Best modern guitar solo

[GetTheLedOut]

That's not what im saying at all. The point im making is that you can be the most technically gifted guitarist in the world but if you're don't have a creative mind you're unlikely to be the best. It is very hard to teach someone to be creative.

I disagree with your point anyway, if that was the case the charts would be full of pensioner's. Most great bands did their best stuff in the early stages of their careers (eg) Led Zep, Pink Floyd, The Who, Radiohead, Rolling Stones, The Doors, Oasis

So in addition to following the tired concept of "new music sucks" you have added the lazy criticism of "their early stuff was their best"?

I don't agree at all. Most musicians who have great technical skill are extremely creative. As a musician myself, I can tell you that the more you learn the more options it opens, and most artists take advantage of the new tools at their disposal.

[Swede]

So in addition to following the tired concept of "new music sucks" you have added the lazy criticism of "their early stuff was their best"?

I don't agree at all. Most musicians who have great technical skill are extremely creative. As a musician myself, I can tell you that the more you learn the more options it opens, and most artists take advantage of the new tools at their disposal.

Not directed at me, but I can't help answering anyway.. Having technical skills and being creative doesn't nessecary turn into something great. A musican with less technical skill can bring soul and feeling to the music which many technical skilled musicians unfortunatly seem to be lacking.

Also new music doesn't suck, but it's a big chance, for example, Wolfmother's fourth album would've sucked or been less great then their first, if they kept playing.. if you know what I mean. Now, some bands continue to create great music too, of course.

[GetTheLedOut]

Not directed at me, but I can't help answering anyway.. Having technical skills and being creative doesn't nessecary turn into something great. A musican with less technical skill can bring soul and feeling to the music which many technical skilled musicians unfortunatly seem to be lacking.

A lot of people say this, but I rarely find it to be true.

Also new music doesn't suck, but it's a big chance, for example, Wolfmother's fourth album would've sucked or been less great then their first, if they kept playing.. if you know what I mean. Now, some bands continue to create great music too, of course.

I'll take Jack White's catalog, both past and future, over a lot of "classic" artists. Same goes for Wilco, Radiohead, Oasis and others.

[talisman]

I'll take Jack White's catalog, both past and future, over a lot of "classic" artists. Same goes for Wilco, Radiohead, Oasis and others.

Obviously you're entitled to your opinion but i think most people would disagree with you.

And to set the record straight i don't think all new music sucks, but in Britain a record company is usually only interested in signing a band if they have a catchy 4 minute song to put on the radio. The situation may be slightly better in the States but over here 90% of guitar bands sound the same.

[ArmsofAtlas]

It doesn't matter if a guitarist knows more chords, is quicker on the frets, makes cleaner chord changes, can play blindfolded or standing on his head. The most important thing to the listener is the sound that they make. That's why in my opinion Jimmy Page is the greatest guitarist ever, technically he probably isn't but if you compare his body of music with other revered guitarist's he's streets ahead.

You might be the most technically gifted guitarist that has ever lived but if you haven't got the imagination and the creativity to make good songs, riffs and solo's with your talent then i won't want to listen to you.

I agree about Page.

I feel the same way as you about guitarists. Guys like Vai, Malmsteen, etc don't even register with me. I am referring to guitarists in bands that make good music.

[GetTheLedOut]

Obviously you're entitled to your opinion but i think most people would disagree with you.

I think most people would agree with me, especially if they've gotten a good survey of music.

And to set the record straight i don't think all new music sucks, but in Britain a record company is usually only interested in signing a band if they have a catchy 4 minute song to put on the radio. The situation may be slightly better in the States but over here 90% of guitar bands sound the same.

News flash: the record companies have always favored the short catchy song. It's better now than it's ever been. You wouldn't even be allowed to record something over 4:30 before the mid-sixties, and even then you'd have to have proven yourself first. The only reason a band like Zeppelin started out with longer songs is because they paid for the studio time themselves. There are a lot of shorter, catchy songs today, but no more than there used to be, and the songs today are that way because that's what the artists are writing, not because the labels are pushing them that way. Most labels these days are very willing to let the artist do what they want; certainly more willing than they were in the past.

