Yngwie Winds Pickups for Haiti ...

[David Schwab]

Originally Posted by Steve Conner

Well maybe to be charitable, we could call them (us? ) "amateur musicians".

If you don't make a primary living from music than that would be the correct term.

But I stand by what I said. To be a musician, you have to have something to say in the format of music. And if you have something to say, but nobody wants to hear it, do you really have something to say?

There's an audience for everything. Popularity does not equate to it being good. Just listen to the radio for proof of that.

Also people who know more about music will often listen to things that casual listeners wont. That's true of many things too... doesn't mater if it's beer, or audio gear or cars or guitar pickups. Enthusiasts get deeper into things.

The fact you can make a living from music is proof that people want to hear what you have to say, and they want to hear it bad enough that they'll part with money.

No, it's proof that an industry can tell people what they want to hear, create a market for it, and sell it. Will it be around in 50 years? Probably not.

Do you like all the music you hear on the radio? If not, why are they making money at it? Would you rather listen to 50 cent or AC/DC? Who's making more money? So I guess that makes 50 more of a musician? Really good music is usually obscure and not very popular. It's always been that way.

I love to play guitar, have been playing it since I was a kid, and have played in a bunch of local bands that never amounted to much. The most profit I ever made from a gig was $20 and six bottles of beer. So I wouldn't call myself a "musician".

You didn't try hard enough. I never made much money playing originals, but I made $460 filling in for someone for a New Years Eve gig last year. Why? Because I was good enough to be able to do it with 4 days notice. Being a musician is often about how well you can play various styles of music.

The final irony is that John Cage composed a piece that consists entirely of silence, and people have bought tickets to see it.

Four minutes and thirty three seconds of silence actually. Frank Zappa recorded a version of 4′33″. I love Zappa, but that's damn silly if you ask me. Actually I think it's safe to say that more people have done a version of 4′33″ than AC/DC songs!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4′33″#P...and_recordings

But that's not the only thing Cage has done, and even if he performed it, it's not very long, so I'm sure people payed to hear his other music too. Would it have made any more sense for people to pay to hear a single four and half minute song?

I think you have to see that Cage was being sarcastic. Before he "composed" the piece he said a desire of his was to "to compose a piece of uninterrupted silence and sell it to Muzak Co. It will be three or four-and-a-half minutes long—those being the standard lengths of "canned" music and its title will be Silent Prayer. It will open with a single idea which I will attempt to make as seductive as the color and shape and fragrance of a flower. The ending will approach imperceptibility."

So his point was that "the industry" sells crap to people all the time, be it music or perfume.

The opposite end of the spectrum is "noise music" and "free jazz" other crap that masquerades as art, such as "performance" pieces, like shooting a dead pig from a cannon, or the corner of an empty room with a light bulb that goes on and off. That's not art, and 4′33″ is not music.

I'd rather listen to Philip Glass anyway.

[Steve Conner]

I must admit that I didn't know 4:33 was a sarcastic dig at canned music. It makes complete sense if you imagine it played in the middle of a stream of Muzak. But that in itself is somewhat of a cheap trick. The piece gets all of its meaning from its context, as opposed to a piece of Bach (or AC/DC for that matter? ) that stands in its own right.

No, I didn't try hard enough. I never made any money out of original compositions, and I don't know many of the popular covers, so I'd be hopeless in a wedding band or whatever.

But I probably make a lot more money out of engineering and programming than I would in a wedding band, and I'm probably of more use to society doing that too.

[David Schwab]

Originally Posted by csparks75

<rant>
So, are you saying that you don't need to know anything else about music to play the guitar like Angus? I guess Angus can't keep time, or name the notes in the chords he plays....also guess that means that he doesn't know anything about dynamics, either...

Sorry, but I would consider Angus a musician. Sure, he may play guitar one way, but he has exhibited all the marks of a musician, IMHO...keeps time, uses dynamics, etc. I've met people that claim they are "musicians" and can't keep time to save their lives....am I any less of a musician because I don't play several other types of music, or instruments? Sure, I haven't played the instrument I started out on, or haven't been in any music classes in 16 years, but I think that I know enough to be called a musician.

</rant>

Angus is a musician. He does what he does well. My point was that Dave was trying to say he could only tap his foot to AC/DC and not Yngwie. I think it's real easy to tap your foot to Dark Star, or even Mozart.

The other point was that people saying that Angus is more of a musiian or that he plays with more "soul" or "feeling" is preposterous, and has more to do with personal taste than musical skill.

