First of all, I wasn't talking about any of you in particular.

2. I never said Bach created music. Just the guidlines used today.

3. Goddammit that praise me thing was a joke.

4."One can understand all of the intricacies of the various masters of musical composition and still enjoy (perhaps even moreso) the poppy beat of a modern rock song."

I still listen to the pillows, don't I?

5. Most of this was directed at the "Best guitar player" lists people made on here.

6. "And there's much JS Bach fellation also, like snigwel said he didn't invented that stuff, and altough his rules are still widely today there were additions to music theory over time."

That is true. But, listen to music before bach, then after and I think you'll understand. It is completely different.

Anyway, I didn't mean to piss anybody off. Like I said in my post, it's fine that you like what you like; no big deal. It's these ignorant claims of praise that are stupid.

I have a tendency to get bugged by one thing, then explode about everything else that makes me mad.

[quote="StevenB130"]It's these ignorant claims of praise that are stupid. [/quote]

It's only 'ignorant' when you're discussing sheer technical skill, and there is an obvious gap. When some one claims that some dude in Yellowcard is more talented than Santana, then yes, they're ignorant. But when it comes to "I like Yellowcard more than Carlos Santana," then all's fair.
[size=59]...shouldn't take 6 points to further clarify your inital statement.[/size]

I don't mean to sound like a theory snob (I don't know much, anyway), but Living Field doesn't even use jazz chord progressions, or even jazzy sounding chords. It's mostly Manabe's lead work that makes it sound that way, and I don't believe he even plays any jazz scales in the whole thing. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong about this.

Yeah, Bach was a genius, but rock guitarists aren't really aiming to be the next Bach, in most cases. Just because something isn't technically complex or impossible for us mortals to play doesn't mean it can't be enjoyable or, dare I say, moving.

There is a huge tendency in the guitaring community to overrate people like Hendrix, Page, etc. I recognize people like them for their influence and (at the time) revolutionary styles. It doesn't sound like much now, but Hendrix and Clapton were doing innovative stuff in the late 60's as rock was still evolving at a dizzying pace. They may not be as incredible now as they were then, but give 'em props at least for being innovative.

Of course Ygnwie isn't that fast. I forgot the real shred-god: MICHAEL ANGELO BATIO.

For the record, I don't much like shred-anything, or virtuoso rock.

[quote="Thinliine"]Living Field doesn't even use jazz chord progressions, or even jazzy sounding chords. It's mostly Manabe's lead work that makes it sound that way, and I don't believe he even plays any jazz scales in the whole thing.[/quote]

I'm gonna go out on a limb, and declare that the preceding quote is the most enlightened quoation of the month.

I have to say that I think your approach to music is very immature, Steven. If all you've learned after "studying" music is to compare everything you hear to Bach, then you've got a long way to go.

I'd actually like to know what you, Steven, think about Bach's contributions. I have basically zero knowledge of music theory, and I think it'd be interesting to know...how do you put it... how the pillowsm, or modern music in general is influenced by Bach.

All modern music is influenced by Bach. Beethoven, Mozart, and all of those fellas wouldn't be around, were it not for Bach. He ingeniously devised almost all of music theory. That's like one person coming up with all of math in their head.

The pillowsn't aren't directly influenced by bach, but most of all music's influences come bach to Bach.

And no, Living Field isn't jazz. I used to think so, before I learned any better. I'd personally define it as Pop/Fusion, but then again, I could be wrong.

But, you're saying rock guitarists don't aim for greatness? (Bach was beyond great.) That's pretty sad when people settle for such mediocracy and are Okay with being less than good.



I want to know what you all find so great about these certain musicians you cling to? I bet most of what will come, is that they are "catchy". I could rip ass and it could make noise that can be called catchy. What in particular do you like? What is so special about Santana? Oh my god, he plays blues on the electric guitar. Holy shit, how innovative.

I want to see how credible you are, when you tell me I'm wrong after having a musical background. Again, I'm not trying to be a prick. I this will clear a lot up for me. Save me some tears, y'know?

And on that Michael Angelo Batio thing; all he does is play fast. There is nothing special at all about it. HE's not even that fast. From the stuff I've heard, I've come pretty damn close in terms of speed, which means nothing. Speed or technical ability don't mean a whole lot to me. Even though it may seem like it because I'm in awe of it, but shredding doesn't automatically gain you musicianship.

