Does music have objectively measureable quality?

[The Cat 3]

I just went from listening to the Ramones to early Genesis and am equally (perhaps differently) moved by both. Art, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder.

[Rick N. Backer]

Saving face. Protecting what you think is right is a basic survival instinct. On some primal level, the Queen fan wants to tear out the throat of the Cobain fan, and vice versa. They circle each other, growling and hissing and giving each other their best stink eyes. Good thing we're all civilized. Saving grace.

 

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.

[Entre_Perpetuo]

Saving face. Protecting what you think is right is a basic survival instinct. On some primal level, the Queen fan wants to tear out the throat of the Cobain fan, and vice versa. They circle each other, growling and hissing and giving each other their best stink eyes. Good thing we're all civilized. Saving grace.

 

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.

[Rick N. Backer]

Saving face. Protecting what you think is right is a basic survival instinct. On some primal level, the Queen fan wants to tear out the throat of the Cobain fan, and vice versa. They circle each other, growling and hissing and giving each other their best stink eyes. Good thing we're all civilized. Saving grace.

 

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 exp<b></b>ression 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.

 

I don’t think we’re going to agree on what “good” means.

[goose]

Who is arguing that Kurt Cobain is a guitar great? He is a very effective guitarist. He understands the importance of a hook and plays with emotion and abandon. His playing is based in punk rock. Personally, I think he uses the guitar more effectively than most so-called guitar greats.

 

I always found Kurt Cobain incredibly overrated as a musician.

 

 

And comparing Cobain and Gilmour as musicians is beyond me. They're not in the same ballpark.

 

The former is the reason for the latter.

 

I don't understand what you mean.

 

You don't like Cobain. That's why you think he's not in Gilmour's ballpark, who I would guess you do like. To me, I like Gilmour's music, but there's nothing all that special about his guitar playing.

His tone is amazing.

[goose]

 

 

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.

 

Not all, but certainly a big aspect of it.

[JohnnyBlaze]

Regardless of where you put Queen or Freddie on your list, I think EP is one hell of a fan, and any band would be proud to have a fan that dedicated ..

 

And to get fans who are so dedicated, you've got to be one hell of a band ..

 

All bands have fans ... but some have fanatics ..

 

That's not something you can really measure, but it certainly is an observation

 

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.

[Entre_Perpetuo]

Regardless of where you put Queen or Freddie on your list, I think EP is one hell of a fan, and any band would be proud to have a fan that dedicated ..

 

And to get fans who are so dedicated, you've got to be one hell of a band ..

 

All bands have fans ... but some have fanatics ..

 

That's not something you can really measure, but it certainly is an observation

 

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.

[JohnnyBlaze]

Regardless of where you put Queen or Freddie on your list, I think EP is one hell of a fan, and any band would be proud to have a fan that dedicated ..

 

And to get fans who are so dedicated, you've got to be one hell of a band ..

 

All bands have fans ... but some have fanatics ..

 

That's not something you can really measure, but it certainly is an observation

 

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.

[RUSHHEAD666]

Regardless of where you put Queen or Freddie on your list, I think EP is one hell of a fan, and any band would be proud to have a fan that dedicated ..

 

And to get fans who are so dedicated, you've got to be one hell of a band ..

 

All bands have fans ... but some have fanatics ..

 

That's not something you can really measure, but it certainly is an observation

 

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.

 

You just hurt my feelings! Don't you like to call me out too? LOL

[JohnnyBlaze]

Regardless of where you put Queen or Freddie on your list, I think EP is one hell of a fan, and any band would be proud to have a fan that dedicated ..

 

And to get fans who are so dedicated, you've got to be one hell of a band ..

 

All bands have fans ... but some have fanatics ..

 

That's not something you can really measure, but it certainly is an observation

 

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.

 

You just hurt my feelings! Don't you like to call me out too? LOL

 

I don’t call you out though. It’s more of a reflex with you.

