Rank these Brittish bands.
- Thread starter Eppy99
- Start date
REO Speedwagon, Journey, Styx. They all followed the same path at the same time. Arguably decent early works, then devolved into top 40 pop music. Kevin Cronin, Dennis DeYoung, Steve Perry. You all suck.
Golden Country, Good. Keep the Fire Burning, Bad.
Slide is humbling, the technique is so easy, but the feel and touch required and getting all those obnoxious sounding notes to flow well and not to sound so obnoxious takes practice. It still humbles me and leaves me frustrated after 30 years.
Music is so fk'd up in that manner. You can spend months or even years on a technique and then once you conquer it, the satisfaction only lasts a few minutes and the bar of achievement is raised again and it's on the the next frustrating thing. It doesn't matter what level one is, this is a constant. Always striving to be better.
Find good youtube vids on it, if you're anything like me seeing the grips and such, help dramatically. Other than that practice, practice, practice. 10,000 hours for mastery, the more you do it the closer you get.
Only thing I can say to help is to really pay attention to your gliss. Play it very slow at first and get the gliss down pat - make sure it flows evenly then speed it up. And, always record yourself and listen, it helps.
Just in case not knowing where you're at (you probably already know this) and hoping I don't offend: you are using a backing finger to quiet the slide, right? I use two most often.
This picture is the correct technique, notice the forefinger resting on the strings behind the slide. It makes the notes much smoother..... cuts the noise.
Also, I've found using the slide on the pinky on Open G and A, and using the ring on Open D and E make things easier. This guy is using it on his middle and that only gets in the way.
Last edited:
I'm hit and miss, on the backing finger to quiet the strings. Some days better than others. My fundamental problem is rhythm. I'm working on getting my thumb to keep the beat, but after awhile I just sound like I'm playing the same effin thing I've always played.
I watch youtube video's constantly trying to emulate. Practice, practice, practice. I know.
Quick question. Bob Dylans blood on the tracks... Open E? Specifically 'Buckets of rain' You're a big girl now,' 'Simple twist of fate'. Is it true you can tune to open A, then just capo at the second fret to make it Open E. Or do I have that backwards, or just wrong altogether.
I watch youtube video's constantly trying to emulate. Practice, practice, practice. I know.
Quick question. Bob Dylans blood on the tracks... Open E? Specifically 'Buckets of rain' You're a big girl now,' 'Simple twist of fate'. Is it true you can tune to open A, then just capo at the second fret to make it Open E. Or do I have that backwards, or just wrong altogether.
Yea that thumb needs to become habit and without thought. But you know what - even Claption misses his bass notes at times. So, as long as it still sounds good.. vbg
As far as Dylan yea that whole album was originally done in open E. and then he went back and redid one side in standard.
And, no, tune to Open D then capo 2nd is Open E. Just as Open G capo 2nd is Open A.
The reason to tune to D and G and use a capo is high string tension can ruin your neck or bridge. If you have a guitar only rated for lighter gauges, ie the cheaper guitars including cheaper Martin's and Gibson's etc it's especially a good idea to tune to D and G ... and use a capo.
fwiw - I use an old guitar with really bad (high) action for my slide playing. Most of my guitars have really slick action and are set up like an electric, but the slide needs higher action. More power less accidental noise.
Also, as far as fret board visualization (which is needed to play, jam or make up your own stuff) you really have to know where your roots, 3rds, 4ths, 5ths, 7ths and tonics are in each tuning. Even if you don't know them by name but sound only. And. to play blues always flatten (and even sharpen) your 3rd, 4ths, 5ths and 7ths with the slide. ie blues tones. Micro-tonal flattening. Those notes should not always be in perfect key but just out.
Last edited:
Holy shit... I've been looking for this info for months.
Ive tuned an old epiphone to open G. The action on it is terrible, so I naturally thought, make it my slide guitar. Instantly that guitar had a whole new purpose for me.
Also, as far as fret board visualization (which is needed to play, jam or make up your own stuff) you really have to know where your roots, 3rds, 4ths, 5ths, 7ths and tonics are in each tuning.
