Is Rock Dead?

[HemiBeers]

And, I'll add that Nirvana had more cultural influence than any group mentioned except The Beatles.

Nirvana had no more influence than the Sex Pistols. That being a short-lived blip on the radar. To put Nirvana's influence above Hendrix, Van Halen, Ramones etc. is incorrect.

 

I appreciate Nirvana and their material, but cmon man.

 

Nirvana had more influence on the music of their time than Hendrix and the Ramones. By a lot. Van Halen is basically the prototype for the hair bands, so we're in agreement there.

 

Ask some of the hair metal icons of the late 80s what Nirvana meant to their personal wealth.

I was there. Nirvana was a musical tsunami. They wiped the slate clean and rock music was energized. Everything was different after Nirvana. A band among a very few.

 

Yeah but what spawned could be just as bad as some of the hair metal crap.

 

That isn't the point, though. I love Hendrix. I'm not a big fan of the Ramones, but I acknowledge their influence. However, neither of them came close to changing the music scene the way Nirvana's Nevermind did.

The influence of Nirvana might have been greater on you because you were young at the time and that's what hit you. Nothing wrong about that. But grunge died in the mid 90s. Where is Nirvana's influence today? Ziltch. Any significant bands playing grunge? Nada. There's no significant bands playing punk ala The Sex Pistols which is why I put them in the 'flash in the pan' bucket along with Nirvana. Grunge and the alt scene in the early 90s was an interesting 3-4 years, but we've moved on long ago.

 

Hendrix and Van Halen changed how guitarists played long after their time and continue to do so. Their influence is much greater than Nirvana. From a musician's perspective, there really wasn't anything significantly different that Nirvana did. Smells Like Teen Spirit is a rip off of Boston's More Than a Feeling. Cobain was a very simplistic guitar player. For supposedly being 'revolutionary' and different, Cobain turned out to have a very cliche rock and roll existence.

 

Back to the thread title at hand...If we're questioning whether Rock is dead then Nirvana's influence must not have been that great. I approach this from looking at the originality of their music and not idol worship.

 

Wow...Nirvana shirts are still common, merchandise sells well, grunge has diluted itself into plenty of pop rock bands who have smoothed out the edges, you see articles about them in magazines frequently because the legend of Kurt is still a powerful hold on many...

 

You are so seriously trying to deny their existence and impact it's hilarious. I don't know any young rock fans who don't at least have a handful of favourite Nirvana songs.

I guess I'm more about the music than shirt and merch sales.

[Segue Myles]

And, I'll add that Nirvana had more cultural influence than any group mentioned except The Beatles.

Nirvana had no more influence than the Sex Pistols. That being a short-lived blip on the radar. To put Nirvana's influence above Hendrix, Van Halen, Ramones etc. is incorrect.

 

I appreciate Nirvana and their material, but cmon man.

 

Nirvana had more influence on the music of their time than Hendrix and the Ramones. By a lot. Van Halen is basically the prototype for the hair bands, so we're in agreement there.

 

Ask some of the hair metal icons of the late 80s what Nirvana meant to their personal wealth.

I was there. Nirvana was a musical tsunami. They wiped the slate clean and rock music was energized. Everything was different after Nirvana. A band among a very few.

 

Yeah but what spawned could be just as bad as some of the hair metal crap.

 

That isn't the point, though. I love Hendrix. I'm not a big fan of the Ramones, but I acknowledge their influence. However, neither of them came close to changing the music scene the way Nirvana's Nevermind did.

The influence of Nirvana might have been greater on you because you were young at the time and that's what hit you. Nothing wrong about that. But grunge died in the mid 90s. Where is Nirvana's influence today? Ziltch. Any significant bands playing grunge? Nada. There's no significant bands playing punk ala The Sex Pistols which is why I put them in the 'flash in the pan' bucket along with Nirvana. Grunge and the alt scene in the early 90s was an interesting 3-4 years, but we've moved on long ago.

