MUHAHAHAHA

[SHO]

While I did like them, Metallica was my least favourite thrash band back in the day. Megadeth was more interesting musically, better guitarists (Chris Poland and Marty Friedman made Kirk look like a fool), far more interesting riffs and song structures, and then there was Slayer who... was just better just by being Slayer!

[Shnate McDuanus]

http://www.woodytone.com/2010/03/17/are-lessons-a-waste-of-friggin-time/#more-1724

 

"So who didn’t take formal lessons on guitar? Just about everyone we to this day idolize: virtually all of the English pioneers' date=' Jimi, SRV, EVH, Ace, Billy Gibbons, the Young brothers – pretty much all of the classic rockers on the categories list at right. All the blues musicians too, even “younger” guys like Joe Bonamassa. (I say younger because, unlike BB King, Muddy Waters, etc., Joe certainly had access to formal lessons if he’d wanted them.)

 

On the flip side you have schooled musicians like Steve Vai, Joe Satriani, John Petrucci and others (Rhoads somewhat) who do have their own styles – but when it comes to groundbreaking and pioneering playing, bands and tones, those hyper-schooled guys are in the minority.

 

Most of the axe-slingers we idolize to this day basically learned on their own.

 

Now, in saying that I’m well aware that they learned by copping licks aurally and/or visually; by jamming with people; and maybe by a neighbor or whoever showing them a bar chord. And some might have had a solid musical foundation elsewhere (e.g, piano). But when it came to making their mark on the guitar world, it was all ears and eyes – mostly ears. No formal teaching. No scales, modes, inversions, whatever.

 

These guys didn’t need no stinkin’ lessons – they had ears!

 

[b']"Those guys learned time, groove and feel before they learned their ‘over the top’ chops. The converse seems to be the norm nowadays"[/b]

 

 

 

 

See, it's sh*t like this that has always made me ashamed of myself, because I've taken weekly guitar lessons for about a year now, and even while I was signing up for them I was ashamed because I knew that nobody really wants to or tends to recognize (or, a large part of the time, even respect) people who aren't "self-taught." It's true that I probably could have taught myself, but I was growing impatient and my parents had been recommending/suggesting/urging me to take lessons for a while. The results: heck, I think I'm still a lousy guitarist, all of my licks sound stupid (you can judge for yourself, though, some of my playing is up on SoundClick,) and now I've spent loads of money on guitar lessons. I mean, sure, I guess I'm doing better than I had been doing before, and now that I'm properly ensconced in the content of the lessons, which I'm enjoying very much, I find it hard to consider leaving--but would it have been any different had I not taken lessons? Different material aside, I think I'd likely be in the same place now had I not bothered, but considering how much I've been exposed to? Well, it's definitely worthwhile to spend some time outside of your comfort zone, playing early-20th century American standards with a man almost four times your own age. But I could play a few songs reasonably well even before I began taking lessons, and in time I may have gotten that opportunity without paying for it. So I guess I have mixed feelings about formal guitar lessons.

 

Then again, sometimes I also have to wonder what exactly makes a guitarist "self-taught." It's not truly as if anyone ever understands the instrument simply by diddling around aimlessly. It takes listening, reading, watching, and lots of practice, regardless of who "teaches" you, and so I suppose what formal lessons are, for those with the proper drive, initiative and interest (some people take formal lessons and still don't get anywhere,) are ways to be introduced to different material and different ideas about the guitar. Heck, maybe I'm just trying to rationalize it.

 

Oh, sorry for hijacking the thread. I just saw this and it got me thinkin'.

[swleary]

you hijacker you....btw nothing wrong with guitar lessons or any other type of lessons...you learn proper technique

[GibSinCity]

And for the rest of the thread' date=' Judas Priest (always in my opinion...) issued some really disgraceful material during the 80's. Keeping the 2nd best guitar duet in the history of metal in 3-4 minute songs...[/quote']

 

 

The 80's, really?

