Entre_Perpetuo

Thank you. :) And yeah, Nirvana isn't usually my cup of tea, and while I think Cobain is a vastly overrated guitarist and an average singer, I do recognize the incredible talent he had as a performer, a songwriter, and simply as a rock artist. Nirvana is one of the great bands objectively, but they don't register on my list of favorites subjectively. Cobain said himself he couldn't play well so for his fans to say otherwise is just stupid. Death seems to bring out the worst in fans. I'm not an amazing guitarist myself, but if I put in the time and effort I think I could probably match Cobain's skill on the instrument within a year from where I am now. It would take me a heck of a lot longer to reach Brian May, EVH, Alex, or bunches of other masters levels. Still sad that he went :( I read somewhere he was panning on collaborating with R.E.M. in the near future. That would've been pretty awesome. You might be able to play Cobain's songs in a year (maybe not), but could you create them? This goes back to something I've posted a few times here. Which one of these two guitarists appears to have more technical proficiency? Is he the one who plays the song "right?" Not to my ears. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHRNSeuvzlM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZamjrXCDvo Look, I'm not arguing against the idea that Cobain played with incredible feeling. He obviously did. His work, however technically average, truly connected with people and still does. Is it hard to play like Cobain though? No. Not compared to learning to play like EVH or Hendrix, Cobain is beginners' stuff. Now would I want to hear DT cover Lithium? No, probably not, because as technically skilled as they are, they have a reputation for missing the emotional point on covers and such, even in their own work. They'd play it note perfect and it wouldn't have nearly the same resonance as Nirvana's version. That doesn't make Cobain a technically better guitarist than Petrucci though. A Nirvana cover of Metropolis would probably sound even worse than DT doing Lithium. Or think of it this way, Kanye West is not a technically proficient singer. Now I wouldn't want to hear a more technically proficient singer take on his own written work, because it wouldn't probably sound quite right, but even less appealing is that time Kanye tried to sing Bohemian Rhapsody because he just did not have the physical technical ability to pull it off. Sorry if that's confusing. Cobain was an excellent performer and songwriter, and any musician would feel blessed to create work of his caliber, but he was not a great guitarist. Putting him up against the Steve Howes and David Gilmores of the world proves that easily. But, again, playing Smells Like Teen Spirit, and creating it are two different things. Is being a great musician just being able to play fast? Or does it also include being able to create things out of nothing that are memorable? Is the riff of Smoke on the Water hard to play? Is it good? What about Iron Man? Is it not as good as Tony's noodling on the debut album (which I personally love but think is self indulgent) because it's easy to play. Dave Gilmour and Steve Howe are two good examples. Does Adrian Vandenberg blow them away? He's much faster than either of them even in their prime. You cannot deny that Cobain's guitar work, however inspired, never reaches past an amateur level of difficulty. I understand what you're saying, but you can't say technical ability doesn't factor at all into the makings of a great guitarist. The ideal guitarist will be both technically proficient and incredibly creative and inspired, in addition to many other things. Obviously Cobain is more than qualified in one category, but he's so vastly under qualified in the other that I cannot call him a great guitarist. A great musician and songwriter, sure, yes, of course. History has proven it. But a great guitarist he is not. Can't you make the same point about Gilmour? Would you agree that if you walk into your neighborhood Guitar Center, it's filled with kids who can play a Pink Floyd album note for note? But ask Gilmour himself to play Eruption and he probably wouldn't be able to very well? But he's a great guitarist because his stuff didn't exist before he created it. That's a form of greatness, IMO. I'd write a counterpoint but I think we've talked in circles enough. I'm not sure we're actually that far off of each other's views, I just refuse to see Cobain as one of the guitar greats. Agree to disagree? I like dead horses .. after all, I am a Denver Bronco fan I think David Gilmour has a recognizable guitar style .. Players that have been influenced by Gilmour, you hear them and think "that's Gilmourseque " Does Kurt Cobain have unique, or at least distinctly recognizable guitar style ??? Just because that chorus / tremolo effect has become somewhat synonymous with Nirvana's music doesn't make Cobain a guitar great ... That effect has been used by countless other, less popular players and the fact that someone might think "that sounds like Kurt Cobain" really doesn't have much to do with his playing ability .. I'm not saying that he didn't write and create meaningful music ... But I don't see where he meets any criteria of a "guitar great" What IS the criteria for a “guitar great”? Some in this thread don’t even follow the dictionary meaning of “objective” so coming up with a criteria for guitar greats might be impossible. Respecting or acknowledging the contributions someone has made to music is one thing - there is really no criteria for that as that is completely subjective So my criteria and definition will be different than someone who has not experienced this .. All that matters is our own view - I respect and understand that everyone is different .. And this is one part of why I said coming up with a criteria for a guitar great might be impossible. The other part you also are saying more or less with “all that matters is our own view”...which is subjective. And that’s fine. I don’t agree with the thought that “It’s objective because I’m looking at it from this different angle” which EP seemed to be saying earlier. Or I guess it was more like “I’m not sure if objective fact exists but if it does, Freddie’s the best.” I’m too lazy to go back and quote it exactly but the thought doesn’t make much sense to me. It’s objective if I pound and bend the hell out of it like a lump of clay into being so!!! It's a philosophical argument I'm making. 1 - an objective best singer may exist 2 - humans have no way of knowing for sure whether or not such a thing exists or who it might be should it exist 3 - there is no logical reason why a humans may not guess who it might be based on their own, individually observed evidence Conclusion - I may guess that Freddie Mercury is the best singer regardless of being able to prove it to anyone but myself, and I may believe it's true, though I may concede I have no way of knowing more than anyone else and it very well may be false, though I don't believe it to be so.