 

Hendrix and Van Halen changed how guitarists played long after their time and continue to do so. Their influence is much greater than Nirvana. From a musician's perspective, there really wasn't anything significantly different that Nirvana did. Smells Like Teen Spirit is a rip off of Boston's More Than a Feeling. Cobain was a very simplistic guitar player. For supposedly being 'revolutionary' and different, Cobain turned out to have a very cliche rock and roll existence.

 

Back to the thread title at hand...If we're questioning whether Rock is dead then Nirvana's influence must not have been that great. I approach this from looking at the originality of their music and not idol worship.

 

Wow...Nirvana shirts are still common, merchandise sells well, grunge has diluted itself into plenty of pop rock bands who have smoothed out the edges, you see articles about them in magazines frequently because the legend of Kurt is still a powerful hold on many...

 

You are so seriously trying to deny their existence and impact it's hilarious. I don't know any young rock fans who don't at least have a handful of favourite Nirvana songs.

I guess I'm more about the music than shirt and merch sales.

 

So are the music fans so enthralled they wear the t shirt.

 

I guess every Rush t shirt wearing fan is shallow as well.

[Union 5-3992]

Complex solos, arpeggios and unusual chord progressions or simple chords with no lead parts? Do the math.

So any subgenre of rock that doesn't have any or all of those suck? Then by your logic we all must have shit taste if all of us here collectively enjoy music from the subgenres punk, post-rock/metal, goth rock/metal, doom metal, krautrock, stoner rock/metal, alternative rock/metal, grindcore, industrial rock/metal, folk rock/metal etc which for the most part don't subscribe to that kind musicality! SMFH!!!!!!!!!! :eyeroll:

 

I wasn't necessarily trying to argue what was better (as in grunge vs hair metal) rather I was trying to discredit those who say that hair metal musicians have no talent compared to grunge musicians.

Literally who says that? You are the king of citing false "majority" opinions.

[J2112YYZ]

I always liked alice in chains and soundgarden way more than nirvana. My guess is no one cares but i said it anyways

 

Soundgarden and AIC are so much better than Nirvana it's not even funny.

[treeduck]

As long as I'm alive rock will never die! :smoke:

[J2112YYZ]

I always liked alice in chains and soundgarden way more than nirvana. My guess is no one cares but i said it anyways

It's more about chops to me than dead idol worship, which I think is alot of Cobain's appeal. Let's be honest, Nirvana were the anti-chops band that made loud and shitty sounding cool. It's no coincidence that the gangsta rap phase happened about the same time. The industry needed it at that point. But at the end of the day, there's not much musically adventurous or interesting about Nirvana.

 

Nirvana's huge cultural impact cannot be denied. But they lowered the standard for rock music. They made it OK for bands to sound like shit over having any kind of musical chops. Like it or not, modern rock took a big downturn as a result of their influence.

[Segue Myles]

I always liked alice in chains and soundgarden way more than nirvana. My guess is no one cares but i said it anyways

It's more about chops to me than dead idol worship, which I think is alot of Cobain's appeal. Let's be honest, Nirvana were the anti-chops band that made loud and shitty sounding cool. It's no coincidence that the gangsta rap phase happened about the same time. The industry needed it at that point. But at the end of the day, there's not much musically adventurous or interesting about Nirvana.

 

Nirvana's huge cultural impact cannot be denied. But they lowered the standard for rock music. They made it OK for bands to sound like shit over having any kind of musical chops. Like it or not, modern rock took a big downturn as a result of their influence.

 

I do agree.

 

Thank goodness for the underground music scene, eh?

[Rick N. Backer]

I always liked alice in chains and soundgarden way more than nirvana. My guess is no one cares but i said it anyways

It's more about chops to me than dead idol worship, which I think is alot of Cobain's appeal. Let's be honest, Nirvana were the anti-chops band that made loud and shitty sounding cool. It's no coincidence that the gangsta rap phase happened about the same time. The industry needed it at that point. But at the end of the day, there's not much musically adventurous or interesting about Nirvana.