I'd rather listen to Sly and the Family Stone if I want "soul" and foot tapping. AC/DC is fun, but can get boring fast for me. I'd rather listen to King Crimson. They have soul too.

Steve Conner has it right....define "meaningful".

I did, and it was in reference to just because a musician plays a lot of notes doesn't mean it's a lot of nonsense. All melodies have elements of scales, modes, intervals, etc.

The old BB Kind playing one note thing is all about context. Would BB sound good playing that way with Metalica? Or with Yes? Or on a be bop jazz piece? No. It would seem like less, not more. He's saying something that fits that style of music, and is expected in that style of music. Period. He's also very repetitive. He doesn't stretch out too much. Allan Holdsworth wouldn't fit into a BB King song either, would he?

Originally Posted by csparks75

And for a more "on-topic" response, I respect Yng for what he has contributed to music and the world of guitar....but I don't own any of his albums. I also don't plan on buying any, because I'm just not into his particular style. I don't think he sucks, but I certainly think the leather pants have GOT to go.

He certainly created a style that a lot of players copied, and introduced a lot of metal heads to diminished scales and classical motifs. I don't own any of his albums, and have no plans on buying any, but I can appreciate his playing.

As an aside, I do agree with the statement that some music does exist to show off chops....for me, I seem to recall a guy in high school that played Flight of the Bumblebee on his euphonium just to show off his chops. And he would nail it every time.

Chops are not a bad thing. In the group of people I went to school with, people without chops were "non players". Generally the people who put down the players with chops don't have any. Now chops don't replace taste and finesse. And that's lacking in many players. I guess it's fun to play fast, and many people like to show off and prove themselves, but that's usually not very musical either.

But you wouldn't last a minute in an orchestra unless you could play what was required. I was a tubist, and as such didn't have a lot of demanding parts, but if I had to play Flight of the Bumblebee to get the gig, you know I would have learned it!

I can play fast, but I don't do it unless it fits the music. People seem to like my playing, so I must be doing something right.

[Possum]

This is my new definition of "soul." Holy #*@$@!#!!!
Doesn't get any better than this:

YouTube - Let The Mystery Be - Iris DeMent H.Q.

YouTube - Let The Mystery Be - Iris DeMent H.Q.

[David Schwab]

Originally Posted by Possum

This is my new definition of "soul." Holy #*@$@!#!!!
Doesn't get any better than this:

Ha ha! Oh wait, was that a joke? Ummm no. That's country music. Dave, you know white folks have no soul!

This is soul.

YouTube- Al Green - Tired Of Being Alone (SoulSchool)

YouTube- Al Green - Tired Of Being Alone (SoulSchool)

YouTube - Mavis Staples - I''ll Take You There

YouTube - Mavis Staples - I''ll Take You There

And look! A hatless Marcus Miller!

Some more good stuff.

YouTube- respect yourself/the staple singers

YouTube- respect yourself/the staple singers

YouTube- Curtis Mayfield - People Get Ready

YouTube- Curtis Mayfield - People Get Ready

YouTube- Sam & Dave - Hold On I'm Comin'

YouTube- Sam & Dave - Hold On I'm Comin'

[Possum]

No joke! I saw her sing in the movie Songcatcher and never knew who she was, her voice rips my heart apart. LIsten to the words of that song too, priceless. Heck I learned guitar playing country music along with the TV and some black and white hayride show back in '67, steel guitars, Carter sisters, flambuoyant cowboy hats, boots and shirts, the whole nine yards. 3 chord music on acoustic guitar. Country music was still real back then, I still like that old stuff. Iris Dement is a treasure.

[David Schwab]

She does have a nice voice. And that goes to show what I was talking about. The "rip my heart apart" thing is what many people equate to "feelng" in music. But that's not the only emotion you get from music, so if I player is not making you feel that way it doesn't mean they have no feeling. They just don't have that particular emotion. Not all music is emotional and melancholy. That would be boring.

The soul singers I posted make you feel good, and they aren't projecting that particular feeling.

Old country was good stuff. Check out David Lindley playing pedal steel on the Curtis Mayfield clip I posted! I love pedal steel.

[Sam Lee Guy]

Originally Posted by frankfalbo

I liked it better when you guys were trying to figure out what kind of "shellacquer" he dipped them in. You can forget about reading the can, that won't help...

Some thingy here?

Wood - Substrates - Products - Product Finishes

[David Schwab]

I used to use SHER-WOOD Catalyzed Lacquer on my instruments. That's good stuff.

