Page or Fripp

rushfan4 wrote: Jimmy Page for me.  I find Fripp's playing spectacularly uninteresting.

Wonder how Alex Lifeson would vote, eh?

harmonium.ro wrote: Padraic wrote: Anderson III wrote: To say my musical enjoyment comes down to taste is an insult to the way the mind works! Your musical enjoyment comes down to taste.

Well, that was... stupid. How can you be sure?


Edited by Anderson III - March 17 2010 at 23:46

Strange comparison. Fripp is much, much better, but it's basically meaningless. It's like comparing apples to to mud.

^ Perhaps Apples to Strawberries?

crimhead wrote: Fripp for me. I've seen both KC and Zeppelin.

Yeah, boss!

It's not a stupid, knee-jerk reaction. I've seen both players and the truth, at least from my experiences, is that away from the studio and the ability to multi-track, etc., Page simply isn't the same player,, he's much weaker live. I think Pages acoustic playing is exceptional and his song writing is very good, but if this pole is commenting on the abilities, there is no comparison, really not close. Fripp is a far superior player in the studio or live. 

Fripp is without a doubt more technically inclined.

harmonium.ro wrote: Anderson III wrote: Anderson III wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: Padraic wrote: Anderson III wrote: To say my musical enjoyment comes down to taste is an insult to the way the mind works! Your musical enjoyment comes down to taste. Well, that was... stupid. How can you be sure? I'm still waiting for your arguments. Myself I'm not interested in explaining the obvious. The contrary, now that would be worth my time.

Come on now! Do you actually think there's something obvious about the way the mind operates? I've always felt that both the mind and the abstract world of music are way over my head, and I'm in no position to claim I know how the interaction between music and the mind actually takes place! But I see you have the answer, and I really would like to know...

What I've noticed, though, my musical enjoyment has much more to do with my mindset than my taste. I have also learned to appreciate certain pieces after I've studied them. Usually when I've fully grasped the structure of a difficult piece, it starts to make sense and my enjoyment goes up. It doesn't mean my preference has altered! It seems to me like you underestimate the mind's potential to think in abstract terms... and the music's potential as a communicative tool.

Now, my intellectually superior friend, could you please explain why it's so obvious?

They do seem an odd couple to compare to be sure...

I think it's rather unfair to rate one against the other really, after all Fripp's opportunity for diversity is so much greater from within an experimental progressive rock band than Page's (that of a predominantly blues based rock band)
Better ? Although I do play a bit of guitar I ain't remotely qualified to make a technical appraisal of either's merits and flaws. (but then Tom Verlaine or John McGeoch can play just the one note or chord and move me to tears of joy)

Even when Fripp comes close to playing traditional blues licks over da blooz chord changes (or as close as the bespectacled chipmunk is ever likely to get e.g Ladies of the Road) the effect always strikes me as ironic or gently mocking. By way of contrast, Page appears much more respectful of the traditions and past masters that constitute his idols e.g. Robert Johnson, Buddy Guy, Freddie King etc

So I didn't vote but prefer Fripp's playing principally because even after all these years he still has the capacity to shock me into a dropped jaw every so often i.e. What in the name of the wee man was THAT ?

Anderson III wrote: First of all: if I suggest that saying musical enjoyment comes down to taste is an insult to the mind, and you go and claim just that without any arguments to back it up... I take it as a direct insult and nothing else! If you weren't derogatory, I misunderstood your original comment.

You come with a simple, unsupported statement that throws the whole aesthetic philosophy (a respectable discipline who had the contributions of some of humankind's greatest minds, like Kant, Hegel, Fiedler, Croce, etc.) to the rubbish but still it's you who feels offended for being contradicted. I'm sorry but that makes me smile

Now back on topic...

Anderson III wrote: What I disagree with is that taste is the only factor that counts.

The question is: the only factor that counts... for what exactly? The term you used was enjoyment. I'm not the greatest master of the English language and will never be, so I can't feel all the nuances that might be stuffed in the semantic area of this word. I would assume enjoyment refers to pleasure; and pleasure is the expression of taste. You may think the completely opposite regarding these concepts and words, but these are the meanings which have been consecrated by almost three centuries worth of intellectual tradition. You need to adjust to the terms, not vice versa.

As I said, if by enjoyment you meant more than the dual concept of pleasure/taste, then yes, I'm completely with you. Taste should actually be irrelevant to the appreciation of works. Again as I said, I even appreciate a lot works of art (of any kind) that I don't enjoy (meaning that they don't provide me with aesthetic pleasure).

Or maybe one can enjoy something that doesn't provide him/her with pleasure? (NOTE: the aesthetic concept of pleasure inclused both pleasant and unpleasant aesthetic experiences.) That would contradict my notion of this term, but I'm open.

Anderson III wrote: I believe a proper evaluation of difficult music is extremely important if I want to appreciate everything it has to offer. How do I know if I like it if I don't even realize what's going on? Or why it's going on? I don't really understand how you can appreciate something without liking it at some level... I've always felt that appreciation and liking goes hand in hand.

Agreed.