Gilmour vs. Fripp

Bobby obviously.

Real derby

From this comparison it seems that the combination of non blues technical accomplishment versus the bluesy technical accomplishment means intelligent rock music played well gets to the hearts and minds of all concerned.

I suppose listening to Animals and then consequently Red is not going to cause too many convulsions  in the cogniscance of the cognoscenti ( words beginning with a "C" this time...)

Arguably Comfortably Numb might be DG's greatest solo, not absolutely sure about Fripp's though. If that condition applies...I'm just idly wondering...

I agree with Guldbamsen

Dave!

I know I mentioned that RF disliked the blues. This was confirmed via Sid Smith's book on KC. During the Islands era the rest of KC were blues fans and even played a bluesy ITCOTCK. ! RF apparently sat by the side of the stage staring miserably at the floor.

V-IV-I perfect cadence are of course most acceptable in music. I think alot of people dislike hearing it (after a time of knowing what it is and wishing they could hear something more sophisticated) when they hear it. This is because it gets used in such a blatant manner that familairity becomes contempt. You may have seen these song boks 5000 songs with the same chords. A V-IV-1 progresion does contain the the notes in it's relevant scale (as does a i-VII-iV (Stairway end for instance) and that is common 3 chord sequence. Iron maiden use it... on er... everything. In Em,

It''s a question what someone does with it and most song writers do not do fancy tricks with a V-IV-I scale as they usually have to sing over it. Mozart used it well and a really creative arranger and performer is Miles Davis who could really (in performance even if a lot was up to formal arrangers such as Gil Evans and John Lewis.

RF uses V-IV-I but 21st CSM doesn't sound like one of 5000 songs you can play with 3 chords. IMHO it is a very complex song and a perfect cadence lets everyone know of the rock around which the rest of the piece can be played. An ultra creative musician is Fripp.

So what of DG. Lazy? Unimaginative? First he was a very experimental guiatrsit ith the Floyd and hardly played a solo (as such) until smoe  moment son More and slowly revealing more (ooops, pun...) by Atom Heart Mother. Yes he used blues scales. He also uses standard minor scales and accidentals. This is fairly usual among musicians. He knows how to make one note mean a lot to millions of people viz Shine On. He can cook up a storm and create unusual progressions (his first solo album has some intersting tricks) and Animals features some interesting parts.

Pink Floyd music is the sum of several parts where the guitar is not always the centre (the synth or organ might be.) He picks his moment and makes it count. He does nto play repeated figures endlessly as Fripp can do but tells a story which is why (IMHO) people recognise his playing as emotional. Fripp is way more abstract in his approach and requires a certain level of attention that is less easily transferred from a more tradiitional approach. That is if you hear Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin and then PF it's not such a leap. But KC probably is if placed in that configuration of ensembles.

Fripp is so blatantly a technician, his new tunings, intricates figures and complexities with Belew and the boys are quite breathtaking (hence he being where he is etc.) But DG uses a standard alnguage and makes it count in ways that are acceptable to nutty prog fans (present company excluded of course) and the good old mainstream.

Both are sought after session musos and not for no good reason. Both have considerable ccomplishments which places them at the resepct of their peers and has made other musos emulate them. (Which is  ashame as I'd rather hear other musos take DG and RF as a bassis and do their own thing... I was really put off Pure Reason Revolution endlessly banging on about Bright ambassadors of morning echoing away, or Mostly Awf... er, Autumn's guiatrist doing a DG impersonation. OK for a tribute band, not for "original: acts. Mileage varies of course, opinions differ, these are only mine.

Anyway FZ used standard guitar figures, Mclaughlin uses the pentatonic scale and no one sayd boo about that. I know these guys are not in this poll but I just thought I'd mention them as being peers of the realm of the above and equally accomplished.

Cheers. I'm off to rent some DVDs. Been listening to Cream all day...

You do better in English than many native English speakers. No perceived hostility on my part; I like a good e-chat about music.

One thing about the blues though - and prog rock. According to some sources including author of books on the subject Jerry Lucky, and that is one of the facors that make up prog rock is that it should in no way be close to blues. This of course makes DG a little unique - he is a very blues oriented guitarist. I suppose no one told hiom about the rules of prog!

I think most symphonic prog (the core of prog rock) is more classical and 20th C classically oriented. Some jazz migt be prevalent (thinking of Steve Howe's Chet Atkins' influence here.) But classical composers predominate in influence. (IMHO of course!)

This is probably why there is negative feelings towards Cream - not sure as I have read no reviews of Cream here - no need I've heard and got everything. Frankly any band that can have these guys playing blues bazzed jazz oriented heavy rock is pretty progressive to me. But progressive rock used to allow for the more heavy and guitar oriented bands as well as the keyboard dominanted ones of the symphonic prog lot.

The thing with Cream is this idea was propelled into Blind Faith (keyboard whizz and great singer Winwood now present but no Jack Bruce.) I always thought that (after hearing Badge) that had George Harrison joined that band then the pressure on Winwood to write would have been both eased and aided. Clapton had yet to be a consistent writer - his forte was improvised guitar work.

One other thing about DG is that pre guitar solos his playing was quite experimental and therefore most obviously prog if that is the perception.) Yet this aspect gets very little mention. His adoption of Syd Barrett's playing (whom he taught in the first place) and the work he did on Saucer and Ummgumma get so little mention.

It probably did not help PF that they had other ideas but were not as organized at getting those together (The Man and the Journey I mean.) Not to mention that they could / should have developed the Ummagumma ideas as a band not as pre-solo album ideas. But DG was a very spacey type guitarist and made highlights in these eminent PF works.

The live album (though great itself) was a bit half arsed really. It needed a lot more material which they had and they could have delivered a live version of The Embryo. Still that was then and now there are ROIOs... I do wish PF would pay attention and release that pre DSOTM live anthology. It's like banding one's head against - the wall.




There's 30,000 members of this site and still under 100 votes for Fripp and Gilmour. Maybe they're not that popular after all...

^ If you need to dig PF early stuff, you should consider Ummagumma (as said before, the live album is excellent), Atom Heart Mother (the title track is an amazing orchestrated epic), and Live in Pompeii DVD. In case you don't know this albums yet.

I.....I can't, I can't.....decide