 

Chops can be overrated when it comes to music. Listen to Joe Perry play Dream On. Then listen to Yngwie Malmsteen's cover with Dio. Malmsteen's is garbage. Because his playing doesn't fit the song.

 

Let's be honest. Nirvana made music that changed the direction of the rock music industry for a time. You don't like it though.

[Segue Myles]

I always liked alice in chains and soundgarden way more than nirvana. My guess is no one cares but i said it anyways

It's more about chops to me than dead idol worship, which I think is alot of Cobain's appeal. Let's be honest, Nirvana were the anti-chops band that made loud and shitty sounding cool. It's no coincidence that the gangsta rap phase happened about the same time. The industry needed it at that point. But at the end of the day, there's not much musically adventurous or interesting about Nirvana.

 

Chops can be overrated when it comes to music. Listen to Joe Perry play Dream On. Then listen to Yngwie Malmsteen's cover with Dio. Malmsteen's is garbage. Because his playing doesn't fit the song.

 

Let's be honest. Nirvana made music that changed the direction of the rock music industry for a time. You don't like it though.

 

I also find a lot of grunge incredibly powerful emotionally. Something a lot of the more trained and talented musicians overlooked.

[Union 5-3992]

I always liked alice in chains and soundgarden way more than nirvana. My guess is no one cares but i said it anyways

It's more about chops to me than dead idol worship, which I think is alot of Cobain's appeal. Let's be honest, Nirvana were the anti-chops band that made loud and shitty sounding cool. It's no coincidence that the gangsta rap phase happened about the same time. The industry needed it at that point. But at the end of the day, there's not much musically adventurous or interesting about Nirvana.

 

Chops can be overrated when it comes to music. Listen to Joe Perry play Dream On. Then listen to Yngwie Malmsteen's cover with Dio. Malmsteen's is garbage. Because his playing doesn't fit the song.

 

Let's be honest. Nirvana made music that changed the direction of the rock music industry for a time. You don't like it though.

That's a very good example.

[HemiBeers]

I always liked alice in chains and soundgarden way more than nirvana. My guess is no one cares but i said it anyways

It's more about chops to me than dead idol worship, which I think is alot of Cobain's appeal. Let's be honest, Nirvana were the anti-chops band that made loud and shitty sounding cool. It's no coincidence that the gangsta rap phase happened about the same time. The industry needed it at that point. But at the end of the day, there's not much musically adventurous or interesting about Nirvana.

 

Chops can be overrated when it comes to music. Listen to Joe Perry play Dream On. Then listen to Yngwie Malmsteen's cover with Dio. Malmsteen's is garbage. Because his playing doesn't fit the song.

 

Let's be honest. Nirvana made music that changed the direction of the rock music industry for a time. You don't like it though.

Let's be honest. Nirvana's influence died with Cobain.

 

Last year we drove the west coast and eventually spent a day in Seattle. Went to the EMP Museum which had a large Nirvana display. Crappy guitars, his crappy sweater, some hand written lyrics, etc. Big pile of meh. In the vintage guitar display in another room, they had Clapton's strat that he recorded Layla with. I can't think of a more stark example of how more influential Clapton was over Nirvana....and they're both under the same roof.

 

By the way, other than those displays and a few other relatively amusing things, the EMP is grossly overrated. That was 30 minutes and 30 bucks I'll never get back.

Edited March 27, 2016 by 2112FirstStreet

[Principled Man]

 

I always liked alice in chains and soundgarden way more than nirvana. My guess is no one cares but i said it anyways

 

It's more about chops to me than dead idol worship, which I think is a lot of Cobain's appeal. Let's be honest, Nirvana were the anti-chops band that made loud and shitty sounding cool. It's no coincidence that the gangsta rap phase happened about the same time. The industry needed it at that point. But at the end of the day, there's not much musically adventurous or interesting about Nirvana.