[talisman]

News flash: the record companies have always favored the short catchy song. It's better now than it's ever been. You wouldn't even be allowed to record something over 4:30 before the mid-sixties, and even then you'd have to have proven yourself first. The only reason a band like Zeppelin started out with longer songs is because they paid for the studio time themselves. There are a lot of shorter, catchy songs today, but no more than there used to be, and the songs today are that way because that's what the artists are writing, not because the labels are pushing them that way. Most labels these days are very willing to let the artist do what they want; certainly more willing than they were in the past.

Fair point but i don't think it's as black and white as you make out. Most labels will only let an artist do what they want once they have proved themselves and become popular and even then it's only because they would lose the artist to another label if they didn't. Most new bands are signed purely because the record company thinks they have one or two catchy songs that they can sell an album off the back of. There are bands out there who are writing more original and challenging material but they struggle to get a record label because most companies wont take the risk.

[GetTheLedOut]

Fair point but i don't think it's as black and white as you make out. Most labels will only let an artist do what they want once they have proved themselves and become popular and even then it's only because they would lose the artist to another label if they didn't.

I'm not so sure this is true (although I don't doubt that it can happen). I think artists are given pretty fair amount of power from the get go, and then if they prove that they can't sell records in the numbers they're expected to, then the record companies may step in.

Most new bands are signed purely because the record company thinks they have one or two catchy songs that they can sell an album off the back of. There are bands out there who are writing more original and challenging material but they struggle to get a record label because most companies wont take the risk.

I think this is becoming almost completely untrue due to the fact labels are no longer required to bring music to the masses. These days an artist can develop themselves and record themselves, and once they have proven themselves on their own terms they can seek label distribution. In the right hands, it's a very artist friendly model.

[talisman]

I think this is becoming almost completely untrue due to the fact labels are no longer required to bring music to the masses. These days an artist can develop themselves and record themselves, and once they have proven themselves on their own terms they can seek label distribution. In the right hands, it's a very artist friendly model.

I don't think we're going to agree on this issue

Record labels are required to do one thing and that is to make money. If an unsigned artist sends a demo tape to a record company they are unlikely to listen to more than the first 30 seconds of it. If there isn't a catchy hook or chorus in that first 30 seconds the artist won't get signed. If Led Zep were a modern day band and they sent Stairway To Heaven in to a record label i doubt they would receive a phone call.

I guess that what im trying to say is that there are great bands out there but unless they conform to the verse-chorus-verse-chorus-chorus model that the record companies like they struggle to get noticed.

[greenman]

Its a little older than 10 years but I love John Squires solo at the end of Love Is The Law, track itself isnt really that speical so fast forward to 3 mins in.

[GetTheLedOut]

I don't think we're going to agree on this issue

Record labels are required to do one thing and that is to make money. If an unsigned artist sends a demo tape to a record company they are unlikely to listen to more than the first 30 seconds of it. If there isn't a catchy hook or chorus in that first 30 seconds the artist won't get signed. If Led Zep were a modern day band and they sent Stairway To Heaven in to a record label i doubt they would receive a phone call.

I guess that what im trying to say is that there are great bands out there but unless they conform to the verse-chorus-verse-chorus-chorus model that the record companies like they struggle to get noticed.

But what you're referring to hasn't been the model for years. Artists don't come to labels, the labels are forced to come to them. And they spend more time than you think listening to new artists music, much more than 30 seconds. You're confusing labels with radio stations.

[Swede]

A lot of people say this, but I rarely find it to be true.

I guess it's subjective judgment, but I find it more of a rule than exception.

Most schooled musicians I know doesn't move me at all, while those who plays with feeling and less technically affect me a lot more. Technically and perfect playing tend to sound stiff.

I'll take Jack White's catalog, both past and future, over a lot of "classic" artists. Same goes for Wilco, Radiohead, Oasis and others.

Can't but agree.

But what I am saying, the debut and maybe the three first albums of an artist is often the best they produce. After a while most bands and artists tend to get watered or worn out. Of course, some keep being productive and keep making great music. Jack White is one that keep making good music and being progressive. Oasis isn't, but if they keep working they might hit it again, like Aerosmith, Johnny Cash and other artists that came back and made great music after years making mediocre music.

[talisman]

But what I am saying, the debut and maybe the three first albums of an artist is often the best they produce. After a while most bands and artists tend to get watered or worn out.

Couldn't agree more! I think the main reason for this is that their creative juices start to dry up. But there can be other reasons, such as not dealing with fame or money, losing the passion for their work, alcohol, and drugs. But what really infuriates me are the big arena-filling bands that make albums designed for the mass market to maximise sales rather than try and make the more challenging and adventurous music that they were doing earlier in their careers.

