget him?) was such a plain old asshole >that the other guys decided they just couldn't stand it anymore half >way through the tour and they tried to find someone else to play >guitar so they could fulfill their commitments Satriani got the job. >But, although he could probably play circles around Blackmore >technically, in the end it turned out he just did not have the "umph" >to fill Blackmore's shoes. Blackmore had a certain finesse. Thats why I take Hendrix over Van Halen. Van Halen is more spectacular but there is less emotion - its glitz but Hendrix was so deep inside and his playing reflected that. >Oh well. BTW I have heard stories of >Blackmore's legendary abrasiveness from various sources including a >personal acquaintance who was his sometimes guitar tech. Well, do tell! Don't tease us. It can't be much worse than Jimmy Page using whips on girls.
2001-06-24 by Dennis Gunn
At 12:19 AM +0100 6/24/01, John Matthews wrote:
>
>that to me is what is so magical about the guitar- the personal expression
>that is possible. The favourite players I mentioned all definitely have
>that. The guitar to me is probably the closest instrument in terms of
>expression you can get to the human voice, and, incidentally, most of my
>favourite guitar players are also good singers as well. The rest maybe are
>frustrated/not confident singers??????
It is the defining instrument of the rock ensemble and is very
flexible for the kind of rhythm and soloing expression required in
that context, but as far as simple free expressiveness goes I think a
violin or sax could eat it alive. Problem is its not very easy to
make a Rock power trio with violin bass and drums or sax bass and
drums that could do convincing Zepplin covers.
Somebody (a rather insecure individual actually) took issue with my
saying that a guitar is a more rocking instrument than a keyboard
once but a simple look at the last 45 years of Rock history should
make the statement about as controversial as the likelyhood of a
sunrise tomorrow. Count and compare the number of guitar-drum-bass
trios that made it big as compared to the number of key-drum-bass
trios that made it big and then tell me otherwise.
This is not a slam on keyboardists who are IMHO as a group more
proficient musicians than guitarists on the average. It is more like
simply physics and the requirements of the genre.
--
Dennis Gunn
Mightyjohn@...
check out MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head"
info at
http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html2001-06-24 by cas@s.netic.de
Hi all. I'm not a guitar player (I'm a singer/ keyboard player), but I am a guitar fan, and there is one guy missing from this list who is IMHO one of the most criminally underrated / underestimated / underrespected musicians of the late 20 th century: Prince. Now before I get booed off the stage, consider this: Many of the guitarists mentioned in this thread (Clapton, Townsend, Jeff Beck) and those not mentioned (Santana, Steve Vai) have all stated that they are all fans of Prince's guitar playing skill. Many of you have never seen him in concert (probably), but he absolutely rips, on guitar AND bass AND keyboards AND drums. He has what many of today's (and yesterday's) guitarists are lacking: soul. He's got serious skills, and is STILL one of the only musician who has been able to successfully stradle the rock and R&B worlds. Say what you want to about his songs (I think most of the stuff he did after the Gold Experience pretty much sucked), but you can't deny his skill as a guitarist. If you don't belive me, you gotta check out the Millenium concert he did in Minneapolis on New Years Eve 2000, with special guests Lenny Kravitz and Santana. Neat stuff. My 2 Charles Simmons Stuttgart, Germany
2001-06-24 by yoonchi@chello.nl
--- In logic-ot@y..., GAmoore@a... wrote: > .>Deep > >Purple did a reunion tour a couple of years ago and apparently Richie > > They just played in India recently -although I don't know who was guitar. > I thought this was Steve Morse. Steve Morse joined the band when they kicked Richie out. > >Oh well. BTW I have heard stories of > >Blackmore's legendary abrasiveness from various sources including a > >personal acquaintance who was his sometimes guitar tech. > > Well, do tell! Don't tease us. It can't be much worse than Jimmy Page > using whips on girls. Really? I'd like to hear more about this, :-). Btw, I heard a couple of rumors about Led Zeppelin ripping of some people; the song "Whole lota love" was a song by Willy Dixon they just changed a bit. They settled in court about the copyrights. Jimmy Page is a great guitar player, but Hendrix will always be number 1 for me, as a rock guitar player. Someone who hasn't been mentioned here is Keith Richards. Most people consider him a lousy drunk and lousy player. I used to think this guy can't play. That's until I saw the movie "Hail, hail rock n roll", a documentary of Chuck Berry. I then saw how well Keith can put his soul into playing on a guitar. It's like this with these great guitar players: you hear 3 to four notes and you know who is playing. Keith Richards has that, Jimmy Hendrix has that, Eddie van Halen has that and Steve Vay. Yoonchi.
2001-06-24 by John Matthews
Prince, yes absolutely, I've got lots of his records and I have a huge amount of respect for him as an artist formerly now not known as Sqiuggle! :-) But seriously, Prince is cool by me, great player, singer, songwriter. Keef Richards- well, the Stones are one of my all time fave bands- what a riffmeister! Led Zep did "rip off" a few blues artists, but if you look back at the history of the blues, they were doing that a long time before Led Zep, its a folk music tradirion after all. Maybe Zeps worst crime is they made a lot of money out of it. Still Zep are my no1 fave band. as for sax/violin being more expressive than electric guitar- you may have a point, but that would probably depend on the particular players, and the listeners taste. May I really throw the cat among the pidgeons with a few really controversial up to date names that I think changed the sound of rock guitar over the last 10-15 years:- The Edge (U2), Kurt Cobain, Tom Morello (Rage against the machine), John Frusciante (Red Hot Chilli peppers). These are what I would call "attitude" players rather than blistering soloists, but all four of em are guitar gods in their own right. flame away, cause I love the 90's music as well! Cheers John Groovey Band website mail to : chickenjohn@... http://www.grooveyband.co.uk/ East Kent Morris Minor Club web site or ; john@... http://www.ekmm.co.uk Shake The Snake web site (other band) or ; john@... http://www.shakethesnake.co.uk ----- Original Message -----
From: <cas@...> To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com> Sent: 24 June 2001 09:00 Subject: Re: [L-OT] guitar gods > Hi all. > > I'm not a guitar player (I'm a singer/ keyboard player), but I am a > guitar fan, and there is one guy missing from this list who is > IMHO one of the most criminally underrated / underestimated / > underrespected musicians of the late 20 th century: Prince. > > Now before I get booed off the stage, consider this: Many of the > guitarists mentioned in this thread (Clapton, Townsend, Jeff > Beck) and those not mentioned (Santana, Steve Vai) have all > stated that they are all fans of Prince's guitar playing skill. Many > of you have never seen him in concert (probably), but he > absolutely rips, on guitar AND bass AND keyboards AND drums. > He has what many of today's (and yesterday's) guitarists are > lacking: soul. He's got serious skills, and is STILL one of the > only musician who has been able to successfully stradle the > rock and R&B worlds. > > Say what you want to about his songs (I think most of the stuff he > did after the Gold Experience pretty much sucked), but you can't > deny his skill as a guitarist. If you don't belive me, you gotta > check out the Millenium concert he did in Minneapolis on New > Years Eve 2000, with special guests Lenny Kravitz and Santana. > Neat stuff. > > My 2 > > Charles Simmons > Stuttgart, Germany > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > >
2001-06-24 by Sascha Franck
While we are at it: I hate those hyped Mr. Speedfingers. Thanks god the era
of Mike Varney and Shrapnel records is over. I can't believe how many kids
there were following the spirits of Yngwie Malmsteen and the likes a few
years ago. Btw, I once say Yngwie Malmsteen live (no, I didn't pay a penny
for it! Was at Frankfurt/Musikmesse) and he was like one of the most
disgusting persons I ever "met" (I've been hanging out backstage so I had an
even better impression) and his music was just the same.
What I wonder about is that almost all of the mentioned "gods/heroes" are
like wellknown for mostly their soloing. What you hear on records 95% of all
the time is rhythm playing though - or let me better say accompanying.
IMO the folks usually doing the background stuff are way underrated. Just to
drop a few names that roughly fit into that category:: Paul Jackson Jr. (pop
guitar master), Jimmy Nolen (James Brown guitar player), Neil Rodgers
(Chic... now that guy has the funk!), Robert Fripp ("Discipline" of King
Crimson with him, Belew, Levin, Bruford has got to be one of my alltime
favourites), Joe Pass (the duets with Ella Fitzgerald IMO are like the best
examples how jazz standards can be interpreted without any wasted note),
Malcolm Young (still hard to find a tighter rhythm section for straight 1/8
beat stuff than AC/DC), WahWah Watson (I love the stuff he played for Herbie
Hancock).
I find it somewhat amazing how guitarists are allways practising licks and
speed patterns without ever taking care about the basics of accompaning a
tune. Almost all of the jobs I am asked for are dealing with ryhthm guitars,
knowing some tunes and chords. Additional soloing allways only happens to be
the icing on the cake.
Sascha2001-06-24 by David Eager
I have seen Prince, Pete Townshend, BB King, Santana, Buddy Guy all live on stage, Prince is definitely right up there with Buddy Guy as the best from that bunch. oink cas@... wrote:
> Hi all. > > I'm not a guitar player (I'm a singer/ keyboard player), but I am a > guitar fan, and there is one guy missing from this list who is > IMHO one of the most criminally underrated / underestimated / > underrespected musicians of the late 20 th century: Prince. > > Now before I get booed off the stage, consider this: Many of the > guitarists mentioned in this thread (Clapton, Townsend, Jeff > Beck) and those not mentioned (Santana, Steve Vai) have all > stated that they are all fans of Prince's guitar playing skill. Many > of you have never seen him in concert (probably), but he > absolutely rips, on guitar AND bass AND keyboards AND drums. > He has what many of today's (and yesterday's) guitarists are > lacking: soul. He's got serious skills, and is STILL one of the > only musician who has been able to successfully stradle the > rock and R&B worlds. > > Say what you want to about his songs (I think most of the stuff he > did after the Gold Experience pretty much sucked), but you can't > deny his skill as a guitarist. If you don't belive me, you gotta > check out the Millenium concert he did in Minneapolis on New > Years Eve 2000, with special guests Lenny Kravitz and Santana. > Neat stuff. > > My 2 > > Charles Simmons > Stuttgart, Germany > > >
2001-06-24 by Dennis Gunn
At 9:13 AM +0100 6/24/01, John Matthews wrote:
>
>May I really throw the cat among the pidgeons with a few really
>controversial up to date names that I think changed the sound of rock guitar
>over the last 10-15 years:-
>
>The Edge (U2), Kurt Cobain, Tom Morello (Rage against the machine), John
>Frusciante (Red Hot Chilli peppers).
>
>These are what I would call "attitude" players rather than blistering
>soloists, but all four of em are guitar gods in their own right.
I would not take issue with any of these guys belonging up there.
Prince too. Also I don't see how Tom Morello could escape the
"blistering soloist" label. The guy has put some pretty blistering
bits on the 'Rage' albums. Knocked me out the first time I heard
it. One thing I never could swallow about that band though was the
singer. He just came off as whiny and impotent to me. He seemed
forever wanting to say something witty and cutting but simply lacking
the tools to form the statement. He just came off like a nervous
chihuahua shitting itself while barking at a parking attendant from a
fat lady's shoulder bag.
As for the specifics of Richie Blackmore depravities, sorry I can't
cite incidents. It's just what several music writers who had the
misfortune to interview him and his band members said. When my
friend who did the guitar work for him told me what asshole he was I
asked him for specifics as well but all he really said was that he
figured "David Lynch used him as the model for 'Bob' in Twin Peaks".
Haven't ever heard of Jimmy Page's flagilation fetish before either.
I did read a book by Led Zepplin's roadie that had some pretty good
scenes. John Bonham apparently had a thing for shitting in the
purses and shoes of whichever groupie Jimmy happened to be doing. Or
there was another scene where they invited a roadie to sit in on bass
at a stadium gig then gave him a solo and walked off the stage
leaving the poor sucker out there facing 10.000 fans valiantly trying
to play a solo and keep up a groove till they came back which they
never did until he finally just gave up after ten minutes of exposure
to life threatening levels of humiliation.
--
Dennis Gunn
Mightyjohn@...
check out MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head"
info at
http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html2001-06-24 by Dennis Gunn
At 12:00 PM +0200 6/24/01, Sascha Franck wrote:
>Btw, I once say Yngwie Malmsteen live (no, I didn't pay a penny
>for it! Was at Frankfurt/Musikmesse) and he was like one of the most
>disgusting persons I ever "met" (I've been hanging out backstage so I had an
>even better impression) and his music was just the same.