 

Chops can be overrated when it comes to music. Listen to Joe Perry play Dream On. Then listen to Yngwie Malmsteen's cover with Dio. Malmsteen's is garbage. Because his playing doesn't fit the song.

 

I know of very few artists who do covers any justice. They don't have the same playing style, feeling, or technique as the orginal artists. They simply don't have the same vision.

 

Examples: Disturbed doing Sound Of Silence or Guns & Roses doing Live And Let Die. Horrible attempts .... just horrible.

[Rick N. Backer]

I always liked alice in chains and soundgarden way more than nirvana. My guess is no one cares but i said it anyways

It's more about chops to me than dead idol worship, which I think is alot of Cobain's appeal. Let's be honest, Nirvana were the anti-chops band that made loud and shitty sounding cool. It's no coincidence that the gangsta rap phase happened about the same time. The industry needed it at that point. But at the end of the day, there's not much musically adventurous or interesting about Nirvana.

 

Chops can be overrated when it comes to music. Listen to Joe Perry play Dream On. Then listen to Yngwie Malmsteen's cover with Dio. Malmsteen's is garbage. Because his playing doesn't fit the song.

 

Let's be honest. Nirvana made music that changed the direction of the rock music industry for a time. You don't like it though.

 

I also find a lot of grunge incredibly powerful emotionally. Something a lot of the more trained and talented musicians overlooked.

 

Perhaps it's because this is a Rush forum, and Alex, Geddy and Neil are phenomenal players, but I think virtuosity can be overblown here. A guitar solo needn't be Eruption to be good. A bassist doesn't need to be Jaco Pastorius to play the right role in a band. And you don't need a double bass kit with 14 octobans to keep the beat in a great song.

[Rick N. Backer]

 

I always liked alice in chains and soundgarden way more than nirvana. My guess is no one cares but i said it anyways

 

It's more about chops to me than dead idol worship, which I think is a lot of Cobain's appeal. Let's be honest, Nirvana were the anti-chops band that made loud and shitty sounding cool. It's no coincidence that the gangsta rap phase happened about the same time. The industry needed it at that point. But at the end of the day, there's not much musically adventurous or interesting about Nirvana.

 

Chops can be overrated when it comes to music. Listen to Joe Perry play Dream On. Then listen to Yngwie Malmsteen's cover with Dio. Malmsteen's is garbage. Because his playing doesn't fit the song.

 

I know of very few artists who do covers any justice. They don't have the same playing style, feeling, or technique as the orginal artists. They simply don't have the same vision.

 

Examples: Disturbed doing Sound Of Silence or Guns & Roses doing Live And Let Die. Horrible attempts .... just horrible.

 

Listen to Guns N Roses do Mama Kin, The Beatles do Twist and Shout, or Aerosmith do Come Together.

 

Everything Malmsteen does is terrible IMO, because he HAS to show you everything he has every instant of the song.

[Rick N. Backer]

Or listen to Nirvana cover The Man Who Sold The World. Tesla cover Signs. Van Halen cover anything.

[Principled Man]

I always liked alice in chains and soundgarden way more than nirvana. My guess is no one cares but i said it anyways

 

It's more about chops to me than dead idol worship, which I think is a lot of Cobain's appeal. Let's be honest, Nirvana were the anti-chops band that made loud and shitty sounding cool. It's no coincidence that the gangsta rap phase happened about the same time. The industry needed it at that point. But at the end of the day, there's not much musically adventurous or interesting about Nirvana.

 

Chops can be overrated when it comes to music. Listen to Joe Perry play Dream On. Then listen to Yngwie Malmsteen's cover with Dio. Malmsteen's is garbage. Because his playing doesn't fit the song.