Thank you. :) And yeah, Nirvana isn't usually my cup of tea, and while I think Cobain is a vastly overrated guitarist and an average singer, I do recognize the incredible talent he had as a performer, a songwriter, and simply as a rock artist. Nirvana is one of the great bands objectively, but they don't register on my list of favorites subjectively. Cobain said himself he couldn't play well so for his fans to say otherwise is just stupid. Death seems to bring out the worst in fans. I'm not an amazing guitarist myself, but if I put in the time and effort I think I could probably match Cobain's skill on the instrument within a year from where I am now. It would take me a heck of a lot longer to reach Brian May, EVH, Alex, or bunches of other masters levels. Still sad that he went :( I read somewhere he was panning on collaborating with R.E.M. in the near future. That would've been pretty awesome. You might be able to play Cobain's songs in a year (maybe not), but could you create them? This goes back to something I've posted a few times here. Which one of these two guitarists appears to have more technical proficiency? Is he the one who plays the song "right?" Not to my ears. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHRNSeuvzlM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZamjrXCDvo Look, I'm not arguing against the idea that Cobain played with incredible feeling. He obviously did. His work, however technically average, truly connected with people and still does. Is it hard to play like Cobain though? No. Not compared to learning to play like EVH or Hendrix, Cobain is beginners' stuff. Now would I want to hear DT cover Lithium? No, probably not, because as technically skilled as they are, they have a reputation for missing the emotional point on covers and such, even in their own work. They'd play it note perfect and it wouldn't have nearly the same resonance as Nirvana's version. That doesn't make Cobain a technically better guitarist than Petrucci though. A Nirvana cover of Metropolis would probably sound even worse than DT doing Lithium. Or think of it this way, Kanye West is not a technically proficient singer. Now I wouldn't want to hear a more technically proficient singer take on his own written work, because it wouldn't probably sound quite right, but even less appealing is that time Kanye tried to sing Bohemian Rhapsody because he just did not have the physical technical ability to pull it off. Sorry if that's confusing. Cobain was an excellent performer and songwriter, and any musician would feel blessed to create work of his caliber, but he was not a great guitarist. Putting him up against the Steve Howes and David Gilmores of the world proves that easily. But, again, playing Smells Like Teen Spirit, and creating it are two different things. Is being a great musician just being able to play fast? Or does it also include being able to create things out of nothing that are memorable? Is the riff of Smoke on the Water hard to play? Is it good? What about Iron Man? Is it not as good as Tony's noodling on the debut album (which I personally love but think is self indulgent) because it's easy to play. Dave Gilmour and Steve Howe are two good examples. Does Adrian Vandenberg blow them away? He's much faster than either of them even in their prime. You cannot deny that Cobain's guitar work, however inspired, never reaches past an amateur level of difficulty. I understand what you're saying, but you can't say technical ability doesn't factor at all into the makings of a great guitarist. The ideal guitarist will be both technically proficient and incredibly creative and inspired, in addition to many other things. Obviously Cobain is more than qualified in one category, but he's so vastly under qualified in the other that I cannot call him a great guitarist. A great musician and songwriter, sure, yes, of course. History has proven it. But a great guitarist he is not. Can't you make the same point about Gilmour? Would you agree that if you walk into your neighborhood Guitar Center, it's filled with kids who can play a Pink Floyd album note for note? But ask Gilmour himself to play Eruption and he probably wouldn't be able to very well? But he's a great guitarist because his stuff didn't exist before he created it. That's a form of greatness, IMO. I'd write a counterpoint but I think we've talked in circles enough. I'm not sure we're actually that far off of each other's views, I just refuse to see Cobain as one of the guitar greats. Agree to disagree? I like dead horses .. after all, I am a Denver Bronco fan I think David Gilmour has a recognizable guitar style .. Players that have been influenced by Gilmour, you hear them and think "that's Gilmourseque " Does Kurt Cobain have unique, or at least distinctly recognizable guitar style ??? Just because that chorus / tremolo effect has become somewhat synonymous with Nirvana's music doesn't make Cobain a guitar great ... That effect has been used by countless other, less popular players and the fact that someone might think "that sounds like Kurt Cobain" really doesn't have much to do with his playing ability .. I'm not saying that he didn't write and create meaningful music ... But I don't see where he meets any criteria of a "guitar great" What IS the criteria for a “guitar great”? Some in this thread don’t even follow the dictionary meaning of “objective” so coming up with a criteria for guitar greats might be impossible. You can use my screen name, lol, I'm not offended by being called out for having a different view on objectivity. I don’t like to call people out unless it’s Lucas or fraroc. :P A different view on music is one thing but to alter the meaning of words themselves is something else. Objectively, Rush is the greatest band that ever existed. No. That’s subjective. It IS a fact that it’s my opinion though. Tbf, I don't argue a different meaning of the word objective, simply another frame of reference from which to view its use in this scenario. I argue that music perhaps does have objective quality but the quality of any particular artist or album or song of whatever isn't something anyone knows exactly how to figure out. From then on, I take a stab at guessing what the objective greatest singer of all time is, and as far as I can tell, Freddie is the most likely option here. I don't claim my opinion that he's the best is objective, but I do claim that the objective fact, if it exists, is that Freddie is the best. He's not. ;) If ones fanatical opinion is enough to objectively prove something's worth for definite, then it can be said that, as he is misguided, the actual greatest singer of all time is Myles Kennedy and that cannot be disputed. Because on every level he is to me the definition of perfect. That's enough to win this thread. I feel so strongly that I am right. *yawns* That's really not what I'm saying at all, but I don't care to clarify any further.