He always comes off like a creep in interviews as well.
>What I wonder about is that almost all of the mentioned "gods/heroes" are
>like wellknown for mostly their soloing. What you hear on records 95% of all
>the time is rhythm playing though - or let me better say accompanying.
Seems to me like most of the ones mentioned were in trios so that
does not seem like a very logical conclusion.
>Robert Fripp ("Discipline" of King
>Crimson with him, Belew, Levin, Bruford has got to be one of my alltime
>favourites),
They all solo and play rhythm in about equal proportions in that
band. That line up of King Crimson is probably tied for 1st place
with The Who in my personal list as well. I saw both bands twice
back when I was a twerp and was moved to tears by both.
>
>I find it somewhat amazing how guitarists are allways practising licks and
>speed patterns without ever taking care about the basics of accompaning a
>tune. Almost all of the jobs I am asked for are dealing with ryhthm guitars,
>knowing some tunes and chords. Additional soloing allways only happens to be
>the icing on the cake.
Music is the mating call of the Human. That's why we are always
reflexively trying to outdo each other in the flashiest possible way.
--
Dennis Gunn
Mightyjohn@...
check out MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head"
info at
http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html2001-06-24 by John Matthews
Well, maybe Tom Morello is a blistering soloist- but in a very different way than the "Mike Varney" bunch, who I detest. When I say something like "Hendrix is a guitar god", to me that means as a rhythm player, songwriter, composer of riffs, accompanist, as well as a soloist. Personally, I take some of these groupie stories with a pinch of salt. How much is true and how much legend?? Cheers John Groovey Band website mail to : chickenjohn@... http://www.grooveyband.co.uk/ East Kent Morris Minor Club web site or ; john@... http://www.ekmm.co.uk Shake The Snake web site (other band) or ; john@... http://www.shakethesnake.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: Dennis Gunn <mightyjohn@...> To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com> Sent: 24 June 2001 12:59 Subject: Re: [L-OT] guitar gods > At 9:13 AM +0100 6/24/01, John Matthews wrote: > > > >May I really throw the cat among the pidgeons with a few really > >controversial up to date names that I think changed the sound of rock guitar
> >over the last 10-15 years:- > > > >The Edge (U2), Kurt Cobain, Tom Morello (Rage against the machine), John > >Frusciante (Red Hot Chilli peppers). > > > >These are what I would call "attitude" players rather than blistering > >soloists, but all four of em are guitar gods in their own right. > > > I would not take issue with any of these guys belonging up there. > Prince too. Also I don't see how Tom Morello could escape the > "blistering soloist" label. The guy has put some pretty blistering > bits on the 'Rage' albums. Knocked me out the first time I heard > it. One thing I never could swallow about that band though was the > singer. He just came off as whiny and impotent to me. He seemed > forever wanting to say something witty and cutting but simply lacking > the tools to form the statement. He just came off like a nervous > chihuahua shitting itself while barking at a parking attendant from a > fat lady's shoulder bag. > > > As for the specifics of Richie Blackmore depravities, sorry I can't > cite incidents. It's just what several music writers who had the > misfortune to interview him and his band members said. When my > friend who did the guitar work for him told me what asshole he was I > asked him for specifics as well but all he really said was that he > figured "David Lynch used him as the model for 'Bob' in Twin Peaks". > > Haven't ever heard of Jimmy Page's flagilation fetish before either. > I did read a book by Led Zepplin's roadie that had some pretty good > scenes. John Bonham apparently had a thing for shitting in the > purses and shoes of whichever groupie Jimmy happened to be doing. Or > there was another scene where they invited a roadie to sit in on bass > at a stadium gig then gave him a solo and walked off the stage > leaving the poor sucker out there facing 10.000 fans valiantly trying > to play a solo and keep up a groove till they came back which they > never did until he finally just gave up after ten minutes of exposure > to life threatening levels of humiliation. > -- > > > Dennis Gunn > Mightyjohn@... > > check out MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head" > info at > http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > >
2001-06-24 by David Eager
John Matthews wrote: > Well, maybe Tom Morello is a blistering soloist- but in a very > different way > than the "Mike Varney" bunch, who I detest. > > When I say something like "Hendrix is a guitar god", to me that means > as a > rhythm player, songwriter, composer of riffs, accompanist, as well as > a > soloist. > > Personally, I take some of these groupie stories with a pinch of salt. > How > much is true and how much legend?? > > Cheers > > John > I can say I would tend to believe the groupie stories. Having had first hand experience of how LZ interacted with people in general back in their heyday. One night in about '71 or '72 they turned up in a club I was playing in. I was invited to join their table, for a drink, by Jimmy Page. I saw their manager in action fronting groups of girls and saying to them 'any of you girls wanna f**k R*****P****?' Just like he was organising a game of tennis or something. He was saying it so anyone within 20 feet could hear quite clearly, not quietly at all. Other people at the table were joining in by pointing to girls and calling out something like 'what about you, luv ?' or words to that effect. I think what they were about was showing they had the power to be more outragous than any other band around, and get away with it. Because the girls weren't shunning them, they were buying it. I have seen many stars of that era in action, and known a few of the groupies, and I can say I never saw anyone behave so boldly in public. [In the green room was a different matter] LZ must have been right chuffed when frank Zappa actually wrote a song about their exploits, which solidified the legend, which I believe, they quite consciously cultivated. [postscript: I don't know about more recent history, but in the 60's and early 70's there was a strong culture of what was called 'monstering' among musicians, Which meant lots of musos were trying to top each other with more outrageous acts of depravity.] oink
2001-06-24 by GAmoore@aol.com
Its a male thing - chicks don't care about solos - they care about emotional content. Why do you think the singer gets all the best babes? >Music is the mating call of the Human. That's why we are always >reflexively trying to outdo each other in the flashiest possible way.
2001-06-25 by Paul Wheeler&Kerry Ritson
Jeff Beck ,Stevie Ray Vaughn,Buddy Guy , Keith richards ,B.B. And Bert . How
can you miss hooker and waters ,Mahavishnu madness ,Hendrix was there first
. Satriani very nice very boring , and I reckon its a sure thing that
someone has to rewrite the book soon . Prince , well thats what they call
Genius even when he just fills time in so he can get the damn thing finished
. We've had some rippers here in australia but you guys wouldn't know about
them . What about that peter [I think ] guy in the first fleetwood
,albatross was a good inst.,Speed usually kills .
Cheers Punters2001-06-25 by David Eager
Paul Wheeler&Kerry Ritson wrote: > Jeff Beck ,Stevie Ray Vaughn,Buddy Guy , Keith richards ,B.B. And Bert > . How > can you miss hooker and waters ,Mahavishnu madness ,Hendrix was there > first > . Satriani very nice very boring , and I reckon its a sure thing that > someone has to rewrite the book soon . Prince , well thats what they > call > Genius even when he just fills time in so he can get the damn thing > finished > . We've had some rippers here in australia but you guys wouldn't know > about > them . What about that peter [I think ] guy in the first fleetwood > ,albatross was a good inst.,Speed usually kills . > Cheers Punters > > > Peter Green ... yes. And on the Aussie side, I still put Lobby LLoyde up there. Dave Eager
2001-06-25 by Dennis Gunn
At 5:24 PM -0400 6/24/01, GAmoore@... wrote:
> >Music is the mating call of the Human. That's why we are always
> >reflexively trying to outdo each other in the flashiest possible way.
>Its a male thing - chicks don't care about solos - they care about
>emotional content. Why do you think the singer gets all the best babes?
Yes and no. It is the reality that the chicks don't care as much for
the long screaming wank but really musical stuff does have the
desired effect. Also for humans just like any other animal the
mating competition is intended to impress the other males as much as
it is the females.
Its like with mountain goats. I doubt if the ewes give a shit which
ram smashes in the other ones skull and earns the right to get laid.
The ewe just wants to get laid and is going to regardless of the
outcome, so it's more of a vital interest between the rams which one
gets the big payoff and which just gets the big head ache.
I get the feeling he goal of the kid practicing starts out to be to
develop the ability to make decent music so he can get the chick,
then it becomes the ability beat out all the other guitar players
vying for a spot in the band, then after he does, it's the wish to
shout to the world including the chick "hey look at me, I blew away
all those other guys and I'm the best that's why I'm here". That the
guitar wank becomes longer and longer is just an extension "look at
me, look at me and not the singer, look at me and keep looking at me
a long time".
And even if it does work better to be as a singer it works to be a
guitar player pretty damn well too hence Jimmy page and his whips,
which I doubt if he would get away with if he was simply a grocery
checker.
Me, I'm the singer *and* the guitar player. :-)
And BTW, really, why do you insist on bottom quoting and leave me to
clean up the mess when doing it right to begin with is so fucking
easy?
--
Dennis Gunn
Mightyjohn@...
check out MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head"
info at
http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html2001-06-25 by Dennis Gunn
At 10:17 AM +1000 6/25/01, Paul Wheeler&Kerry Ritson wrote:
>We've had some rippers here in australia but you guys wouldn't know about
>them .
Well, Angus Young rocks and has made a pretty good dent around the world.
--
Dennis Gunn
Mightyjohn@...
check out MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head"
info at
http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html2001-06-25 by Wilson Zorn
I know by now someone's said this but I can't restrain - what does making it big have to do with how "rocking" something is? As to guitar being more intrinsically rocking than keyboards - I think that depends on your definiton of what rocking means. In the more conventional rock genre definition, I think by that very definition it will be. But on the other hand I would personally find something like a Chemical Brothers piece or specifically Schooly D's "PSK - What Does it Mean?" or many Public Enemy songs as rocking as anything by the Who or Kinks or Sex Pistols. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis Gunn" <mightyjohn@...> To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2001 7:03 PM Subject: Re: [L-OT] guitar gods > At 12:19 AM +0100 6/24/01, John Matthews wrote: > > > >that to me is what is so magical about the guitar- the personal expression > >that is possible. The favourite players I mentioned all definitely have > >that. The guitar to me is probably the closest instrument in terms of > >expression you can get to the human voice, and, incidentally, most of my > >favourite guitar players are also good singers as well. The rest maybe are
> >frustrated/not confident singers?????? > > It is the defining instrument of the rock ensemble and is very > flexible for the kind of rhythm and soloing expression required in > that context, but as far as simple free expressiveness goes I think a > violin or sax could eat it alive. Problem is its not very easy to > make a Rock power trio with violin bass and drums or sax bass and > drums that could do convincing Zepplin covers. > > Somebody (a rather insecure individual actually) took issue with my > saying that a guitar is a more rocking instrument than a keyboard > once but a simple look at the last 45 years of Rock history should > make the statement about as controversial as the likelyhood of a > sunrise tomorrow. Count and compare the number of guitar-drum-bass > trios that made it big as compared to the number of key-drum-bass > trios that made it big and then tell me otherwise. > > This is not a slam on keyboardists who are IMHO as a group more > proficient musicians than guitarists on the average. It is more like > simply physics and the requirements of the genre. > -- > > > Dennis Gunn > Mightyjohn@... > > check out MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head" > info at > http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > >
2001-06-25 by Wilson Zorn
One other I'd add in the style/attitude column rather than technical flexibility/variety is Lou Reed - particularly some of the VU stuff and even some of his '80s playing, just the vibe/manner he holds sometimes and his expressiveness which seems to say what he wants rather deeply. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Wheeler&Kerry Ritson" <hilltop@...> To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 5:17 PM Subject: Re: Re: [L-OT] guitar gods > Jeff Beck ,Stevie Ray Vaughn,Buddy Guy , Keith richards ,B.B. And Bert . How > can you miss hooker and waters ,Mahavishnu madness ,Hendrix was there first > . Satriani very nice very boring , and I reckon its a sure thing that > someone has to rewrite the book soon . Prince , well thats what they call > Genius even when he just fills time in so he can get the damn thing finished > . We've had some rippers here in australia but you guys wouldn't know about
> them . What about that peter [I think ] guy in the first fleetwood > ,albatross was a good inst.,Speed usually kills . > Cheers Punters > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > >
2001-06-25 by Wilson Zorn
Hmmm, I think that the whole virtuoso machismo "I'm-better-than-you" mentality is what has turned me off to a lot of mainstream guitarists, particularly the flashy ones. Since I don't intend to reproduce, maybe that's why given this line of thought... How about Johnny Ramone!? ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis Gunn" <mightyjohn@...> To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 6:14 PM Subject: Re: Re: [L-OT] guitar gods > At 5:24 PM -0400 6/24/01, GAmoore@... wrote: > > >Music is the mating call of the Human. That's why we are always > > >reflexively trying to outdo each other in the flashiest possible way. > > >Its a male thing - chicks don't care about solos - they care about > >emotional content. Why do you think the singer gets all the best babes? > > Yes and no. It is the reality that the chicks don't care as much for > the long screaming wank but really musical stuff does have the > desired effect. Also for humans just like any other animal the > mating competition is intended to impress the other males as much as > it is the females. > > Its like with mountain goats. I doubt if the ewes give a shit which > ram smashes in the other ones skull and earns the right to get laid. > The ewe just wants to get laid and is going to regardless of the > outcome, so it's more of a vital interest between the rams which one > gets the big payoff and which just gets the big head ache. > > I get the feeling he goal of the kid practicing starts out to be to > develop the ability to make decent music so he can get the chick, > then it becomes the ability beat out all the other guitar players > vying for a spot in the band, then after he does, it's the wish to > shout to the world including the chick "hey look at me, I blew away > all those other guys and I'm the best that's why I'm here". That the > guitar wank becomes longer and longer is just an extension "look at > me, look at me and not the singer, look at me and keep looking at me > a long time". > > And even if it does work better to be as a singer it works to be a > guitar player pretty damn well too hence Jimmy page and his whips, > which I doubt if he would get away with if he was simply a grocery > checker. > > Me, I'm the singer *and* the guitar player. :-) > > And BTW, really, why do you insist on bottom quoting and leave me to > clean up the mess when doing it right to begin with is so fucking > easy? > -- > > > Dennis Gunn > Mightyjohn@... > > check out MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head" > info at > http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > >
2001-06-25 by Dennis Gunn
At 7:21 PM -0700 6/24/01, Wilson Zorn wrote:
>I know by now someone's said this but I can't restrain - what does making it
>big have to do with how "rocking" something is?