 

I know of very few artists who do covers any justice. They don't have the same playing style, feeling, or technique as the orginal artists. They simply don't have the same vision.

 

Examples: Disturbed doing Sound Of Silence or Guns & Roses doing Live And Let Die. Horrible attempts .... just horrible.

 

Listen to Guns N Roses do Mama Kin, The Beatles do Twist and Shout, or Aerosmith do Come Together.

 

Everything Malmsteen does is terrible IMO, because he HAS to show you everything he has every instant of the song.

 

There are some decent cover songs out there, I agree. Aerosmith had a very good chance at making a good cover of Come Together because they and the Beatles had similar musical styles. Disturbed doing Simon & Garfunkel? Just say NO. :boo hiss:

 

Malmsteen......he's never done anything for me, either. All that technical ability, in the wrong song, becomes nothing more than gibberish.

[Principled Man]

I always liked alice in chains and soundgarden way more than nirvana. My guess is no one cares but i said it anyways

 

It's more about chops to me than dead idol worship, which I think is a lot of Cobain's appeal. Let's be honest, Nirvana were the anti-chops band that made loud and shitty sounding cool. It's no coincidence that the gangsta rap phase happened about the same time. The industry needed it at that point. But at the end of the day, there's not much musically adventurous or interesting about Nirvana.

 

Chops can be overrated when it comes to music. Listen to Joe Perry play Dream On. Then listen to Yngwie Malmsteen's cover with Dio. Malmsteen's is garbage. Because his playing doesn't fit the song.

 

I know of very few artists who do covers any justice. They don't have the same playing style, feeling, or technique as the orginal artists. They simply don't have the same vision.

 

Examples: Disturbed doing Sound Of Silence or Guns & Roses doing Live And Let Die. Horrible attempts .... just horrible.

 

Listen to Guns N Roses do Mama Kin, The Beatles do Twist and Shout, or Aerosmith do Come Together.

 

Everything Malmsteen does is terrible IMO, because he HAS to show you everything he has every instant of the song.

 

There are some decent cover songs out there, I agree. Aerosmith had a very good chance at making a good cover of Come Together because they and the Beatles had similar musical styles. Disturbed doing Simon & Garfunkel? Just say NO. :boo hiss:

 

Malmsteen......he's never done anything for me, either. All that technical ability, in the wrong song, becomes nothing more than gibberish.

 

p.s: Not all good guitarists are good musicians. The importance of "shredding" a guitar is sooooooooooo overrated.

 

Oh, you can play 800 notes a minute and finger tap and whammy bar all night long? WHO CARES?! Do your songs have any feeling? Do they have soul? Do they make people feel the full range of emotions? :huh:

[Rick N. Backer]

I always liked alice in chains and soundgarden way more than nirvana. My guess is no one cares but i said it anyways

 

It's more about chops to me than dead idol worship, which I think is a lot of Cobain's appeal. Let's be honest, Nirvana were the anti-chops band that made loud and shitty sounding cool. It's no coincidence that the gangsta rap phase happened about the same time. The industry needed it at that point. But at the end of the day, there's not much musically adventurous or interesting about Nirvana.

 

Chops can be overrated when it comes to music. Listen to Joe Perry play Dream On. Then listen to Yngwie Malmsteen's cover with Dio. Malmsteen's is garbage. Because his playing doesn't fit the song.

 

I know of very few artists who do covers any justice. They don't have the same playing style, feeling, or technique as the orginal artists. They simply don't have the same vision.

 

Examples: Disturbed doing Sound Of Silence or Guns & Roses doing Live And Let Die. Horrible attempts .... just horrible.

 

Listen to Guns N Roses do Mama Kin, The Beatles do Twist and Shout, or Aerosmith do Come Together.

 

Everything Malmsteen does is terrible IMO, because he HAS to show you everything he has every instant of the song.