[Detroit Dan]

Alex Lifeson (Rush)

Hope. (Name of Solo)

Link.

[Jarlaxle 56]

But what I am saying, the debut and maybe the three first albums of an artist is often the best they produce. After a while most bands and artists tend to get watered or worn out. Of course, some keep being productive and keep making great music. Jack White is one that keep making good music and being progressive. Oasis isn't, but if they keep working they might hit it again, like Aerosmith, Johnny Cash and other artists that came back and made great music after years making mediocre music.

And then you get artists who make great album after album, like Frank Zappa, or Deerhoof.

On that note, you all should check out Deerhoof (if you haven't), they have a new album coming out, I think it must be at least their 13th or 14th by now...

Although some might not like the singer, I have seen them live (and hope to see them again!!) and she is a very good performer and interacts a lot with the crowd, and plays a mean bass.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=ijspl6rF7-I

A link for you all.

[Swede]

And then you get artists who make great album after album, like Frank Zappa, or Deerhoof.

On that note, you all should check out Deerhoof (if you haven't), they have a new album coming out, I think it must be at least their 13th or 14th by now...

Although some might not like the singer, I have seen them live (and hope to see them again!!) and she is a very good performer and interacts a lot with the crowd, and plays a mean bass.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=ijspl6rF7-I

A link for you all.

Pretty good. The guitarist has a mean tone.

[GetTheLedOut]

Can't but agree.

But what I am saying, the debut and maybe the three first albums of an artist is often the best they produce. After a while most bands and artists tend to get watered or worn out. Of course, some keep being productive and keep making great music. Jack White is one that keep making good music and being progressive. Oasis isn't, but if they keep working they might hit it again, like Aerosmith, Johnny Cash and other artists that came back and made great music after years making mediocre music.

I really can't say I agree with that statement of "the debut and maybe the three first albums of an artist is often the best they produce". It's such a stereotypical statement that so many music defeatists say, but it just isn't true very often. It's very rare that there's an artist that has a really really great debut album and then trails off so completely there after.

[Swede]

I really can't say I agree with that statement of "the debut and maybe the three first albums of an artist is often the best they produce". It's such a stereotypical statement that so many music defeatists say, but it just isn't true very often. It's very rare that there's an artist that has a really really great debut album and then trails off so completely there after.

Maybe it's because you forgot about all the bands that broke up after the third/fourth album due to lack of interest of the last album..

I don't agree that my comment is stereotypical in any way, and also, could you please explain what "defeatists" mean? Sorry about my lack of knowledge of the english language. But it sounds like a negative word, and I would suppose that I'm everything but a music defeatist.

[GetTheLedOut]

Maybe it's because you forgot about all the bands that broke up after the third/fourth album due to lack of interest of the last album..

I don't agree that my comment is stereotypical in any way, and also, could you please explain what "defeatists" mean? Sorry about my lack of knowledge of the english language. But it sounds like a negative word, and I would suppose that I'm everything but a music defeatist.

By "music defeatist" I'm referring to those who hold ridiculous ideas like "the early stuff was better" and "the music industry is all about money these days". Statements that are popularly accepted but are in reality completely false. Sure there are bands whose early work is better than there late, but there are plenty where the opposite is true, and there are plenty that were good all the way through, and there are plenty more who were never good! Someone said something earlier about "losing your creative juices" or something to that affect. Ridiculous. Artists don't just stop being creative.

And if one more person says something about the music industry only being about money these days, I might have to end them. It always has and always will be about money. Nothing's changed.

At any rate, I still think you're thinking of music in false cliches, but I doubt you're going to agree with that anytime soon. Getting back to the topic, here's a recent song with some really nice guitar chops. I'd imagine it would be up your alley Swede:

[Swede]

By "music defeatist" I'm referring to those who hold ridiculous ideas like "the early stuff was better" and "the music industry is all about money these days". Statements that are popularly accepted but are in reality completely false. Sure there are bands whose early work is better than there late, but there are plenty where the opposite is true, and there are plenty that were good all the way through, and there are plenty more who were never good! Someone said something earlier about "losing your creative juices" or something to that affect. Ridiculous. Artists don't just stop being creative.

And if one more person says something about the music industry only being about money these days, I might have to end them. It always has and always will be about money. Nothing's changed.