[tedmich]

Originally Posted by David Schwab

I used (edit) Lacquer (edit) That's good stuff.

eclecticism explained!

(kidding!)


I have never wanted to be a musician; I am a guitarist.


meaningful?

YouTube - glenn branca solo 1978

YouTube - glenn branca solo 1978

[David Schwab]

Originally Posted by tedmich

eclecticism explained!

(kidding!)

I'm not sure what that means in terms of my quote, but to clarify, I used Sher-wood lacquer on the guitars and basses I built, not on pickups. I don't use lacquer on pickups.

I have never wanted to be a musician; I am a guitarist.

So you use your guitar to row a boat? Or do you play music? If you play music you are a musician.

I'm a musician. I happen to play guitar, bass, keys, sing, etc. Those are all ways to express yourself. I say I'm a bassist, but I could say I'm a guitarist, or singer or that I used to be a tubist and a saxophonist. Those are all musicians. You are too!

[tedmich]

Originally Posted by David Schwab

If you play music you are a musician.

hah! I don't play music, I play guitar.

Its so freeing to not play music!

check the video...guitars do NOT have to make music; they're flexible!

[uvacom]

Originally Posted by David Schwab

I like Cage better than AC/DC, I also don't consider something like 4′33″ as music.

From a purely philosophical standpoint, I think it is. Music isn't just an endless stream of notes with no space in between them. There is composed silence in music, i.e. a rest. If one were to name a meter, a tempo, or a scale for 4'33", it would be difficult to argue against the existence thereof, because the piece contains nothing to preclude any given parameter of music that could be named. It is composed in that it has a defined sound (or lack thereof) for a defined length. And it rarely fails to elicit a response from its audience when it is performed or a recording of it is played.

To me, it is music.

[David Schwab]

Originally Posted by tedmich

hah! I don't play music, I play guitar.

Faulty logic. Does you guitar play notes? Or does it make fart noises? You don't play music on your guitar? You row boats with it, right?

Or you can't play a note and just like having one around for looks?

If you play notes, it's music. Unless you suck, and even then it's BAD music!

[David Schwab]

Originally Posted by uvacom

From a purely philosophical standpoint, I think it is. Music isn't just an endless stream of notes with no space in between them. There is composed silence in music, i.e. a rest. If one were to name a meter, a tempo, or a scale for 4'33", it would be difficult to argue against the existence thereof, because the piece contains nothing to preclude any given parameter of music that could be named. It is composed in that it has a defined sound (or lack thereof) for a defined length. And it rarely fails to elicit a response from its audience when it is performed or a recording of it is played.

To me, it is music.

If not a single note is played, it's not music. It's silence. There wouldn't even be a need to have musicians to perform it. You can have rests and even silence in music, but you have to have some element of music around the rests. Back when I played in orchestras, it wasn't uncommon to sit through 100+ measures of rests. But other people were playing. If you walk into an empty concert hall, do you hear music? Of course not.

Now if one note was played during that 4´33˝, you might be able to call it music. Better examples of minimalism is Brian Eno's Music for Airports.

Bottom line is 4´33˝ was supposed to be a joke.

music |ˈmyoōzik|
noun
1 the art or science of combining vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion : he devoted his life to music.
• the vocal or instrumental sound produced in this way : couples were dancing to the music | baroque music.
• a sound perceived as pleasingly harmonious : the background music of softly lapping water.

silence |ˈsīləns|
noun
complete absence of sound

[uvacom]

Originally Posted by David Schwab

If not a single note is played, it's not music. It's silence. There wouldn't even be a need to have musicians to perform it. You can have rests and even silence in music, but you have to have some element of music around the rests. Back when I played in orchestras, it wasn't uncommon to sit through 100+ measures of rests. But other people were playing. If you walk into an empty concert hall, do you hear music? Of course not.

Now if one note was played during that 4´33˝, you might be able to call it music. Better examples of minimalism is Brian Eno's Music for Airports.

Bottom line is 4´33˝ was supposed to be a joke.

Not true! In the book The Roaring Silence: John Cage: A Life John Cage is quoted to have said ""I didn't wish it to appear, even to me, as something easy to do or as a joke."

The whole point is that you are supposed to hear the ambient noises around you when 4'33" is performed. There is no real silence. Some of Cage's influence for 4'33" came from visiting and anechoic chamber and discovering that he still heard sound inside it, the sound of his blood circulating, etc.