The whole 80's?...

 

"British Steel"-1980

"Point Of Entry"-1981

"Screaming For Vengence"-1982

"Defenders Of The Faith"-1984

"Turbo"-1986

"Priest-LIVE"-1987

"Ram It Down"-1988

 

OK

The "Turbo" album was awful.

But at that point, after so many years in the game, with sythesizers everywhere it was bound to happen.

ZZ Top didn't do so bad when it came to this.("Afterburner" album)

But that was really the only album where they got off-track.

They always seemed to keep focus and "Keep The Faith", no matter what was popular, and tried to keep thing on the heavy side.

But they've never had a "Re-Load", or "St. Anger".

No synthesizers there to blame.

[FirstMeasure]

Since we're in the war-path and taking sides here:

 

 

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0k8holIGTU[/YOUTUBE]

 

Wanted to quote this one, it's my favorite Megariff.

 

Also wanted to add that Rust in Peace is the Best Metal Album ever produced.

[Shnate McDuanus]

Oh, and my opinion on Metallica?

 

I love 'em. Even the so-called "sell-out" period (which, by the way, wasn't selling out at all if you ask me.) Oh, and before anyone flames me, I can explain, too.

 

Here it is: they weren't bad albums, they were just sub-par Metallica albums. If they had a different band's name on them and we didn't know they were Metallica, I'm sure a lot of folks who hate them now would like 'em just fine. Heck, call me crazy/stupid/whatever, but I think Load, ReLoad and St. Anger are damn good albums!

 

Come and get me.

[brundaddy]

ZZ Top didn't do so bad.

They always seemed to keep focus and "Keep The Faith"' date=' no matter what was popular, and tried to keep thing on the heavy side.

But they've never had a "Re-Load", or "St. Anger".

No synthesizers there to blame. [/quote']

 

Amen. And brother -- you said a mouthful: "Metallica isn't metal ... more like plastic."

 

'Black Album,' Load, etc. are a joke, no matter who was behind it or the reasons for their existence.

[GibSinCity]

And for the rest of the thread' date=' Judas Priest (always in my opinion...) issued some really disgraceful material during the 80's. Keeping the 2nd best guitar duet in the history of metal in 3-4 minute songs...[/quote']

 

Just curious about your opinion, if Tipton & Downing are number 2, who do you consider the "Best guitar duet in the history of metal"?

[Shnate McDuanus]

Just curious about your opinion' date=' if Tipton & Downing are number 2, who do you consider the "Best guitar duet in the history of metal"?[/quote']

 

Well, I know you didn't ask for mine, but...

 

I like Dave Murray and Adrian Smith.

 

Janick Gers is good too, IMO. If he's good enough for Steve Harris, he's good enough for me.

[GibSinCity]

Well' date=' I know you didn't ask for mine, but...

 

I like Dave Murray and Adrian Smith.

 

Janick Gers is good too, IMO. If he's good enough for Steve Harris, he's good enough for me.[/quote']

 

Yeah, gotta recognize those two.

Maiden always stayed true to what they are.

The band never went for what would be considered commercially safe, or flavor of the month.

[brundaddy]

Yeah' date=' gotta recognize those two.

Maiden always stayed true to what they are.

The band never went for what would be considered commercially safe, or flavor of the month.[/quote']

 

Can't say the same about Metallica, unfortunately.

[Izzy]

Oh' date=' and my opinion on Metallica?

 

I love 'em. Even the so-called "sell-out" period (which, by the way, wasn't selling out at all if you ask me.) Oh, and before anyone flames me, I can explain, too.

 

Here it is: they weren't bad albums, they were just sub-par Metallica albums. If they had a different band's name on them and we didn't know they were Metallica, I'm sure a lot of folks who hate them now would like 'em just fine. Heck, call me crazy/stupid/whatever, but I think Load, ReLoad and St. Anger are damn good albums!