Thank you. :) And yeah, Nirvana isn't usually my cup of tea, and while I think Cobain is a vastly overrated guitarist and an average singer, I do recognize the incredible talent he had as a performer, a songwriter, and simply as a rock artist. Nirvana is one of the great bands objectively, but they don't register on my list of favorites subjectively. Cobain said himself he couldn't play well so for his fans to say otherwise is just stupid. Death seems to bring out the worst in fans. I'm not an amazing guitarist myself, but if I put in the time and effort I think I could probably match Cobain's skill on the instrument within a year from where I am now. It would take me a heck of a lot longer to reach Brian May, EVH, Alex, or bunches of other masters levels. Still sad that he went :( I read somewhere he was panning on collaborating with R.E.M. in the near future. That would've been pretty awesome. You might be able to play Cobain's songs in a year (maybe not), but could you create them? This goes back to something I've posted a few times here. Which one of these two guitarists appears to have more technical proficiency? Is he the one who plays the song "right?" Not to my ears. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHRNSeuvzlM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZamjrXCDvo Look, I'm not arguing against the idea that Cobain played with incredible feeling. He obviously did. His work, however technically average, truly connected with people and still does. Is it hard to play like Cobain though? No. Not compared to learning to play like EVH or Hendrix, Cobain is beginners' stuff. Now would I want to hear DT cover Lithium? No, probably not, because as technically skilled as they are, they have a reputation for missing the emotional point on covers and such, even in their own work. They'd play it note perfect and it wouldn't have nearly the same resonance as Nirvana's version. That doesn't make Cobain a technically better guitarist than Petrucci though. A Nirvana cover of Metropolis would probably sound even worse than DT doing Lithium. Or think of it this way, Kanye West is not a technically proficient singer. Now I wouldn't want to hear a more technically proficient singer take on his own written work, because it wouldn't probably sound quite right, but even less appealing is that time Kanye tried to sing Bohemian Rhapsody because he just did not have the physical technical ability to pull it off. Sorry if that's confusing. Cobain was an excellent performer and songwriter, and any musician would feel blessed to create work of his caliber, but he was not a great guitarist. Putting him up against the Steve Howes and David Gilmores of the world proves that easily. But, again, playing Smells Like Teen Spirit, and creating it are two different things. Is being a great musician just being able to play fast? Or does it also include being able to create things out of nothing that are memorable? Is the riff of Smoke on the Water hard to play? Is it good? What about Iron Man? Is it not as good as Tony's noodling on the debut album (which I personally love but think is self indulgent) because it's easy to play. Dave Gilmour and Steve Howe are two good examples. Does Adrian Vandenberg blow them away? He's much faster than either of them even in their prime. You cannot deny that Cobain's guitar work, however inspired, never reaches past an amateur level of difficulty. I understand what you're saying, but you can't say technical ability doesn't factor at all into the makings of a great guitarist. The ideal guitarist will be both technically proficient and incredibly creative and inspired, in addition to many other things. Obviously Cobain is more than qualified in one category, but he's so vastly under qualified in the other that I cannot call him a great guitarist. A great musician and songwriter, sure, yes, of course. History has proven it. But a great guitarist he is not. Can't you make the same point about Gilmour? Would you agree that if you walk into your neighborhood Guitar Center, it's filled with kids who can play a Pink Floyd album note for note? But ask Gilmour himself to play Eruption and he probably wouldn't be able to very well? But he's a great guitarist because his stuff didn't exist before he created it. That's a form of greatness, IMO. I'd write a counterpoint but I think we've talked in circles enough. I'm not sure we're actually that far off of each other's views, I just refuse to see Cobain as one of the guitar greats. Agree to disagree? I like dead horses .. after all, I am a Denver Bronco fan I think David Gilmour has a recognizable guitar style .. Players that have been influenced by Gilmour, you hear them and think "that's Gilmourseque " Does Kurt Cobain have unique, or at least distinctly recognizable guitar style ??? Just because that chorus / tremolo effect has become somewhat synonymous with Nirvana's music doesn't make Cobain a guitar great ... That effect has been used by countless other, less popular players and the fact that someone might think "that sounds like Kurt Cobain" really doesn't have much to do with his playing ability .. I'm not saying that he didn't write and create meaningful music ... But I don't see where he meets any criteria of a "guitar great" What IS the criteria for a “guitar great”? Some in this thread don’t even follow the dictionary meaning of “objective” so coming up with a criteria for guitar greats might be impossible. You can use my screen name, lol, I'm not offended by being called out for having a different view on objectivity. I don’t like to call people out unless it’s Lucas or fraroc. :P A different view on music is one thing but to alter the meaning of words themselves is something else. Objectively, Rush is the greatest band that ever existed. No. That’s subjective. It IS a fact that it’s my opinion though. Tbf, I don't argue a different meaning of the word objective, simply another frame of reference from which to view its use in this scenario. I argue that music perhaps does have objective quality but the quality of any particular artist or album or song of whatever isn't something anyone knows exactly how to figure out. From then on, I take a stab at guessing what the objective greatest singer of all time is, and as far as I can tell, Freddie is the most likely option here. I don't claim my opinion that he's the best is objective, but I do claim that the objective fact, if it exists, is that Freddie is the best.