It has quite a lot to do with it actually and BTW it's the other way
around, what rocks becomes popular. But even if you don't agree with
public opinion since there is no other objective measure it has to
serve as a basis to make the observation.
>As to guitar being more intrinsically rocking than keyboards - I think that
>depends on your definiton of what rocking means. In the more conventional
>rock genre definition, I think by that very definition it will be. But on
>the other hand I would personally find something like a Chemical Brothers
>piece or specifically Schooly D's "PSK - What Does it Mean?" or many Public
>Enemy songs as rocking as anything by the Who or Kinks or Sex Pistols.
I suppose it also depends on what your definition of "live
performance" is. Part of what made guitar the perfect rocking weapon
for so long is that it was so easy to learn play a creditable
danceable tune on it. It just is not as easy to do that on
traditional, non-sampling, non-sequenced keyboards. The times they
are a changing. Now people like Public Enemy can do it even more
easily and sell millions just by pushing one key on a keyboard and
playing... uh, guess what, a sample of a Joe Perry Guitar riff.
>Hmmm, I think that the whole virtuoso machismo "I'm-better-than-you"
>mentality is what has turned me off to a lot of mainstream guitarists,
>particularly the flashy ones.
Everyone is competing in some way however subtle. I always laugh
when artists or media people deny that. Did you ever see John
Lennon's interview with the great unintentional comic Tom Snyder? It
was hilarious. Lennon having nothing left to prove laid it out it in
a very simple self effacing manner "we all get in it for the girls"
which was followed by about 3 minutes of indignant sanctimonious
denials and declarations of high motives from Tom Snyder.
>Since I don't intend to reproduce, maybe
>that's why given this line of thought...
What we're talking about here is getting laid. Do you actually think
of making babies when you have sex? I know *I* don't.
>How about Johnny Ramone!?
Aren't you thinking of Joey?
--
Dennis Gunn
Mightyjohn@...
check out MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head"
info at
http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html2001-06-25 by Wilson Zorn
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis Gunn" <mightyjohn@...> To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 9:13 PM Subject: Re: [L-OT] guitar gods > At 7:21 PM -0700 6/24/01, Wilson Zorn wrote: > >I know by now someone's said this but I can't restrain - what does making it > >big have to do with how "rocking" something is? > > It has quite a lot to do with it actually and BTW it's the other way > around, what rocks becomes popular. But even if you don't agree with > public opinion since there is no other objective measure it has to > serve as a basis to make the observation. > We're talking about art and emotion I thought - I never knew that we measured that other than in subjective terms. > >As to guitar being more intrinsically rocking than keyboards - I think that > >depends on your definiton of what rocking means. In the more conventional > >rock genre definition, I think by that very definition it will be. But on > >the other hand I would personally find something like a Chemical Brothers > >piece or specifically Schooly D's "PSK - What Does it Mean?" or many Public > >Enemy songs as rocking as anything by the Who or Kinks or Sex Pistols. > > I suppose it also depends on what your definition of "live > performance" is. Part of what made guitar the perfect rocking weapon > for so long is that it was so easy to learn play a creditable > danceable tune on it. It just is not as easy to do that on > traditional, non-sampling, non-sequenced keyboards. The times they > are a changing. Now people like Public Enemy can do it even more > easily and sell millions just by pushing one key on a keyboard and > playing... uh, guess what, a sample of a Joe Perry Guitar riff. > If you're talking about pushing one key on a keyboard you don't know much about good sampling artists. Like Coldcut - I don't think that's about pushing one key on a keyboard. And they do it quite well live, combining turntables, samples, synths and with flexibility and sometimes rocking appeal. And more often, I would readily admit, dancing appeal. Also, I think all of my examples have done very rocking pieces without using guitar riffs/samples of any kind. > >Hmmm, I think that the whole virtuoso machismo "I'm-better-than-you" > >mentality is what has turned me off to a lot of mainstream guitarists, > >particularly the flashy ones. > > Everyone is competing in some way however subtle. I always laugh > when artists or media people deny that. Did you ever see John > Lennon's interview with the great unintentional comic Tom Snyder? It > was hilarious. Lennon having nothing left to prove laid it out it in > a very simple self effacing manner "we all get in it for the girls" > which was followed by about 3 minutes of indignant sanctimonious > denials and declarations of high motives from Tom Snyder. > I wouldn't necessarily disagree with any of your specific points but to say that I am saying it's the non-subtle stuff that turns me off. However, I'm not really sure everyone is competing depending on how broadly or narrowly you define "compete". > >Since I don't intend to reproduce, maybe > >that's why given this line of thought... > > What we're talking about here is getting laid. Do you actually think > of making babies when you have sex? I know *I* don't. > Yeah but I think the reproductive root desire *may* fuel the more unsubtle competitive aspects - while just getting laid is relatively easy. Purely theoretical; it could also be of course merely that the reproductive root is simply deferred to the more so-called "purely artistic" aspirations of some artists. > > >How about Johnny Ramone!? > > Aren't you thinking of Joey? Why would I think of Joey when talking about guitar? Joey only played guitar for the Ramones very early on, that I know of. As far as I know 99% (if not 100%) of the recorded output on guitar in the Ramones was by Johnny. I've often viewed his work, however completely minimal, as pivotal to modern guitar play (particularly when viewing bands like Sonic Youth and My Bloody Valentine) as Chuck Berry.
> -- > > > Dennis Gunn > Mightyjohn@... > > check out MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head" > info at > http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > >
2001-06-25 by GAmoore@aol.com
Clearly its impossible to define, but the guitar has much more sonic/emotional nuance, a wider range of tones and volume from essentially a single "patch", and the guitar drives a song like nothing else.
>As to guitar being more intrinsically rocking than keyboards - I think that >depends on your definiton of what rocking means. In the more conventional >rock genre definition, I think by that very definition it will be.
2001-06-25 by Dennis Gunn
>
> > >How about Johnny Ramone!?
>>
> > Aren't you thinking of Joey?
>
>Why would I think of Joey when talking about guitar? Joey only played
>guitar for the Ramones very early on, that I know of. As far as I know 99%
>(if not 100%) of the recorded output on guitar in the Ramones was by Johnny.
You're right. I was spacing out. I even met Johnny Ramone by chance
at a bar in Tokyo and talked to him for about a half hour before I
even realized who he was.
--
Dennis Gunn
Mightyjohn@...
check out MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head"
info at
http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html2001-06-25 by Paul Wheeler&Kerry Ritson
> Peter Green ... yes. And on the Aussie side, I still put Lobby LLoyde up
> there.
>
> Dave Eager
Sir Lobby of the Lloyde .. , Mr. Phil Manning , Ian Moss . Lobs was great
I'm pretty sure that he was actually the first punk on the planet . He
didn't thrash or anything like that but the creamy power of that Jaguar he
used to play . Angus has a very crisp way of kicking you in the nuts doesn't
he . Younger brother of George Young rythm player with the easybeats who was
no slouch in that department either [rythm I mean]. Oink oink . dave b's
site is just a lifesaver.
Cheers2001-06-25 by David Eager
Paul Wheeler&Kerry Ritson wrote: > > > > Peter Green ... yes. And on the Aussie side, I still put Lobby > LLoyde up > > there. > > > > Dave Eager > Sir Lobby of the Lloyde .. , Mr. Phil Manning , Ian Moss . Lobs was > great > I'm pretty sure that he was actually the first punk on the planet . He > > didn't thrash or anything like that but the creamy power of that > Jaguar he > used to play . Angus has a very crisp way of kicking you in the nuts > doesn't > he . Younger brother of George Young rythm player with the easybeats > who was > no slouch in that department either [rythm I mean]. Oink oink . dave > b's > site is just a lifesaver. > Cheers > > > The single most influential thing that piqued my interest in playing in bands, was seeing a group called 'the purple hearts' live in the mid 60's. They were the true archetypal punk band, and pre-dated MC-5 by a number of years. Lobby was the guitarist. Another truly great aussie guitarist was Billy Green, who disappeared in California somewhere. Anyone know of his whereabouts [he may have switched to sax from what I heard]? Dave Eager yes, Dave B's site is truly a lifesaver, I feel honored to be helping there.
2001-06-25 by Phil Angus
Wilson Zorn wrote: > Hmmm, I think that the whole virtuoso machismo "I'm-better-than-you" > mentality is what has turned me off to a lot of mainstream guitarists, > particularly the flashy ones. Since I don't intend to reproduce, maybe > that's why given this line o f thought... This is wrong. Most of what you are talking about is invented by the press or by people who just go around saying daft things like 'Richie Blackmoore is better than Eddie Van Halen' etc etc, and most of the time they don't know what they are talking about. I know there are one or two exceptions, but of course you can apply that to sportsmen, politicians, actors...anyone. I have spoken to three famous guitarists (back stage party after a Roger Waters concert) and all of them had nothing but praise for their fellow musicians, and all three of them were raving about Waters. They were (not wanting to names drop, but then again who cares) Mike Rutherford, Jeff Beck and Snowy White. Oh Mike Batt was there as well to name but one of many familiar faces (Fish, yes he was there and in fact so were the rest of Marillion). They all talked like over enthusiastic fans about other people in general and what they were all doing, who was working with who etc etc. Also, One man's lack of detection of emotional content in someone like Satriani's playing does not mean he isn't an emotional player. It means the listener has not detected any, and in fact a lot goes over their head. You don't need to play slow to be emotional. I can hear lots of emotion in his playing, as well as Steve Vai. Gary Moore is probably one of the most emotional players of all time, along with Dave Gilmour, but they are both totally different. Moore can sound emotional whether at lightening speed or slow blues. In fact it is often a challange for him to restrain himself. One of the simplest chord sequences and riffs of all time to the ear is Alright Now (Paul Kossof, Free). Most (in fact everyone I've ever heard in a pub/club) plays it wrong. Most of the time they are simply playing the wrong notes or missing some vital ones, and the rest of the time they are missing the emotion or phrasing. Joe Punter would never detect it though. Now, let me just get down from my pedastal. Alright now, baby it's a alright now......
