Why are players so under-appreciated?

Well sure alot of opinion comes from taste, including my own, alot of Zep music is very melodic, I guess what I mean by exposure is not just the stuff you hear on the radio, most classic rock stations have a setlist that they don't vary much.

When I think of Cobain I tend to think he had a knack for cool power chord riffs, not a lot of virtouso guitar type stuff there...but he defined a sub-genre of rock music and was good at what he did. Now I may be wrong there because I'm not a huge fan and havn't looked very deeply at the stuff he did, and if that is true then I have no problem being corrected.

I think if you looked deeper into blues/rock/hard rock you would find hard driving riffs...Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, Ted Nugent, ect...but you have to look beyond whats played on the radio, I think that is prob true of any genre be it grunge, blues, rock, classical.

Imagine if we based all our opinions on a certain type of music by just what they played on the radio...ick

I base my opinions on 32 years of listening to alot of different music from, Elvis, Zepp, The Ramones, Devo, Waylan and Willie, Johnny Cash, Iron Maiden...ect

But its just an opinion, not meant to change anyones mind or offend anyone, just to commincate where I'm coming from.

Scott

Good players are not appreciated because this - http://youtube.com/watch?v=SNRwCPMRGYE is alot easier to swallow than this - http://youtube.com/watch?v=J5RzSzd4pws

Clearly the second selection is a more refined/articulate/complicated musical achievement. But, its like burgers and caviar. More people just like burgers. They would rather just enjoy the burgers than devote the energy to appreciate the caviar.

I hope that made sense.

Good players are not appreciated because this - http://youtube.com/watch?v=SNRwCPMRGYE is alot easier to swallow than this - http://youtube.com/watch?v=J5RzSzd4pws

Clearly the second selection is a more refined/articulate/complicated musical achievement. But, its like burgers and caviar. More people just like burgers. They would rather just enjoy the burgers than devote the energy to appreciate the caviar.

I hope that made sense.

Not really.

Motzart was composing for the common man. He was definitely a "burger set" artist of his day.

As was Django, and Atkins, etc.

Maybe the classical musician of today is playing for the caviar crowd, but the folks in other genres are playing for the slobs in the bars just like the rock players.

Good players are not appreciated because this - http://youtube.com/watch?v=SNRwCPMRGYE is alot easier to swallow than this - http://youtube.com/watch?v=J5RzSzd4pws

Clearly the second selection is a more refined/articulate/complicated musical achievement. But, its like burgers and caviar. More people just like burgers. They would rather just enjoy the burgers than devote the energy to appreciate the caviar.

I hope that made sense.

Not really.

Motzart was composing for the common man. He was definitely a "burger set" artist of his day.

As was Django, and Atkins, etc.

Maybe the classical musician of today is playing for the caviar crowd, but the folks in other genres are playing for the slobs in the bars just like the rock players.

I agree 5%.

If Green Day or Nirvana existed back in Mozarts' day, Mo's music would have quickly become Balluga Eggs.

The Hendrix clip is okay; and maybe it should be called a burger. Do you really think McLaughlin's performance is "caviar?" Fast playing has always been his metier. But it becomes tiresome in its lack of nuance and space -- not much harmonic development either. The passages that sound best are those in which he slows and begins to vary the rhythm and dynamics.

If Green Day or Nirvana existed back in Mozarts' day, Mo's music would have quickly become Balluga Eggs.

I've been trying to keep out of this discussion - but I can't help thinking that this whole subject raises immensely complex issues of the cultural context of music. Remember in Back to the Future where Marty McFly is playing at the high school hop? The beginning of 'Johnny B Goode' gets them going like crazy, but by the end of his EVH-style solo, he's completely lost the crowd. As you would. Mozart's audiences probably wouldn't even recognise 'Basket Case' as a piece of music. Their loss, probably - but then Bach's Chorale Preludes would often be lost on grunge audiences.

What interests me is that the original discussion is on "10 Favourite Guitarists" not 10 Most Significant. Now I know in the history of jazz guitar that hugely neglected figure Charlie Byrd is probably more significant than Terje Rypdal. But I can't help it, Terje's bleak Northern soundscapes move me in a way that Charlie's elegant stylings never have, even though it was Charlie's 'Blues for Night People' that first convinced me that I really had to learn to play guitar properly.

It's hard to see clearly things that are very close to one's eyes, and it's hard to really judge the long-term importance of musicians who are still at or near the peak of their careers. Much easier to look back 50 years or so, and say, who made the big difference? But all we were doing - well, all I was doing anyway - was saying who we like listening to. My list, while I know it contains some very fine musicians indeed, makes no pretensions whatever to assessing their significance in the long view - they're just nine men and a woman I love listening to, and, coincidentally maybe, find myself learning from.