Anyway, it's okay if you don't regard it as music; clearly the whole point is to challenge the definition of music. But I would posit that if no notes are not music but one note is, then what is really the difference? What sort of information can a single note convey in absence of any others that no notes at all cannot convey equally well? What's the difference? Why set the dividing line at an arbitrary one note? Maybe it takes two notes for music to happen? Besides, no matter what one dictionary says, notes don't make music. Somebody shaking maracas or a tambourine is making a simple sort of music, and there is only rhythm, no harmonic or melodic component at all.

[12Bass]

Wow... from Yngwie to aesthetics.....

Is something art if the artist doesn't do/play/paint anything?

[Possum]

Its called Zen, maybe.

[David Schwab]

Originally Posted by uvacom

Not true! In the book The Roaring Silence: John Cage: A Life John Cage is quoted to have said ""I didn't wish it to appear, even to me, as something easy to do or as a joke."

Let's not forget that he said his desire was to "to compose a piece of uninterrupted silence and sell it to Muzak Co. It will be three or four-and-a-half minutes long—those being the standard lengths of 'canned' music and its title will be Silent Prayer. It will open with a single idea which I will attempt to make as seductive as the color and shape and fragrance of a flower. The ending will approach imperceptibility."

It's the emperor's new clothes.

The whole point is that you are supposed to hear the ambient noises around you when 4'33" is performed. There is no real silence. Some of Cage's influence for 4'33" came from visiting and anechoic chamber and discovering that he still heard sound inside it, the sound of his blood circulating, etc.

Well after the point that it was a poke at Muzak, yeah you can say that. But the piece is not responsible for the ambient sounds. You can just as easily go to a public library to experience the same thing.

On a positive note, we all have too much sensory bombardment going on around us all the time. It's nice to spend four and a half minutes sitting in a quiet place.

Anyway, it's okay if you don't regard it as music; clearly the whole point is to challenge the definition of music. But I would posit that if no notes are not music but one note is, then what is really the difference? What sort of information can a single note convey in absence of any others that no notes at all cannot convey equally well? What's the difference? Why set the dividing line at an arbitrary one note? Maybe it takes two notes for music to happen? Besides, no matter what one dictionary says, notes don't make music. Somebody shaking maracas or a tambourine is making a simple sort of music, and there is only rhythm, no harmonic or melodic component at all.

Don't get me wrong, I like experimental music. But music is an assembly of pitch, silence and rhythm, and I don't think four and a half minutes of silence meets that criterion. If it did, we could say that four and a half minutes of white noise is music, or four and a half minutes of random banging on piano keys. But it's still not.

I'm also down on so-called "art" that is often nothing more than a dead animal in gelatin, a pig carcass shot from a cannon, or those insidious "gates" and curtains that were set up in Central Park in NYC not that long ago. It's not art, and the person who did it is not an artist. It's also an insult to talented artists, just as some experimental "music" is an insult to talented musicians.

There's nothing wrong with spending the time and effort to get good at something. Doing things for the shock value is a cheap way out.

[Mark Hammer]

All art is of a time and place. Stuff that seems like a cop-out or scam at time B may well have been a bold and creative step at timeA. here in Ottawa, you can't imagine the howls of derision that arose when our national gallery purchased this little (543.6 x 243.8 cm) item for $1.8million:

Thousands of letters to the editor about "my kid could paint that" cropped up. Curators defended the purchase by noting that the painting was from a transitional period of an important artist. Undoubtedly, if it had come from my own kid last year, they would not have paid $1.80 for it.

Same thing with Cage. 4'33" is of a time and place in the history of music, as are Christo's "gates" of a time and place in the history of art.

Can we please get back to pickups now?

[SJE]

Scales burblers . . . well I have to say one of my all time favourites is this man:

YouTube - CHRIS POLAND PLAYS HIS OLD BC RICH

YouTube - CHRIS POLAND PLAYS HIS OLD BC RICH

A very under-rated guitarist but one with quite possibly the smoothest legato actions in the world who plays through Jazz, Fusion and Metal with ease but also keeps a melody.

His work on Megadeth's first 2 albums laid pretty much the foundation for many metal leads these days.

Check out this version of Crossroads . . .

YouTube - Chris Poland and Robertino "Pag" Pagliari NAMM 20009 video - "Crossroads"

YouTube - Chris Poland and Robertino "Pag" Pagliari NAMM 20009 video - "Crossroads"

Who says blues have to be basic!