Thank you. :) And yeah, Nirvana isn't usually my cup of tea, and while I think Cobain is a vastly overrated guitarist and an average singer, I do recognize the incredible talent he had as a performer, a songwriter, and simply as a rock artist. Nirvana is one of the great bands objectively, but they don't register on my list of favorites subjectively. Cobain said himself he couldn't play well so for his fans to say otherwise is just stupid. Death seems to bring out the worst in fans. I'm not an amazing guitarist myself, but if I put in the time and effort I think I could probably match Cobain's skill on the instrument within a year from where I am now. It would take me a heck of a lot longer to reach Brian May, EVH, Alex, or bunches of other masters levels. Still sad that he went :( I read somewhere he was panning on collaborating with R.E.M. in the near future. That would've been pretty awesome. You might be able to play Cobain's songs in a year (maybe not), but could you create them? This goes back to something I've posted a few times here. Which one of these two guitarists appears to have more technical proficiency? Is he the one who plays the song "right?" Not to my ears. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHRNSeuvzlM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZamjrXCDvo Look, I'm not arguing against the idea that Cobain played with incredible feeling. He obviously did. His work, however technically average, truly connected with people and still does. Is it hard to play like Cobain though? No. Not compared to learning to play like EVH or Hendrix, Cobain is beginners' stuff. Now would I want to hear DT cover Lithium? No, probably not, because as technically skilled as they are, they have a reputation for missing the emotional point on covers and such, even in their own work. They'd play it note perfect and it wouldn't have nearly the same resonance as Nirvana's version. That doesn't make Cobain a technically better guitarist than Petrucci though. A Nirvana cover of Metropolis would probably sound even worse than DT doing Lithium. Or think of it this way, Kanye West is not a technically proficient singer. Now I wouldn't want to hear a more technically proficient singer take on his own written work, because it wouldn't probably sound quite right, but even less appealing is that time Kanye tried to sing Bohemian Rhapsody because he just did not have the physical technical ability to pull it off. Sorry if that's confusing. Cobain was an excellent performer and songwriter, and any musician would feel blessed to create work of his caliber, but he was not a great guitarist. Putting him up against the Steve Howes and David Gilmores of the world proves that easily. But, again, playing Smells Like Teen Spirit, and creating it are two different things. Is being a great musician just being able to play fast? Or does it also include being able to create things out of nothing that are memorable? Is the riff of Smoke on the Water hard to play? Is it good? What about Iron Man? Is it not as good as Tony's noodling on the debut album (which I personally love but think is self indulgent) because it's easy to play. Dave Gilmour and Steve Howe are two good examples. Does Adrian Vandenberg blow them away? He's much faster than either of them even in their prime. You cannot deny that Cobain's guitar work, however inspired, never reaches past an amateur level of difficulty. I understand what you're saying, but you can't say technical ability doesn't factor at all into the makings of a great guitarist. The ideal guitarist will be both technically proficient and incredibly creative and inspired, in addition to many other things. Obviously Cobain is more than qualified in one category, but he's so vastly under qualified in the other that I cannot call him a great guitarist. A great musician and songwriter, sure, yes, of course. History has proven it. But a great guitarist he is not. Can't you make the same point about Gilmour? Would you agree that if you walk into your neighborhood Guitar Center, it's filled with kids who can play a Pink Floyd album note for note? But ask Gilmour himself to play Eruption and he probably wouldn't be able to very well? But he's a great guitarist because his stuff didn't exist before he created it. That's a form of greatness, IMO. I'd write a counterpoint but I think we've talked in circles enough. I'm not sure we're actually that far off of each other's views, I just refuse to see Cobain as one of the guitar greats. Agree to disagree? I like dead horses .. after all, I am a Denver Bronco fan I think David Gilmour has a recognizable guitar style .. Players that have been influenced by Gilmour, you hear them and think "that's Gilmourseque " Does Kurt Cobain have unique, or at least distinctly recognizable guitar style ??? Just because that chorus / tremolo effect has become somewhat synonymous with Nirvana's music doesn't make Cobain a guitar great ... That effect has been used by countless other, less popular players and the fact that someone might think "that sounds like Kurt Cobain" really doesn't have much to do with his playing ability .. I'm not saying that he didn't write and create meaningful music ... But I don't see where he meets any criteria of a "guitar great" What IS the criteria for a “guitar great”? Some in this thread don’t even follow the dictionary meaning of “objective” so coming up with a criteria for guitar greats might be impossible. You can use my screen name, lol, I'm not offended by being called out for having a different view on objectivity.