 

Come and get me.

 

When you have to excuse an artist's work with a statement like, had any other band come up with the modern metallica material it would be considered good...that's sad.

 

I agree that had any other group come out with the material for Metallica's later work it would have been good, but ME? I have high expectations of Metallica. To hear "Metallica GREW" doesn't sound right to me. They re-invented themselves maybe, shook things up, sold out, whatever you want to call it, but to say "grew" I would expect higher quality or same at the very least. In your head play right now a bit of For Whom the Bell Tolls. Now try King Nothing. My ears go, "nonono, turn that other stuff on, that **** is DA BOMB."

Which song would you prefer to have written?

If they were done by different artists which would be the better group?

[MojoRedFoot]

I have high expectations of Metallica.

 

Why should they write songs according to your expectations? Why should any song writer for that matter?

 

Just sayin'

[ShredAstaire]

I saw Metallica live for the first time 2 years ago in Seattle. I was never a HUGE Metallica fan but I was casual. I like the old stuff for sure and I did enjoy Death Magnetic for a while (haven't listened to it in a bit)...

 

Man were they ever good live.

 

Also - you KNEW....you FELT that they were having the time of their life up on that stage. They love performing in front of their fans and they have soooooo much fun.

 

I was very impressed and they played a nice mix of old and new.....the crowd was into it!!

[Hector Arcadius]

Just curious about your opinion' date=' if Tipton & Downing are number 2, who do you consider the "Best guitar duet in the history of metal"?[/quote']

 

 

 

C'mon man, it's not that difficult: Adrian Smith / Dave Murray of course. Ya know, these guys:

 

 

[YOUTUBE]

[/YOUTUBE]

 

[YOUTUBE]

[/YOUTUBE]

 

 

As for Priest, the guys wrote and played ''Run of the mill'' and ''victim of changes'' on their 2nd album, if I'm not mistaken. So, my expectations were soooo much higher than what they finally did... Just my expectations however.

[Hector Arcadius]

Yeah' date=' gotta recognize those two.

Maiden always stayed true to what they are.

The band never went for what would be considered commercially safe, or flavor of the month.

 

[/quote']

 

 

 

Hmmm... I know that I look like an a$$hole here, but neither Maiden stayed true all their whole career... Always in my opinion, the last Maiden studio album truly worthy of the Iron Maiden name on the cover, was Fear of the Dark. They ended up copying themselves eventually, in a rather poor manner (''The rhyme of the ancient Mariner'' was turned into ''Ghost of the navigator'' or something...? C'mon people...). However, in their honor, they did tour the planet last couple of years paying tribute to their golden years... unfortunately, I did not manage to see them live. But for studio work nowadays, I just listen to Dickinson's solo work, which for me, is a thousand times better / more interesting than what Maiden produces at the moment...

 

 

Perhaps it's my expectations that ruin the thing...

[Lowdown]

...I was in a UK band that had a number 1 album in Europe (don't ask! was just hired to bash out chords) and they went through several line up changes..

 

Hey Vader,

PM me and let's yak about the bands you/we've played for...

 

What years you talkin' bout...do ya know Lozza?...Kingy?:-

[brundaddy]

Why should they write songs according to your expectations?

 

They wrote them under the close direction of Bob Rock & 'according to the expectation' of selling units, as opposed to sticking to their guns and disregarding outside pressures and influences.

 

That's why they most recently worked with Rick Rubin. Somebody made a sarcastic remark about the Beastie Boys, but Metallica chose Rubin because he did Slayer's best albums in addition to bringing a renaissance to Johnny Cash's career. Metallica tried to go for the old school thrash/speedmetal but (as Kerry King puts it) they don't even know how anymore.

[swleary]

wow I didn't think this thread would go this way ....a lot of discusion on Metallica and other bands....ok group hug everyone :)

[MojoRedFoot]

I'm too pissed off!