[RUSHHEAD666]

Regardless of where you put Queen or Freddie on your list, I think EP is one hell of a fan, and any band would be proud to have a fan that dedicated ..

 

And to get fans who are so dedicated, you've got to be one hell of a band ..

 

All bands have fans ... but some have fanatics ..

 

That's not something you can really measure, but it certainly is an observation

 

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.

 

You just hurt my feelings! Don't you like to call me out too? LOL

 

I don’t call you out though. It’s more of a reflex with you.

 

Hahahaha! True!!!! Funny dude!

 

I will give you "The Reflex" baby!

 

Love,

 

Duran Duran

[RUSHHEAD666]

It's sort of a knee jerk reaction! Yup and I'm "The Jerk!"

 

Signed,

 

Steve Martin

[cygnify]

well, I think obviously it is subjective between any two people - but I will say that recently I had this idea to create a collage of the logos of my favorite bands (sort of a modern day version of drawing the logos on my notebook in high school when I was bored...) It was apparent that I would need to limit my number of bands to fit on a page - it came down to 25 artists. I started with the music on my phone - I have something like 6521 songs from 389 artists. Now, I'll admit there are some artists that I just have one song from. Others I have their entire discography and RoIOs (bootlegs). Some are in between - "greatest hits" sort of bands, or bands where I loved them with their original singer but not as much after that. I pretty much eliminated the lesser ones when thinking about my absolute favorite bands. I eliminated artists that I liked only a small amount of material from - and got the list down to around 120. I listed those in the spreadsheet and came up with some criteria - things that are important to me: how much (%) of their output do I love/like/find interesting, how emotionally connected I am to their work, how inspiring the musicians are to me as a musician, how many times I've seen them live, their ability to kill it live, how likely I would be to travel to see them in concert, how much I identify with their art, their staying power with me, etc. I took a bunch of time (Must have been really bored!!) to think about my ratings and draw comparisons between bands (as a drummer, this led to some interesting thoughts about which players inspired me & which ones I really think are better - subjectively, of course.) I tried to consider my all-time favorite bands - that is, not necessarily the ones on heavy rotation as of last week, but ones that I might have loved in High School and then came back in College and then again more recently. Then again, there are some new bands that I "found" in the past 10-15 years that just really speak to me and drove up the ladder and joined my all-timers. Anyway, I feel like I at least approximated some objectivity (at least with my own interest). I was surprised at a couple of the results - but when I think about them, they made sense. Of course, some days I just prefer to listen to #117 than #1 and just love it. So, the ranking is irrelevant to my listening interests in any given moment. But somehow it makes sense to me in the big picture. Here's what I came up with for my all-time favorite 25 bands (roughly listed top to bottom on the page.)

 

http://i951.photobucket.com/albums/ad352/cygnify/Autographs/Top25_Bands_zpsabueak0u.jpg

Edited February 21, 2018 by cygnify

[Entre_Perpetuo]

Regardless of where you put Queen or Freddie on your list, I think EP is one hell of a fan, and any band would be proud to have a fan that dedicated ..

 

And to get fans who are so dedicated, you've got to be one hell of a band ..

 

All bands have fans ... but some have fanatics ..

 

That's not something you can really measure, but it certainly is an observation

 

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.

[RUSHHEAD666]