Dang, I dropped out of this argument like at least a page ago and yet I can't catch a break, lol. For what it's worth, to Rick's recent comment. I think Gilmore is objectively better than me, and I don't think Cobain is a whole lot better than me, thus I think Gilmore is objectively better than Cobain. I know that probably doesn't change anyone's opinion and I just put myself back into the argument, but that's just another 2 cents from me. EDIT: also I can hear what Lucas was talking about hearing a Gilmore influence in Johnny Buckland. When he does actually play lead electric guitar in Coldplay's music, he has a very lyrical style and emotive quality to his work that isn't dissimilar to Gilmore, just that Gilmore can play circles around Buckland otherwise, and Buckland is far more repetitive. A lyrical and emotive guitar style hardly seems unique to Gilmour though, or, for our purposes, one more identified with him than other guitarists. Your comment about Cobain vs. you reminds me of something I read about 30 years ago about Celtics' center Rick Robey. If you're too young to remember him, or didn't follow basketball back then, he was a tall, gawky guy who didn't appear to be too good, and constantly fouled people. The column I read made the point that watching him on the court with the Celtics, people would often comment that he stunk. Put him on the court in your local YMCA, and he'd score 100 points in every single game. I don't follow basketball, but I don't think that's a fair metaphor. Cobain is not a very good guitarist. Trust me, if you're calling him a great guitarist for being particularly good at expressing himself through the instrument, I just don't agree that that's all that makes a great guitarist. And I do not believe he was ever very much better than I am on the instrument. Sorry I can't offer you any proof, but that's the impression I get from his work on the guitar. Gilmore is on a totally different level. Easily as expressive on the instrument as Cobain, probably moreso, but he had so much more skill and versatility to play different ideas and audibly expand on his expression and make so much more music. Cobain was way more of a one trick pony on the guitar than Gilmore, and Cobain's trick wasn't really very good. Play fast, rhythmic punk riffs with plenty of distortion and vary the dynamics as necessary. It doesn't take long to learn to do that, and not even much longer to bring out the emotion in those musical ideas. Now take Gilmore's soloing on Dogs. Plenty of people on youtube might be able to play it note for note, after many years of practice at the instrument and technique mind you, but how many of them can make that soloing probe the depths of emotion that Gilmore does on record? Certainly not many people can do that. Not compared to how many people can do a convincing rendition of Smells Like Teen Spirit.

Dang, I dropped out of this argument like at least a page ago and yet I can't catch a break, lol. For what it's worth, to Rick's recent comment. I think Gilmore is objectively better than me, and I don't think Cobain is a whole lot better than me, thus I think Gilmore is objectively better than Cobain. I know that probably doesn't change anyone's opinion and I just put myself back into the argument, but that's just another 2 cents from me. EDIT: also I can hear what Lucas was talking about hearing a Gilmore influence in Johnny Buckland. When he does actually play lead electric guitar in Coldplay's music, he has a very lyrical style and emotive quality to his work that isn't dissimilar to Gilmore, just that Gilmore can play circles around Buckland otherwise, and Buckland is far more repetitive.

Yeah it would be TS, TSOR, and one of the other mega popular choices. But that would never happen for more reasons than I care to write out.

It's normal for a guitarist to play as flashy and showy as Alex (often it's normal for a guitarist to play a lot more flashy and showy), but it was shocking to hear Geddy and Neil play with such business and flash (and that's not to take away from their feel and connection). Obviously Ged and Neil were going to stand out from their piers, but in order for Alex to stand out, he'd have had to be on another level past Hendrix and Page, past Howe and Gilmore, and after 1978, past EVH. If he'd done that it would've ruined the power trio dynamic and turned Rush more into Alex's personal showpiece, and that's not what anyone wanted. Sure, show off, use your best skills, but never at expense of the music. Ged and Neil get so much more recognition because they were more unusual on their respective instruments than Alex, though I'd consider the three almost equally skilled at their respective instruments. Now as for influence, I've always thought I've heard a LOT of Alex in EVH's rhythm playing. So there's that.

Difference. Pablo learned to be technically proficient in the craft first before breaking down the "rules" and doing things seemingly simpler and less technically difficult. Cobain couldn't have played anything more difficult than his own songs if he'd tried. Pablo learned first then ignored the rules and techniques he deemed limiting to his expression. Cobain didn't learn first, he simply focused his musicianship outside the realm of being a skilled guitarist.

That's really neat. I was kind of introverted in college so I didn't interact on a personal level with my professors a ton of times. When I did, though, I think I learned as much or more from those times than I did in class. Follow up, I was just e-mailing my professor with a question about a project we're doing, and our e-mail chain devolved into an evaluation of his Rush references. :LMAO:

I told him happy birthday via text that day, lol, he doesn't actually check in here too much, not sure he's ever seen this part of the forum.