On the note of Marty Friedman - regardless of personality or personal feelings he laid down some of the best thrash leads ever recorded. The Tornado of Souls being a prime example.

[StarryNight]

I would go as far to say that music can exist with the absence of sound. Music is a manifestation of thought. It is from that germinal thought and intent that music comes into existence. I can sit in a perfectly quiet room and hear music. Realize that i'm using the word 'hear' in a larger context than just air pressure hitting my eardrum and sending signals to my brain (or through bone induction). If the intention of composing a piece of music without the use of sound is a legitimate expression of creative thought, then the 'music' within that musical composition does exist. If there is some other motive behind the piece then it is an expression of that motive and not of music. Picasso said "everything you can imagine is real" In terms of creative human expression I think he's right. Defining music as just melody, rhythm and harmony is a limiting adage that's been passed down by those that wish to define music in a small conceptual box. If we accept that music is an intrinsic expressive language then we must accept that music is manifest in the brain/soul long before it reaches the piano or guitar. Example: if I write 3 notes: C, E & G I am communicating to you a musical thought. I'm not physically playing these notes so you can 'hear' them but you are now hearing those notes in sequence as I wrote them. If one does not speak the same language I'm using to communicate this musical thought it will not make sense, but for those who do, the musical expression I've manifest is communicated to you without sound.

[David Schwab]

Originally Posted by StarryNight

I would go as far to say that music can exist with the absence of sound. Music is a manifestation of thought. It is from that germinal thought and intent that music comes into existence. I can sit in a perfectly quiet room and hear music.

That's true, but you hear the music in your head. If you had never heard a note, you wouldn't be able to do that. You can hear speech and other sounds in your head too.

I have written pieces of music entirely on paper, but I knew what it would sound like. But it's also fun to compose using a non linear method, like on a computer, and then be surprised by what you hear.

It is from that germinal thought and intent that music comes into existence. I can sit in a perfectly quiet room and hear music. Realize that i'm using the word 'hear' in a larger context than just air pressure hitting my eardrum and sending signals to my brain (or through bone induction). If the intention of composing a piece of music without the use of sound is a legitimate expression of creative thought, then the 'music' within that musical composition does exist.

I think it's safe to abstract music from sound for this discussion. You are talking about sound. Music is a type of sound. What separates random noise from music? Birds sing "songs" but dogs don't. Why is that? What makes something "music" to our ears?

Music is organized sounds mostly consisting of sounds with pitch and duration arranged in a manner that we recognize as a melody, etc. You can make a synth or computer play random pitches, but it doesn't sound like music. All human music fits this criteria, and even bird songs.

If there is some other motive behind the piece then it is an expression of that motive and not of music. Picasso said "everything you can imagine is real" In terms of creative human expression I think he's right.

That's true, and thinking of music in your head fires the same brain cells as hearing it with your ears.

Defining music as just melody, rhythm and harmony is a limiting adage that's been passed down by those that wish to define music in a small conceptual box.

So as I mentioned before, what defines something as music and not noise? Noise can be interesting, especially if its rhythmic. This is an intrinsic ability humans have, to make music. We sing, we whistle, we make sounds with objects, and have been doing so for a long time. Chimps don't, and they share 99% of our DNA.

If we accept that music is an intrinsic expressive language then we must accept that music is manifest in the brain/soul long before it reaches the piano or guitar. Example: if I write 3 notes: C, E & G I am communicating to you a musical thought. I'm not physically playing these notes so you can 'hear' them but you are now hearing those notes in sequence as I wrote them. If one does not speak the same language I'm using to communicate this musical thought it will not make sense, but for those who do, the musical expression I've manifest is communicated to you without sound.

If you only write down those three notes, it's not music, at least it wont be the music you hear in your head. It's the framework for music. I can hear those notes though. But that's because they have been defined already. We play on instruments with standard tuning so we can play along with other instruments. At least in western music systems. In India you might tune to the singers range.

So to play the notes you picked, the way you want them played, you first need to define what octave those notes are in, and how to play them. How long do you hold each one, etc. Without those instruction I'll likely play something very different that you had in mind. That's not a bad thing, if that's your intent. John McLaughlin used to pick the modes for the players to improvise with based on their Zodiac signs.

Of course people figured this issue out when they invented written music. But I'll be the first to say you can't express certain things in writing, which is why I hardly ever write or read music anymore. It's often much faster by ear.