2001-06-25 by Wilson Zorn
Well many of the people you've named (but not all) I wouldn't group as machismo/flashy so don't assume I'm lumping in fast players or everyone you've named. As you say, the media does minimally exacerbate it and perhaps they do invent it more often than not. Maybe. But it's interesting to me your difference in emphasis on perspective from GAmoore (I think? - sorry if I'm wrong) who seems to think that everybody's competing. ----- Original Message ----- From: Phil Angus <phil.angus@...> To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 2:58 PM Subject: RE: Re: [L-OT] guitar gods > Wilson Zorn wrote: > > > Hmmm, I think that the whole virtuoso machismo "I'm-better-than-you" > > mentality is what has turned me off to a lot of mainstream guitarists, > > particularly the flashy ones. Since I don't intend to reproduce, maybe > > that's why given this line o f thought... > > This is wrong. Most of what you are talking about is invented by the press > or by people who just go around saying daft things like 'Richie Blackmoore > is better than Eddie Van Halen' etc etc, and most of the time they don't > know what they are talking about. I know there are one or two exceptions, > but of course you can apply that to sportsmen, politicians, actors...anyone. > > I have spoken to three famous guitarists (back stage party after a Roger > Waters concert) and all of them had nothing but praise for their fellow > musicians, and all three of them were raving about Waters. They were (not > wanting to names drop, but then again who cares) Mike Rutherford, Jeff Beck > and Snowy White. Oh Mike Batt was there as well to name but one of many > familiar faces (Fish, yes he was there and in fact so were the rest of > Marillion). They all talked like over enthusiastic fans about other people > in general and what they were all doing, who was working with who etc etc. > > Also, One man's lack of detection of emotional content in someone like > Satriani's playing does not mean he isn't an emotional player. It means the > listener has not detected any, and in fact a lot goes over their head. You > don't need to play slow to be emotional. I can hear lots of emotion in his > playing, as well as Steve Vai. Gary Moore is probably one of the most > emotional players of all time, along with Dave Gilmour, but they are both > totally different. Moore can sound emotional whether at lightening speed or > slow blues. In fact it is often a challange for him to restrain himself. > > One of the simplest chord sequences and riffs of all time to the ear is > Alright Now (Paul Kossof, Free). Most (in fact everyone I've ever heard in a > pub/club) plays it wrong. Most of the time they are simply playing the wrong > notes or missing some vital ones, and the rest of the time they are missing > the emotion or phrasing. Joe Punter would never detect it though. > > Now, let me just get down from my pedastal. Alright now, baby it's a alright
> now...... > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > >
2001-06-25 by Phil Angus
John Matthews said: > May I really throw the cat among the pidgeons with a few really > controversial up to date names that I think changed the sound of rock guitar > over the last 10-15 years:- > The Edge (U2), Kurt Cobain, Tom Morello (Rage against the machine), John > Frusciante (Red Hot Chilli peppers). I'm glad you mentioned Tom Morello. I mentioned him last week (couldn't remember his name). He was great live and really knocked me out when I saw him. Really racous and loud but in a really under control and organised way. He was dancing all over the stage changing effects and adjust echos whilst playing. Really impressive. The Edge. Lovely guitarist. A real thinker. He obviously works his socks off during his days off and then when he's in the studio, he records all his great ideas with absolutely no effort. The best sounding single chord strike ever is by him on that track of The Fly. You know, that one with the huge white Gibson semi acoustic. Sorry though. I simply cannot take Prince seriously. To me he is a total pretencious twat! Yes he's talented and has a twiddley left hand, but the rest of his attitude just turns me right off. He is one of those people who is so far up his own backside that you have to assume it's because he's talented! Maybe one day. After all, I hated Bowie in the 70s and love his 70s stuff now. When he first appeared it was all, oh Prince...the new Hendrix and all that crap. All I ever heard was some over produced solos that were a cross between Michael Schenker and Back to Alright Now. One of the greatest solos ever put to vinal. Simple (though not to play accurately)and memorable. My top ten solos (well of course these may change next week!). 1/ James Patrick Page - Stairway To Heaven 2/ For The Love Of God - Steve Vai. Proof that you can play lightening speed, totally relaxed and with emotion. 3/ Hendrix - Live Voodoo Chile 4/ Michael Schenker - RockBottom (Strangers In The Night) 5/ Dave Gilmour - The Division Bell (wonderful pedal Steel playing, this one is packed with emotion). 6/ Steve Howe - Sound Chaser. Grit your teeth for this one. When I saw them live do this one I desperately wanted him to reproduce this faithfully. He didn't let me down, even to the point of the bit where he just fights off that bit of feedback taking over. 7/ Gary Moore - All Time Low. From Cold Day In Hell 8/ Elliot Randall - Reelin' In The Years - Steely Dan 9/ Eric Bell - The Rocker - Thin Lizzy 10 I'm reserving no 10 for the one I haven't thought of that I should have.
2001-06-26 by GAmoore@aol.com
>But it's interesting to me your difference in emphasis on perspective from >GAmoore (I think? - sorry if I'm wrong) who seems to think that everybody's >competing. Sorry, pal but thats not at all what I said. I weighed in on the early stages of this thread, but this conversation has taken on a life of its own, and become and I've stopped reading them. The quotes you mention did not come from me at all. >But I believe you are referring to me, not GAmoore, and there is no >contradiction Phil's and my point of view at all. Simply because >people compete doesn't mean we badmouth each other or fail to have >admiration for each other. Thanks for fessing up. COMPETITION Regarding competition, John and Paul did not have a wonderful relationship - they were each trying to compete and outdo the other - and the result was the top selling band ever - but when they went their separate ways, their quality went down considerably. SOLOS My favorite is the unnamed jazzy piece after Purple Haze by Hendrix at Woodstock (played in octaves A A C D E (then some slides)). On of my all time favorite guitar players - who no one mentioned at all - is Mick Ronson - who co-produced Bowie's best stuff, had two solo albums and played with Ian Hunter of Mott the Hoople and later produced some John Cougar Mellencamp. The solo on "Once Bitten Twice Shy" is so great!
2001-06-26 by Wilson Zorn
Yup, as stated, sorry GAmoore.
And of course to be clear - competition, very real and strictly defined,
has been responsible for LOTS of great music and I'm by no means denying
that.
----- Original Message -----
From: <GAmoore@...>
To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com>; <wilson.zorn@...>
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 11:57 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [L-OT] guitar gods
> >But it's interesting to me your difference in emphasis on perspective
from
> >GAmoore (I think? - sorry if I'm wrong) who seems to think that
everybody's> >competing. > Sorry, pal but thats not at all what I said. I weighed in on the early > stages of this thread, but this conversation has taken on a life of its > own, and become and I've stopped reading them. The quotes you mention > did not come from me at all. > > >But I believe you are referring to me, not GAmoore, and there is no > >contradiction Phil's and my point of view at all. Simply because > >people compete doesn't mean we badmouth each other or fail to have > >admiration for each other. > > Thanks for fessing up. > > COMPETITION > Regarding competition, John and Paul did not have a wonderful > relationship - they were each trying to compete and outdo the other - and > the result was the top selling band ever - but when they went their > separate ways, their quality went down considerably. > > SOLOS > My favorite is the unnamed jazzy piece after Purple Haze by Hendrix at > Woodstock (played in octaves A A C D E (then some slides)). > > On of my all time favorite guitar players - who no one mentioned at all > - is Mick Ronson - who co-produced Bowie's best stuff, had two solo > albums and played with Ian Hunter of Mott the Hoople and later produced > some John Cougar Mellencamp. The solo on "Once Bitten Twice Shy" is so > great!
2001-06-27 by Dennis Gunn
>Re: [L-OT] guitar gods
>
> > From: Dennis Gunn <mightyjohn@...>
>
> >You see competition as a negative thing. Wrong.
> >
> >Without it we would never get anywhere.
>
> Hogwash...... I've come realize (in my later years :-) that the above
> attitude is actually a dead end street. There are many fine places one can go
> sans a competitive outlook.
Sure, but the top of a given field is not usually one of them.
> Yeah, and what a commercial, slick and shallow world it's become.
> (generally speaking)
As opposed to...?
> From: Kool Musick <koolmusick@...>
> >Guitarists are competitive. They strive to inspire each other and outdo
> >each other. 'To compete' -- to strive consciously or unconsciously for an
> >objective.
>
> To outdo each other...? c'mon Kool man, this reads like a bad movie script.
> The type of competition that's based of ego completely destroys the music
> for me. I play in a guitar quartet, when we're competing we generally
> suck bad, the idea is to play for something bigger than oneself.
>
> Hmmm.. that sounds like a bad movie script too!
>
> howard
You have raised an strong objection but have put forth no logic to
support it. You (and Wilson Zorn as well) basically seem to take
issue with the idea of competition as a productive motivation and as
such of no interest to you and yet you have absolutely nothing to
gain from your objections but the (as of yet un-obtained)
satisfaction of seeing your ideas prevail over mine. In other words
you are taking a position in a debate which you presumably hope to
win, but who's outcome is of no consequence beyond the mutual
amusement we share in pitting our ideas against each other, and yet
the very position you are taking is an attempt to deny your interest
the concept of competition.
Is that irony or what?
At 6:54 AM +0000 6/26/01,Wilson Zorn wrote:
>I don't see Einstein as in competition with
>Newton - or in his case even his peers, at least in terms of seeking a prize
>or seeking something exclusive. Some scientists have been in competition
>with others in that fashion, both in ways I see as good and ways I see as
>bad. Sagan went out of his way to demerit peers and politic ceaselessly, in
>my opinion eroding good science, wasting time, and just plain being a jerk.
>On the other hand, while Gallo may have made many mistakes, his clearly
>competitive spirit has not impaired in my opinion good science and sharing
>of information. And another contemporary scientists, E. O. Wilson, has not
>exhibited a competitive spirit in the scientific pursuits, working closely
>in all sorts of collaborations and sharing research as freely as academia
>permits.
Wrong tack to take. Competition pervades almost every aspect
scientific endeavor. For example if someone wants to use a particle
accelerator or big telescope for something they are working on they
have to compete in order to earn time on the machine. The
competition entails submitting their theories and abstract of the
experiment to a review board who will then compare it to other
competing projects and on the basis of relative merit give it a yes
or no and/or assign it priority.
Even if a scientist somehow completes a paper without ever competing
for funds to do the research, upon publication the paper is submitted
to peer review, AKA "the shoot out" in which scientists with
competing theories attempt to knock it down with their own ideas. It
is an intense competition whose ultimate prize is the right to claim
to posterity to have been the one to have discovered or contributed
to the discovery of a fundamental truth. The process whether you
think it's "good" or not is one of the fundamental building blocks of
modern science and Einstein was very much a participant.
Furthermore competition does not preclude cooperation with your
competitors. It's particularly true in the sciences. It's even true
in sports. As I mentioned earlier I play racquetball and one of the
interesting and more difficult aspects of the sport is the degree of
high speed cooperation it takes to clear the way for your opponent to
take his shot and to keep from hurting each other when you are
hitting a ball 300 kmh inside a 12 X 6 X 6 meter room. Competitors
in all fields often train the very people who end up beating them at
some point and usually they are proud of it. But then I guess pride
is supposed to be bad too.
Anyway this "sad f***er" , because of his destructively competitive
attitude has been asked to put his pathetically unoriginal and
derivative guitar on another misguided soul's album for the next few
days and after that do some sequencing and vocal work for educational
TV so I guess he is finished with this thread.
It's been fun and thanks y'all.
