Stitch on 30/1/2007 at 16:20
Quote Posted by Thief13x
well, frankly they deserve to be.
Terrible music is still terrible music. At least Fingernail's link had a guy playing a song that didn't sound like white men dancing.
User123abc on 30/1/2007 at 18:26
That second guy is good, you can tell he's pretty at ease, and has a feel for style and ornamentation which only comes with experience. The original guy not so much - he has more trouble with the long notes than he does with the super-short. Personally, I think of that as so much musical masturbation. Strip away the backing track, and get over the "wow" factor of a really fast arpeggio, and it's a bit boring.
Much more interesting to me is the guy who can stuff a whole orchestra (or a piano) onto six strings.
Plus, even with the second guy, the performances I consider really masterful - on many different instruments - are the ones where ornamentation is used sparingly and to great effect. But I guess that depends on the type of composition, and maybe it's not really a fair consideration given the specific sound of the electric guitar, and the associations most people have with it...Though I can think of a few jazz guitarists who were really masterful in this regard (and could still play faster than these guys when they wanted to, for what that's worth).
The question really isn't, "is this guy a good player?" It's "does this song move me?" - a good player is one who can do the most to make the song more effective.
(how would you recognize NOSE in the notation?)
Edit:
Quote Posted by Stitch
Terrible music is still terrible music. At least Fingernail's link had a guy playing a song that didn't sound like white men dancing.
Yeah, that's pretty much all there is to it.
Fingernail on 30/1/2007 at 18:42
Quote Posted by User123abc
(how would you recognize NOSE in the notation?)
Considering the whole first page of any of Yamashita's transcriptions is given over to detailed explanations of all the techniques - which include playing with just the flesh, different strumming, cross-string tremolando, different positions along the length of the string at which to play, explanations of how the harmonics are notated, and on the music itself most passages are labelled with both left and right hand fingerings, I find it hard to believe that he'd go into that much detail only to do something totally different himself.
There is only one passage that would actually benefit from a bit of nasal action and he clearly doesn't use it:
(
http://imageshack.us)
Inline Image:
http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/3190/gnomuscm1.jpgThe "controversy" over this bit was that it's impossible to play as written because you can't keep the trill going whilst playing the high chords. And he doesn't, he cuts the chords very short and breaks the trill, resuming it after the chords are done, but it's done so fast and smoothly that it doesn't detract from the music particularly. But if he used his nose here you'd see him straining over to get his nose to the second fret to do the trill between D and E, and he clearly doesn't.
Also forget any neo-classical electric guitar playing, whilst the technique is impressive at first the music really isn't good. Check out David Russell playing Handel's 7th Harpsichord suite on classical guitar - the technique is equally impressive, and the music is actually worth staying for.
(Edit: like (
http://www.speaking-guitar.com/music/trill.mp3) this - you can barely notice that the trill is missing a couple of notes cos I pick it up a split second after the second chord)
User123abc on 30/1/2007 at 20:13
Nose-playing jokes aside, I'm not sure how I feel about unorthodox techniques like that first video. I think it has a lot to do with our understanding of music. On one hand, it just feels unnatural, and it's hard to seriously accept something which is outside of the "vocabulary" of an instrument. On the other hand - why? There's no reason why tapping (or nosing) technique should have any more or less value than other ways to get sound out of a resonating box. I wonder if anyone here has heard of the Chapman stick.
Makes you wonder, how much of our appreciation of music is instinctive - based on some intrinsic value of the music itself - and how much of it is social conditioning?
I think this is the line of thought being explored by quite a few of our modern composers.
Sorry to hijack this thread even further, but you can only say so much about cock in a box.
(I assume you're working on that transcription then fingernail. That's very impressive. FYI, I only had those yamashita links from some old post of yours on delcamp.net)
Fingernail on 30/1/2007 at 20:18
I'm not seriously working on it but I'd be lying if I said I hadn't had a look through. Perhaps one day.
User123abc on 30/1/2007 at 20:29
I know the feeling. Though honestly, it's hard to say if it's worth it.
I've been trying to get some debussy action going for quite a while now. But my favorite compositions are really too dense to make a satisfactory transcription - especially keeping the different voices and phrasings fluid and natural (which is the one thing that Yamashita does in the recording that really stands out for me).
After a while I said screw it and just learned piano.
Fingernail on 31/1/2007 at 09:08
haha, Nickelback.
It is a bit harsh though, especially since there probably were lots of people there who did want to see them. But yeah why would you play if people were throwing shit?
PigLick on 31/1/2007 at 09:37
how did you record that fingernail? the quality is shocking, I cant even really hear the bass string, very muffled.
Fingernail on 31/1/2007 at 11:38
the answer is "quickly" and "to demonstrate". But it doesn't sound too bad on my speakers, I didn't apply any processing though.
seriously (
www.speaking-guitar.com/music/wigmore.rar) if you want to hear me recorded "professionally"