 

There are some decent cover songs out there, I agree. Aerosmith had a very good chance at making a good cover of Come Together because they and the Beatles had similar musical styles. Disturbed doing Simon & Garfunkel? Just say NO. :boo hiss:

 

Malmsteen......he's never done anything for me, either. All that technical ability, in the wrong song, becomes nothing more than gibberish.

 

p.s: Not all good guitarists are good musicians. The importance of "shredding" a guitar is sooooooooooo overrated.

 

Oh, you can play 800 notes a minute and finger tap and whammy bar all night long? WHO CARES?! Do your songs have any feeling? Do they have soul? Do they make people feel the full range of emotions? :huh:

 

Precisely.

[fraroc]

I always liked alice in chains and soundgarden way more than nirvana. My guess is no one cares but i said it anyways

 

It's more about chops to me than dead idol worship, which I think is a lot of Cobain's appeal. Let's be honest, Nirvana were the anti-chops band that made loud and shitty sounding cool. It's no coincidence that the gangsta rap phase happened about the same time. The industry needed it at that point. But at the end of the day, there's not much musically adventurous or interesting about Nirvana.

 

Chops can be overrated when it comes to music. Listen to Joe Perry play Dream On. Then listen to Yngwie Malmsteen's cover with Dio. Malmsteen's is garbage. Because his playing doesn't fit the song.

 

I know of very few artists who do covers any justice. They don't have the same playing style, feeling, or technique as the orginal artists. They simply don't have the same vision.

 

Examples: Disturbed doing Sound Of Silence or Guns & Roses doing Live And Let Die. Horrible attempts .... just horrible.

 

Listen to Guns N Roses do Mama Kin, The Beatles do Twist and Shout, or Aerosmith do Come Together.

 

Everything Malmsteen does is terrible IMO, because he HAS to show you everything he has every instant of the song.

 

There are some decent cover songs out there, I agree. Aerosmith had a very good chance at making a good cover of Come Together because they and the Beatles had similar musical styles. Disturbed doing Simon & Garfunkel? Just say NO. :boo hiss:

 

Malmsteen......he's never done anything for me, either. All that technical ability, in the wrong song, becomes nothing more than gibberish.

 

p.s: Not all good guitarists are good musicians. The importance of "shredding" a guitar is sooooooooooo overrated.

 

Oh, you can play 800 notes a minute and finger tap and whammy bar all night long? WHO CARES?! Do your songs have any feeling? Do they have soul? Do they make people feel the full range of emotions? :huh:

 

I love how you try to discredit shredding like its something that any average person can do.

[Day of Light]

I always liked alice in chains and soundgarden way more than nirvana. My guess is no one cares but i said it anyways

 

It's more about chops to me than dead idol worship, which I think is a lot of Cobain's appeal. Let's be honest, Nirvana were the anti-chops band that made loud and shitty sounding cool. It's no coincidence that the gangsta rap phase happened about the same time. The industry needed it at that point. But at the end of the day, there's not much musically adventurous or interesting about Nirvana.

 

Chops can be overrated when it comes to music. Listen to Joe Perry play Dream On. Then listen to Yngwie Malmsteen's cover with Dio. Malmsteen's is garbage. Because his playing doesn't fit the song.

 

I know of very few artists who do covers any justice. They don't have the same playing style, feeling, or technique as the orginal artists. They simply don't have the same vision.

 

Examples: Disturbed doing Sound Of Silence or Guns & Roses doing Live And Let Die. Horrible attempts .... just horrible.

 

Listen to Guns N Roses do Mama Kin, The Beatles do Twist and Shout, or Aerosmith do Come Together.

 

Everything Malmsteen does is terrible IMO, because he HAS to show you everything he has every instant of the song.

 

There are some decent cover songs out there, I agree. Aerosmith had a very good chance at making a good cover of Come Together because they and the Beatles had similar musical styles. Disturbed doing Simon & Garfunkel? Just say NO. :boo hiss:

 

Malmsteen......he's never done anything for me, either. All that technical ability, in the wrong song, becomes nothing more than gibberish.