well, I think obviously it is subjective between any two people - but I will say that recently I had this idea to create a collage of the logos of my favorite bands (sort of a modern day version of drawing the logos on my notebook in high school when I was bored...) It was apparent that I would need to limit my number of bands to fit on a page - it came down to 25 artists. I started with the music on my phone - I have something like 6521 songs from 389 artists. Now, I'll admit there are some artists that I just have one song from. Others I have their entire discography and RoIOs (bootlegs). Some are in between - "greatest hits" sort of bands, or bands where I loved them with their original singer but not as much after that. I pretty much eliminated the lesser ones when thinking about my absolute favorite bands. I eliminated artists that I liked only a small amount of material from - and got the list down to around 120. I listed those in the spreadsheet and came up with some criteria - things that are important to me: how much (%) of their output do I love/like/find interesting, how emotionally connected I am to their work, how inspiring the musicians are to me as a musician, how many times I've seen them live, their ability to kill it live, how likely I would be to travel to see them in concert, how much I identify with their art, their staying power with me, etc. I took a bunch of time (Must have been really bored!!) to think about my ratings and draw comparisons between bands (as a drummer, this led to some interesting thoughts about which players inspired me & which ones I really think are better - subjectively, of course.) I tried to consider my all-time favorite bands - that is, not necessarily the ones on heavy rotation as of last week, but ones that I might have loved in High School and then came back in College and then again more recently. Then again, there are some new bands that I "found" in the past 10-15 years that just really speak to me and drove up the ladder and joined my all-timers. Anyway, I feel like I at least approximated some objectivity (at least with my own interest). I was surprised at a couple of the results - but when I think about them, they made sense. Of course, some days I just prefer to listen to #117 than #1 and just love it. So, the ranking is irrelevant to my listening interests in any given moment. But somehow it makes sense to me in the big picture. Here's what I came up with for my all-time favorite 25 bands (roughly listed top to bottom on the page.)

 

http://i951.photobucket.com/albums/ad352/cygnify/Autographs/Top25_Bands_zpsabueak0u.jpg

Amazing!

 

I love 24 of your bands. The Grateful Dead SUCK!

[goose]

The Grateful Dead SUCK!

 

 

[RUSHHEAD666]

The Grateful Dead SUCK!

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugRct9pNQYM

 

Sorry G Man! BARF!

[RUSHHEAD666]

I do have a quick funny Grateful Dead story though. I think I've mentioned it before on here.

 

So the ex wife of the Grateful Dead keyboardist, the one who overdosed on speed? Not sure, but anyway she and her kids rented the house across the street from my parents. Well it was a DEAD END street.

 

Well one night I was coming home late from work when I still lived there, and someone with a black spray paint can put a H in front of the E and made an A over the N.

 

You can figure it out.

 

It was very crafty.

[JohnnyBlaze]

Regardless of where you put Queen or Freddie on your list, I think EP is one hell of a fan, and any band would be proud to have a fan that dedicated ..

 

And to get fans who are so dedicated, you've got to be one hell of a band ..

 

All bands have fans ... but some have fanatics ..

 

That's not something you can really measure, but it certainly is an observation

 

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.

 

The Smashing Pumpkins are touring without Darcey. What a fuckking joke.

 

But aren’t Chamberlain and Iha back?

Corgan, Chamberlain, Iha, + a capable bassist aren’t a joke. And if I had to choose, I’d lose D’arcy before any of those three without thinking twice. Besides, she’s had a lot of problems (drugs and mental health) in the last 20 years. She’d need to sort out the personal stuff first before embarking on any kind of rigorous tour.

[Texas King]

 

http://i951.photobucket.com/albums/ad352/cygnify/Autographs/Top25_Bands_zpsabueak0u.jpg

 

Obviously you are a huge proghead. Opeth is really surprise on your list comparing to others, because they are totally different to other 24 bands, esp. from a vocal aspect. And they are the only METAL band you put in your top 25. And you didn't include Dream Theater, giants of prog metal?

[cygnify]

Obviously you are a huge proghead. Opeth is really surprise on your list comparing to others, because they are totally different to other 24 bands, esp. from a vocal aspect. And they are the only METAL band you put in your top 25. And you didn't include Dream Theater, giants of prog metal?

 

Definitely a proghead - though many on this list would not at all be considered "prog"! As for Opeth - I could see them in a Prog-Metal category (like Dream Theater); though they did it much differently. Yes, their vocals are stylistically different, but so are Chili Peppers, The Dead, Zappa, and obviously The Dregs (no vocals!). I would argue King's X are totally different, as are the Dead, Dregs, Hendrix, Van Halen...

