| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Ivan_Melgar_M 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
 Posted: January 22 2007 at 11:58 |
I fail to see a convincing argument against most of my statements, but I may be wrong ads anybody.
Lystmaler wrote:
 Petrucci only Metal or Prog Metal"
That statement is incorect. He has played "Classical Guitar" and "Acustic non Classical guitar" as you put it.
"Never seen Petrucci do that, maybe but not sure."
He play's a nice variety of styles in the official bootlegs where Dream Theater cover full albums with his own gear and equipment. The most recent one was a cover of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon.
|
But where is that wonderful material, how abundant it is, how many officiakl abums has he written and composed? Playing one or two tracks is nothing, I'm talking about real official albums, and I'm not talking about one or two songs in bootlegs, Hackett has done excellent albums and DVD's.
Sasquamo wrote:
| It doesn't matter if Hackett has played in those genres, it's a matter of whether he plays them well. I have my doubts with his abilities in jazz and fusion. Also, just because you've never heard Petrucci play different doesn't mean he hasn't. I have a feeling he could pull off many different styles very well, it's something that comes from being very, very good. |
The reality is that all Hackett albums except maybe one (POP material) are good, he has consistently released solid albums, so he does it well, that's one part.
His jazz material in his Archives is outstanding, his solo material with his brother in Jazz and Fusion is outstanding (Can't remember the name of his DVD).
And please everyboy talks about having a feeling of Petrucci being able to do different things, if he was able he would had do it, maybe he can, maybe not, but he has not proved being remotely a versatile musician.
Sasquamo wrote:
| I fail to see how making music for other bands makes you better. |
No, Hackett was not making music for other bands, he joined members of Asia, King Crimson, Genesis /Well himself and Chester), took masterpieces from all this bands made new arrangements and played music by this bands and his oewn material (Played by this great musicians) for his own album called Tokyo Tapes, which is credited to him, not to the other guys.
Sasquamo wrote:
| Being an innovator doesn't always make you good at your innovation. And besides, since when do you have to make up a new way of playing to gain credibility. Maybe Petrucci doesn't use innovative techniques, but he plays innovative music, that's enough for me. |
Yes it makes you good, it makes you be the man everybody will follow (not the follower), you need to have a special skill to adapt a technique from one genre to another, that's what Chuck Berry did adapting Jazz and Blues techniques and practilly co-creating Rock, that's what Hackett did and made him so special, so different, everybody being able to play Rock using tapping technique owes it to Hackett.
Hackett used the tapping technique for first time in an aclaimed performance done in The Return to the Giant Hogweed and used it successfully during all his career, inspired musicians as Brian May, Alex Lifeson and according to some places even the same Petrucci.
Sasquamo wrote:
| Come on, you're really not being fair here. Ever thought that maybe Petrucci doesn't want to play with anyone else? Another flaw with your list is that it's made up of what seems to be entirely musicians from 30 years ago who were around when Hackett was in his prime. Now if Petrucci were to play with modern musicians in his generation, would you call them first-level musicians. Not to mention that playing with famous people doesn't mean you're good, it just means you're very well-known and popular |
Alone maybe not, but added too vairous elements it makes you:
1.- Able to adapt your style to any musician, and I'm not talking about second class session musicians that will follow you for the money, I'm talking of making the arrangements for the style of musicians as famous as you, you don't go to Steve Walsh, Ian Mc'Donald or Tony Levin and tell them how to play, you need to adapt your style to them as much as they need to adapt their style to you.
You won't go with Sally Oldfield like Pink Floyd with Claire Torry (Great work by Floyd BTW) and tell her "do what you want and follow us improvising", Sally won't risk her name, she needs to see something solid and clear in black and white plus consifder it worth to risk her name.
The same with Brian May, Phil Ehart, Paul Carrack, Tom Fowler, John Wetton, Richie Havens, etc. They will ask you hey pal, what do you have to offer us and we'll see....and if your stuff is not good doesn't matter how Mr. nice guy you are, they won't join you.
2.- It makes you respected not popular, this guys are famous musicians with a name that won't join you because you're the cool musician or the popular pal, they won't join a nobody puting their careers in risk unless they know you're good enough to boost their own careers.
3.- It makes you confident enough in your skills not to be afraid to play with musicians who may take the glory for you, it's easy to play with unknown musicians and take the glory, it's hard to play with famous musicians and still take the glory.
