Ableton Forum

saddam whosayin? wrote:Paws, sup? How you been?
I haven't posted in months... but you drew me out of lurk mode with that one

I knew I'd accomplish something today...

I'd bet a very large sum of money if you asked Fripp who is a better guitarist
him or Hendrix... he'd say Hendrix

I remember when people used to argue that Ingway (I cant spell his name) Malmsteen was better that Hendrix
I remember that people used to say Eddie Van Halen was better than Hendrix

the fact that whoever the "greatest" guitarist of any era of pop music always gets compared to Hendrix shows you he must pretty damn good, no?

I dunno what Fripp would say. Maybe Hendrix, maybe 'but Kotonga Warahoboba from the Austrolopanifilipinianese group 'The Carrazengeuos Quintet' is better than both of us combined', I dunno. And 'sides, nobody was asking him, they was asking me:)
I think a large part of Hendrix's following is cos he embodies a period that a lot of people feel nostalgic about. I don't let my hair grow long and shabby like the hippies out in San Francisco (if I had a draft card I might be tempted to burn it on Main Street though) so I can't really be a part of that. I'm not saying the man is bad, mind you, just that his style doesn't interest me much.

QED, you're a wanker. And so on and so forth.

-Paws

noisetonepause wrote:

forgie wrote:A bunch of retarded 5 yr olds with no arms.... this is a matter of musical history. The Beatles MADE history. They wrote songs that were not only innovative and new at the time, but stand up to the test of time, 30-40 years on. Next you are going to accuse Jimi Hendrix of being an over-rated guitarist!

Blah blah blah, history. I know them reasonably well, I'd say, my mum is a big fan. I still think the Smiths wrote better songs. And true, the Smiths wouldn't ever have existed like they did without the Beatles, but without American blues rock there would've never been any Beatles... and so it continues.

I'd also argue that there was as much innovation in Bowie's Berlin trilogy as in the later Beatles albums, if not more - if one considers that the Beatles were mostly rehashing musique concrete techniques and such.

As for Jimi. I'm a guitarist myself. Not a good one, but I do play. I know his style, I'd say, my old guitar teacher was mad about Jimi, but I don't really find him interesting. Seeing as he is 'widely regarded as the best guitarist ever' when Fripp could kick his arse in any discipline with both hands tied behind his back and blindfolded, I'd say he's overrated, yes.

-Paws

I am sorry Paws, dont take it personally but you have no idea about guitar and guitar playing, I did personally and publicly-including members of his bizzaro semireligious sect- kick Robert Fripps ass, I made him look as a clown that this freak really is. Hey, honestly wasnt big deal.
I dont think I would even consider opening my guitars case in front of Hendrrix.

I am not Hendrix fan, neither his music or style, but I am musician and can recognise musicianship of whatever kind independently if I like it or not.
It does not take genius to see Fripp as mentaly disturbed, frustrated indiividual with a maniac tendencies while his musical skills and knowledge rather limited. Hendrix influence on guitar playing and music in general can be harldy compared to any other figure in the past century.
The basic difference Hendrix was innovative, virtuosic. Fripp TALKS and writes how creative, innovative his own playing and music are.
Yet good enough for some individuals, who lack their own understanding to discriminate what is real.
Paws I am really sorry , you say you play guitar, that is what you think, just what you write shows you dont have much idea neither about music neither guitar.

rikhyray wrote:

noisetonepause wrote:

forgie wrote:A bunch of retarded 5 yr olds with no arms.... this is a matter of musical history. The Beatles MADE history. They wrote songs that were not only innovative and new at the time, but stand up to the test of time, 30-40 years on. Next you are going to accuse Jimi Hendrix of being an over-rated guitarist!

Blah blah blah, history. I know them reasonably well, I'd say, my mum is a big fan. I still think the Smiths wrote better songs. And true, the Smiths wouldn't ever have existed like they did without the Beatles, but without American blues rock there would've never been any Beatles... and so it continues.

I'd also argue that there was as much innovation in Bowie's Berlin trilogy as in the later Beatles albums, if not more - if one considers that the Beatles were mostly rehashing musique concrete techniques and such.

As for Jimi. I'm a guitarist myself. Not a good one, but I do play. I know his style, I'd say, my old guitar teacher was mad about Jimi, but I don't really find him interesting. Seeing as he is 'widely regarded as the best guitarist ever' when Fripp could kick his arse in any discipline with both hands tied behind his back and blindfolded, I'd say he's overrated, yes.

-Paws

I am sorry Paws, dont take it personally but you have no idea about guitar and guitar playing, I did personally and publicly-including members of his bizzaro semireligious sect- kick Robert Fripps ass, I made him look as a clown that this freak really is. Hey, honestly wasnt big deal.
I dont think I would even consider opening my guitars case in front of Hendrrix.

I am not Hendrix fan, neither his music or style, but I am musician and can recognise musicianship of whatever kind independently if I like it or not.
It does not take genius to see Fripp as mentaly disturbed, frustrated indiividual with a maniac tendencies while his musical skills and knowledge rather limited. Hendrix influence on guitar playing and music in general can be harldy compared to any other figure in the past century.
The basic difference Hendrix was innovative, virtuosic. Fripp TALKS and writes how creative, innovative his own playing and music are.
Yet good enough for some individuals, who lack their own understanding to discriminate what is real.
Paws I am really sorry , you say you play guitar, that is what you think, just what you write shows you dont have much idea neither about music neither guitar.