--
Dennis Gunn
Mightyjohn@...
check out MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head"
info at
http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html2001-06-27 by David Eager
Dennis Gunn wrote: > Furthermore competition does not preclude cooperation with your > competitors. Healthy co-operative competition has been an integral part of music since time began. Trading fours is a good example. Dammit, if we're all really honest with ourselves, we're in the business of 'look at me , not them' . Otherwise we'd just hang a plain shingle outside our doors saying 'musician' and wait for whomever think they need us, to knock. And if we got the word there were more musicians than gigs, we'd pack up and take up macrame or something instead.[as if !!] Dave Eager
2001-06-27 by Kool Musick
> > To outdo each other...? c'mon Kool man, this reads like a bad movie > script. > > The type of competition that's based of ego completely destroys the music > > for me. I play in a guitar quartet, when we're competing we generally > > suck bad, the idea is to play for something bigger than oneself. > > > > Hmmm.. that sounds like a bad movie script too! > > > > howard Kool Musick read this and thought it both hilarious and 100% contradictory for he had already clearly and plainly said that the whole point of competition was 'to play for something bigger than one's self'. This given, he therefore thought the most sensible thing to do with the above remark was to say nothing further. But he thanks his fellow competitor Dennis Gunn who has done his best to bring the best out of this rather absurd competition. And then concerning this remark from Wilson Zorn: > >I don't see Einstein as in competition with > >Newton - or in his case even his peers, at least in terms of seeking a prize > >or seeking something exclusive. ... Kool Musick was so gob-smacked upon reading it that he simply could not believe what he was reading. So he had originally also decided to say nothing further. However ....... Albert Einstein's explicit aim - read any biography of the man - was to go one better than Sir Isaac Newton. Einstein was very specific and very clear that he wished to show how and where Newton's theories had failed to explain the evidence and then to demonstrate how and where his own theory of gravitation had succeeded in describing many anomalies such as the advance of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit. Specifically, Einstein wanted to incorporate relativity. Einstein was so determined to outdo Newton that he laboured mightily for over 12 years before he was able to produce 'the general theory of relativity'. This did exactly what Einstein wanted: transcend Newton's theories. It was the same with Einstein's photoelectric theory - and indeed everything else he did. Einstein's very first published paper was about Brownian motion. It was an overt demonstration of something very important: that the molecular theory could explain physical phenomena that other contemporary theories could not. He was being competitive. He was trying to prove that he had the best idea. Having trounced the competition with his rendition of Brownian motion he then submitted a paper about the photoelectric effect. This demonstrated that the molecular theory was SUCH a good theory that he could use it to explain things that no-one else could. He invented 'particles of light'. We now call them photons. And Albert Einstein's photoelectric theory - just like a great guitar or song-writing technique - was so competitive that anyone else who wants to 'explain' light has to copy Einstein's riff. Regarding gravitation, the situation today is that Newton's theories are perfectly adequate for 'most' purposes - but when you want to do 'better' you have to turn to Einstein's. However, many scientists find even Einstein's theories inadequate for explaining the large structure of the universe. So they are struggling to find a 'better' theory. Far from Einstein being an example of someone who was not competing, he was actually very very competitive indeed all his life and was always struggling to find a better explanation than anyone else could. He was a very very nice man, personally, and most self-effacing. But ... still a great competitor and a fountain of good ideas. He did always seem to have better ideas, and whenever Einstein started laying down a riff, everybody else listened. About the only stupid melody he ever laid down was his 'cosmological constant', and even HE admitted that that was a really stupid song. We all write them though, right? Scientists are ALWAYS struggling to find 'a better theory'. If they were not competitive then there simply would be no science and no progress. 'My way is better' is the cry ... 'prove it to me' ... is the counter-cry. Musicians are also always struggling to find a 'better way' to express themselves. If they were not we would still all be playing crumhorns or lutes and there would be no electric guitar. It is because musicians at some point want to say things better than anyone else before them has said anything that new instruments come and go. To strive to excel ... even if one describes it by saying 'all I want to do is be a better musician' or 'I'm not competing against anybody I just want to play well' is to compete. To try to find 'something better' IS to be competitive. Without such an effort one is hardly human. All seems simple enough to me. Yes Dennis. It is ironic. The refusal to accept this account of the human drive to excel is in itself competitive because the refusal is grounded in the desire to have a better explanation. This is to try to win the competition in which the first prize is the satisfaction of having proved that human beings do NOT compete. Funny old world, ain't it??!!! (By the way ... I too apologize for having dragged this over to the other list. I hit reply to a message without looking carefully at where it was going. Sorry again, Phil Angus). This old so-and-so is also finished with this thread. Anyone else who wants it is very welcome to the last word. Kool Musick Keep Musick Kool _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com
2001-06-27 by GAmoore@aol.com
Why don't we drop this competition in music is bad/good thing. Clearly to either extreme its bad, but in mild, indirect doses it spurs on progress in music and science, etc. >Anyway this "sad f***er" , because of his destructively competitive >attitude has been asked to put his pathetically unoriginal and >derivative guitar on another misguided soul's album for the next few >days and after that do some sequencing and vocal work for educational >TV so I guess he is finished with this thread. There are great musicians who can get any sound, and there are those who create entirely new sounds. Both types of people are needed in the world. So both of you are missing the other's point.
2001-06-27 by Murray McDowall
At 07:59 AM 27/06/01 -0700, Kool Musick wrote: >whenever Einstein started laying down a riff, everybody >else listened. About the only stupid melody he ever laid down was his >'cosmological constant', and even HE admitted that that was a really stupid >song. We all write them though, right? I got the idea recently that he actually was onto something with this -- the cosmological constant. I vaguely remember hearing something on a radio science program to the effect that he should not have recanted. I have forgotten the gist of the matter but suspect that it was to do with: a) dark matter b) the expanding universe c) all of the above Perhaps someone else knows the details ... Anyway, thanks for this splendidly off-topic contribution ;-) Regards, Murray
2001-06-27 by Kool Musick
Murray McDowall wrote: >I got the idea recently that he (Einstein) actually was onto something >with this -- >the cosmological constant. I vaguely remember hearing something on a radio >science program to the effect that he should not have recanted. > >I have forgotten the gist of the matter but suspect that it was to do with: >a) dark matter >b) the expanding universe >c) all of the above > >Perhaps someone else knows the details ... This is about the nicest link I have. It's to a one-paragraph summary of Einstein and the cosmological constant. The person who wrote it (Eli Michael) says, very nicely: "His (i.e. Einstein's) error serves as an lesson to all thinkers, that we should never close our minds to new possibilities, even if the thought of the day is that they are impossible" Eli Michael finishes by saying, also very nicely: "The fact that the cosmological constant is still debated today, almost a century after it was introduced by Einstein ... makes one think that it was probably not Einstein's biggest blunder, but perhaps his greatest legacy". http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/blund.html The rest of his site is well worth checking out. Kool Musick Keep Musick Kool _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com
2001-06-27 by Phil Angus
This was all very interesting but did you really need to post it 9 times!! :-)
-----Original Message----- From: Kool Musick [mailto:koolmusick@...] Sent: 27 June 2001 21:22 To: logic-ot@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [L-OT] (Onwards from) Re: guitar gods Murray McDowall wrote: >I got the idea recently that he (Einstein) actually was onto something >with this -- <snip>
2001-06-27 by koolmusick@yahoo.com
--- In logic-ot@y..., "Phil Angus" <phil.angus@b...> wrote: > This was all very interesting > but did you really need to post it 9 times!! I did not post anything 9 times. And nor are 9 posts from me showing on the web site. Kool Musick Keep Musick Kool
2001-06-27 by David Eager
Phil Angus wrote: > This was all very interesting but did you really need to post it 9 > times!! > :-) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kool Musick [mailto:koolmusick@...] Only got that one once here Dave Eager
2001-06-27 by Phil Angus
That's interesting! Anyone else have this message from Kool Musick 9 times?
-----Original Message----- From: koolmusick@... [mailto:koolmusick@...] Sent: 27 June 2001 23:03 To: logic-ot@yahoogroups.com Subject: [L-OT] (Onwards from) Re: guitar gods --- In logic-ot@y..., "Phil Angus" <phil.angus@b...> wrote: > This was all very interesting > but did you really need to post it 9 times!! I did not post anything 9 times. And nor are 9 posts from me showing on the web site. Kool Musick Keep Musick Kool Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
2001-06-27 by Sascha Franck
> That's interesting! Anyone else have this message from Kool Musick 9 times? Not me. Same with the message from betasonic on the LUG, only appeared once even if Joeri was complaining. Sascha
2001-06-28 by Dennis Gunn
At 11:48 AM -0400 6/27/01, GAmoore@... wrote:
>Why don't we drop this competition in music is bad/good thing. Clearly to
>either extreme its bad, but in mild, indirect doses it spurs on progress
>in music and science, etc.
>
>
>>Anyway this "sad f***er" , because of his destructively competitive
>>attitude has been asked to put his pathetically unoriginal and
>>derivative guitar on another misguided soul's album for the next few
>>days and after that do some sequencing and vocal work for educational
>>TV so I guess he is finished with this thread.
>
>There are great musicians who can get any sound, and there are those who
>create entirely new sounds. Both types of people are needed in the world.
>So both of you are missing the other's point.
>
And you are missing my sarcasm but since you have never heard me play
I would expect that. About half of the bands I play in play
improvisational and or experimental music. I am *not* the most
proficient player in (this highly competitive) town but when people
want something *they* think is noisy and weird I am among the ones
they call. The artist whose album I am working on right now is a
Woman named Phew who (like me) was part of the beginnings of the
Punk/Japan Noise movement in the 80's.
By the way I find learning things note for note one of the best
possible ways there is to train your ear and a good ear is absolutely
essential for improvisation and collaboration. So paradoxically if
you want to do something original being good at copying is a very
valuable skill.
--
Dennis Gunn
Mightyjohn@...
check out MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head"
info at
http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html2001-06-28 by Wilson Zorn
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis Gunn" <mightyjohn@...>
To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: [L-OT] guitar gods
> >Re: [L-OT] guitar gods
> >
> > > From: Dennis Gunn <mightyjohn@...>
> >
> > >You see competition as a negative thing. Wrong.
> > >
> > >Without it we would never get anywhere.
> >
> > Hogwash...... I've come realize (in my later years :-) that the above
> > attitude is actually a dead end street. There are many fine places one
can go
> > sans a competitive outlook.
>
> Sure, but the top of a given field is not usually one of them.
>
>
> > Yeah, and what a commercial, slick and shallow world it's become.
> > (generally speaking)
>
> As opposed to...?
ummm, as opposed to not being that way? while I am fairly pessimistic I'd
rather strive for utopia than accept dystopia. I think many reasonable
people believe the world has become more commerical, slick, and shallow.
I'm actually not one of them - I think things have gotten better, in large
part because people are free to compete - but I can intuitively grasp his
point - it's a fairly straight-forward one, one could even say
commonly-held.
>
> > From: Kool Musick <koolmusick@...>
>
> > >Guitarists are competitive. They strive to inspire each other and
outdo
> > >each other. 'To compete' -- to strive consciously or unconsciously for
an
> > >objective.
> >
> > To outdo each other...? c'mon Kool man, this reads like a bad movie
script.
> > The type of competition that's based of ego completely destroys the
music
> > for me. I play in a guitar quartet, when we're competing we generally
> > suck bad, the idea is to play for something bigger than oneself.
> >
> > Hmmm.. that sounds like a bad movie script too!
> >
> > howard
>
>
> You have raised an strong objection but have put forth no logic to
> support it.
I wouldn't say that. I think he used a real-life example which is a form of
logic in support of his argument. Before you nit-pick, you didn't seem to
want to take the time to address some of the logic I employed, including a
dictionary definition and such, instead you chose a single thread of my
argument so I'm not sure you should throw around that sort of "dig". I
don't expect you (or me or Howard) to address everything and create a real
paper on this subject - but as long as people have made some attempt I think
you're being deliberately unfair in attempting to inflict that subtle
insult.
> You (and Wilson Zorn as well) basically seem to take
> issue with the idea of competition as a productive motivation
No, I don't believe I said that. What I said was that NOT EVERYONE COMPETES
when playing music. I went on to say that frequently that sense of
competition is destructive. And I pointed out that it also can be very
productive. Being an avowed capitalist, I actually believe it's quite
productive and important. But it is not for all musicians. Many do not
compete. Many people in many fields do not compete and a rare few still
manage to make their mark on the landscape of time.
> and as
> such of no interest to you and yet you have absolutely nothing to
> gain from your objections but the (as of yet un-obtained)
> satisfaction of seeing your ideas prevail over mine. In other words
> you are taking a position in a debate which you presumably hope to
> win, but who's outcome is of no consequence beyond the mutual
> amusement we share in pitting our ideas against each other, and yet
> the very position you are taking is an attempt to deny your interest
> the concept of competition.
>
Well, oddly enough, I thought we were expressing our viewpoints. I don't
know how yours or my ideas will "prevail"? I certainly don't expect that
anyone's minds will change. I do hope that it will stimulate further
thought but at least I'll have the satisfaction of having expressed myself
against something I think is wrong. However, even if we're in competition
and my attempt is to gain favor with the audience here, what does this have
to do with talking about the role of competition in music? You could if you
wanted to demonstrate that every listserv is intrinsically a competitive
forum and if you wish to make that point and draw it as an analogy, fine.
But I would add that I did not say I was non-competitive in all fields - I
am very competitive in some areas.
> Is that irony or what?
I guess it's "or what?"
>
> At 6:54 AM +0000 6/26/01,Wilson Zorn wrote:
> >I don't see Einstein as in competition with
> >Newton - or in his case even his peers, at least in terms of seeking a
prize
> >or seeking something exclusive. Some scientists have been in competition
> >with others in that fashion, both in ways I see as good and ways I see as
> >bad. Sagan went out of his way to demerit peers and politic ceaselessly,
in
> >my opinion eroding good science, wasting time, and just plain being a
jerk.