Thank you. :) And yeah, Nirvana isn't usually my cup of tea, and while I think Cobain is a vastly overrated guitarist and an average singer, I do recognize the incredible talent he had as a performer, a songwriter, and simply as a rock artist. Nirvana is one of the great bands objectively, but they don't register on my list of favorites subjectively. Cobain said himself he couldn't play well so for his fans to say otherwise is just stupid. Death seems to bring out the worst in fans. I'm not an amazing guitarist myself, but if I put in the time and effort I think I could probably match Cobain's skill on the instrument within a year from where I am now. It would take me a heck of a lot longer to reach Brian May, EVH, Alex, or bunches of other masters levels. Still sad that he went :( I read somewhere he was panning on collaborating with R.E.M. in the near future. That would've been pretty awesome. You might be able to play Cobain's songs in a year (maybe not), but could you create them? This goes back to something I've posted a few times here. Which one of these two guitarists appears to have more technical proficiency? Is he the one who plays the song "right?" Not to my ears. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHRNSeuvzlM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZamjrXCDvo Look, I'm not arguing against the idea that Cobain played with incredible feeling. He obviously did. His work, however technically average, truly connected with people and still does. Is it hard to play like Cobain though? No. Not compared to learning to play like EVH or Hendrix, Cobain is beginners' stuff. Now would I want to hear DT cover Lithium? No, probably not, because as technically skilled as they are, they have a reputation for missing the emotional point on covers and such, even in their own work. They'd play it note perfect and it wouldn't have nearly the same resonance as Nirvana's version. That doesn't make Cobain a technically better guitarist than Petrucci though. A Nirvana cover of Metropolis would probably sound even worse than DT doing Lithium. Or think of it this way, Kanye West is not a technically proficient singer. Now I wouldn't want to hear a more technically proficient singer take on his own written work, because it wouldn't probably sound quite right, but even less appealing is that time Kanye tried to sing Bohemian Rhapsody because he just did not have the physical technical ability to pull it off. Sorry if that's confusing. Cobain was an excellent performer and songwriter, and any musician would feel blessed to create work of his caliber, but he was not a great guitarist. Putting him up against the Steve Howes and David Gilmores of the world proves that easily. But, again, playing Smells Like Teen Spirit, and creating it are two different things. Is being a great musician just being able to play fast? Or does it also include being able to create things out of nothing that are memorable? Is the riff of Smoke on the Water hard to play? Is it good? What about Iron Man? Is it not as good as Tony's noodling on the debut album (which I personally love but think is self indulgent) because it's easy to play. Dave Gilmour and Steve Howe are two good examples. Does Adrian Vandenberg blow them away? He's much faster than either of them even in their prime. You cannot deny that Cobain's guitar work, however inspired, never reaches past an amateur level of difficulty. I understand what you're saying, but you can't say technical ability doesn't factor at all into the makings of a great guitarist. The ideal guitarist will be both technically proficient and incredibly creative and inspired, in addition to many other things. Obviously Cobain is more than qualified in one category, but he's so vastly under qualified in the other that I cannot call him a great guitarist. A great musician and songwriter, sure, yes, of course. History has proven it. But a great guitarist he is not. Can't you make the same point about Gilmour? Would you agree that if you walk into your neighborhood Guitar Center, it's filled with kids who can play a Pink Floyd album note for note? But ask Gilmour himself to play Eruption and he probably wouldn't be able to very well? But he's a great guitarist because his stuff didn't exist before he created it. That's a form of greatness, IMO. I'd write a counterpoint but I think we've talked in circles enough. I'm not sure we're actually that far off of each other's views, I just refuse to see Cobain as one of the guitar greats. Agree to disagree?

Yes exactly! I mean, the Beatle's influence over rock and pop just continues to play out over and over. Black Hole Sun is basically Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds turned inside out and played backwards (stylistically, don't go checking me on the notation). Shut Up And Dance by Walk The Moon (not saying I like that song) isn't far removed from the melodies of Hard Day's Night. I've always said, when it comes to rock and pop music, it always comes back to the blues and The Beatles.

I'll agree that The Beatles merely popularized rock and that someone else would've gotten along to it in a few years if they hadn't shown up first, but the process by which they popularized rock had an unimaginable impact on how the genre would proceed creatively, promotionally, and how it would be consumed. There's no guarantee that, had some other band popularized rock and roll and The Beatles not existed, that band wouldn't have had a few hits and passed out of fashion in a couple years for lack of creativity, splitting up, or many other things. The Beatles took their role as rock and pop's flagship band seriously, doing everything in their power to push the music to its limits, to define what the shape of rock and pop to come would be, even at the expense of good songwriting (I'm looking at you Revolution 9). Had, say, the Rolling Stones been the band to hit first and popularize it, we'd have still gotten the Stones and all they influenced, but certainly art rock, psychedelic rock, prog rock, pop rock, and many other styles would've looked very different. Heck, even heavy metal and hard rock would probably be less inclined to snappy catchy hooks or melodies. I've often seen Sabbath as just an inverse of The Beatles, slowed down and with added tri-tones and Zeppelin elements. That is to say I think they're much more indebted to The Beatles as songwriters and artists that The Stones. Yes it would be popular, but it would look very different.