 

Btw, Dream Theater came in at #33 on my list. I liked them alot very early on (seeing them in NYC during I&W era; met Portnoy 3-4 times) However, I lost interest in them around 6DoiT. I always had reservations about them vocally (though I like Scenes from a Memory, which had better vocal production.) I was quite interested with Mangini coming into the fold (I like Mike as well); However, I was more than disappointed with the direction with Petrucci driving them; especially the astonishingly horrid last disc... (Might as well program those drums!) I actually skipped their show when they last came to town. Metal is well represented in other places on my list: Metallica (#26), Iron Maiden (#49), Anthrax, Megadeth, and not counting originators Sabbath, Deep Purple, Led Zep or sub-metal genres (King's X, Rage, Malmsteen, etc.)

[apetersvt]

The Grateful Dead SUCK!

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugRct9pNQYM

 

well, I think obviously it is subjective between any two people - but I will say that recently I had this idea to create a collage of the logos of my favorite bands (sort of a modern day version of drawing the logos on my notebook in high school when I was bored...) It was apparent that I would need to limit my number of bands to fit on a page - it came down to 25 artists. I started with the music on my phone - I have something like 6521 songs from 389 artists. Now, I'll admit there are some artists that I just have one song from. Others I have their entire discography and RoIOs (bootlegs). Some are in between - "greatest hits" sort of bands, or bands where I loved them with their original singer but not as much after that. I pretty much eliminated the lesser ones when thinking about my absolute favorite bands. I eliminated artists that I liked only a small amount of material from - and got the list down to around 120. I listed those in the spreadsheet and came up with some criteria - things that are important to me: how much (%) of their output do I love/like/find interesting, how emotionally connected I am to their work, how inspiring the musicians are to me as a musician, how many times I've seen them live, their ability to kill it live, how likely I would be to travel to see them in concert, how much I identify with their art, their staying power with me, etc. I took a bunch of time (Must have been really bored!!) to think about my ratings and draw comparisons between bands (as a drummer, this led to some interesting thoughts about which players inspired me & which ones I really think are better - subjectively, of course.) I tried to consider my all-time favorite bands - that is, not necessarily the ones on heavy rotation as of last week, but ones that I might have loved in High School and then came back in College and then again more recently. Then again, there are some new bands that I "found" in the past 10-15 years that just really speak to me and drove up the ladder and joined my all-timers. Anyway, I feel like I at least approximated some objectivity (at least with my own interest). I was surprised at a couple of the results - but when I think about them, they made sense. Of course, some days I just prefer to listen to #117 than #1 and just love it. So, the ranking is irrelevant to my listening interests in any given moment. But somehow it makes sense to me in the big picture. Here's what I came up with for my all-time favorite 25 bands (roughly listed top to bottom on the page.)

 

http://i951.photobucket.com/albums/ad352/cygnify/Autographs/Top25_Bands_zpsabueak0u.jpg

Amazing!

 

I love 24 of your bands. The Grateful Dead SUCK!

 

Rush used to play some Dead back in their bar days. Have always wondered what tune(s) they played.

[Rick N. Backer]

Regardless of where you put Queen or Freddie on your list, I think EP is one hell of a fan, and any band would be proud to have a fan that dedicated ..

 

And to get fans who are so dedicated, you've got to be one hell of a band ..

 

All bands have fans ... but some have fanatics ..

 

That's not something you can really measure, but it certainly is an observation

 

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.

 

;)

[Segue Myles]

Regardless of where you put Queen or Freddie on your list, I think EP is one hell of a fan, and any band would be proud to have a fan that dedicated ..

 

And to get fans who are so dedicated, you've got to be one hell of a band ..

 

All bands have fans ... but some have fanatics ..

 

That's not something you can really measure, but it certainly is an observation

 

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*