> >On the other hand, while Gallo may have made many mistakes, his clearly
> >competitive spirit has not impaired in my opinion good science and
sharing
> >of information. And another contemporary scientists, E. O. Wilson, has
not
> >exhibited a competitive spirit in the scientific pursuits, working
closely
> >in all sorts of collaborations and sharing research as freely as academia
> >permits.
>
> Wrong tack to take. Competition pervades almost every aspect
> scientific endeavor. For example if someone wants to use a particle
> accelerator or big telescope for something they are working on they
> have to compete in order to earn time on the machine. The
> competition entails submitting their theories and abstract of the
> experiment to a review board who will then compare it to other
> competing projects and on the basis of relative merit give it a yes
> or no and/or assign it priority.
>
Good point. However, some scientists are not fueled by a competitive spirit
and instead submit work that, once in a fortunate great while, is reviewed
on its own merit and nearly-miraculously suceeds on that basis. Gee guess
what - I knew one of them! In any case competition of course pervades - but
I think we were addressing individual behavior, not systemic mechanisms or
cultural values.
> Even if a scientist somehow completes a paper without ever competing
> for funds to do the research, upon publication the paper is submitted
> to peer review, AKA "the shoot out" in which scientists with
> competing theories attempt to knock it down with their own ideas. It
> is an intense competition whose ultimate prize is the right to claim
> to posterity to have been the one to have discovered or contributed
> to the discovery of a fundamental truth. The process whether you
> think it's "good" or not is one of the fundamental building blocks of
> modern science and Einstein was very much a participant.
>
Again, I think that's a good point but there are still those who do not
"compete" in these forums and simply respond. Failing to compete does
indeed frequently cause well-reasoned essentially correct theses to flounder
although in theory (and only in theory) a sound notion will not fail just
due to being challenged - since in theory it will be evaluated on that
factual basis. And on rare occassion peer review has savaged scientists
whose ideas it turned out later were in fact correct. Regardless, some of
these scientists simply aren't competitive but are disciplined enough to
follow a process. The really smart ones sometimes get heard.
> Furthermore competition does not preclude cooperation with your
> competitors. It's particularly true in the sciences.
Thanks for repeating what I said above, re Gallo. Strangely it almost
sounds like you're saying I didn't say this and it's your idea, but I must
be misreading.
> It's even true
> in sports. As I mentioned earlier I play racquetball and one of the
> interesting and more difficult aspects of the sport is the degree of
> high speed cooperation it takes to clear the way for your opponent to
> take his shot and to keep from hurting each other when you are
> hitting a ball 300 kmh inside a 12 X 6 X 6 meter room. Competitors
> in all fields often train the very people who end up beating them at
> some point and usually they are proud of it. But then I guess pride
> is supposed to be bad too.
I'm sick of you twisting - I NEVER SAID COMPETITION WAS INHERENTLY BAD. In
fact I was directly quoted above as saying it can be both good and band.
Since you're replying to my specific thread I can only assume the comment is
aimed towards my comments.
Let me say what I said AGAIN for your benefit:
my first post on competiton - "Hmmm, I think that the whole virtuoso
machismo "I'm-better-than-you" mentality is what has turned me off to a lot
of mainstream guitarists,
particularly the flashy ones."
then second post - "However, I'm not really sure everyone is competing
depending on how broadly or narrowly you define "compete"."
other comments centered around the fact that not everyone is competing in my
opinion - of course unlike you, I don't "know" this
>
>
> Anyway this "sad f***er" , because of his destructively competitive
> attitude has been asked to put his pathetically unoriginal and
> derivative guitar on another misguided soul's album for the next few
> days and after that do some sequencing and vocal work for educational
> TV so I guess he is finished with this thread.
>
> It's been fun and thanks y'all.
No, it hasn't. Primarily due to undue extrapolations, deliberate
misinterpretations, and arrogance ("I *know*"). I usually don't bother with
these threads - as most people know since I'm an unfamiliar quantity despite
having been "lurking" for some time. This is why. Unfortunately I've
allowed myself to be provoked into attempting to ensure some accuracy in the
portrayal of my opinions. Now I'll shut up for real (despite admittedly
having said I would earlier - sorry to the bored/annoyed people).> -- > > > Dennis Gunn > Mightyjohn@... > > check out MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head" > info at > http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > >
2001-06-28 by Wilson Zorn
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Eager" <oink@...> To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 7:21 AM Subject: Re: [L-OT] guitar gods > > > Dennis Gunn wrote: > > > Furthermore competition does not preclude cooperation with your > > competitors. > > Healthy co-operative competition has been an integral part of music > since time began. Trading fours is a good example. > > Dammit, if we're all really honest with ourselves, we're in the > business of 'look at me , not them' . Otherwise we'd just hang a plain > shingle outside our doors saying 'musician' and wait for whomever think > they need us, to knock. I'm GENUINELY not asking this to debate your point since I've certainly made mine by now, perhaps too forcefully - however, I'm genuinely asking don't you (all, not just Mr. Eager) know musicians like this? People who only get involved in bands because they like to play and know somebody and basically never seek out gigs or other bands? They just play for fun and the fact that they can't stop playing anyway.
> And if we got the word there were more musicians > than gigs, we'd pack up and take up macrame or something instead.[as if > !!] > > Dave Eager > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > >
2001-06-28 by Wilson Zorn
Wilson Zorn is NOT writing to repeat what he said and though Wilson said he was done, he figures at least he'll simplify clarify until the thread is through - but he really won't debate. But given Kool Musick's comments, to be clear, Wilson's contention is that Einstein's motivations were more intellectual and aimed at achieving "truth" or value/contribution. This is why Wilson Zorn included also the dictionary definition of "competition" and alluded to how broadly/narrowly we define competition makes a difference. Just clarifying, Wilson won't debate though Kool Musick's contention that Einstein's motivations were more directly competitive and fit even perhaps the narrower definition in the interest of not extending the debate portion of this thread. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kool Musick" <koolmusick@...> To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 7:59 AM Subject: Re: [L-OT] guitar gods > > > > To outdo each other...? c'mon Kool man, this reads like a bad movie > > script. > > > The type of competition that's based of ego completely destroys the music > > > for me. I play in a guitar quartet, when we're competing we generally > > > suck bad, the idea is to play for something bigger than oneself. > > > > > > Hmmm.. that sounds like a bad movie script too! > > > > > > howard > > Kool Musick read this and thought it both hilarious and 100% contradictory > for he had already clearly and plainly said that the whole point of > competition was 'to play for something bigger than one's self'. This given, > he therefore thought the most sensible thing to do with the above remark > was to say nothing further. But he thanks his fellow competitor Dennis Gunn > who has done his best to bring the best out of this rather absurd competition. > > And then concerning this remark from Wilson Zorn: > > >I don't see Einstein as in competition with > > >Newton - or in his case even his peers, at least in terms of seeking a prize > > >or seeking something exclusive. > ... Kool Musick was so gob-smacked upon reading it that he simply could not > believe what he was reading. So he had originally also decided to say > nothing further. However ....... > > Albert Einstein's explicit aim - read any biography of the man - was to go > one better than Sir Isaac Newton. Einstein was very specific and very clear > that he wished to show how and where Newton's theories had failed to > explain the evidence and then to demonstrate how and where his own theory > of gravitation had succeeded in describing many anomalies such as the > advance of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit. Specifically, Einstein wanted > to incorporate relativity. Einstein was so determined to outdo Newton that > he laboured mightily for over 12 years before he was able to produce 'the > general theory of relativity'. This did exactly what Einstein wanted: > transcend Newton's theories. It was the same with Einstein's photoelectric > theory - and indeed everything else he did. Einstein's very first published > paper was about Brownian motion. It was an overt demonstration of something > very important: that the molecular theory could explain physical phenomena > that other contemporary theories could not. He was being competitive. He > was trying to prove that he had the best idea. Having trounced the > competition with his rendition of Brownian motion he then submitted a paper > about the photoelectric effect. This demonstrated that the molecular theory > was SUCH a good theory that he could use it to explain things that no-one > else could. He invented 'particles of light'. We now call them photons. And > Albert Einstein's photoelectric theory - just like a great guitar or > song-writing technique - was so competitive that anyone else who wants to > 'explain' light has to copy Einstein's riff. Regarding gravitation, the > situation today is that Newton's theories are perfectly adequate for 'most' > purposes - but when you want to do 'better' you have to turn to Einstein's. > However, many scientists find even Einstein's theories inadequate for > explaining the large structure of the universe. So they are struggling to > find a 'better' theory. > > Far from Einstein being an example of someone who was not competing, he was > actually very very competitive indeed all his life and was always > struggling to find a better explanation than anyone else could. He was a > very very nice man, personally, and most self-effacing. But ... still a > great competitor and a fountain of good ideas. He did always seem to have > better ideas, and whenever Einstein started laying down a riff, everybody > else listened. About the only stupid melody he ever laid down was his > 'cosmological constant', and even HE admitted that that was a really stupid > song. We all write them though, right? > > Scientists are ALWAYS struggling to find 'a better theory'. If they were > not competitive then there simply would be no science and no progress. 'My > way is better' is the cry ... 'prove it to me' ... is the counter-cry. > Musicians are also always struggling to find a 'better way' to express > themselves. If they were not we would still all be playing crumhorns or > lutes and there would be no electric guitar. It is because musicians at > some point want to say things better than anyone else before them has said > anything that new instruments come and go. > > To strive to excel ... even if one describes it by saying 'all I want to do > is be a better musician' or 'I'm not competing against anybody I just want > to play well' is to compete. > > To try to find 'something better' IS to be competitive. Without such an > effort one is hardly human. All seems simple enough to me. > > > Yes Dennis. It is ironic. The refusal to accept this account of the human > drive to excel is in itself competitive because the refusal is grounded in > the desire to have a better explanation. This is to try to win the > competition in which the first prize is the satisfaction of having proved > that human beings do NOT compete. > > > > Funny old world, ain't it??!!! > > (By the way ... I too apologize for having dragged this over to the other > list. I hit reply to a message without looking carefully at where it was > going. Sorry again, Phil Angus). > > This old so-and-so is also finished with this thread. Anyone else who wants
> it is very welcome to the last word. > > Kool Musick > Keep Musick Kool > > > _________________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > >
2001-06-28 by Wilson Zorn
Given the last comments I made, I'd like to at least state for the record I totally agreed with Dennis' point below re copying/learning. (and I bet you thought this would be something completely different...) ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis Gunn" <mightyjohn@...> To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 5:54 PM Subject: Re: Re: [L-OT] guitar gods > At 11:48 AM -0400 6/27/01, GAmoore@... wrote: > >Why don't we drop this competition in music is bad/good thing. Clearly to > >either extreme its bad, but in mild, indirect doses it spurs on progress > >in music and science, etc. > > > > > >>Anyway this "sad f***er" , because of his destructively competitive > >>attitude has been asked to put his pathetically unoriginal and > >>derivative guitar on another misguided soul's album for the next few > >>days and after that do some sequencing and vocal work for educational > >>TV so I guess he is finished with this thread. > > > >There are great musicians who can get any sound, and there are those who > >create entirely new sounds. Both types of people are needed in the world. > >So both of you are missing the other's point. > > > > And you are missing my sarcasm but since you have never heard me play > I would expect that. About half of the bands I play in play > improvisational and or experimental music. I am *not* the most > proficient player in (this highly competitive) town but when people > want something *they* think is noisy and weird I am among the ones > they call. The artist whose album I am working on right now is a > Woman named Phew who (like me) was part of the beginnings of the > Punk/Japan Noise movement in the 80's. > > By the way I find learning things note for note one of the best > possible ways there is to train your ear and a good ear is absolutely > essential for improvisation and collaboration. So paradoxically if > you want to do something original being good at copying is a very > valuable skill. > -- > > > Dennis Gunn > Mightyjohn@... > > check out MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head" > info at > http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > >
2001-06-28 by Dennis Gunn
At 7:57 PM -0700 6/27/01, Wilson Zorn wrote:
> > It's been fun and thanks y'all.
>
>No, it hasn't.
Was for me.
>Primarily due to undue extrapolations, deliberate
>misinterpretations, and arrogance ("I *know*").