In other words it doesn't make you worst not playing with them, but makes you more skilled, confident and repected by your peers to call them and receive an inmediate answer or being called by them as in the case of Peter Banks, being accepted by a band with a name like Genesis without being known and replace a capable guitar player like Anthony Phillips.
Sasquamo wrote:
| Well, the biggest problem I have with this is all the evidence you put forward to support an argument that comes simply down to playing tastes. Seems to me like you act as if choosing the better guitarist is like a scientific endeavor, finding lots of information and evidence to help form an opinion. I find it easier to just decide who I like better. |
No that's not true, being skilled is not a scientific endeavor but:
1.- Boosting a band when you join them and the band loosing their quality when you leave.
2.- Being probably the most versatile musician in Prog scenario with own succesful compositionss and arrangements.
3.- Being confident to recruit skilled and famous musicians for your albums
4.- Being accepted by the elite of the musicians.
5.- Being innovative.
6.- Having a prolific career with lets say 90% of your albums good or great
7.- Being invited by other musicians to join them.
8.- Dare to form a band with the best musicians in your own instrument like his works with Brian May or GTR with Steve Howe his closest rival.
Are all signs of how good you are.
Art is not a scoience, but you don't achieve everything Hackett has achieved in a competitive and non popular genre withoiut being only a good or even a great and popular musician, it makes you be siomebody very special.
BTW: I'm not talking about improvising despite he does excellent improvisations playing Genesis tracks in acustic versions alone in Tokyo Tapes, Somewhere in South America plus each and every DVD he has,
He plays strong Jazz Fusion material in MOMENTUM (Specially "A Bed, A Chair And A Guitar") , also with his briother (Again I can't remember the name of the DVD) and in his 70's, 80's and 90's Archives also did a tour playing jazz variations on his themes in Barcelona and Madrid during 2005 with his brother John and Roger King on the keyboards.
Hackett hardly will improvise, not because he's unable, he has proved to be absolutely able, but because he's a musician who studies the pieces, rarely enters in a competition trying to prove how better he is, he passed from being the obscure guy sitted in a corner but leading the band to the center of the attention, always playing what is necesary for the band or the album without requiring of many solos.
It's easy to notuice the guy making wonderful solos, that's the intention with the solos being noticed, but doing them rarely and still being noticed is harder because you're sacrificing your own bright for the music and still can't avoid being noticed.
There are Universities that claim Mr Hackett is part of their curriculum , he doesn't write books but is studied and gave lectures at Brunel University, Jazz East, Basstech, Drumtech and the Powerhouse Group of Music Schools, that also means something.
Iván
|
|
|
 |
Sasquamo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 26 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 828
|
Posted: January 22 2007 at 13:00 |
|
You realize that jazz with "hardly any improvising" isn't really jazz, or at least not good jazz, right? Anyone can make jazzy songs by using a bunch of 7 chords, but you cannot say they are good at jazz unless they can improvise well.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: January 22 2007 at 13:04 |
Ok Sasquamo, forge Jazz, but ewhat about the other 8 genres and sub-genres? Despite I believe his jazz work is very solid, listen his improvisations ibn all his live albums, he doesn't improvise in studio, but as a soloist he does.
BTW: Jazz is not only improvisation, listen Jean Luc Ponty, a very structured form of Jazz, not all Jazz is free Jazz.
Does one less genre makes him less prolific or versatile?
I'm not saying Petrucci is bad, but I believe he's hardly in the level of Hackett, very few are.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - January 22 2007 at 13:07
|
|
|
|
bluetailfly
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 28 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1383
|
Posted: January 22 2007 at 15:30 |
Visitor13 wrote:
bluetailfly wrote:
Being technically skillful is nothing unless you have an aesthetic gift. Without the ability to move some one musically, technical skill is worth nothing...nothing.
There are tens of thousands of guitarists who are technically skillful, who can play rings around a lot of talented guitarists, but they will go nowhere because they don't have a musical gift. |
All of which are completely subjective.
