One of those guys, Satriani or Vai, can't remember which- has sort of embraced his musicality-aloofness in a very meta way.
Vai, he went all in italian (*) mystical hippy.
4aINCu8CoTA
* i say that beacuse its a flavour that seems unique to that part of the world and he has got it strong.. i cant as yet put a proper identifying structure upon it for the porpoise of conversation.
ive been actively searching for new guitar work that i find interesting but the new stuff seems split between 3 genres i only find interesting in parts and not the whole.
their is the tippity tappity math rock endless argpeggios.
the ooh i learnt some funky chord indie stuff.
and the djent/modern metal thing, with overlaps between all three possible.
its all missing a certain something, I feel the need for a music that has the foot tapping, head nodding, bum wiggling factor that rock/blues/r&b/soul has had since the dawn of time but without the pentatonic cliches which perhaps have become a bit aurally tired.
I'm all about the doodling/noodling though--- the bizarre, (clearly) drug-induced doodles on the Rolling Stones Her Satanic Majesty's Request make for some interesting moments.
Then there is the post-punk, late Fugazi stuff I've posted about before with it's aggressive jagged noodling.
And of course Nirvana whose catalog is filled with pop songs and tense noodling
4W2xxKf8Yus
Or an ultimate pop-doodle song, Helter Skelter:
vWW2SzoAXMo
Last edited by NapLajoieonSteroids on Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
I used to have an ear for it - listened to many thousands of hours of free jazz and also guitar soloing from various artists across the musical timeline.
somewhere along the line It all blurred into me feeling like I was listening to a practice session and i wanted to hear the condensed, refined, best of moments in a composition.
--
your added examples I wouldnt per se call noodling.
a solo , or background ambience that is part of the greater tune is different to an entire track of arpeggio/string skipping/scale running sequences.
noddy wrote:I used to have an ear for it - listened to many thousands of hours of free jazz and also guitar soloing from various artists across the musical timeline.
somewhere along the line It all blurred into me feeling like I was listening to a practice session and i wanted to hear the condensed, refined, best of moments in a composition.
This reads like a totally different noodle than what I have in mind.
This type of noodling, to me, is from people who should know better.
I'd also put most jam band, Phish type noodling in this category.
People who are technically proficient in a certain, conventional way shouldn't noodle/doodle. They hardly ever do it right unless they started out and developed strange habits around it.
improvisation is different to noodling, it hopefully has a touch of inspiration, it may also contain key moods or hooks previously worked out to add more flavour to the song.
when i use the word noodling im definately thinking of that pseudo-classical running of the arpeggios from folks who arent debussey.
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
noddy wrote:I used to have an ear for it - listened to many thousands of hours of free jazz and also guitar soloing from various artists across the musical timeline.
somewhere along the line It all blurred into me feeling like I was listening to a practice session and i wanted to hear the condensed, refined, best of moments in a composition.
This reads like a totally different noodle than what I have in mind.
This type of noodling, to me, is from people who should know better.
I'd also put most jam band, Phish type noodling in this category.
People who are technically proficient in a certain, conventional way shouldn't noodle/doodle. They hardly ever do it right unless they started out and developed strange habits around it.
noddy wrote:improvisation is different to noodling, it hopefully has a touch of inspiration, it may also contain key moods or hooks previously worked out to add more flavour to the song.
when i use the word noodling im definately thinking of that pseudo-classical running of the arpeggios from folks who arent debussey.
for some reason i suffered through 40 minutes of this to learn what we had already discussed.
nothing beats a big tube amp for moving air around and having the music punch you in the face while you play it.
nothing beats a small amp for cranking it up loud , provided you have a studio
nothing beats a modelling amp for just recording the damn guitar and controlling the in room volume, plus you get a million different sounds.
noddy wrote:improvisation is different to noodling, it hopefully has a touch of inspiration, it may also contain key moods or hooks previously worked out to add more flavour to the song.
when i use the word noodling im definately thinking of that pseudo-classical running of the arpeggios from folks who arent debussey.
Un-Debussy would make a fine album name.
i expect it on soundcloud any day now but im worried , does that mean lots of arpeggios or none ?
noddy wrote:yeh, its the best of it no doubt, he has a sense of goofyness.
Satriani is just the endless noodle over bland backing tracks, I couldnt finish any of the ones i started.
7NJ_nzOckOQ
This sounds exactly like someone I just had to arrange/record for- almost down to the tone- except more limited/sloppy.
We have 179 minutes of it recorded of one long wank.
There was this disconnect. To be fair, it wasn't just solo- but getting him to craft something which was sensible to his chord progression was just not happening. And he did not want assistance.
--------------------------
And it goes to the larger point- the way people hear music and are motivated to play music is a real fascinating thing.
Guitar-athletics is as much neurological as anything.
back to my earlier point - the thing that the best jazz, or the best blues, or the best rock solos have is that the backing rhythm is cool and keeps you interested even if/when the solo drifts in and out of boring.
a good riff chugging or a funky backbeat hides a multitude of sins and hardly any of these virtuoso types have any ear at all for that aspect of the medium.
noddy wrote:haha, commiserations. that would be painful.
back to my earlier point - the thing that the best jazz, or the best blues, or the best rock solos have is that the backing rhythm is cool and keeps you interested even if/when the solo drifts in and out of boring.
a good riff chugging or a funky backbeat hides a multitude of sins and hardly any of these virtuoso types have any ear at all for that aspect of the medium.