Bollocks!

edit - ie. Just cos we don't agree about Robert's musical merits does not warrant saying that I know nothing about music. Neither does it warrant me saying that your mother is the cheapest whore I ever turned down in the shadier parts of Amsterdam, but you started with the ad hominems.

Have at thee, sir!

could any of the people trashing richard d james as over rated, please elaborate a little more than saying 'just cos'....


donkey rhubarb , windowlicker, selected ambient works II, melodies from mars, come to daddy, richard d james album, ON, d-scape, I care because you do, girl/boy ep


blah blah blah....nothing compares to any of these releases, in terms of textures sounds & melody.



'what's he released lately' type replies are bullshit, quite simply because almost all of his back-catalogue remains to be out-done. Its so rare for an electronic artist to have the talent required to produce quality melodies, textures, sounds and composition.....usually they have one or the other and become mediocre with the rest.


not only that, he's as subversive an artist as you will get in the mainstream....so he releases an album like druqks and the philistines out there just line up to take potshots at him.....he's under no pressure to satisfy anyone, if for any reason he wants to release something he will.....that just adds to the overall mojo if you ask me.


anyways, would be nice if people used some good examples, or maybe made some references or some form of reasoning as to why he's over-rated....

he is highly rated, but he deserves it. seems like some people just want to knock him off that peg for the sake of it, for instance....who should take his place if he is over-rated ?

dont know about numbers 2 - 10 but for me the first over-rated that jumps to my mind is feckin Robbie Williams - i´ll sit over a beer with a friend soon and list the others

bz

just popping in to comment on the Smiths/Beatles comparison.

Just like Oasis who compared themselves to the Beatles, I think their whole album output is like they'd been releasing "with the Beatles" their second album, or maybe "a hard day's night " or "Help" over and over again but no further.

Be it The Smiths or Oasis (or countless others) kept one style all through their carreer.
By the same time span the Beatles had released twice as many albums plus singles, each one being completely (apart from "for Sales" maybe ) different from the previous one.
The Smiths could claim cult status if they'd released something as different from their usual sound as "Revolver" was from Help, they didn't, nor did they release a Sgt Pepper, nor a white album.
The Beatles reinvented, surpassed themselves on each album.
Pink Floyd did until "the wall", U2 did aswell. I'm not a fan of them but at least they've got that.
The Smiths ? come on ...

U2 did nothing man, but put out shit videos and shit tunes. and persistantly tugged at peoples heart-strings to sell their product.

RopeyPunter wrote:U2 did nothing man, but put out shit videos and shit tunes. and persistantly tugged at peoples heart-strings to sell their product.

you mean you don't like their music.
each album has been different and easily recognisable, although i don't have any of them.

I know it's despictful to try to help people who need help like you've never needed by really moving one's ass, it's much more efficient to criticize, sitting behing a computer in a mega rich country.
keep on keeping on...

pah...
bono uses a private jet to take him from gig venues to his mansion, and back and forth. causing untold pollution just so one man can have his cake and eat it.... he's a pompous mong. if you believe the world can change by attending a friggin U2 concert then you are part of the problem not the sollution. The revolution will not be for sale, the revolution will be free and only free.

bono is to consciousness & world peace what adbusters is to socialism & fair trade.

(that is to say, a product targeted and marketed to arm-chair activisits, yuppies with money who'd like to think better of themselves, and impressionable children)

RopeyPunter wrote: if you believe the world can change by attending a friggin U2 concert then you are part of the problem not the sollution. The revolution will not be for sale, the revolution will be free and only free.

it's good to quote, better to understand. I don't think going to a U2 concert will change things, you have a problem with Bono, but that's your problem.
We're not talking MTV here, we're talking about a man who meets some pretty disgusting state chiefs, in the hope that aids arrive to the people who need it.

What have you done for them lately ?

If you think revolution is free, go back to studying a bit.
More importantly revolution is such an inappropriate word. Going in cycle.
Who wants that ? I don't

Evolution, change, yes. Revolution, not for me.
I've never heard Bono give that crap revolution cliché.
Actually I only get tiny bits of what Bono's doing, remote from any musical medias, I probably ignore stuff you know.
Still your "revolution will be free" is a dated, obsolete, cliché

lets not be pedants and rubbish what people say through dicey semantics.

RopeyPunter wrote:U2 did nothing man, but put out shit videos and shit tunes. and persistantly tugged at peoples heart-strings to sell their product.

Listening to their early albums War, October and Boy when I was in Jr. High school made a huge impact on me, they were truly political and controversial and brought attention to a lot of the politics in Ireland, slowly expanding outward. Songs like Refuge, Under a Blood Red Sky, Two Hearts Beat As One, New Years Day, great shit even 20 years later.

Once they put out Rattle and Hum, that was it for me, wtf is up with releasing a movie? Joshua Tree was too commercial for me. IMO that's when they sold out. Their music since then lost its edge (no pun intended) and hunger. It's a new generation, let them like what they like, they don't know what a $12 rock show is like, never will.

Bono does spend lots of energy on helping people around the world. OBVIOUS.

Anyway, these are all just more subjective statements, just thought I'd throw in my $0.02.

Ropey how old/young are you? Where do you live? I can't tell if it's because you're older, younger or live in a different country. I can't tell where you're coming from. What screen name were you using before and why change?

I read the first the first page then skipped to the end cos I thought I should tell all of you to just stop and maybe start a new thread or possibly write a tune instead...

I can't leave it with such a post boatie, as you'd think we had to wait for you to stop and do music.
Personnally it takes more time for me to make a track than write 10 lines here