My answer is - Hackett for acoustic, Petrucci for electric, though Hackett is more original and most likely the better guitarist overall.
|
Thanks for your response, but you're point is really irrelevant to the point I am making. Of course it's subjective, I'm not arguing otherwise. My point is, if you prefer Petrucci, discuss his musical sesibility: what is it about his work that moves you, how does his playing turn you on, what aesthetic choices is he making that work for you? Simply pointing out technical prowess sidesteps this necessary condition.
|
|
"The red polygon's only desire / is to get to the blue triangle."
|
|
CorporalClegg68
Forum Newbie
Joined: January 21 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8
|
Posted: January 22 2007 at 15:41 |
|
Ok, so I listen to both Dream Theater and Genesis rather extensively and I think I can safely say that I enjoy Hackett's music better. Petrucci is no doubt amazing, but his stuff particularly his solo stuff gets pretty boring after the first couple of songs. Hackett also has a very distinct sound and it isnt overly obnoxious.
|
|
raindance
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 24 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 443
|
Posted: January 22 2007 at 18:04 |
|
If the poll is asking who is the most technically proficient player then Petrucci is the obvious answer without a shadow of a doubt. If the question is who do you prefer, well that just a matter of oppinion!
|
|
Forgotten Son
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 13 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1356
|
Posted: January 22 2007 at 19:03 |
Chus wrote:
Petrucci is not just about speed (that's what Yngwie Malmsteen is for  ) |
I hope that winking emoticon was used to denote a joke. Yngwie is less about speed than Petrucci, has better phrasing than Petrucci and has one of the best vibratos in rock...period.
|
|
Chus
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: Venezuela
Status: Offline
Points: 1991
|
Posted: January 22 2007 at 19:29 |
|
^^ I wouldn't say better phrasing but agree that he has a powerful vibrato.. though quite frankly I can't stand most of his licks (sounds a bit samey to me)
|
|
Jesus Gabriel
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: January 22 2007 at 21:26 |
raindance wrote:
If the poll is asking who is the most technically proficient player then Petrucci is the obvious answer without a shadow of a doubt. If the question is who do you prefer, well that just a matter of oppinion! |
Please support why it's so obvious, you are just expresssing an opinion without an argument, much less than what most of us have done.
Iván
|
|
|
|
Sasquamo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 26 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 828
|
Posted: January 22 2007 at 21:47 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
raindance wrote:
If the poll is asking who is the most technically proficient player then Petrucci is the obvious answer without a shadow of a doubt. If the question is who do you prefer, well that just a matter of oppinion! |
Please support why it's so obvious, you are just expresssing an opinion without an argument, much less than what most of us have done.
Iván |
Uhhhh, because by no means could Hackett play the stuff Petrucci does.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: January 22 2007 at 23:17 |
Sasquamo wrote:
Uhhhh, because by no means could Hackett play the stuff Petrucci does.
|
Ehm, I don't see any except incredibly high speed, Hackett can do almost anything and as a fact has done it.
Iván
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: January 22 2007 at 23:31 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Sasquamo wrote:
Uhhhh, because by no means could Hackett play the stuff Petrucci does.
|
Ehm, I don't see any except incredibly high speed, Hackett can do almost anything and as a fact has done it.
Iván |
In terms of "fingering" and speed, I think both would be quite matched, maybe Petrucci has an edge just because the music he plays demands it. I would say Petrucci has yet to prove himself as a composer, because a fantastic guitarist, JUST GUITARIST, he is. MAybe he's a lesser MUSICIAN altogether, but not GUITARIST. (believe me, there are lot of guitarist that are no musicians and, of course, the other way around). Maybe that is caused because Petrucci works in a band of all-virtuoso performers, whereas Hackett left Genesis early to write his own music. I say the question has no answer (No OBJECTIVE answer anyway), nor DOES IT NEED IT (I'm sure both will be remembered by their fans as masters of the axe. No matter what we choose).
|
|
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65455
|
Posted: January 22 2007 at 23:47 |
The question is:
White Shadow wrote:
My friend of lesser looks and musical tastes and I quarrel a lot. Who, is the better guitarist, musician, and who had the better band? Also, who makes the btter music? Hackett hands down for me. Just my opinion. |
It seems hard at first because though Petrucci is far less refined and wide-ranging than Hackett, Petrucci would probably win a competition on chops only. But the question says 'better guitarist, musician, and who had the better band'-- Well, the better all-around guitarist is Hackett, the more versatile and knowledgable musician is Hackett, and for better band Hackett wins again. Hmm...could the winner be Steve Hackett?
|
|
Visitor13
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: February 02 2005
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 4702
|
Posted: January 23 2007 at 03:19 |
|
I'd love to get a classical guitarist's opinion of Hackett's classical stuff and a jazz guitarist's of his jazz stuff.
Then again, the fact that Hackett can play classical on a (at the very least) decent level already speaks volumes about his ability and talent. I haven't heard his jazz stuff, but I'm more skeptical here, as I don't think you can really dabble in jazz (neither can you dabble in classical, but I think Hackett does more than merely to dabble there) You can play jazzy-sounding licks, but little more than that, IMO... but I'm certainly not writing Hackett's jazz abilities off here.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: January 23 2007 at 09:50 |
Visitor13 wrote:
I'd love to get a classical guitarist's opinion of Hackett's classical stuff and a jazz guitarist's of his jazz stuff.
