+larry yngwie can't play the guitar like al. he sounds like a classical violinist. it's the textbook comparison of technical and robotic playing v. soulful and passionate playing. it's what puts al in his own category - he's that unicorn of a guitarist that has both aspects absolutely nailed.
larry
+deathtokoalas They are not the same person...of course they can't play like each other. I was pointing out they are both technical guitar players. I'm surprised you would call any artist being soulless or without passion...you being an artist as well. Sounds ignorant to me.
deathtokoalas
+larry i'm not sure i'd classify yngwe malmsteen as an artist. he's more of a performer. i believe that a large percentage of his recorded output is music that is written by others. further, it's not exactly an unheard of criticism of his work.
johnProph
+deathtokoalas all rational discussion ends when someone says Yngwie doesnt play with soul or emotion, lol. Dude has tons of feel.
deathtokoalas
+johnProph well, y'know, people have been saying this for thirty years. it's not going to go away.
deathtokoalas
to get back to the point of the post, there's only two people worthy of being in the same sentence as al di meola. you guys got one - john mclaughlin. although mclaughlin is really a very good blues player; he's not in the same category in terms of compositional abilities. the other is allan holdsworth.
larry
+ deathtokoalas Thank you for your opinions bro.Worthy of being in the same sentence? You sound like such a snob. Do all artists think their opinions are above everyone elses?
deathtokoalas
+larry see, what i'm often fighting back against is this idea that evidence-based arguments are merely opinions. i reject your premise.
when you listen to di meola, you might just hear a lot of really fast guitar playing. really, that's about the only way you can bring somebody like malmsteen into it.
it's often been stated that you can't really appreciate jazz unless you understand it. i'll push back against that; you feel the best jazz, and if you need to resort to an intellectual argument about 13th chords then its just evidence that the music is lacking.
but, with something like di meola, you get a greater appreciation out of it by having some idea of what he's actually doing. it's extremely musically literate. this is a guy that was recognized as a virtuoso at a young age, and did a lot of academic training. and it really comes out in highly creative ways.
there's really only one other guitarist in the history of guitars that has had a comparable skill set. that's not an opinion. that's a fact.
historians will look back at this period and universally agree that di meola was the master guitarist - as they agree that chopin was the master pianist, or paganini was the master violinist. he's really that far ahead of his contemporaries. he's historically relevant in the same way.
holdsworth is the minor figure. the alternative, if you will. the ravel to his debussy.
mclaughlin is the intuitive hack, who didn't know what he was doing but faked it very well.
and just about everybody else (except zappa, who is hard to categorize) is likely to be mostly forgotten.
larry
+deathtokoalas The only one pulling out "evidence based facts" along with your opinion is you. I said they were similar in ways that if you enjoy one you could possibly appreciate another. That's it. I'm not rating them on a scale...not saying they are the same person...it's not a competition dude. I try to accept and appreciate all art...even your "music". It's people like you that have to suck the beauty and fun out of everything that people may find happiness in.
deathtokoalas
+larry it's just a disrespectful comparison. and, the truth is that a lot of the respected guitarists that followed in the 80s and 90s (as well as more than a few from the 70s) will uphold that. di meola is the undisputed master. no informed person has the panache to draw comparisons. one does not simply compare another to di meola - especially not themselves. i can't even list him as an influence; to some way compare myself to him just seems wrong.
larry
+ deathtokoalas Ha ha! Disrespectful? To who...you? Well that's your opinion not a fact. I'm sure neither artist gives two shits about anything you or I say. Once again, you should write a book. I'm sure people would be dying to read it...best seller maybe? You are a critic...not an artist.
deathtokoalas
+larry i do plan to focus more on some academic writing once i get through finishing my uncompleted works. i've been able to get through 1996-2003 over the last year. it hopefully shouldn't take more than a year, unless i get thrown off disability.
again: if you were to ask around amongst 80s and 90s guitarists (and pretty much across the spectrum, from vai to petrucci to keneally to corgan), they'll all tell you di meola is untouchable, go into an "i'm not worthy" wayne & garth impersonation and distance themselves from direct comparisons.
yngwe is famous for his ego. he might be the one person that has the gall to do it. but, it's a function of his arrogance. and, nobody is going to agree with him.
larry
+deathtokoalas I don't know either artist personally. They are people just like us...not some gods that names should not be spoken. I could see how other peoples gossip might lead you to not like someones music. People could easily say that you as an artist, had a shit attitude and a massive ego. Would they be right?
deathtokoalas
+larry no. i'm flamboyant, but i'm not arrogant. it's not my ego that you find upsetting, it's my tendency to voice uncomfortable truths.
larry
+deathtokoalas You don't upset me. I like a discussion... especially with bigots. Your truths are your opinions, just like me. You sound arrogant with some of the things you say, which I'm sure it's not accurate to you as a person. You are obviously intelligent, but you seem closed minded when it comes to art. I find it hard to understand why an artist would be so critical of another artist, when they know how personal it can be. I wasn't telling anyone what to do or how to think with my original post. I was being positive, not creating a negative.
deathtokoalas
+larry do you see the problem with accepting the premise that truth and opinion are the same thing?
just because i'm critical of something doesn't mean i'm closed-minded. in truth, you'll find few people with tastes as wide as mine. sometimes things are really just garbage, and it often actually takes an open-mind and independent thought to reject conforming pressures and declare them as such.
for example, i'm unequivocal on the point - the velvet underground were pretentious nonsense. i upset people when i say that, because the dominant perspective is that they were visionaries. i'll give cale a little more credit than the rest of them, but i think this is nonsense - they were as terrible as the initial reviews claimed they were. and, in today's world, you actually need to be thinking openly to get to that point, because mass media presents a monolithic viewpoint on the topic. yet, people tell me i'm closed-minded for thinking independently. ironically, it's rather ironic.
