what's wrong with them? clearly "By The Way" is different from "Californication" and "Mother's Milk" or "Blood Sugar Sex Magik". if you think every single song they've done is the same, you might as well say the same for Opeth...
yes, i really am suggesting i can put a "solo" that is about 34,000 times better than that shit that's in the song now. and i'm not a good guitarist.
i just like the way he plays for the song rather than saying *look at me now, it's time to show you my chops*. the melody of the solo fits perfectly, to me anyway. Dave Gilmour is another one who always plays for the song, his melodies are great. you are being rather judgemental calling me a fanboy of his, considering you know nothing about me. My fave guitarists include Akerfeldt, Petrucci, Thordendal, Jeff Beck, Trey Azagthoth, Daniel Gildenglow and Buckethead, to name a few. But no, my liking for a simple melody sensitively played clearly marks me out as someone with no taste. (expects this bit to be quote-replied with witty remark) how small-minded is that?
I just listened to Californication to see what the fuss was about. I have to agree with the folks saying that the solo is quite miserable. If you want to hear a few well placed notes that were played to fit the song try Hope Leaves.
Do you mean the most techincally skilled band on earth? Because the best band on earth *can't* be bad at song writing. I mean, they are the best for a reason, no?
I disagree with nearly everyone here. I believe you need to be good at both or the music is not going to be much chop. Maybe I just expect more than most of you guys in my music. It needs to be challenging for me to listen to and to play. Just my opinion and if you agree or not it matters not.
this is the thing i noticed the better i got at guitar- i started not respecting stuff if it was easy to play, but i'm over that now
I don't see the two as being either mutually inclusive or exclusive. True "talent" as it pertains to music, for me at least, has more to do with being able to effectively express an image, idea or emotion to the listener through the music. This can be done with minimal so-called "technical proficiency" (Bob Dylan), or with a high degree of it (Opeth). Individual preferences are entirely subjective, of course, but certainly effective results have been obtained with either end of the spectrum and all points in-between. My own personal tastes tend to lean more toward a healthy mixture of both, but that said, at the end of the day in my book, I don't give a rat's ass how much "technical proficiency" you do or do not possess, if you don't have the songs, you ain't got shit!
First of all we need a universally acknoledged/ratified definiton of "talent" before continuing the discussion. Without a reference point it will be pointless which is what it is I think.. From what I understand the word talent, both of the things you mentioned are different talents.
I hate being prejudiced, but seeing that guys as your fav guitarist and finding Californication solo perfect dazzled me really. gess, after Petrucci -- Californication :S world is really a weird place
Basically, Novembre, are an absolutely amazing band. Emotional, catchy at times, beautiful, and every cd has perfect instrument quality and vocal quality, and is produced amazingly well. They really are what Opeth would sound liek if they were from Italy. Great band. Great songwriting skills. Great 'studio' talent. But they quite suck dick at any live show they ever performed. Eeither they simply dont have enough members, or they really dont have "playing" talent beyond what a studio can give them. Who cares though, I like the music, not how good they can play at a crappy live show.
Both. I like to compare playing an instrument to talking. When you've the ability to masterfully play your instrument, it's like talking fluently. A good solo = a good speech that touches you.
well technically it's only important to be able to master what you write without being restricted by your technical skills blocking your creativity.