When something is unique and new people want to hear it, instead of listening to the same boring stuff forever.
Santana added for lack of a better word "Latin" sound to his music which was both catchy and creative showing his talent as a musician.
People hadn't heard it like that before and they liked it. Is that a valid point, or did I just make a fool of myself?

Music, as one of the primary artforms, shouldn't take justification as why you like a certain "type" of music.

Take screamo or noise. Some people devour that shit. Me, I hate it - bashing around on guitars with no rhyme or reason, shouting the most vulgar, poorly written lyrics...

But again, some people love it. They like the energy, they just like to "rock out" to it.

No one should have to prove to you why their penchant towards a certain artist or band is justified. I listen to some really random stuff. Some of Bis' older songs were some of the most childish, cutesey excuses for "punk" I've ever heard. I mean: "Sugar, sugar, Kandy Pop/Push it down, pull it up/Sugar, sugar, Kandy Pop/Just don't make the music stop" is pretty terrible. But I still have almost as much fun with that as I do listening to Manabe tear it up Swanky Street's solo.

And maybe you don't enjoy what others enjoy in Santana's music. That's not their problem, or your problem. It's preference.

I don't know why I'm explaining to this to you again. I'll bold it this time: [b]If the music sounds good to you, listen to it. If it doesn't, well...no one's forcing you.[/b]

How did he add a latin feel? The drummer sets up the feel.

And rhino, maybe I should put this in bold for you.

[b]People who don't know what they're talking about shouldn't say who is good or not because they don't know[/b]

That's what my whole argument is about. People can like whatever they want, but it pisses me off when they give credit where it is not due.

[quote="StevenB130"]How did he add a latin feel? The drummer sets up the feel.

And rhino, maybe I should put this in bold for you.

[b]People who don't know what they're talking about shouldn't say who is good or not because they don't know[/b]

That's what my whole argument is about. People can like whatever they want, but it pisses me off when they give credit where it is not due.[/quote]
Wow...

You really just don't get it.

And you don't know anything about Latin music.

[quote="StevenB130"]After having studied music, I'm still pretty open minded and that's why I can still listen to some rock music. [/quote]

Wait, wait..."after having studied?" You're done? That was damn fast!

Also, I hate to break it to you guys, but Bach actually [i]did[/i] pretty much create modern music. Before Bach's original works, there wasn't much more than chanting. Bach came along and calculated the intervals between different notes, found relations between them, and layed them out in an easy-to-understand way. For this, we more-or-less owe Bach our lives.

Oh, and obviously Latin feel isn't created by drums alone. It's created mostly by the guitar parts and time signatures (though most of Santana's stuff is in 4/4).

[quote="BDMonster"]Also, I hate to break it to you guys, but Bach actually [i]did[/i] pretty much create modern music. Before Bach's original works, there wasn't much more than chanting. Bach came along and calculated the intervals between different notes, found relations between them, and layed them out in an easy-to-understand way. For this, we more-or-less owe Bach our lives.[/quote]

polyphonic music came around before bach, during the renaissance period. he certainly shaped its evolution, but i wouldn't give him this much credit.

Ah-ah! I didn't say he invented polyphonic music ! All I said was, he organized notes into what we know today, and demonstrated the possibilities of said structure. Granted, there was plenty of non-vocal melodic instrumentation before Bach's time, but it wasn't organized into the chromatic scale that we use today. And, while Bach may not have coined the idea all by himself (it was actually a scientist who's name escapes me right now), he is still responsible for publicizing the system, making it widespread, and thus, as prominent as it is today. Without Bach, we'd have instruments that sounded whatever notes their individual construction allowed, well I guess that's not entirely true...but you get the point. This is one of the few times I will agree with Steven, that Bach really does deserve a lot of credit for his work.

[quote]Before Bach's original works, there wasn't much more than chanting. [/quote]

chants are pretty much monophonic, so i interpreted this as saying that before bach, there wasn't much more than monophonic music. i have to correct myself though, polyphony arose even before the renaissance.

but now i see you're talking about tuning, in a roundabout way. it's not like there weren't other systems of tuning, but yes, bach did popularize well-tempered tuning.

anyway... manabe... i like him. yeah.