So I think we can agree that music is an abstract idea with concrete concepts that have been worked out over time by the music makers that came before us. This is especially evident when you have genres of music, like R&B, rock, blues, reggae, etc. You are expected to know the vocabulary that defines that style of music. And that's rather arbitrary, based on past performances but earlier musicians playing that form of music. But if you are playing a well known form of music, like the blues, and we don't play what's expected of us in that setting, people who follow that style of music will not enjoy it, even if what you are playing is musically good.

[tedmich]

Originally Posted by SJE

Scales burblers . . . well I have to say one of my all time favourites is this man:
A very under-rated guitarist but one with quite possibly the smoothest legato actions in the world who plays through Jazz, Fusion and Metal with ease but also keeps a melody.

His work on Megadeth's first 2 albums laid pretty much the foundation for many metal leads these days.

Check out this version of Crossroads . . .

Who says blues have to be basic!

not bad but JB makes more interesting sounds after a bean dinner IMHO

YouTube - Trouble Man - Jeff Beck

YouTube - Trouble Man - Jeff Beck

the non-notes are best!

please accept my apologies for the above comment as well as all the >2M tons of unrequested munitions my country shipped to Laos in the distant past

[David Schwab]

Originally Posted by tedmich

the non-notes are best!

Jeff's the best at doing guitar noise! He can tear up some scales too! Just listen to him on Wired. One of my favorite players.

[Mark Hammer]

Went to see him at a festival earlier this past year, and made sure to get there several hours ahead of time so I could stand in the front row and get a good look at both hands. He makes prodigious use of the false harmonics produced at the 3rd and 4th frets on the wound strings. Indeed, many sounds that I used to think were ring-modulator based were those very notes.

[David Schwab]

One of the guitarist in my band saw him last week. He said it was a great show. I need to keep in the loop, I didn't even know he was touring!

[Mark Hammer]

Touring? This guy is showing up everywhere.

Here's a video of him and Clapton doing "Moon River" of all things, and Beck just tears it up with the most lyrical and buttery of solos. Jeff Beck and Eric Clapton together.....Moon River

Here's an all audio concert from the past 2 weeks: http://www.archive.org/serve/EricCla...donArenaUK.wma

Here's one from last fall that has him doing tunes by the Shadows and the Shangri-Las, and even Green Onions.
http://www.archive.org/serve/JeffBec...o2LondonUK.wma

His new album even has him doing "Nessun Dorma", something I am looking forward to hearing very much.

[Possum]

Its funny that all the other famous players of his generation have declined in their playing skills, like the fire went out or something, yet Beck just keeps getting better and better at his craft.

[Guitarist]

David, you should be writing for a magazine or a book of your own!

I went to a G3 here in Vancouver, and Malmsteen was with Satch and Vai. I was surprised to so that Yngwie stole the show. Especially girls in attendance gave huge cheers and applause. His music does please the ears, and like Hendrix, his "show" is very entertaining. Hey it's a live show right?
In that vibe but more melodic is a band called Narnia from N. Europe.

Possum: Good observation about declining skill. It is hard to keep an extreme level of playing. Some end up asking themselves, "Why"? Or for who? Because they're not playing or recording. So now it's a problem or inspiration or purpose or...

[Mark Hammer]

Originally Posted by Possum

Its funny that all the other famous players of his generation have declined in their playing skills, like the fire went out or something, yet Beck just keeps getting better and better at his craft.

How true. I get the sense that Mr. B. will never be a nostalgia act.

[David Schwab]

Originally Posted by Possum

Its funny that all the other famous players of his generation have declined in their playing skills, like the fire went out or something, yet Beck just keeps getting better and better at his craft.

Very true! Probably because he was always trying new things.

[Possum]

Beck is a true artist, he's always been an innovator. Clapton was a good player in the beginning and sure Creme was innovative but Eric just never did anything other than what he started out with. Same with Page, great player, maybe, but always just did one thing. Beck certainly doesn't need money, none of them do but yet he continually excels and breaks new ground.

[tedmich]

Originally Posted by David Schwab

Very true! Probably because he was always trying new things.

along those lines Yngwie in Alcatraz (or Varney's Shrapnel) sounds exactly like Yngwie today.

Once you are "cool/rich/laid/worshiped" you stop trying.

[David Schwab]

Originally Posted by tedmich

Once you are "cool/rich/laid/worshiped" you stop trying.

I suppose it's all about what the goals and motivation were. He might have reached his goal and hasn't set another one.

I like to find new things to do every day if I can.

I wouldn't mind the rich part though.