^^^^^^^^^^^Where can I learn this? ^^^^^^^^^
Thank you Mr. C.
Well, first, theory on chord structure. Learning your basic scale and chord structures and then chord charts in open tunings. Boring stuff.
Which isn't as bad as it sounds considering songs played in open tuning is played in the key it's tuned to. So visualizing an open tuned fretboard is far easier than visualizing one in a standard tuning, 7 times easier.
Or, eventually, it just happens through experience (playing other's songs) and you can just hear it while playing or noodling.
Have you ever done tests like this or similar ear training? It's intimidating at first, but becomes far easier as you practice. After a few tries you begin to hear the differences I have no words to explain what happens.. but it's like seeing in color for the first time.
http://tonedear.com/ear-training/intervals
Start with 3rd, 5ths and tonics but eventually add 4ths and 7ths.
.
You mean the Minor Pentatonic Scale and the Blues Scale and stuff like that. Ugh ... yes, boring indeed. I practice them, then get bored, go away from them for months, then think, you need to learn this shit dude. Then start practicing again....
Yup, then after you have the notes that make up certain scales and chords you will need to be able to memorize them on the fretboard. If you been playing others songs, you already know some of them, kind of. Just need to expand that knowledge.
Also, do the ear training, it's probably the most beneficial thing you can learn.
Go through it a few times and listen to the intervals first to get a feel for them. Pick a key and then listen to the how the 3rd sounds, and how the 5th sounds, etc. there's no words that can help here, it's just a matter of ear training. You'll eventually start hearing the difference. Like I said start with 3rd, 5th, tonic first .. get those down and then expand.
Study theory, it sucks but it does help. Some people think it's a waste but those people struggle with simple musical concepts their whole lives and struggle to find correct notes by feel instead of knowledge.
Oh yea, start with a one octave range. You'll not tend to jump octaves much in blues or modern music. Then expand as you get better. Doing multi octave intervals is a bitch. It takes time.
Journey had a concert dynamic the others in this thread don't, an incredible lead voice.
Steve Perry could flat out wow you with his voice.
Justin Hayward of The Moody Blues was another with a great voice.
Last edited:
Some have a real passion for music and can break it down at the smallest details. That takes a level of training I was never interested in. I find this thread informative and can appreciate it the hours it rakes to play well and be able to recognize those that are good at what they do.
My mom had a beautiful voice (instrument) and played many instruments. She was learning to play the dulcimer when she had her stroke. This thread made me think about her and how she must miss her music. Something that she spent a lot of time with every week has been taken away. Her voice is gone and she doesn't have the lung capacity to play her saxophone, but I am going to see if there is a place she can play her dulcimer or a piano in her facility.
Radiohead probably doesn't get mentioned by old dudes who love their 60's and 70's musical parents, but as far as musical influence, technical/recording changes, hell business model changes...pretty much everything that we recognize for those main four... Radiohead has done in the past 20 years.
They are basically a love child of Zeppelin and Pink Floyd.
They've been critically acclaimed for their musical arraignments, their lyrics and themes (Spin magazine calls their 1997 OK Computer one of the most prophetic concepts ever...predicting the exponential increase in access having an exponential feeling of loneliness and detachment), their videos, being on the forefront of the massive technological change that we've seen over the past 20 years, for being at the forefront of the modern music distribution network (they released their 2008 album In Rainbows as a pay what you want and ended up making more by going around the standard distribution chains. Madonna, Trent Reznor and Prince soon followed and it scared the hell out of the music labels).
Anyway, I digress, but when the final scorecard is tallied I believe Radiohead will be up there as one of the most influential and important British bands in history.
They are an absolute shoo in as a first term hall of fame inductee this year. Not that it means much but they are a band that both snobs and casual fans recognize.
So I'd go....
Beatles
Zepp
Radiohead
Floyd
Stones
Beatles just because they were the first and best real popular rock band that wrote and played their own stuff. Amazing, amazing songwriting churned out in what...8 years?