I am with you that there are no difference between music business today and yesterday.. For the managements, labels, and even for some of the artists, there has always been about the money. The Motown executives was of course out to make big money too, as well as todays label executives.

Talking about music in terms of good or bad is mostly about a subjective matter, though, if you're really interested you probably can make an pretty objective judgement on an artist you don't even like to listen to as well.

I'm not denying there are many artists that keep putting out great albums year after year.

But IMO, I think a predominant number of bands tend to lose it after a couple of records, especially those that got a lot of praise for their first couple of albums. It's maybe because of pressure to make anything as good as before or because of the relation between the band members has worn out during tour after tour, whatever.. But I also think that most of those who stick together and keep on going eventually head back to their early greatness. I don't base this on facts or anything, because there are no facts, it's just opinions.

At any rate, I still think you're thinking of music in false cliches, but I doubt you're going to agree with that anytime soon.

Believe me, I don't think of music in false cliches. I always try to listen to any record without any prejudices no matter if I like the artist in question or not. I don't differ music in categories as old and new. If I find a song I've never heard and I like it, it doesn't matter if it's from 1943 or 2008, or if it's from the first or seventh album.

Getting back to the topic, here's a recent song with some really nice guitar chops. I'd imagine it would be up your alley Swede:

Thanks for the tip, pretty good tune. I'll might have to chech out other stuff with The Aliens!

[GetTheLedOut]

I don't base this on facts or anything, because there are no facts, it's just opinions.

Fair enough.

Thanks for the tip, pretty good tune. I'll might have to chech out other stuff with The Aliens!

I had a feeling you'd like it.

[Olipticle]

id have to say slash... i mean hes the only really "new one out there" I mean there dereck trucks fromt he alman band and john mayer who can sound pretty decent at times. But i mean other then that not much catching my eye.

John fuschiante ( cant spell ) from RHCP is pretty awsome to.

[DragonRouge]

John fuschiante ( cant spell ) from RHCP is pretty awsome to.

Yeah, John Frusciante (Here is the spelling) is awesome. I particulary like his style on Blood Sugar Sex Magik.

[talisman]

I really can't say I agree with that statement of "the debut and maybe the three first albums of an artist is often the best they produce". It's such a stereotypical statement that so many music defeatists say, but it just isn't true very often. It's very rare that there's an artist that has a really really great debut album and then trails off so completely there after.

It may be stereotypical but it can be backed up with figures! Taking the top 100 albums voted by the music press and public in a published poll by Virgin in 2000 these are the percentages that each album release has in the list (eg) debut album, second, third:

Debut 22%

2nd 14%

3rd 15%

4th 10%

5th 3%

6th 7%

7th 6%

8th 5%

9th 3%

10th 2%

11th 4%

12th 3%

13th 2%

14th 1%

void 3% (due to being compilation)

It's clear to see that the first 3-4 albums by an artist tend to be their best. And yes this isn't definitive proof as it's just taken from one source, and it doesn't cover every artist that has ever released a record, and not every artist has released 14 or more records, but it does show why alot of people hold the belief that artist's release their best work early on in their careers.

Also it's interesting to note that of the 36 records from 5th album to 14th album, 21 of them were still released in the 1st half of that artist's career.

source: http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/virgin_1000_v3.htm

[GetTheLedOut]

It may be stereotypical but it can be backed up with figures! Taking the top 100 albums voted by the music press and public in a published poll by Virgin in 2000 these are the percentages that each album release has in the list (eg) debut album, second, third:

Debut 22%

2nd 14%

3rd 15%

4th 10%

5th 3%

6th 7%

7th 6%

8th 5%

9th 3%

10th 2%

11th 4%

12th 3%

13th 2%

14th 1%

void 3% (due to being compilation)

It's clear to see that the first 3-4 albums by an artist tend to be their best. And yes this isn't definitive proof as it's just taken from one source, and it doesn't cover every artist that has ever released a record, and not every artist has released 14 or more records, but it does show why alot of people hold the belief that artist's release their best work early on in their careers.

Also it's interesting to note that of the 36 records from 5th album to 14th album, 21 of them were still released in the 1st half of that artist's career.

source: http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/virgin_1000_v3.htm

This is only evidence that critics start to lose interest (which is probably true) after the first few albums of most bands. It's not a reflection of anything else.