time.com/100albums

deshead · Post by **deshead** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 7:21 am

Your favorite album sucks.

Caravan Ray · Post by **Caravan Ray** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 7:34 am

fodroy wrote:
Dan-O from Five-O wrote:Apologize to the "Gods" of guitar rock and be absolved of you sins or forever be considered a Heretic in the eyes of this six stringer.
I apologize to no God of guitar rock. I was never converted by their disciples. I can understand what Hendrix did for the guitar, but I just don't get it. I hate to say it, but I don't get it. I like music with guitars, just not music where guitar is the main focus.

I hear you bro. I agree completely. Hendrix sux. Guitars are like penises. I've got a big one, but I don't play it with my teeth or set fire to it. Dig it?

fodroy wrote: I'm gonna end this before I start talking about Jackson Pollack.

Is he a Polish Jackson Pollock?

Leaf · Post by **Leaf** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 9:12 am

There is very likely some fantastic, influential, emotive, artistic and intelligent works out there that use languages beyond my current level of understanding.

I don't like collage art.

mkilly · Post by **mkilly** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 9:34 am

I was ready to go into the list hating it, but it's actually pretty OK. Props for recognizing Paul's Boutique and Endtroducing... and OK Computer and Velvet Underground. They got the wrong Band album on there, but then it's included in the poll to the right. Also they should've put Blood on the Tracks on instead of Time Out of Mind from Bobby Zimmerman. I don't think compilations should be acceptable if we're doing a list of albums. Albums is albums. If'n the artist had no involvement in the creation of the thing and it wasn't ever meant to be an album then I don't think it counts. What the hell is Hole doing on there. Smashing Pumpkins should be on there if Hole is on there.

WeaselSlayer · Post by **WeaselSlayer** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:24 pm

Oh shit I didn't realize Hole was on there. I take back everything, great list. I'm not even being close to sarcastic.

Dan-O from Five-O · Post by **Dan-O from Five-O** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:28 pm

fodroy wrote:I can understand what Hendrix did for the guitar, but I just don't get it. I hate to say it, but I don't get it. I like music with guitars, just not music where guitar is the main focus.

That’s cool. I can understand if the music just doesn’t speak to you and you don’t get it. I just thought you were blowing Hendrix’s influence on modern music off. I think you’re selling his lyric writing short, but again, if you can’t make it past the music to discover it, I understand.

fodroy wrote:Yngwie Malmsteen is a disgrace.

I couldn’t agree more.

fodroy wrote:I mellowed out and really rockin' out music is just too much for me now. I'm tired all of the time. I think that has something to do with it.

I would alter my diet or check with a physician before I blamed music for this. Seriuosly.

Caravan Ray wrote:I hear you bro. I agree completely. Hendrix sux.

Your disappointment in Men at Work and Olivia Newton John not making the list is showing.

Caravan Ray wrote:Guitars are like penises. I've got a big one, but I don't play it with my teeth.

How big could it be then? Honestly. Or were you talking about having a big guitar?

To be truthful, I haven’t even looked at the list because I don’t like them either. As was said before they always end up being popularity contests and overly subjective. The one predictable thing about these kinds of lists is that they always start a debate about what made it on and what was left off.

fodroy · Post by **fodroy** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:33 pm

Dan-O from Five-O wrote:
fodroy wrote:I mellowed out and really rockin' out music is just too much for me now. I'm tired all of the time. I think that has something to do with it.
I would alter my diet or check with a physician before I blamed music for this. Seriuosly.

I wasn't blaming music for this. Just looking for a connection between my constantly being tired and progression from louder to quieter music. I think it's more tired begat less brash music.

roymond · Post by **roymond** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:32 pm

Caravan Ray wrote:
roymond wrote:Yes not influential?
The ability to make people vomit doesn't really count as being influential

Just doing my part to perpetuate the myth that these lists are valid. Besides, I was more focused on Steve Howe, voted best and most influential guitarist for like 7 years in a row by that bible of reality Guitar Player Mag (cough!). Again...a popularity contest, but still.

jack · Post by **jack** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:15 pm

i'd like to see steve howe take on charo on guitar.

roymond · Post by **roymond** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 1:06 am

jack wrote:i'd like to see steve howe take on charo on guitar.

That's just not fair.

WeaselSlayer · Post by **WeaselSlayer** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 2:27 am

Ummmm, this seems important to this conversation.

Caravan Ray · Post by **Caravan Ray** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 3:25 am

WeaselSlayer wrote:Ummmm, this seems important to this conversation.

That's good.

I'm only disappointed it included the international re-release cover of ACDC's "Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap" rather than the far superior original Aus. release cover

Billy's Little Trip · Post by **Billy's Little Trip** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 1:46 pm

WeaselSlayer wrote:Ummmm, this seems important to this conversation.

Quite entertaining in a not very entertaining way. That was cool.

Reist · Post by **Reist** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 11:55 pm

It's true that showing off your skills on an instrument can go too far, but I personally have no problem with someone being great at an instrument and showing it off, to a point. At this stage in our musical careers, any of us could talk crap about excessive bands like Dream Theater and say that they show off too much, but I know that if I know that if I had chops like John Petrucci or Paul Gilbert I would probably include some form of a solo in every song. All of you bashing Hendrix and Malmsteen, come back when you can play like them. Then you can talk.

fodroy · Post by **fodroy** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:36 am

Malmsteem sucks ass. Dream Theater is boring.