 

p.s: Not all good guitarists are good musicians. The importance of "shredding" a guitar is sooooooooooo overrated.

 

Oh, you can play 800 notes a minute and finger tap and whammy bar all night long? WHO CARES?! Do your songs have any feeling? Do they have soul? Do they make people feel the full range of emotions? :huh:

 

I love how you try to discredit shredding like its something that any average person can do.

 

I don't think that's what he's saying. He's saying that technical skill (not mentioning anything about the difficulty of achieving it) is close to irrelevant when it comes to how good a musician is.

 

He called shredders good guitarists, but that not all of them are good musicians. Is it easy for the average person to be a good guitarist?

[Segue Myles]

I always liked alice in chains and soundgarden way more than nirvana. My guess is no one cares but i said it anyways

 

It's more about chops to me than dead idol worship, which I think is a lot of Cobain's appeal. Let's be honest, Nirvana were the anti-chops band that made loud and shitty sounding cool. It's no coincidence that the gangsta rap phase happened about the same time. The industry needed it at that point. But at the end of the day, there's not much musically adventurous or interesting about Nirvana.

 

Chops can be overrated when it comes to music. Listen to Joe Perry play Dream On. Then listen to Yngwie Malmsteen's cover with Dio. Malmsteen's is garbage. Because his playing doesn't fit the song.

 

I know of very few artists who do covers any justice. They don't have the same playing style, feeling, or technique as the orginal artists. They simply don't have the same vision.

 

Examples: Disturbed doing Sound Of Silence or Guns & Roses doing Live And Let Die. Horrible attempts .... just horrible.

 

Listen to Guns N Roses do Mama Kin, The Beatles do Twist and Shout, or Aerosmith do Come Together.

 

Everything Malmsteen does is terrible IMO, because he HAS to show you everything he has every instant of the song.

 

There are some decent cover songs out there, I agree. Aerosmith had a very good chance at making a good cover of Come Together because they and the Beatles had similar musical styles. Disturbed doing Simon & Garfunkel? Just say NO. :boo hiss:

 

Malmsteen......he's never done anything for me, either. All that technical ability, in the wrong song, becomes nothing more than gibberish.

 

p.s: Not all good guitarists are good musicians. The importance of "shredding" a guitar is sooooooooooo overrated.

 

Oh, you can play 800 notes a minute and finger tap and whammy bar all night long? WHO CARES?! Do your songs have any feeling? Do they have soul? Do they make people feel the full range of emotions? :huh:

 

I love how you try to discredit shredding like its something that any average person can do.

 

Just because I can shout at you all day doesn't mean I have to take advantage of that.

 

Sometimes, restraint and subtlety is a beautiful thing.

[Union 5-3992]

^Example: David Gilmour. He uses the "Less is more" approach Edited March 28, 2016 by Union 5-3992

[The Cat 3]

Sometimes, restraint and subtlety is a beautiful thing.

 

That's why George Harrison is one of my all time favs!

[Segue Myles]

I think the Beatles are a great point ReGor.

 

Were any of them the greatest musicians in their field? No.

 

But as songwriters, all their "minor" talents combined as a group to create magic. The sort of appeal that Malmsteen will never have.

 

Just as other girls can tire of the hot girl flaunting her assets, many rock fans prefer music to have more substance. Showing off is rarely a truly beautiful thing.

 

Also, let's remember, Fraroc whinges that rock no longer looks like a dolled up hair metal band. So all his critiques are shallow.

 

And he won't even try sampling new music so, BORING!

Edited March 28, 2016 by Segue Myles

[MMCXII]

I know one thing.. this self-imposed Led Zeppelin Ban due to over-playing I've put on myself has gone on too long.. 15 years now probably! I gotta start listening to Zep again! They were a good band dammit! Lol