Then again, the fact that Hackett can play classical on a (at the very least) decent level already speaks volumes about his ability and talent. I haven't heard his jazz stuff, but I'm more skeptical here, as I don't think you can really dabble in jazz (neither can you dabble in classical, but I think Hackett does more than merely to dabble there) You can play jazzy-sounding licks, but little more than that, IMO... but I'm certainly not writing Hackett's jazz abilities off here.
|
Well Visitor, Steve's Hackett's Midsummer's Night Dream with thew Royal Philharmonic Orchestra was considered one of the top 10 Classical albums of 1997 by the demanding Classical critc.
That means something.
If you want a Classical expert opinion, it's only necassary to say that Yehudi Menuhim was so impressed with Hackett's performance of the Four Seasons by Vivaldi that used Steve's music as the theme to his television documentary From Kew To The Findhorn Foundation and he was even more demanding than the Classical critic and an expert..
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - January 23 2007 at 10:13
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: January 23 2007 at 15:11 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Visitor13 wrote:
I'd love to get a classical guitarist's opinion of Hackett's classical stuff and a jazz guitarist's of his jazz stuff. Then again, the fact that Hackett can play classical on a (at the very least) decent level already speaks volumes about his ability and talent. I haven't heard his jazz stuff, but I'm more skeptical here, as I don't think you can really dabble in jazz (neither can you dabble in classical, but I think Hackett does more than merely to dabble there) You can play jazzy-sounding licks, but little more than that, IMO... but I'm certainly not writing Hackett's jazz abilities off here. |
<FONT face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif" size=4>Well Visitor, Steve's Hackett's Midsummer's Night Dream with thew Royal Philharmonic Orchestra was considered one of the top 10 Classical albums of 1997 by the demanding Classical critc.
<FONT face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif" size=4>
<FONT face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif" size=4>That means something.
<FONT face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif" size=4>
<FONT face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">If you want a Classical expert opinion, it's only necassary to say that Yehudi Menuhim was so impressed with Hackett's performance of the Four Seasons by Vivaldi that used Steve's music as the theme to his television documentary From Kew To The Findhorn Foundation and he was even more demanding than the Classical critic and an expert..
<FONT face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif" size=4>Iván |
Now, and only NOW, I may start to accept the possibility of HAckett "winning" this useless poll (well, which poll isn't, specially mine  ).... If you said Menuhin said so, I'll shut the hell up.
|
|
|
|
Sasquamo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 26 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 828
|
Posted: January 23 2007 at 17:14 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Sasquamo wrote:
Uhhhh, because by no means could Hackett play the stuff Petrucci does.
|
Ehm, I don't see any except incredibly high speed, Hackett can do almost anything and as a fact has done it.
Iván |
Take a Petrucci lick and hand it to Hackett, and he would be immediately lost. Hand a Hackett like to Petrucci and he would play it perfectly, but you would say he wasn't playing it with the same emotion or he played it "too perfectly" or something like that.
|
|
Chus
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: Venezuela
Status: Offline
Points: 1991
|
Posted: January 23 2007 at 19:05 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Visitor13 wrote:
I'd love to get a classical guitarist's opinion of Hackett's classical stuff and a jazz guitarist's of his jazz stuff. Then again, the fact that Hackett can play classical on a (at the very least) decent level already speaks volumes about his ability and talent. I haven't heard his jazz stuff, but I'm more skeptical here, as I don't think you can really dabble in jazz (neither can you dabble in classical, but I think Hackett does more than merely to dabble there) You can play jazzy-sounding licks, but little more than that, IMO... but I'm certainly not writing Hackett's jazz abilities off here. |
<FONT face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif" size=4>Well Visitor, Steve's Hackett's Midsummer's Night Dream with thew Royal Philharmonic Orchestra was considered one of the top 10 Classical albums of 1997 by the demanding Classical critc.
<FONT face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif" size=4>
<FONT face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif" size=4>That means something.
<FONT face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif" size=4>
<FONT face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">If you want a Classical expert opinion, it's only necassary to say that Yehudi Menuhim was so impressed with Hackett's performance of the Four Seasons by Vivaldi that used Steve's music as the theme to his television documentary From Kew To The Findhorn Foundation and he was even more demanding than the Classical critic and an expert..