Ouch. Your digs aren't subtle at all. Guess you shouldn't let
yourself in a tiff when your point is challenged. But that's OK
competitive people are like that. And BTW yes I am sure there are
lots of quite passable musicians who only play to no audience but
themselves and for the simple pleasure of it, but they are not the
ones the header refers to.
--
Dennis Gunn
Mightyjohn@...
check out MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head"
info at
http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html2001-06-28 by Kool Musick
Hi WIlson, No problem with what you said. Was it necessary, though, to quote my whole message in your reply? Kool Musick Keep Musick Kool _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com
2001-06-28 by Wilson Zorn
Apologies for the etiquette breach. I do tend to overquote. ----- Original Message -----
From: "Kool Musick" <koolmusick@...> To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 10:19 PM Subject: Re: [L-OT] guitar gods > Was it necessary, though, to quote my whole message in your reply? > > Kool Musick > Keep Musick Kool > >
2001-06-28 by Hendrik Jan Veenstra
Thoughts from the mind of Dennis Gunn, 27-06-2001:
[to Howard]
>You have raised an strong objection but have put forth no logic to
>support it. You (and Wilson Zorn as well) basically seem to take
>issue with the idea of competition as a productive motivation and as
>such of no interest to you and yet you have absolutely nothing to
>gain from your objections but the (as of yet un-obtained)
>satisfaction of seeing your ideas prevail over mine. In other words
>you are taking a position in a debate which you presumably hope to
>win, but who's outcome is of no consequence beyond the mutual
>amusement we share in pitting our ideas against each other, and yet
>the very position you are taking is an attempt to deny your interest
>the concept of competition.
>
>Is that irony or what?
No, worse, it's misleading. It's _you_ who, in the above posting,
defines this thread to be a "debate", and by using such words you put
it in the competition area -- from which all the rest of this
pointless post follows. The only conclusion the follows from the
above, as far as I can see, as that indeed you view any contribution
that's not in line with your own thoughts on the subject as
"competition".
If this thread is just an exchange of thoughts, and nothing more (as
I'd perceived it to be up till now), then Howard's contribution is
not geared towards winning a debate or seeing ones ideas prevail over
another. There was no competition involved, until you defined it to
be so. If someone writes "in my experience there are vast areas
where competition plays no role" (or words to that effect), is he
then competing with anyone? No, he's just sharing his life's
experience and the outlook of life he's gained over the years. You
may agree or disagree, that's not relevant.
As a teacher, and being twice as old as my students, I often share my
view of things with them. Not in order to win a debate (how easy
that would be, and how cheap), and not in order to convince them of
something (too often rather pointless with 18-year olds). The sole
objective is to plant maybe a single sensible idea in the head of 1
or 2 students, hoping that some day they'll think of what I said, and
think "oh, HJ didn't have such bad ideas back then" -- maybe sparing
them just a tiny bit of suffering or pain or disappointment.
Competition plays no role there. After all, wouldn't it be pathetic
for a 38-year old to comete with 18-year olds?
>I guess he is finished with this thread.
>
>It's been fun and thanks y'all.
Ditto.
cheers,
HJ
--
Hendrik Jan Veenstra
email: mailto:h@...
www: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html2001-06-28 by GAmoore@aol.com
I'm not sure if that is true or not. I think too much training and learning does limit one's creativity. Some composers are good at their instruments and some are average, but most of the really great musicians are never great composers. >By the way I find learning things note for note one of the best >possible ways there is to train your ear and a good ear is absolutely >essential for improvisation and collaboration. So paradoxically if >you want to do something original being good at copying is a very >valuable skill. I now know you consider yourself very creative.
2001-06-28 by Dennis Gunn
At 3:27 AM -0400 6/28/01, GAmoore@... wrote:
>I'm not sure if that is true or not. I think too much training and
>learning does limit one's creativity.
I don't know. Could it be that it just looks that way because people
who have limited creativity tend to try to overtrain to make up for
it?
>Some composers are good at their instruments and some are average,
>but most of the really great musicians are never great composers.
Jeff Beck wrote some pretty good songs. I really like Adrian Belew's
compositions and Jimi Hedrix and Frank Zappa's as well. If I recall
correctly Mozart was a prodigy on both Piano and Violin. And what
about Bach? Wasn't he renowned as a virtuoso organist?
I guess I can't quite see where you are coming from there.
>
>I now know you consider yourself very creative.
So that is an invitation to account for myself?
Let me see.
Certainly I strive to be creative but that does not mean I am.
People always ask me what kind of music my band plays and I have
always been at a loss to describe it. When I play it for them and
ask them what kind of music it is they can't tell me either. To the
avant guard indy crowd I generally hang with: It's pop. To pop
people it's avant guard. To the record stores it is something they
have a hard time placing. To me it is pop.
I can play OK (after doing for 25 years I should be able to after
all) but am not the best guitarist around. So rather than
demonstrating the chops I don't have to the world I try to use my
head in such a way as to make things interesting.
My personal taste runs to music that is generally regarded as
"difficult" by the main stream. When I listen to albums I have
played on I enjoy them and enjoy my contributions to them. Usually I
don't when they are fresh off the press but when I hear them 6 months
or a year later and have had a chance get the process of creating
them out of my mind I do.
The critics that have heard what I do say it is creative, but that
proves nothing.
Bottom line. In answer to your question yes I think I am creative,
after all it is my job. If I didn't think I was I would have to
choose another profession. As for the "Very", well, sometimes maybe,
but I am kind of lazy and that's not good. "Very" creative people
can't be lazy.
In any case if you want to form your own opinion and or read that of
the critics you can follow the link in my signature. The page is
kind of out of date but there are some sounds there. I suppose I
should put some more on there but I'm lazy.
--
Dennis Gunn
Mightyjohn@...
check out MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head"
info at
http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html2001-06-28 by joeri@belway.com
> > That's interesting! Anyone else have this message from Kool Musick 9 > times? > > Not me. > Same with the message from betasonic on the LUG, only appeared once even if > Joeri was complaining. > > Sascha Weird things are going on at Yahoo apparently... On the LUG, I also saw a mail about 10 times, and here it was fine... strange.
2001-06-28 by Dennis Gunn
At 8:58 AM +0200 6/28/01, Hendrik Jan Veenstra wrote:
>Thoughts from the mind of Dennis Gunn, 27-06-2001:
>[to Howard]
>>You have raised an strong objection but have put forth no logic to
>>support it. You (and Wilson Zorn as well) basically seem to take
>>issue with the idea of competition as a productive motivation and as
>>such of no interest to you and yet you have absolutely nothing to
>>gain from your objections but the (as of yet un-obtained)
>>satisfaction of seeing your ideas prevail over mine. In other words
>>you are taking a position in a debate which you presumably hope to
>>win, but who's outcome is of no consequence beyond the mutual
>>amusement we share in pitting our ideas against each other, and yet
>>the very position you are taking is an attempt to deny your interest
>>the concept of competition.
>>
>>Is that irony or what?
>
>No, worse, it's misleading. It's _you_ who, in the above posting,
>defines this thread to be a "debate", and by using such words you put
>it in the competition area -- from which all the rest of this
>pointless post follows. The only conclusion the follows from the
>above, as far as I can see, as that indeed you view any contribution
>that's not in line with your own thoughts on the subject as
>"competition".
So you're you're a teacher? Look in a dictionary. The first entry
in Websters New World says to debate is"to discuss opposing reasons".
When Howard weighed in with "Hogwash...." he was taking an opposing
point of view if there ever was one.
>After all, wouldn't it be pathetic
>for a 38-year old to comete with 18-year olds?
It would be particularly pathetic if the 18 year old looked in a
dictionary whupped the 38 year olds butt. By the way do you teach
spelling?
Children debating adults.
I am particularly reminded of the following true story:
I was 8 years old and the school nurse was speaking to the school
assembly about blood cells "there red ones and blue ones but really
there is only one kind" she said. So I raised my hand said "What
about white blood cells?" she smiled and said there was "no such
thing". I was sure that was not true and said so. So she asked
where I got the information. "From a movie" I said. She laughed
hard enough to make the 300 children and teachers get side aches then
when the laughter died down enough for her to be heard said "You
should not trust everything I saw in Science Fiction movies". Of
course she was wrong but she was a 40 year old nurse and I was a 8
year old kid so therefore she was right.
To this day I have wondered how she could have gotten where she was
and not learned such a basic fact about biology.
So the next week when my favorite 3rd grade teacher told us that
gravity was the result of the earth spinning. I kind of decided I
knew about all I wanted to know to about teachers and started trying
to concentrate on getting information from other sources.
Maybe your *refusal* to debate your students is pathetic. Maybe they
are worthy of a little more respect and a little less condescension.
The teachers I respected, and there were some, were not quite as
eager as you appear to be to dismiss the idea that an 18 year old
might actually know something a 38 year old didn't.
Hey wow I still remember something I learned 34 years ago!!
Lucky Lucky. Lucky.
--
Dennis Gunn
Mightyjohn@...
check out MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head"
info at
http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html2001-06-28 by Hendrik Jan Veenstra
Thoughts from the mind of Dennis Gunn, 28-06-2001:
> >>Is that irony or what?
>>
>>No, worse, it's misleading. It's _you_ who, in the above posting,
>>defines this thread to be a "debate", and by using such words you put
>>it in the competition area -- from which all the rest of this
>>pointless post follows. The only conclusion the follows from the
>>above, as far as I can see, as that indeed you view any contribution
>>that's not in line with your own thoughts on the subject as
>>"competition".
>
>So you're you're a teacher? Look in a dictionary. The first entry
>in Websters New World says to debate is"to discuss opposing reasons".
>When Howard weighed in with "Hogwash...." he was taking an opposing
>point of view if there ever was one.
In everyday language, a "debate" is more competitive and more geared
towards winning than an "exchange of thoughts" is. I don't care what
the dictionary says. Howard expressed a point of view. That might
as well be with the intention to "exchange thoughts" as with the
intention to "argue differing viewpoints with the hope of winning".
From his post I can only conclude the former was his intention, while
you make it sound as if the latter was.
While everybody praised the Good of Competition, all Howard did was
say "I've come to realise over the years that it's actually possible
to do things without competition playing a role". And now you say
that he's _debating_ his point of view, and suggesting that this too
is competition, with the intention of winning??? I don't even know
what to say to that as it's too bizarre...
> >After all, wouldn't it be pathetic
>>for a 38-year old to comete with 18-year olds?
>
>It would be particularly pathetic if the 18 year old looked in a
>dictionary whupped the 38 year olds butt.
Oh, very strong argument...
>By the way do you teach spelling?
Ah, even stronger! Way to go...
In case you _really_ don't get it:
1) Trying to live a life outside the LUG, I sometimes hurry, and
mistype a word. Slip of the finger. Familiar?
2) I'm Dutch. I think my command of the English language compares
favorably (without a 'u', as in UK-spelling) to that of some native
English speakers. How's your Dutch nowadays?
3) I teach mathematics.
>I am particularly reminded of the following true story:
>[...]
>So the next week when my favorite 3rd grade teacher told us that
>gravity was the result of the earth spinning. I kind of decided I
>knew about all I wanted to know to about teachers and started trying
>to concentrate on getting information from other sources.
And I once heard a guy claim he was a great guitarist, but he
couldn't distinguish a C major from a Esus4, and he couldn't play
s***. Since then I've only listened to keyboard music.
>Maybe your *refusal* to debate your students is pathetic. Maybe they
>are worthy of a little more respect and a little less condescension.
>The teachers I respected, and there were some, were not quite as
>eager as you appear to be to dismiss the idea that an 18 year old
>might actually know something a 38 year old didn't.
I wonder, is the ability to read something you learn over the years,
or is it something you're born with...? I'm not even going to argue
about this, as it's too silly to be worthy of my time. But let me
assure you that generally I respect my students and they respect me.
In the yearly "poll" I consistently come out as one of the more
popular teachers, both from a teaching perspective and from a
personal perspective. And I'm the only teacher who still has regular
contacts with ex-students, and whose ex-students (some of them, not
all of course) still come over at my place to have a beer from time
to time.
But hey, that's what you get when you adopt a condescending attitude,
and don't respect them. I can live with that, I truly can...
>Hey wow I still remember something I learned 34 years ago!!
