Gaydar2000SE wrote:Yes, like any other thing post in this topic it's about stating things you feel about music that are impopular.. or 'controversial' if you call it. Smite me with thy godly might for following the topic O paladin to punish me for mine evil.
I can understand stating things you feel. When you have to diss off an instrument
and warp the word "versatility" in order to state things you feel, maybe you're trying too hard?...
I meant my definition of 'versatility' actually, it's a matter of where to draw the line of course. There's no real singular point, it's a beard problem.
acted as you knew my definition of "definition". Don't blame me.
You seem to get very serious about this one point about guitars in this topic to state impop.. controversial musical opinions regardless of that it all applies to all my other points nay?
Pulled the "you're taking yourself seriously!!" card too early, there.
I'm perfectly neutral about guitars, couldn't play one to save my life, and I don't choose my music on the basis of whether a guitar is present or not. I appreciate people who make great music, and whether they fiddle around until they find something good or they concoct complex equipment chains and software tricks in order to get EXACTLY the sound they need is their
problem, not mine.
Should have a word with those, but then again. People said that of Brian May too and I never got that either, it's quite clearly a stringed instrument vibrating in its own resonance frequency for me.
That's cool. Maybe May's techniques were so dazzling because synthesizers at that time were still severely limited by today's standards, and it was much harder to take some abstract sound you had in your head and PRECISELY pin it down and transfer it to tape (hard but not impossible -- just reading the way Mike Oldfield got that trebly, sustained lead guitar sound in the 70's ties my brain in a knot). I think that, back then, fiddling around and experimenting with instruments until you found something cool was a very normal and valid way of making music, because sometimes it was all you had, you know. Those guys had to go to great lengths of experimentation in order to turn the guitar into a pretty flexible instrument that fits just fine in the context of jazz, progressive rock, heavy metal and even ambient music (as much as that term wasn't yet coined when (No Pussyfooting)
was recorded). The fact that modern tools are far more powerful than guitars is not exactly an "unpopular" opinion; it is debatable, because guys like Tom Jenkinson are still using them extensively in spite
of their largely experimental use of synthesizers, samplers and music software. A term like "pretty awful" makes a neutral and technical fact turn into an "unpopular opinion", but I find that a bit artificial, you know? It creates a big emotional issue out of absolutely nothing. I'm not "emotional" about guitars, like I said, so I have no problem with that. I do think there is a danger when you use strong and harsh terms to oversimplify perfectly valid points; newspapers do that all the time, and it annoys me.
Extremely excellent way to evade that you made a slight error in your reasoning though. Still you might want to read the topic title.
It's not an error in my
reasoning if you took to heart a jokey comment I made.
Not that I haven't made that mistake before myself, but I couldn't let that one pass. Besides, I was tired and I needed a laugh.