<FONT face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif" size=4>Iván |
I heard some of those pieces of AMND and they sounded quite easy to play, as opposed to pieces like "Sevilla" by Albeniz or "Estudio Remembranza" by Segovia. now those are tough mothers. I'm not going to jump into the conclusion that Hackett lacks technical skill because I haven't heard him trying to play pieces quite like them (as yet).
|
|
Jesus Gabriel
|
|
White Shadow
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 20 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 259
|
Posted: January 23 2007 at 22:09 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
akin wrote:
Hackett in Genesis was not that good mainly because he didn't have many spots as the band was keyboard driven. But man, check his solo stuff. The classical songs are fantastic.
Hackett was not good in Genesis, HACKETT WAS PERFECT FOR GENESIS.
Genesis music required a person able to create atmospheres, he was the support of the band along with Banks, many of the sounds that most people believe are keyboards are in fact created by Hackett with his unique style before the MIDI guitar was invented.
Remember Hackett's performance in The Return of the Giant Hogweed is historical, nobody ever before dared to bring the tapping technique to Rock, he was the predecessor.
The prove of how good he was in Genesis is that when he left, the band lost everything, not even Gabriel's departure caused so much damage to Genesis musically.
I heard a Gabriel interview about Hackett's audition and he said that while all the other guitar players were doing speed masturbation and trying to be the new Hendrix or Santana (there is only one Hendrix and Santana), Hackett started working on atmospheres and they decided for him inmediately.
Hackett in the other hand says that he noticed that Genesis music required more depth and atmosphere, it was easy for him to make an amazing solo to impress the band (Most bands would had hired a flashy guitar player more easily) but he heard Genesis music, knew what was missing there and added it, took the risk and was hired, that's what a real musician does.
IMO Hackett is more responsible of the Genesis trademark sound than Banks, Banks is the composer but Steve added what the band was lacking of.
So Hackett wins by a mile.
There we agree.
Iván
|
|
I like this guy
|
|
[signature]
|
|
White Shadow
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 20 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 259
|
Posted: January 23 2007 at 22:15 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
I fail to see a convincing argument against most of my statements, but I may be wrong ads anybody.
Lystmaler wrote:
Petrucci only Metal or Prog Metal"
That statement is incorect. He has played "Classical Guitar" and "Acustic non Classical guitar" as you put it.
"Never seen Petrucci do that, maybe but not sure."
He play's a nice variety of styles in the official bootlegs where Dream Theater cover full albums with his own gear and equipment. The most recent one was a cover of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon.
|
But where is that wonderful material, how abundant it is, how many officiakl abums has he written and composed? Playing one or two tracks is nothing, I'm talking about real official albums, and I'm not talking about one or two songs in bootlegs, Hackett has done excellent albums and DVD's.
Sasquamo wrote:
| It doesn't matter if Hackett has played in those genres, it's a matter of whether he plays them well. I have my doubts with his abilities in jazz and fusion. Also, just because you've never heard Petrucci play different doesn't mean he hasn't. I have a feeling he could pull off many different styles very well, it's something that comes from being very, very good. |
The reality is that all Hackett albums except maybe one (POP material) are good, he has consistently released solid albums, so he does it well, that's one part.
His jazz material in his Archives is outstanding, his solo material with his brother in Jazz and Fusion is outstanding (Can't remember the name of his DVD).
And please everyboy talks about having a feeling of Petrucci being able to do different things, if he was able he would had do it, maybe he can, maybe not, but he has not proved being remotely a versatile musician.
Sasquamo wrote:
| I fail to see how making music for other bands makes you better. |
No, Hackett was not making music for other bands, he joined members of Asia, King Crimson, Genesis /Well himself and Chester), took masterpieces from all this bands made new arrangements and played music by this bands and his oewn material (Played by this great musicians) for his own album called Tokyo Tapes, which is credited to him, not to the other guys.
Sasquamo wrote:
| Being an innovator doesn't always make you good at your innovation. And besides, since when do you have to make up a new way of playing to gain credibility. Maybe Petrucci doesn't use innovative techniques, but he plays innovative music, that's enough for me. |
Yes it makes you good, it makes you be the man everybody will follow (not the follower), you need to have a special skill to adapt a technique from one genre to another, that's what Chuck Berry did adapting Jazz and Blues techniques and practilly co-creating Rock, that's what Hackett did and made him so special, so different, everybody being able to play Rock using tapping technique owes it to Hackett.