Yeah...
cheese,
HJ
--
Hendrik Jan Veenstra
email: mailto:h@...
www: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html2001-06-28 by Joeri Vankeirsbilck
> > >After all, wouldn't it be pathetic > >>for a 38-year old to comete with 18-year olds? > >It would be particularly pathetic if the 18 year old looked in a > >dictionary whupped the 38 year olds butt. > Oh, very strong argument... etc etc... Hey hey... what's this supposed to be? Arguments, fightings and name calling should be done on the LUG, not here! ;-)))) Guys, be a bit constructive and don't start arguing over silly things over here too.... please! Bye, J -- Joeri Vankeirsbilck joeri@... Belway Productions - http://www.belway.com List-admin Logic-users/SoundD*ver-users/Logic-TDM
2001-06-28 by Sascha Franck
Joeri Vankeirsbilck wrote: > Guys, be a bit constructive and don't start arguing over silly things over > here too.... please! Nah!!! This is funny to read! Actually people even react more nicely on this list too. Sascha
2001-06-28 by Phil Angus
From: Joeri Vankeirsbilck [mailto:joeri@...] > etc etc... Hey hey... what's this supposed to be? Arguments, fightings and > name calling should be done on the LUG, not here! ;-)))) > Guys, be a bit constructive and don't start arguing over silly things over > here too.... please! Hey, Joeri, this is the right room for an argument after all! No it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is..... The wonders of copy and paste! Phil
2001-06-28 by Phil Angus
>He is not blaming Joeri because Joeri is blameless. >When there's more than one person doing something; indeed, when there's >quite a few people doing something; then it's a bit stupid to compile a >list of 'offending' individuals. What it really needs, as with any group, >is for each individual to consider whether or not they, personally, have >made a contribution to the situation. I quite agree Joeri is blameless. I never said he was to blame. He was moaning about the content of the list. Joeri is in charge. one and one makes two. I am not complaining about the list. >Since you want 'personal', I remember an incident involving you, not that >long ago, which would have been over in an instant if you had just rapidly >apologized for an off-the-cuff remark that you had made. Instead, you got >all defensive; it dragged on for weeks; and you only ended up doing anyway >what it was always obvious you would do ... which was apologize for the >fact that someone who didn't have your command of English had taken a >typically 'British English' 100% ironic remark completely the wrong way. >Fact is, the LUG member concerned DID take what you said the wrong way, and >by far the best way to have handled things then would have been simply for >you to have accepted, right from the outset, that that person had every >right not to know English as well as you did and so to respond to the >surface character of your remark and not to its deep implication. Might >have been obvious to YOU it was a joke, but it wasn't obvious to that >member. Next time this happens, please apologise faster. Immediately even, >OK? Would save the rest of us an AWFUL lot of aggravation and having to >wade through more pointless emails. Since we're talking 'personal' here. >Personal is what you wanted, wasn't it? Even more so, do what you seem to >have done ever since which is to watch it with those kinds of remarks. What makes you think I want personal? What is this all about? So now you want to get personal. This actually is total bollocks. You obviously don't remember as clearly as you claim. I made a remark which was a joke. People took it the wrong way and a small few jumped on the bandwagon in a barriage of attack. I was very quick to point out that whilst it was a joke, it could have been said in a more clear way, and I recognised the only reason why everyone got angry (well actually not everyone but a few) was due to my carelessness (I should have known that people who don't speak perfect English would read it differently) and I corrected it quickly. Effing weeks! I was relatively new to the list at that stage and it takes a while to get used to it and the way to make a point clearly. I don't know how you have got the nerve to bring that up again. The thread may have gone on for DAYS not weeks as you so very carefully exaggerate, but only after my point was cleared. And, yes I apologised, should have apologised, and the rest of it for not realizing that I should have known someone who doesn't have my command of English would have taken it the wrong way (how the hell could I know that I ask myself), but did I get an apology from anyone who realized afterwards they had misunderstood? All I got left with was the feeling I'd done something terrible which bloody aggravated me. I got called all sorts of bloody names, and it effing rankled me, so don't drag up that crap again. >Speaking personally, when I see someone refer to someone else as a $##$er >for no good reason I can see, I think that person is entitled to take that >remark personally, and I also wonder what on earth is the point in saying >it. Frankly, I have zero interest in watching the party of the first part >trying to humiliate the party of the second part in public in this childish >kind of way. Let them go duke it out in a succession of private emails and >then come back when it's all over. You must be incredibly laid back and always in control of your emotions. >It is also remarkable, on this list, how the same TEDIOUS subjects (don't >even get me started on mentioning them) come up time and time and time >again with exactly the same smart-aleck remarks being made about them by >often the same people. >Yes and huge long replies on the list. People come, people go, they may be tedious to you but they are virgin to a newcomer. >Why do you feel you have to leave with such words? >Because he is doing what YOU recommended. >Speaking with passion and emotion. >About something that he cares about. >Much like I am now. I don't doubt he was a valuable member. I just personally would rather go out with a smile, rather than one big negative. If and when I leave the list for whatever reason, shall I deliver a great negative speach about how the list is declining, or shall I thank everyone for their help and leave with a smile. >Well ... probably he was hoping that he would get his point across and >change things for the better. >If the following is the description of Fernando's post that you are >alluding to, then I have to ask: does it make YOU feel better when YOU post >idiotic remarks and pointless one-liners that others regard as 100% stupid >and time-wasting and that seem to serve no good purpose except to inflate >your own ego and to make YOU feel better? (Of course, and unlike me whose >information about Logic Audio 4.x is very limited, you also post some good >stuff and you have given me some great tips for which I thank you. I also >hope that this post of mine does not make YOU feel like leaving, either). No I don't. I don't post anything to feel big. I post because I either feel it's humorous at the time or I feel strongly about something, or it's relative to something or very occasionally something original!. It's a discussion for heavens sake not a computerised database. I would be rather worried if I suddenly realized posting to the list was some sort of ego boost! >Because, obviously, this was not enough for him. So it's best to sour the list with these, I've had enough postings. Why did he not simply email Joeri privately if he wanted to better the list as you suggest. >Please come back, Fernando. You probably did not learn anything from me, >but I learned a great deal from you; and I would like to keep doing so. I am sad he's gone too. I also feel sad that he felt the need to go out with that attitude. It's my opinion. I'm not asking you to agree with it but I don't expect you to start dragging up the past in some sort of backlash when nothing was directed towards you in the first place, especially as your information is greatly exaggerated, and your example was based on a big misunderstanding which at the end of the day was only due to multi language interpretation. I've already explained all this, why am I bothering to do it again? I don't feel the need to send this to the list, so it's gone OT And just so you know exactly what I am saying so there can be no doubt, It was not a personal attack against the man, only the action. I do not blame a list decline on Joeri as I don't agree it is in decline. There are a lot of OTs, but as so many have said before, the laziness of some peoples posts are far worse than a nice neat and tidy, easy to see, easy to destroy OT will ever be. I am against personal attacks as well, certainly of the sort you describe, but I don't claim to be perfect and I try not to be hypocritical. An argument, or disagreement can be quite healthy in many ways. Above all, I hate racism, and was glad to see the back of you know who. I've had my say, that's it. I'm not angry, another day, another dollar. Phil > Adam Pendse wrote: > Dear Emagic, > > Could u fix it for me to release LA 5 this week? > The natives are getting restless. PS Yes well, the real postings about this will be starting soon!
2001-06-28 by Kool Musick
Hi Phil, Read your post. Kool Musick Keep Musick Kool _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com
2001-06-29 by Dennis Gunn
At 5:58 PM +0200 6/28/01, Hendrik Jan Veenstra wrote:
>
>I don't care what the dictionary says.
Clearly. But if you are going to make up your own interpretations
the words you are using and consider your own interpretations of
those words more authoritative than those in the dictionary, of your
second language to boot, well then what is there to say? Or more
accurately what is there to say that you could not arbitrarily assign
any meaning you want?
And they call *me* arrogant.
> Howard expressed a point of view. That might
>as well be with the intention to "exchange thoughts" as with the
>intention to "argue differing viewpoints with the hope of winning".
> From his post I can only conclude the former was his intention, while
>you make it sound as if the latter was.
>While everybody praised the Good of Competition, all Howard did was
>say "I've come to realise over the years that it's actually possible
>to do things without competition playing a role". And now you say
>that he's _debating_ his point of view, and suggesting that this too
>is competition, with the intention of winning???
Whether *you* know it or not *Howard* did know that he was arguing a
point that's why he prefaced his statement with "Hogwash". Whose
meaning is to dismiss something that preceded as "useless, or
insincere talk" as Websters puts it. But you don't believe in
dictionaries so...
>I don't even know
>what to say to that as it's too bizarre...
Well I guess since you don't accept the dictionary as defining the
language you could say "unga booga Jelly Bean starfish pie" and that
would be just as pertinent as anything else you've said so far.
> > >After all, wouldn't it be pathetic
>>>for a 38-year old to comete with 18-year olds?
>>
>>It would be particularly pathetic if the 18 year old looked in a
>>dictionary whupped the 38 year olds butt.
>
>Oh, very strong argument...
Thank you. In this instance, I agree.
>How's your Dutch nowadays?
Perfect I just make it up as I go. Who needs dictionaries?
> >I am particularly reminded of the following true story:
>>[...]
>>So the next week when my favorite 3rd grade teacher told us that
>>gravity was the result of the earth spinning. I kind of decided I
>>knew about all I wanted to know to about teachers and started trying
>>to concentrate on getting information from other sources.
>
>And I once heard a guy claim he was a great guitarist, but he
>couldn't distinguish a C major from a Esus4, and he couldn't play
>s***. Since then I've only listened to keyboard music.
OK. To be honest I kept listening to teachers but the lesson I
learned that had among the biggest impacts those days was to question
authority and that sometimes you're right even when everyone around
you including the authority is ridiculing you as a fool for holding a
certain conviction.
>But let me
>assure you that generally I respect my students and they respect me.
I am honestly glad to hear that. You were alarming me.
>In the yearly "poll" I consistently come out as one of the more
>popular teachers, both from a teaching perspective and from a
>personal perspective.
What is the purpose of these these yearly polls? Sounds like a
popularity contest if ever there was one.
>And I'm the only teacher who still has regular
>contacts with ex-students, and whose ex-students (some of them, not
>all of course) still come over at my place to have a beer from time
>to time.
It is clear to the reader that you feel you have won something that
your peers have not. And you are proud of that. As you should be.
So you emphasize that you are the only one who does maintain these
ties. Therefore the clear implication is that you see your methods
of dealing with the students as somehow superior to those other
teachers who haven't achieved the popularity you claim. You
juxtaposed your accomplishments against those of your peers and
invited the reader to compare. Competition pure and simple.
--
Dennis Gunn
Mightyjohn@...
check out MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head"
info at
http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html2001-06-29 by Joeri Vankeirsbilck
> I quite agree Joeri is blameless. I never said he was to blame. I think I am, so I'm taking up responsability now. I've begun taking action and although it'll take a big effort, it's worth it. > I don't feel the need to send this to the list, so it's gone OT For which I thank you! > I do not blame a list decline on Joeri as I don't agree it is in decline. Maybe it isn't, but it can definitely be improved a lot!!!! Bye, Joeri -- Joeri Vankeirsbilck joeri@... Belway Productions - http://www.belway.com List-admin Logic-users/SoundD*ver-users/Logic-TDM
2001-06-29 by Hendrik Jan Veenstra
Thoughts from the mind of Dennis Gunn, 29-06-2001:
>And they call *me* arrogant.
Ignorant would be a better word. But I'm sorry, I'm through with
this discussion. We could go on for another couple of weeks and only
irritate each other more and more. I don't want that, and I don't
have the time for that. And right now I got other things on my mind
that are more relevant than conducting a pointless exchange of
misunderstandings.
If it's all about competition: ok, you've won. I'm arrogant. I
twist dictionary definitions. I do whatever the Lord has forbidden.
That's all cool with me. Really, there are more important things in
my life than "winning" a debate. Hope you like the taste of victory.
Enjoy it while it lasts, as it's usually such a short-lived pleasure.
cheers,
HJ
--
Hendrik Jan Veenstra
email: mailto:h@...
www: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html2001-06-29 by GAmoore@aol.com
I wish more people would say this. I haven't said it outloud, but I have said to myself and started deleting all the messages with certain headers after a certain point. >But I'm sorry, I'm through with >this discussion.
2001-06-29 by Phil Angus
I've read it. What am I looking for?!
-----Original Message----- From: Kool Musick [mailto:koolmusick@...] Sent: 29 June 2001 00:56 To: logic-ot@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [L-OT] guitar gods Hi Phil, Read your post. Kool Musick Keep Musick Kool _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/