They are basically a love child of Zeppelin and Pink Floyd.
They've been critically acclaimed for their musical arraignments, their lyrics and themes (Spin magazine calls their 1997 OK Computer one of the most prophetic concepts ever...predicting the exponential increase in access having an exponential feeling of loneliness and detachment), their videos, being on the forefront of the massive technological change that we've seen over the past 20 years, for being at the forefront of the modern music distribution network (they released their 2008 album In Rainbows as a pay what you want and ended up making more by going around the standard distribution chains. Madonna, Trent Reznor and Prince soon followed and it scared the hell out of the music labels).
Anyway, I digress, but when the final scorecard is tallied I believe Radiohead will be up there as one of the most influential and important British bands in history.
They are an absolute shoo in as a first term hall of fame inductee this year. Not that it means much but they are a band that both snobs and casual fans recognize.
So I'd go....
Beatles
Zepp
Radiohead
Floyd
Stones
Beatles just because they were the first and best real popular rock band that wrote and played their own stuff. Amazing, amazing songwriting churned out in what...8 years?
Good list. But, I argue that longevity absolutely has to go to the Stones. Even against Jazz and Blues legends they stack up at the top. Nearly unbeatable longevity.
But despite longevity, the category (not on your list) of "timeless music" belongs to the Beatles.
I'm not one to pick fights, but you remind me of a question:
Who played the jazz instructor in "Whiplash"?
(try not to get too worked up by that)
Kids still buy Pink Floyd CD's. It's the one band from that era that 20 somethings still listen to. I guess I meant a different kind of longevity.
Mr Charlie pretty much covered all the bases here with his post, including the fact that The Who just doesn't seem to deserve to be in the top 5 discussion. I'd rather put Cream in the top 5 if I had to pick an English band discussion, and I'm not even really a fan of Clapton or their music. Or Black Sabbath. The trail they blazed for heavy metal was immense. I really like the Radiohead suggestion, and they're definitely in my top 5 overall, but they don't seem to fit the classic rock genre.....yet. Even being over 20 years old, they're one of the hippest bands around still.
My preferred top 5:
1 and 2 (tie) Pink Floyd/Led Zep
The rest:
3. The Beatles
4. The Stones
5. Black Sabbath
My preferred top 5:
1 and 2 (tie) Pink Floyd/Led Zep
The rest:
3. The Beatles
4. The Stones
5. Black Sabbath[/QUOTE]
Also, The Doors. I know how that will go down with some around here, but they also should be in this convo before The Who.
1 and 2 (tie) Pink Floyd/Led Zep
The rest:
3. The Beatles
4. The Stones
5. Black Sabbath[/QUOTE]
Also, The Doors. I know how that will go down with some around here, but they also should be in this convo before The Who.
1) The Doors aren't British , and 2) They had a good 8 year run but aren't in the league of the top 5 Brit bands being discussed
Ha. I totally blew your first point. You are correct, they aren't British. But the Doors are most *certainly* in the league of those first five, no matter what your criteria is, unless it's "British".
1a. The Rolling Stones
1b. Led Zeppelin
2. The Beatles
3a. The Who
3b. Pink Floyd
I’m torn between LZ and the RS. On one hand, Led Zeppelin May just be the best R’n’R band ever. But, the Stones eclipsed them during the magical years of around 70-75. Their live shows are just ridiculous during that time, and LZ’s weren’t that far off either.
And exile of Main Street May just be the best album of all time. Pure debauchery going on during those sessions, and it generated a masterpiece.
That’s why I have them together at spot one.
The Beatles are the greatest pop band of all time.
The Who and Pink Floyd just aren’t on the level of the other three. Although, Dark Side of the Moon and Tommy are probably top 10-20 all time albums for me.
Thank god we don’t have to choose just one of the five. I enjoy all of them, depending on my mood. But, the RS and LZ are the two that I can pretty much listen to at any time.
The first four, obviously, is a matter of taste. Their accomplishments, and influence is extraordinary. It's why they're always on the list.