WeaselSlayer · Post by **WeaselSlayer** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:48 am

If you sat Malmsteen down in a room and David Pajo in another room and had them jam for an hour and recorded it, Malmsteen's tape would be a piece of shit and Pajo's would sell like hotcakes on Drag City. Fuck technical superiority.

jute gyte · Post by **jute gyte** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 9:04 am

Proficiency on an instrument has nothing to do with an understanding of what is or isn't musically worthwhile. So yes, Malmsteen sucks ass. Dream Theater is boring.

The best solos are Reign in Blood-era Slayer.

furrypedro · Post by **furrypedro** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 10:32 am

best solos ever are Joey Santiago's apart from when he started showing off too much and using 3 notes.

Leaf · Post by **Leaf** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:15 pm

Personally, I think you're fucked in the head. (In a kind, metaphorical way...and who I am addressing will become clear)

Jumping to a conclusion that because someone has technical ability superior to yours somehow negates their musical expression or ideas is simply ignorant arrogance.

Newsflash. Everyone has some level of imagination. More importantly, there are those with wonderful imaginations who think up some great ideas; but here's the thing. IT'S COMMON.

There are musicians who spend all their time focusing on the exploration of their technique. This IDEA may not sit well with a particular listener. And that's fine.

But get off your fuckin high horse when you start trying to say that your opinion that this stuff is somehow wrong, or shitty, or whatever negative slant you choose to place on it is some how a factual opinion with merit.

IT HAS NO MERIT.

YOu know why? Because having an idea is not enough.

How many times have people on this message board attacked my shitty grammar and spelling??? WHY???

Because they were so offended by the execution of my idea that they were able to dismiss my idea, out of hand, because I was too sloppy as a teen to master grammar and spelling.

Do I think that when they do that they are being twats? Why yes I do. I'd prefer that they saw past that, and understood my ideas.

But at sum pownt won huz two tik resphonsabillatay fir cleary communicating the idea in a manner that works.

YOU ARE CONFUSING TECHNIQUE WITH WANKING. Technique is the "how" of playing. Stop being assholes simply because YOUR technique sucks. Start focusing on YOUR ideas and how you execute them. Because listeners do not equate only technique with wanking. If you abuse any musical idea for self indulgent reasons, it will be recieved by those who are not tolerant of that idea in much the same manner.

As much as l like the ideas of Luke Henley (as one example) the sloppy execution of ideas can be grating. There is a fine line between too much and too little. When you start focusing on those who go to far, you simply expose how little you are willing to do yourself.

I am assuming a lot here... and I just don't care. Dismissing every motive and idea malsteem has because of one idea he abuises ??? So, I should therefore dismiss...like 3/4 of songfight people because they don't have the time in there lives to execute their music with clarity? HELLO.

I can't believe that anyone who posts music on songfight, hangs out on this site for years and listens to others who do the same here can sit back and be so arrogantly dismissive of another musician because they parlayed their technical ability into a viable career with HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of fans. I don't get the bitter dismissiveness.

Fine. You don't like malsteem. Me either. But dismissing entire artforms based on a dsicriminatory prediduce. Well. I can't spell.

But I bet you got the point of my idea. Whatcha gonna do? Focus on my technique? Or focus on my ideas? Tough one isn't. hahahahhaa.

/END RANT

Paco Del Stinko · Post by **Paco Del Stinko** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:29 pm

I love the Hanneman/King leads as much as Santiago's: talk about night and day, they both work you over well. Malmsteen is incredible from a scientific angle, but a strangled Hendrix note or subtle BB King lick brush him aside. Add Parkening Plays Bach to your collection and appreciate some truly masterful playing.

WeaselSlayer · Post by **WeaselSlayer** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 1:13 pm

Whoah. I guess I need to make some clarifications. I'm not saying that technical ability automatically makes you suck. I was merely saying that you can't compare two people based solely on musicianship/technicality. But conversely, one of my all-time favorites is Frank Zappa and the man was a fucking genius on the guitar (and in everything else). So my post was really just a knee-jerk reaction to someone telling me that I can't bash Malmsteen because I can't play as fast as he can or play meridian scales or whatever (which actually I can, but it just doesn't quite work for what I do here). So yeah, a lot of my favorite musicians have studied music forever and are amazing technical players, but when the technique overshadows the ideas, there's no reason for me to suck anyone's dick just because they can "fuckin' shred, man."

fodroy · Post by **fodroy** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 1:24 pm

WeaselSlayer wrote:Whoah. I guess I need to make some clarifications. I'm not saying that technical ability automatically makes you suck.

...but if you're constantly showing that off it leads me to believe that it's because you can't actually write a tune worth listening to. So congrats to Malmsteem. You can play really fucking fast and technical pieces, but, ultimately, that's not the goal of music. The goal of music is to connect with the listener and create some sort of feeling. I can't see Malmsteem's music creating that effect in anyone.