Hackett used the tapping technique for first time in an aclaimed performance done in The Return to the Giant Hogweed and used it successfully during all his career, inspired musicians as Brian May, Alex Lifeson and according to some places even the same Petrucci.
Sasquamo wrote:
| Come on, you're really not being fair here. Ever thought that maybe Petrucci doesn't want to play with anyone else? Another flaw with your list is that it's made up of what seems to be entirely musicians from 30 years ago who were around when Hackett was in his prime. Now if Petrucci were to play with modern musicians in his generation, would you call them first-level musicians. Not to mention that playing with famous people doesn't mean you're good, it just means you're very well-known and popular |
Alone maybe not, but added too vairous elements it makes you:
1.- Able to adapt your style to any musician, and I'm not talking about second class session musicians that will follow you for the money, I'm talking of making the arrangements for the style of musicians as famous as you, you don't go to Steve Walsh, Ian Mc'Donald or Tony Levin and tell them how to play, you need to adapt your style to them as much as they need to adapt their style to you.
You won't go with Sally Oldfield like Pink Floyd with Claire Torry (Great work by Floyd BTW) and tell her "do what you want and follow us improvising", Sally won't risk her name, she needs to see something solid and clear in black and white plus consifder it worth to risk her name.
The same with Brian May, Phil Ehart, Paul Carrack, Tom Fowler, John Wetton, Richie Havens, etc. They will ask you hey pal, what do you have to offer us and we'll see....and if your stuff is not good doesn't matter how Mr. nice guy you are, they won't join you.
2.- It makes you respected not popular, this guys are famous musicians with a name that won't join you because you're the cool musician or the popular pal, they won't join a nobody puting their careers in risk unless they know you're good enough to boost their own careers.
3.- It makes you confident enough in your skills not to be afraid to play with musicians who may take the glory for you, it's easy to play with unknown musicians and take the glory, it's hard to play with famous musicians and still take the glory.
In other words it doesn't make you worst not playing with them, but makes you more skilled, confident and repected by your peers to call them and receive an inmediate answer or being called by them as in the case of Peter Banks, being accepted by a band with a name like Genesis without being known and replace a capable guitar player like Anthony Phillips.
Sasquamo wrote:
| Well, the biggest problem I have with this is all the evidence you put forward to support an argument that comes simply down to playing tastes. Seems to me like you act as if choosing the better guitarist is like a scientific endeavor, finding lots of information and evidence to help form an opinion. I find it easier to just decide who I like better. |
No that's not true, being skilled is not a scientific endeavor but:
1.- Boosting a band when you join them and the band loosing their quality when you leave.
2.- Being probably the most versatile musician in Prog scenario with own succesful compositionss and arrangements.
3.- Being confident to recruit skilled and famous musicians for your albums
4.- Being accepted by the elite of the musicians.
5.- Being innovative.
6.- Having a prolific career with lets say 90% of your albums good or great
7.- Being invited by other musicians to join them.
8.- Dare to form a band with the best musicians in your own instrument like his works with Brian May or GTR with Steve Howe his closest rival.
Are all signs of how good you are.
Art is not a scoience, but you don't achieve everything Hackett has achieved in a competitive and non popular genre withoiut being only a good or even a great and popular musician, it makes you be siomebody very special.
BTW: I'm not talking about improvising despite he does excellent improvisations playing Genesis tracks in acustic versions alone in Tokyo Tapes, Somewhere in South America plus each and every DVD he has,
He plays strong Jazz Fusion material in MOMENTUM (Specially "A Bed, A Chair And A Guitar") , also with his briother (Again I can't remember the name of the DVD) and in his 70's, 80's and 90's Archives also did a tour playing jazz variations on his themes in Barcelona and Madrid during 2005 with his brother John and Roger King on the keyboards.
Hackett hardly will improvise, not because he's unable, he has proved to be absolutely able, but because he's a musician who studies the pieces, rarely enters in a competition trying to prove how better he is, he passed from being the obscure guy sitted in a corner but leading the band to the center of the attention, always playing what is necesary for the band or the album without requiring of many solos.
It's easy to notuice the guy making wonderful solos, that's the intention with the solos being noticed, but doing them rarely and still being noticed is harder because you're sacrificing your own bright for the music and still can't avoid being noticed.
There are Universities that claim Mr Hackett is part of their curriculum , he doesn't write books but is studied and gave lectures at Brunel University, Jazz East, Basstech, Drumtech and the Powerhouse Group of Music Schools, that also means something.
Iván
|
Impressive
|
|
[signature]
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Hackett or Petrucci?