it was really just a bad comparison. and you're really just egging me on.
larry
+deathtokoalas Why do you care if people think a band are visionaries? Honestly...such a waste of time bitching about things you don't like. I don't care what you like or don't musically and no one else does either. People like to think they are special for listening to obscure or different music. LAME. Your taste or knowledge in music does not make you better than anyone else.
deathtokoalas
+larry again, you seem to think it's an ego issue. in fact, it is impossible to not waste your time, because life has no meaning or purpose. it's a just a choice to waste it that way, rather than to waste it doing something else.
vince
+larry Oh, please... Yngwie is pretty good at what he does but, really, he is a bit of a one trick pony. This album has things like nuance, dynamics and groove, stuff that Yngwie... doesn't really bother with.
larry
+deathtokoalas What is your point? You shouldn't listen to both artists?
johnny foosball
+deathtokoalas I[ll agree on McLaughlin but Holdsworth to me is similar to Yngwie been milking the same old stuff for 30+ years , I was impressed with Holdsworth on a album he did with Luc Ponty years ago , but then heard some recent stuff same ol same ol, just like Yngwie with his never ending neo classical gets boring rather quickly
deathtokoalas
+johnny foosball well, it's true that holdsworth has a defined style. but, what he does on the guitar from a tactical perspective is just without serious parallel. malmsteen doesn't bug me because it all sounds the same, it's more that he's just regurgitating classical music without any emotional investment into it. holdsworth really isn't emulating anything or anyone, and that fact alone is going to necessitate a space for him in the history books in the long run.
Pharaoh Sneferu
+deathtokoalas technical does not = robotic.. a common misconception
Pharaoh Sneferu
+johnny foosball dont tell mozart or beethoven .. classical stuff is boring?? heard it all now. Typical reaction... Just because your ears cant hear the variation and phrasing doesnt mean its not there.. its a failing of your ears.. not yngwie's playing. you need to concentrate harder.. like listening to a concerto, its not always easy listening.
Pharaoh Sneferu
+vince one trick pony....?? like Bach you mean???
Pharaoh Sneferu
+johnProph zactly.. but to the untrained ear or tone deaf its just a lot of fast notes.. people only talk about the fast stuff he does. ignorance
Pharaoh Sneferu
+larry RF fantastic album.. power, grace , feel and composition..
The "oh, its just fast" crowd need to listen harder, just because it too hard for them to grasp, doesn't mean its not any good. Mozart died penniless because of people like that.
deathtokoalas
+Pharaoh Sneferu see, i think the fact that you said "mozart or beethoven" as though they're interchangeable, in context, lets a lot on about where you're coming from because mozart is a great example of incredibly boring technicality, whereas beethoven is very emotionally powerful. it's kind of the classic study in opposites. it's maybe a pretty good analogy, in comparing di meola and malmsteen.
deathtokoalas
+Pharoah Sneferu it may be true that technical does not always equal robotic. but, insofar as it applies to mozart or malmsteen, it certainly broadly does.
Pharaoh Sneferu
+deathtokoalas Well I would disagree with you on Mozart. There is a beauty in the elegance of his solution to the technical challenges of sonata form for instance. on the face of it , yes he " Just modulates" but its the choices he makes whilst doing so that define his genius. To a lesser degree the same is true of Yngwie, he chooses SOME fast runs to move the focus from individual notes to groups that define his harmonic structure ( bit like chords but using individual notes instead.) over a single pedal tone. If you become fixated on the speed, technical challenge of the execution of this approach etc.. you are missing the point. However I am speaking of his early work, The later albums after 1990ish are a just a speed fest I will admit. :-)
deathtokoalas
+Pharaoh Sneferu i'm sorry. what point am i missing?
larry
+deathtokoalas You always seem to be missing the point dude. Lol
deathtokoalas
+larry yeah, it's really remarkable how inept i am, isn't it? i don't tend to get a lot of clarification as to what i'm missing, though.
larry
+deathtokoalas His opinion sounded clear to me. We know you don't agree. Not everything has to be complicated.
deathtokoalas
+larry i don't see what's complicated about requesting elaboration on the point i'm supposedly missing.
and, i might dare suggest that if it is so difficult to articulate this supposed point then it may be the case that it does not actually exist at all.
Pharaoh Sneferu
+deathtokoalas Point One. "There is a beauty in the elegance of his solution to the technical challenges of sonata form"
Point 2. " he chooses SOME fast runs to move the focus from individual notes to groups that define his harmonic structure"
To clarify this point, by fixating on the technical aspects of the execution you have missed the overall harmonic development. btw because you cant hear it does not mean it isn't there.
deathtokoalas
+Pharaoh Sneferu just because i can't hear it doesn't mean it isn't there. that's interesting,
i wasn't really arguing against the existence of "harmonic structure", i was pointing out that he sounds lifeless and robotic as he's running through. it's the human element.
the high point of passionate piano playing in the romantic era was not beethoven, but rachmaninov. rachmaninov is just pure grit. total emotional release. it's musically very lush, but the key in a good rachmaninov performance is getting a good russian pianist to play it, because only the russians seem to understand the angst. western performances of rachmaninov tend to strip all the intensity out of it, and reduce it to this dead, bourgeois nonsense. if you were to listen to a rachmaninov piece performed by an 8-bit sequencer, you'd be missing out on the dominant aspect of the music. it's all the same notes. all the same "harmonic structure". but, very different in outcome.
malmsteen's work would be dramatically improved if it were to be played by somebody else - like al, for example.
i don't really think you've made any contextually relevant points. rather, i think you have, yourself, misunderstood the discussion.