But, the Who, especially since time has passed just hasn't lasted the test of time. Too many weaknesses, not enough real strengths. Sure they're a great band but when compared to the first four, they fall short.
Also obvious, the Beatles (even though they did start as a boyband playing cheesy ass pop songs) are the most important.
As far as American bands, we all know the common list, but there's one thing to note, if you look through the collections of other musicians, they will own either Velvet Underground or Little Feat, (depending on type of music played) or both.
Neither band had great popularity but they sure in the hell had the respect and following of their peers and influenced them in the process.
How many times in your life have you had this argument (conversation) with your buds? lol... thousands..
The one on going argument we (my friends and I) have is about Neil Young. The singers and pianists hate him, while the rest of us can't comprehend how anyone could hate Neil Young.
Happy to see you mention VU and Little feat. VU is hugely influential, and little feat had one if the best Rhythm sections of all time. I can also listen to them (LF) at any time.
Have you heard the ‘74 ultrasonic studio set by little feat? Pure magic on that live studio set. You can find it on the archive’s live concert section. It’s a free download. Even my kids ( now 9 and 15) love it.
Of the two bands our point out (VU and Little Feat), I am in the VU camp, but not because I dislike Little Feat. In fact, I'm completely embarrassed to admit I know very little about that band, other than having played Dixie Chicken, or whatever the hell you call that song, a few hundred times. I like the tune a lot. I need to get on it, and the whole genre included.
I'm actually surprised, I figured you to be a Feat guy..
Little Feat, like most complicated music, is an acquired taste. Start with Waiting for Columbus and go from there. Country, Jazz, Blues all mixed together with extended jams. Wonderful ..
That's the thing I like about them the most, their jams, unlike many jam bands, are musically legible and "make sense".
Both bands grew in importance as time went on, and it wasn't driven by fan or media hype, but more the opinions of their peers.
I'm going to check out your suggestions there, right away. Though I think, when it comes to certain musical styles, I trend towards the simpler stuff now. I've put my time and effort into "smarter" music early on, like fusion and prog rock, and for the most part have moved on. My reverence for Tom Petty has increased tenfold, while my efforts at liking Chick Corea never paid off. Occsssionally I'll pop on some Holdsworth, expecting to laugh at it, and then I'll surprise myself by liking it again. But that's pretty rare.
My initial bird's eye view of Little Feat seems to indicate it is vibe music, and pocket music, both things I really really like. Is it Cajun music? I sure hope so. Funk meets jazz?
It's not as complicated technically as those mentioned, or "technically" is the wrong word. Feat has an exceptional musician at every position, professionals, but they're all slaves to the song and give each other room to be heard.
It's complicated technically but not hard to listen to. No one plays something because it's impressive, they only play what sounds good. and they seldom play weird shit.
They're an eclectic mix of country over a basic foundation of blues rock with elements of jazz and extended improv jams. And yea, vibe and pocket music..
Here's some country stuff .. vbg ... it'll grow on you. It's been covered by a lot of performers.
The vocal melody after the talky part is just pure country genius. Listen to the keyboardist, (something I never say - lol) I love his fills and breaks..
Cajun? No .. but they sure have that Neville Bros like New Orleans dixieland rhythm on a lot of songs.
Can’t
Won’t
Too many variables.
Depending on those variables, I’d give different answers
Anyone can like something, it doesn't mean it's well crafted. Talking about what we like is boring ..
And really, it's like hearing someone talk about which IU team was greatest when they don't even know what dribbling is. This subject most often is a case of Dunning Kruger on full display. Some of you guys just don't know enough to know you don't know enough.
You do have the first step down. Which is listening instead of watching.
Last edited:
I have little tolerance for someone who looks at something of beauty and tries to explain why it's beautiful, or worse, why it's not beautiful at all. It's not fun; it's not funny; it's a buzz kill. Someone who looks upon a beautiful woman but complains about her toe nail polish will rarely be a friend of mine.
God bless.
God bless.
Last edited:
Similar threads