Hyperspace Blacksmith Hey that's pretty cool!

My choice for most overrated album by the fan base. i agree. if you take out Xanadu.....what do ya got? Closer to the Heart? Yawn. and Cygnus is a snoozefest no matter what your told, lol Mick I can see not liking it, but I'd hardly see Cygnus being a snooze fest. That song contains quite possibly the most high octane and exciting section of music Rush ever wrote.

Thank you. :) And yeah, Nirvana isn't usually my cup of tea, and while I think Cobain is a vastly overrated guitarist and an average singer, I do recognize the incredible talent he had as a performer, a songwriter, and simply as a rock artist. Nirvana is one of the great bands objectively, but they don't register on my list of favorites subjectively. Cobain said himself he couldn't play well so for his fans to say otherwise is just stupid. Death seems to bring out the worst in fans. I'm not an amazing guitarist myself, but if I put in the time and effort I think I could probably match Cobain's skill on the instrument within a year from where I am now. It would take me a heck of a lot longer to reach Brian May, EVH, Alex, or bunches of other masters levels. Still sad that he went :( I read somewhere he was panning on collaborating with R.E.M. in the near future. That would've been pretty awesome. You might be able to play Cobain's songs in a year (maybe not), but could you create them? This goes back to something I've posted a few times here. Which one of these two guitarists appears to have more technical proficiency? Is he the one who plays the song "right?" Not to my ears. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHRNSeuvzlM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZamjrXCDvo Look, I'm not arguing against the idea that Cobain played with incredible feeling. He obviously did. His work, however technically average, truly connected with people and still does. Is it hard to play like Cobain though? No. Not compared to learning to play like EVH or Hendrix, Cobain is beginners' stuff. Now would I want to hear DT cover Lithium? No, probably not, because as technically skilled as they are, they have a reputation for missing the emotional point on covers and such, even in their own work. They'd play it note perfect and it wouldn't have nearly the same resonance as Nirvana's version. That doesn't make Cobain a technically better guitarist than Petrucci though. A Nirvana cover of Metropolis would probably sound even worse than DT doing Lithium. Or think of it this way, Kanye West is not a technically proficient singer. Now I wouldn't want to hear a more technically proficient singer take on his own written work, because it wouldn't probably sound quite right, but even less appealing is that time Kanye tried to sing Bohemian Rhapsody because he just did not have the physical technical ability to pull it off. Sorry if that's confusing. Cobain was an excellent performer and songwriter, and any musician would feel blessed to create work of his caliber, but he was not a great guitarist. Putting him up against the Steve Howes and David Gilmores of the world proves that easily. But, again, playing Smells Like Teen Spirit, and creating it are two different things. Is being a great musician just being able to play fast? Or does it also include being able to create things out of nothing that are memorable? Is the riff of Smoke on the Water hard to play? Is it good? What about Iron Man? Is it not as good as Tony's noodling on the debut album (which I personally love but think is self indulgent) because it's easy to play. Dave Gilmour and Steve Howe are two good examples. Does Adrian Vandenberg blow them away? He's much faster than either of them even in their prime. You cannot deny that Cobain's guitar work, however inspired, never reaches past an amateur level of difficulty. I understand what you're saying, but you can't say technical ability doesn't factor at all into the makings of a great guitarist. The ideal guitarist will be both technically proficient and incredibly creative and inspired, in addition to many other things. Obviously Cobain is more than qualified in one category, but he's so vastly under qualified in the other that I cannot call him a great guitarist. A great musician and songwriter, sure, yes, of course. History has proven it. But a great guitarist he is not.

The March Of The Black Queen, Bohemian Rhapsody, The Prophet's Song, and The Millionaire Waltz are more than enough evidence that Queen made some killer prog in their time. i always bring this up....but you forgot Liar......a killer prog song and my fav queen song. Mick I thought for a second about Liar. One of my favs for sure but not as prog as the other stuff, a little more just hard rocking. Definitely a prog influence though.

The March Of The Black Queen, Bohemian Rhapsody, The Prophet's Song, and The Millionaire Waltz are more than enough evidence that Queen made some killer prog in their time.

Roll The Bones is a fine song Roll The Bones is a sucky album.

Queen II is my second favorite Queen album. I know Mick loves it too. Honestly I'm not sure how much farther they could've gone in this direction with such great results, but I'm glad we have Queen II after all. Wonderful album! :)

Sorry I didn't catch the joke. Still not sure what it was though. Obviously not everyone will agree, that much couldn't be more true and taste couldn't be more subjective, but that doesn't negate the idea that I can have a belief that someone (namely Freddie) is the greatest singer of all time, and I can believe I'm right and other opinions are wrong. The important thing is that, though I think I'm right, I don't think my opinion should be everyone's opinion. I concede that I could be wrong and that I can't possibly know, even though I think that I'm right, therefor I've no more say than the next guy in knowing who is the best singer of all time. Now what singer is my favorite, that's completely subjective. For me again the answer is Freddie, but I don't think someone is wrong for liking other singers more than him, even though I believe he was the greatest, someone else can like other singers more and that's totally cool. Mariah Carey is probably a better singer than Geddy Lee, for instance, but I'd rather listen to Geddy most days. I think there's a big difference between favorite and best.

