Is that music or circus?

Mables Fatal Fable is awesome too. Definitely buy his albums... it will help him also financially in his most likely difficult position at the present.
 
To each their own.

I think this song is incredible. Perhaps the OP didn't realize the song's history, that being of a former musical uber-talent, Jason Becker. Loomis played this very well - flawless in the technical aspect, missing only Becker's emotional mojo at the tips of the very fingers.

Definitely not circus to me, but as driven home in the several aforementioned posts, tastes and preferences are subjective. I can't tell you that orange is a better colour than purple.

Mo

Does it matter if the OP knew it was a Jason Becker song or if the OP knows the history of the song or Becker? If he didn't like it he didn't like it. Is he obligated to like it because Becker wrote it? What happened to Becker is terrible, absolutely horrible.....but it doesn't make his music any better or worse. The music is what it is and if someone doesn't like it I don't see how knowing it's Jason Becker changes that in any way?
 
I agree. It wasn't the purpose of my post in fact. I just wanted to know what you guys feel when facing such a technical performance: do you mainly hear music or your brain focuses on the fingers performance? Mine only see the technical aspect of the scene. Anyway, thanks for replying ;)

My reply was only aimed at that Becker-Bach-Paganini comparison.
Regarding the original post/Loomis video:
I hear the music, but I find it rather boring because of its (in my perception) repetitive, undynamic and monothematic nature. That said, I feel the same about most neo-classical rock/shred music and I also feel similar about alot of Mozart's works, though not as bad. Yup, different strokes...
Then I focus on the technical aspect and while I respect the effort it takes to learn and nail such a tune, I lost interest in pure technique years ago. In this given case, it's even the same two or three techniques over and over again, which makes it even less interesting to me.

This, although highly technical, is more to my taste, and probably others will feel about it like I feel about Loomis' video:
 
It's music so is the piano piece posted by Sebastian. Whether you like any music or not is a matter of taste.
 
My reply was only aimed at that Becker-Bach-Paganini comparison.
Regarding the original post/Loomis video:
I hear the music, but I find it rather boring because of its (in my perception) repetitive, undynamic and monothematic nature. That said, I feel the same about most neo-classical rock/shred music and I also feel similar about alot of Mozart's works, though not as bad. Yup, different strokes...
Then I focus on the technical aspect and while I respect the effort it takes to learn and nail such a tune, I lost interest in pure technique years ago. In this given case, it's even the same two or three techniques over and over again, which makes it even less interesting to me.

THIS
 
I randomly found the following video on Youtube. Forget the fact that the guy - J. Loomis - is playing a Kemper :roll.
My question is: is that music or circus? As a guitarist, I'm obviously impressed by JL's skills - he deserves our respect for that - but, as a music lover, I just find it boring, musically poor and emotionless! Is that music for guitarist? Definitively not for me.

It's all subjective dude. There's something for everyone, and you're entitled to find Becker's music "poor and emotionless". Many of us don't, and were around when this first came out and found it amazing.

Music fans, for one reason or another, love to look down on things. If your favorites are all avant-garde composers like Bach and Chopin, you can look down on everyone. If your favorites are all instrumentals, you can at least look down on the metalheads. If you're a metalhead, you look down on the radio rock fans. Radio rock fans look down on pop fans, who look down on the boy bands, etc, etc ad nauseum. What people value in their music really tells you more about them than it does the music itself.

That said - I'm a big Becker fan, and a big Loomis fan, and while I think this video is fantastic I wish he wouldn't have gone for the overly obvious Kemper-placement-plug. There's a right place and time to plug your endorsers, but in my humble opinion this isn't one of them.
 
That Loomis cover is awesome. I know I'll probably get hammered for saying this but Loomis has better tone with the Kemper than Jason's on the original recording.
 
That Loomis cover is awesome. I know I'll probably get hammered for saying this but Loomis has better tone with the Kemper than Jason's on the original recording.

You're comparing an album recorded in 1988 on a Marshall 800 vs a track recorded and produced in 2013 using a $2000 rack processor played by one of the best modern guitarists of our time using his signature guitar.
 
You're comparing an album recorded in 1988 on a Marshall 800 vs a track recorded and produced in 2013 using a $2000 rack processor played by one of the best modern guitarists of our time using his signature guitar.

I'm not sure I understand your point. An incredible amount of effort has gone into making that 2013 $2000 rack processor sound like a 1988 Marshall JCM 800, 50's Tweed Fender, etc.

There are many recordings from that era that sound much better.

Seriously, I don't get your point at all.
 
avant-garde composers like Bach and Chopin

Now that made me chuckle. :)

FWIW, I'm not looking down on any serious musician because of the music he or she chose to compose and play.
There are just aspects of certain music or the performance thereof that I dislike and most often I can put into words why I dislike it. This does not by any means make my opinion more true or valid than the opinion of those who care for said music/musician. It was not my intention to belittle neo-classical, shred, Loomis or Becker (with the exception of the comparison to Bach ;) ).

And now may we please return to the really important things in life a.k.a. craving for fw 10 and bitching about Axe-Edit 8)
 
I'm with the OP in general, though I could probably find better examples of 'look what I can do' guitar music. Lots of it out there. You can play a guitar in the service of music, or you can play as physical / mechanical / technical / mathematical exercise. Very few do both (at the same time). Lots of shredders approach guitar more like athletics than art.

Bottom line: do you like amazing guitar playing or do you like MUSIC? It's OK to like both, but it's good to realize the difference. Sometimes a single piece of music IS both, but not always, and not to every listener. I know taste is subjective, but to my tastes, most of the worlds greatest songs are simple to play. The genius is how they were written and arranged. The way instruments and vocals fit together perfectly and make an emotional impact.

When I'm writing, I always try to strip down my own concept of music to bare essence. What is music? Sound, with purpose. The purpose is (or should be) to affect people when they hear it, stir emotions, create feelings, resonate with moods. Difficult, complex and technical music can do this, but to me (and a lot of people) it's often not the best way.

Music can be made with anything, but since things like melody, rhythm and tone help, people tend to use purpose-built musical instruments, of which guitar is a very popular choice. Any instrument requires some amount of physical skill to operate, which you develop over time. Some people develop skills much faster and better than others. The big question is, how much skill do you actually need to create the music you want to create?

I'll listen to the great shred players. I'll hear something that is impressive as hell and go "WOW!" I play guitar and know how damn difficult it is. Then my wife hears it and says "That's just irritating, why all so many notes? It's annoying!"
 
I didn't expect this post to generate so many reactions (yes, I'm totally naive :)
Thanks for being so passionate guys :mrgreen
 
I'm not sure I understand your point. An incredible amount of effort has gone into making that 2013 $2000 rack processor sound like a 1988 Marshall JCM 800, 50's Tweed Fender, etc.

There are many recordings from that era that sound much better.

Seriously, I don't get your point at all.

My point is that you shouldn't be surprised that something recorded in 2013 by Jeff Loomis sounds better tonally (and production wise) than something recorded by Jason Becker in 1988.
 
My point is that you shouldn't be surprised that something recorded in 2013 by Jeff Loomis sounds better tonally (and production wise) than something recorded by Jason Becker in 1988.

If you were comparing it to 1968 then I'd agree, but production was pretty well advanced by 1988.
 
That Loomis cover is awesome. I know I'll probably get hammered for saying this but Loomis has better tone with the Kemper than Jason's on the original recording.

I still like Jason's tone better though it's not Petrucci-ish. Jason seem to also make it sound smoother. Just my preference.
 
Back
Top Bottom