G3 Guitarists

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^^ can't hurt to say it again!

AND AGAIN. Paul Gilbert is the best. And so far the only shredder that can write ridiculously good pop songs.

MisterProg2112 wrote: HughesJB4 wrote: kibble_alex wrote: Satch GENIUS, one of the greatest modern guitarists ever (post-90s), that is, except for Tommy Emmanuel... who the f**k voted for Malmsteen??? That fat failed Bach-wannabe deserves no credit, he bores the sh*t outa me! Probably people that have a great deal of respect for someone that almost single-handedly pioneered the neo-classical metal genre.    Well said Harry

neo-classical? his skills of composition and playing don't even compare with classical musicians. his music is actually in the top three least diverse i've ever heard, how can you not get bored? honestly, leave classical music to classical musicians, he's probably murdering and re-murdering Baroch as we speak.

kibble_alex wrote: MisterProg2112 wrote: HughesJB4 wrote: kibble_alex wrote: Satch GENIUS, one of the greatest modern guitarists ever (post-90s), that is, except for Tommy Emmanuel... who the f**k voted for Malmsteen??? That fat failed Bach-wannabe deserves no credit, he bores the sh*t outa me! Probably people that have a great deal of respect for someone that almost single-handedly pioneered the neo-classical metal genre.    Well said Harry neo-classical? his skills of composition and playing don't even compare with classical musicians. his music is actually in the top three least diverse i've ever heard, how can you not get bored? honestly, leave classical music to classical musicians, he's probably murdering and re-murdering Baroch as we speak.

I think you've missed the entire point of what Malmsteen was trying to achieve.
I thought it was implied that I meant neo-classical metal.
Neo-classical metal, well at least what Malmsteen was doing, only really used the more superficial aspects of classical music, like motifs, melodies and the scales. Some of the guys that came after Malmsteen on the metal scene, went a step further, and incorporated elements like counterpoint et al compositional techniques.
Neo-classical metal, is in no way or form,  as complex as  neo-classical music in the style of , say Stravinsky.
He didn't do much for neo-classical itself, but in the field of heavy metal, he was an innovater.
I hope this has shed some misunderstandings about my other post.

Dr Know wrote: Robert Fripp toured with G3 last year sometime. They had a few shows in Sao Paulo.

When he played with G3 in the UK he was actually boo-ed on more than one occasion

God forbid people should applaud someone for being a supremely talented guitarist who just happens not to play as fast as possible to cover up one note in 5 being a bummer, whilst sucking his cheeks in continually & keeping the entire spandex indstry of the western world going...



Sorry - I'll take this to the ranting room.

kibble_alex wrote: HughesJB4 wrote: kibble_alex wrote: MisterProg2112 wrote: HughesJB4 wrote: kibble_alex wrote: Satch GENIUS, one of the greatest modern guitarists ever (post-90s), that is, except for Tommy Emmanuel... who the f**k voted for Malmsteen??? That fat failed Bach-wannabe deserves no credit, he bores the sh*t outa me! Probably people that have a great deal of respect for someone that almost single-handedly pioneered the neo-classical metal genre.    Well said Harry neo-classical? his skills of composition and playing don't even compare with classical musicians. his music is actually in the top three least diverse i've ever heard, how can you not get bored? honestly, leave classical music to classical musicians, he's probably murdering and re-murdering Baroch as we speak. I think you've missed the entire point of what Malmsteen was trying to achieve. I thought it was implied that I meant neo-classical metal. Neo-classical metal, well at least what Malmsteen was doing, only really used the more superficial aspects of classical music, like motifs, melodies and the scales. Some of the guys that came after Malmsteen on the metal scene, went a step further, and incorporated elements like counterpoint et al compositional techniques. Neo-classical metal, is in no way or form,  as complex as  neo-classical music in the style of , say Stravinsky. He didn't do much for neo-classical itself, but in the field of heavy metal, he was an innovater. I hope this has shed some misunderstandings about my other post. It has, and thanks. I still don't like the guy though, he bores me to near-suicide Just out of curiousity, who did you vote for in this poll?

Well in all truth, I only own 3 Malmsteen albums and I've seen him live and he was honestly a very fun live act to see, but unfortunately I think his creativity for writing innovative music in the neo-classic metal field ended after 1986, and he has somewhat just rehashed his own successful formula far too many times for my liking.

My vote? Satriani. Restrained, yet mind blowing, melodic, firey and emotive guitar playing.

Robert Fripp, the one musician on the list.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Robert Fripp, the one musician on the list.

Thank you

Equality 7-2521 wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ It's funny how such a short post can be amongst the most disgusting things I've ever read here ... and I've been here for a long time. Geeze take it with a grain of salt. Guy can't use hyperbole.

I thought there had been some offensive post between the two that got deleted...suffice it to say you pushed a button there.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Robert Fripp, the one musician on the list.

kibble_alex wrote: HughesJB4 wrote: kibble_alex wrote: HughesJB4 wrote: kibble_alex wrote: MisterProg2112 wrote: HughesJB4 wrote: kibble_alex wrote: Satch GENIUS, one of the greatest modern guitarists ever (post-90s), that is, except for Tommy Emmanuel... who the f**k voted for Malmsteen??? That fat failed Bach-wannabe deserves no credit, he bores the sh*t outa me! Probably people that have a great deal of respect for someone that almost single-handedly pioneered the neo-classical metal genre.    Well said Harry neo-classical? his skills of composition and playing don't even compare with classical musicians. his music is actually in the top three least diverse i've ever heard, how can you not get bored? honestly, leave classical music to classical musicians, he's probably murdering and re-murdering Baroch as we speak. I think you've missed the entire point of what Malmsteen was trying to achieve. I thought it was implied that I meant neo-classical metal. Neo-classical metal, well at least what Malmsteen was doing, only really used the more superficial aspects of classical music, like motifs, melodies and the scales. Some of the guys that came after Malmsteen on the metal scene, went a step further, and incorporated elements like counterpoint et al compositional techniques. Neo-classical metal, is in no way or form,  as complex as  neo-classical music in the style of , say Stravinsky. He didn't do much for neo-classical itself, but in the field of heavy metal, he was an innovater. I hope this has shed some misunderstandings about my other post. It has, and thanks. I still don't like the guy though, he bores me to near-suicide Just out of curiousity, who did you vote for in this poll? Well in all truth, I only own 3 Malmsteen albums and I've seen him live and he was honestly a very fun live act to see, but unfortunately I think his creativity for writing innovative music in the neo-classic metal field ended after 1986, and he has somewhat just rehashed his own successful formula far too many times for my liking. My vote? Satriani. Restrained, yet mind blowing, melodic, firey and emotive guitar playing. Good choice I think i'm right in saying also that he is very heavily classically trained?

Joe Satriani? Nope.
He in fact studied jazz in his youth with none other than Lennie Tristiano, which explains why he can tackle the more fusion side of things well and has an extremely good grounding in modal theory.