The Hendrix clip is okay; and maybe it should be called a burger. Do you really think McLaughlin's performance is "caviar?" Fast playing has always been his metier. But it becomes tiresome in its lack of nuance and space -- not much harmonic development either. The passages that sound best are those in which he slows and begins to vary the rhythm and dynamics.

There are certainly better pieces that I could have chosen. But, I was just trying to quickly show a contrast. I think most people would have certainly thought the McLaughlin performance more caviar than the Hendrix. Lets not get too technical... :)

bravo PVtele, Favorite not significent sums it up. As musical tastes are subjective, I always feel these over-rated or under appreciated arguements to be futile. It may be self-referential but,I've always believed the amount of respect/appreciation an artist "deserves" is the amount he gets.

The Hendrix clip is okay; and maybe it should be called a burger. Do you really think McLaughlin's performance is "caviar?" Fast playing has always been his metier. But it becomes tiresome in its lack of nuance and space -- not much harmonic development either. The passages that sound best are those in which he slows and begins to vary the rhythm and dynamics.

There are certainly better pieces that I could have chosen. But, I was just trying to quickly show a contrast. I think most people would have certainly thought the McLaughlin performance more caviar than the Hendrix. Lets not get too technical... :)

Well, it comes down to opinion as always. McLaughlin just happens to push a button for me, as I've never felt he delivers on the promise. Ignore me on that.

I think a more interesting example might by Steely Dan -- musical caviar, yet popular burger all in one.

To me, it's all about who's really good at what they do. Richards, Cobain, SRV, Knopfler, Hendrix, Clapton....... they're all good....at what they do. Lumping them into one group is like comparing apples and motorcycles.

To me, it's all about who's really good at what they do. Richards, Cobain, SRV, Knopfler, Hendrix, Clapton....... they're all good....at what they do. Lumping them into one group is like comparing apples and motorcycles.

on that note, ... i'd say Fujis and Nortons :wink:

People name guitarists they know. Guitarists in the blues/rock genre are simply better known than guitarists in the classical or jazz genres.

Also, people like to parrot what they hear. If I had to make a top five of best guitarists ever, I would include Jimi Hendrix, Eric Clapton, Django Reinhart, Steve Vai and Jimmy Page. The thing is that I have never heard any piece of music by Django and while I can hear that the others are good guitar players, I really don't know enough about guitar playing to really make a statement about it, actually. I'm just parroting what others before me have told me, jumping on the bandwagon.

I wouldn't say most people parrot what they hear when it comes down to favourite guitarist...I just listed the guitarists I appreciate most.

Why more blues then classical guitarists...I watched the two video clips posted, Hendrix and mclaughlin, and Hendrix's music just 'does it' for me. I feel a lot more emotion coming from it, it moves me. I've heard Trey Anastasio do a solo that actually almost made me choke up. Same with Clapton, the music touches me. Whereas when I listen to Mcclaughlin, I feel nothing.

You might notice that Clapton and Hendrix and Gilmour are constantly on favourites lists, because listeners get so much out of their playing.

As for the discussion about rhythm players, I had Keith Richards and Pete Townshend on my list, but thats about it. While a rhythm player is important, in blues and jazz, its not always a guitar player, sometimes piano, or just bass or whatever.

I agree with zaiga, i think that people do parrot what they hear. I think that a lot of peoples opinions are altered easily by others, for instance if everyone was told that Jimi Hendrix was the greatest guitarist of all time then people would go along with it. Generally speaking when people give there opinions they opt for what they belive will get the best response. A lot of people would say that Hendrx is the greatest guitarist of all time because, if you say that to someone they are unlikely to say that you are totally wrong. Lets face it nobody creates opinions entirely on there own anyway.

I think alot of it may have to do with age as well. When you'e younger, even though you try and be a "rebel" you're really quite afraid to be seen as different from your friends. You listen to and play the same type of music, you dress the same, wear your hair the same play the same games. When you are younger you also tend to do your thinking from below the waste instead of from above it.
Rock and blues are music for below the waist, there is no thinking required, it is pure emotion. Listen the the rhythm of a rock or blues tune, the only purpose for that kind of beat is to have sex. It's what it's all about.

Now as we get older, we use our big heads a bit more as time goes by, we want intellectual stimulation as well as physical, we don't worry as much about standing out a bit from our friends, we are more secure in who we are so are more willing to try new things. New foods, new clothes and new music. We are much more willing to acknowledge the beauty in a carefully crafted melodic flamenco, classical or jazz passage and to give the player of that passage the respect he deserves. As we are age we also have more disposable income, so instead of having to choose between getting an album from the latest hotshot player and an album from a past master we can afford both, giving us an opportunity to broaden our tastes.