Overrated Albums?

[ClaRK! Kent]

It shows talent, yes, but only in the technical sense of the term IMO. If you can combine that technical ability with an ability to write good melodies and songs (see - Led Zeppelin, Eric Clapton, etc) then you're on to a winner.

The problem with a lot of the "widdly-ness" (best. description. ever) guitarists is that they just pile it on for no apparent reason. I think the best description I heard of it was from my dad (who was a session man in the 70s and was to tour with Led Zep until he decided to get married and settle down instead... idiot) who said as follows...

"Paige, Clapton, Hendrix, and the like could combine technical skill with brilliant songwriting and they could write a damn good hook too. Plus, they kept it reined in most of the time. Bands like Guns'N'Roses, Slayer, and guys like Stevie Vai kinda opted into this attitude of 'if a guitar solo is good, a really big guitar solo must be better' and spent so much time writing funky solos that they forgot to write the songs to go with them."

I'd call that sort of guitar playing unrestrained musical masturbation. Any idiot can bust out 30 solos if they've had a decent enough amount of training, but it does take a lot more talent to actually make it work in the context of a song.

[YI]

"American Idiot" by Green Day. I could list about 5 punk-rock albums released within a couple months of it that are easily better. The title track is pure 'paint by numbers' punk-rock, I never got why people loved it so much. And the rest of the stuff I heard bores me. It just seems so bland.

"North" by Something Corporate. In my oppinion Something Corporate are overrated. They're good, I love the album but fans of the band hype it up as some sort of masterpiece (Or so I tend to find). Most of the songs follow the same format, big choruses, and ultimately just blend together. I find Andrew McMahons work with his solo project Jack's Mannequin 20 times better. The song writing is better, his singing is better and ultimately it's a nicer listen. I think following the release of "Everything In Transit" my oppinion of "North" went down a fair bit.

Of course there's the 'classics' that could be tossed out, but I can't be arsed.

[Number of the Breast]

It shows talent, yes, but only in the technical sense of the term IMO. If you can combine that technical ability with an ability to write good melodies and songs (see - Led Zeppelin, Eric Clapton, etc) then you're on to a winner.

The problem with a lot of the "widdly-ness" (best. description. ever) guitarists is that they just pile it on for no apparent reason. I think the best description I heard of it was from my dad (who was a session man in the 70s and was to tour with Led Zep until he decided to get married and settle down instead... idiot) who said as follows...

"Paige, Clapton, Hendrix, and the like could combine technical skill with brilliant songwriting and they could write a damn good hook too. Plus, they kept it reined in most of the time. Bands like Guns'N'Roses, Slayer, and guys like Stevie Vai kinda opted into this attitude of 'if a guitar solo is good, a really big guitar solo must be better' and spent so much time writing funky solos that they forgot to write the songs to go with them."

I'd call that sort of guitar playing unrestrained musical masturbation. Any idiot can bust out 30 solos if they've had a decent enough amount of training, but it does take a lot more talent to actually make it work in the context of a song.

[Skummy]

I said it another thread not long ago, and wannabe pretty much quoted me on it here, but I'd rather hear someone like Johnny Marr or Marc Ribot, or even Syd Barrett back in the day, playing a simplistic but catchy riff than someone like Steve Vai playing un-necessary guitar-as-penis-extenstion fretwankery for no reason other than that he can.

It's got nothing to do with the bands showing talent, it's that it's un-necessary. A good song should be the marriage of good lyrics (unless it's an instrumental, obviously) and good instrumentation to fit the mood or emotion the song is trying to put across. The likes of Vai and Malmsteen can't do that, while a "lesser" guitarist like Marr does it with ease.

I wouldn't put the likes of Slayer and G&R in with Vai and Malmsteen, though. The guitarwork in Slayer pretty much fits the angry, aggressive sound perfectly, so that's fine. And Guns & Roses, at their peak, where a pretty good combination of glam, punk, metal and blues, and rarely ventured into soloing for the sake of soloing. Even Led Zep fell into that trap a fair few times, though (a drum solo taking up one side of an LP? Give me a break...).

Edited May 31, 2006 by Skumfrog

[fineintent]

You miss the point with Zeppelin, they aren't falling into a wanky solo "trap", its progressive music - the instrumentation is meant to impress and push boundaries.

I dunno where I stand on this - I'm not really a fan of the whole faggotry where the music is shit but pretentious cunts tell you "Oh, the lyrics are the important bit". Write a poem if you can't write a song.

Lyrics don't have to be good for me to appreciate the music, the music just has to flow well - and I think with Satriani, and Vai to an extent, it does. Its not showing off, its pushing musical boundaries in the same extent that other people push lyrical boundaries.

[Liam]

Funnily enough, a lot of the people who don't like Nirvana are the sorts who like guitar solos and general widdly-ness (Evil Chase K and Aaron Maiden in this here topic I know of at least), which was effectively what music like Nirvana's killed off for the best part of the 90's. Personally, I hate that style of music to a degree, as too many bands throw out technical guitar work/solos just for the sake of it, seemingly. As Skumfrog said in another topic, I'd take a Johnny Marr over most of those kinda guitarists based purely substance over style.

I said Nirvana are completely overrated. I did NOT say I don't like them. I'm not particularly fond of them, but I do like some of their work. And that's pretty harsh, hating a type of music because it shows talent.

As I said, it was to an extent. I have stuff with solos in my collection, I'm just not a huge fan of it, ESPECIALLY when people seem to believe that solo-ing is the be all and end all of being a good guitarist, as some people seem to believe.

But yeah, SC and Skumfrog basically covered my point.