[ShredAstaire]

Some people love Metallica, some people hate them. Reminds me of Buckethead. baaahahahahah

[MojoRedFoot]

I don't like Hendrix (Jane that is)

[GibSinCity]

Hmmm... I know that I look like an a$$hole here' date=' but neither Maiden stayed true all their whole career... Always in my opinion, the last Maiden studio album truly worthy of the Iron Maiden name on the cover, was Fear of the Dark. They ended up copying themselves eventually, in a rather poor manner (''The rhyme of the ancient Mariner'' was turned into ''Ghost of the navigator'' or something...? C'mon people...). However, in their honor, they did tour the planet last couple of years paying tribute to their golden years... unfortunately, I did not manage to see them live. But for studio work nowadays, I just listen to Dickinson's solo work, which for me, is a thousand times better / more interesting than what Maiden produces at the moment...

 

 

Perhaps it's my expectations that ruin the thing...[/quote']

 

Perhaps it is, and my point is they probably don't care what you, or anybody else thinks.

You can't win in a competition against yourself, so comparing them to themselves is pointless.

You may not have liked some of the new stuff, but was it because cuz in your mind it wasn't as good as old stuff, or cuz they were selling out?

Regardless of how newer Maiden compares to old Maiden, it's still them putting out material they wanted to, and not what anyone else wanted, or expected.

They're fulfilling their own needs, not anyone elses.

 

BTW, I'm not trying to be an a$$hole either.

[Hector Arcadius]

Perhaps it is' date=' and my point is they probably don't care what you, or anybody else thinks.

You can't win in a competition against yourself, so comparing them to themselves is pointless.

You may not have liked some of the new stuff, but was it because cuz in your mind it wasn't as good as old stuff, or cuz they were selling out?

Regardless of how newer Maiden compares to old Maiden, it's still them putting out material they wanted to, and not what anyone else wanted, or expected.

They're fulfilling their own needs, not anyone elses.

 

[/quote']

 

 

As far as the question is considered, I would say that it's mainly the first one, but the second one stands alone as well... Especially in the 80's, and after the punk late 70's- early 80's madness, the record companies were trying to ''squeeze'' long songs with progressive influences and long guitar solos, into 3-4 minutes hits, with catchy riffs, that would get a lot of radio air-time. Judas Priest were such a huge band, with so great musicians, that they managed to do so with a huge success, creating albums that are considered classics until today. But, in my opinion, they can't stand next to what they did in their first albums.

 

Although many people do not know so, it was exactly the same case with the Scorpions. Their 70's material, with Uli Jon Roth at the guitar, is simply astonishing. their 80's stuff is simply... not bad.

 

As for the closing line in your post, we have to consider what ''their needs'' are. Artistic? Fame-related? Money-related?

I get the feeling that it's mainly the 3rd. Perhaps I'm wrong, but either way, their current material (I'm referring mainly to Maiden here - Priest are going the ''proper'' - according to me- direction nowadays - ) does not make me wanna either listen to it or spend my cash on it.

 

Bands are free to make their choices. So do we...

[GibSinCity]

As for the closing line in your post' date=' we have to consider what ''their needs'' are. Artistic? Fame-related? Money-related?

I get the feeling that it's mainly the 3rd. Perhaps I'm wrong, but either way, their current material (I'm referring mainly to Maiden here - Priest are going the ''proper'' - according to me- direction nowadays - ) does not make me wanna either listen to it or spend my cash on it. [/quote']

 

It may be the almighty dollar, but I think that when you reach that level, it comes with the territory, you still want to feed your artistic needs in the middle of dealing with fame, and things just get crazy money wise. It's the life you hoped and dreamed of so you go for it. Successful people are usually driven. Everything gets more expensive, but you've got the money so you spend it. Then you've got to keep the game going.

It is show business, after all.

 

"Bands are free to make their choices. So do we..."

 

Agreed.