Dang, can't figure out why you went with that comparison but I definitely do not agree. Can't think of one Queen album I'd trade for anything by Nirvana. Because Queen fans often talk about how Mercury "objectively" had the best voice in rock, and how proficient May, Taylor and Deacon were. And yet an album that is nearly a demo blows everything they've ever recorded away. To me. Well, Mercury does have "objectively" the best voice in rock, and May, Taylor, and Deacon are all vastly underrated (Deacy especially) as songwriters and instrumentalists... To me. There’s nothing objective there even when you include “to me”. In fact, especially when you include “to me.” I think instrument vs instrument and vocals vs vocals, Queen obliterates Nirvana but there’s nothing objective in this thought. And I like Nirvana From my frame of reference, this is the world where Freddie is the greatest singer of all time, no matter what anyone else thinks. I think subjectively that this is an objective fact, no matter what anyone else thinks of the matter. I don't mind if others disagree, but I do think they're wrong, though they are entitled to their own opinions and I wouldn't dare sway them from their own tastes. That's my philosophy on the matter. There’s absolutely no objective fact in thinking “Freddie is the greatest singer of all time” no matter how much I truly believe it. But there's absolutely objective fact in stating "Lynyrd Skynyrd's Free Bird is a way better song (has a way more music quality) than Britney's Spears song Oops!... I Did It Again. Anyone who claims otherwise is a cretin who don't know shit about music or a person with an extremely bad taste in music. Provided you prefer Lynyrd Skynyrd to Britney Spears. Which, going by sales alone, is actually a minority position. Good stuff sells well, but shitty stuff sells well too. His point is that it's subjective, not that sales should be considered an indicator of quality, but they are a fair indicator of perceived quality and size of fanbase. I think Free Bird trumps anything Britney ever sang, but someone with no appetite for rock music who grew up listening to pop and electro would see the hooky songwriting and memorable performances on Britney songs vastly superior to the endless guitar soloing on Free Bird.

Thank you. :) And yeah, Nirvana isn't usually my cup of tea, and while I think Cobain is a vastly overrated guitarist and an average singer, I do recognize the incredible talent he had as a performer, a songwriter, and simply as a rock artist. Nirvana is one of the great bands objectively, but they don't register on my list of favorites subjectively. Cobain said himself he couldn't play well so for his fans to say otherwise is just stupid. Death seems to bring out the worst in fans. I'm not an amazing guitarist myself, but if I put in the time and effort I think I could probably match Cobain's skill on the instrument within a year from where I am now. It would take me a heck of a lot longer to reach Brian May, EVH, Alex, or bunches of other masters levels. Still sad that he went :( I read somewhere he was panning on collaborating with R.E.M. in the near future. That would've been pretty awesome. You might be able to play Cobain's songs in a year (maybe not), but could you create them? This goes back to something I've posted a few times here. Which one of these two guitarists appears to have more technical proficiency? Is he the one who plays the song "right?" Not to my ears. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHRNSeuvzlM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZamjrXCDvo Look, I'm not arguing against the idea that Cobain played with incredible feeling. He obviously did. His work, however technically average, truly connected with people and still does. Is it hard to play like Cobain though? No. Not compared to learning to play like EVH or Hendrix, Cobain is beginners' stuff. Now would I want to hear DT cover Lithium? No, probably not, because as technically skilled as they are, they have a reputation for missing the emotional point on covers and such, even in their own work. They'd play it note perfect and it wouldn't have nearly the same resonance as Nirvana's version. That doesn't make Cobain a technically better guitarist than Petrucci though. A Nirvana cover of Metropolis would probably sound even worse than DT doing Lithium. Or think of it this way, Kanye West is not a technically proficient singer. Now I wouldn't want to hear a more technically proficient singer take on his own written work, because it wouldn't probably sound quite right, but even less appealing is that time Kanye tried to sing Bohemian Rhapsody because he just did not have the physical technical ability to pull it off. Sorry if that's confusing. Cobain was an excellent performer and songwriter, and any musician would feel blessed to create work of his caliber, but he was not a great guitarist. Putting him up against the Steve Howes and David Gilmores of the world proves that easily.

Dang, can't figure out why you went with that comparison but I definitely do not agree. Can't think of one Queen album I'd trade for anything by Nirvana. Because Queen fans often talk about how Mercury "objectively" had the best voice in rock, and how proficient May, Taylor and Deacon were. And yet an album that is nearly a demo blows everything they've ever recorded away. To me. Well, Mercury does have "objectively" the best voice in rock, and May, Taylor, and Deacon are all vastly underrated (Deacy especially) as songwriters and instrumentalists... To me. You are taking about subjectivity. I've explained my idea behind this statement already. I believe there is a fact to the matter, but my take on what the facts are is subjective yes. I don't dare think my opinion is wrong, but I will admit it's only one opinion, which I believe happens to be correct.