To reiterate what I said earlier: Jimi Hendrix was an amazing listener
hendrix always got the rhythm chugging before switching to solos and regularly dropped back into rhythm when he sensed it was being neglected, which was a trick that SRV copied and many of these other fellows dont seem to have an ear for.
that approach goes back to the one man band blues guys like lightning hopkins or john lee hooker - the need to keep peoples feet tapping overriding the need to wank - for them the solo's just filled in the bits they didnt have lyrics for.
... once again we are back to the ones who played pubs/clubs long enough to learn what keeps the crowd alive.
the flipside of that is the guys like Tommy Emmanuel and some of the other hyper virtuoso pickers, whom the olympic event of getting more and more technical until the crowd goes into shock kept them alive in those same pubs and clubs.
only a very small pool of people has that level of proficiency, by definition - being that if it was common, it wouldnt have that daredevil sense of almost-failure, the energy which a virtuoso thrives on pushing.
you cant be an almost-virtuoso because take away the high wire act and nothing is left.
qQhECkexmSI
its as much like watching Evel Knievel as music, as you said, the reasons people play is varied.
----
this is the magic madness I believe Mr P is referring too in Jimmy Page that flows through to Van Halen - Heartbreaker to Eruption - the edge of falling apart, hendrix didnt really go there much.
for some reason i suffered through 40 minutes of this to learn what we had already discussed.
nothing beats a big tube amp for moving air around and having the music punch you in the face while you play it.
nothing beats a small amp for cranking it up loud , provided you have a studio
nothing beats a modelling amp for just recording the damn guitar and controlling the in room volume, plus you get a million different sounds.
I've found that Rick Beato and guy on the left, for whatever reason, are never as informative and interesting together, as they are solo.
noddy wrote:
... once again we are back to the ones who played pubs/clubs long enough to learn what keeps the crowd alive.
the flipside of that is the guys like Tommy Emmanuel and some of the other hyper virtuoso pickers, whom the olympic event of getting more and more technical until the crowd goes into shock kept them alive in those same pubs and clubs.
Right.
But where are we at when there are no clubs and pubs? The scary thing is going places where everyone is nowhere near being present.
you cant be an almost-virtuoso because take away the high wire act and nothing is left.
Considering 19th century violin contests/capriccio- there is no room for the almost-virtuouso but there is room for the almost-composer.
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
Considering 19th century violin contests/capriccio- there is no room for the almost-virtuouso but there is room for the almost-composer.
Or the guy who has composer on hand.
all the shred stuff is of the same nature , no matter which century you find it.
I only recently found out that constant Led Zeppelin on classic rock radio is a NY thing; and that no Zeppelin song is in the top 15 of most played rock songs in the United States.
And that Aerosmith actually holds the top 2 spots with Dream On and Sweet Emotion. 3rd is Hendrix with All Along the Watchtower, 4th is AC/DC with You Should Me All Night Long and 5th is More than a Feeling by Boston.
On Youtube, only Linkin Park has crossed the 1 billion mark for a rock band...unless we're counting Maroon 5
Spotify doesn't seem to have an easy list to decipher but they did reveal their top twenty played rock bands globally:
1)Coldplay
2)Twenty One Pilots
3)The Beatles
4)Linkin Park
5)Red Hot Chili Peppers
6)Panic! At the Disco
7)Metallica
8)Artic Monkey
9)Queen
10)Fall Out Boy
11)Green Day
12)AC/DC
13)Pink Floyd
14)Blink 182
15)Paramore
16)Guns N Roses
17)Nirvana
18)The Rolling Stones
19)The 1975
20)Kings of Leon
and in the US:
1. Twenty One Pilots
2. Imagine Dragons
3. Coldplay
4. Panic! At The Disco
5. The Beatles
6. Fall Out Boy
7. Red Hot Chili Peppers
8. Linkin Park
9. Blink-182
10. Metallica
11. Green Day
12. The 1975
13. Paramore
14. Five Finger Death Punch
15. Queen
16. Led Zeppelin
17. AC/DC
18. Pink Floyd
19. Arctic Monkeys
20. Mumford & Sons
21. Three Days Grace
My point is when it comes to developing broadly popular guitar sounds, that's a pretty good map of where listeners are at.
What are the common threads?
There are several legacy bands; a few contemporary-ish pop hitmakers who are either more electronica (Imagine Dragons/21 Pilots/and stretching the definition of contemporary, Linkin Park) or soft/stadium focused (Coldplay); lots of bands with garage/bar-band/punk roots.
William Bunch played guitar, but on most of his recordings he played piano. He knew or untilised a limited number of riffs and his recorded repertoire can be reduced to basically two melodies or modal progressions or whatever you want to call them, yet I find him infinitely fascinating:
