#1
Maybe im crazy but does anyone else find some shred guitar overrated. the other guitar player in my band (sounds like black sabbath and Aerosmith) is a disciple of shred guitar and tends to play like that when he solos. Im the complete opposite, i play bluesy licks over a pentatonic scale. shred can sound great in certain places but what about when it is in the wrong place. what im getting at here is does anyone think that shred has become a caricature of itself? simply a matter of brinkmanship on who can play the fastest while disregarding melody and music theory? i was just wondering.
#2
Quote by Dude!
Maybe im crazy but does anyone else find some shred guitar overrated. the other guitar player in my band (sounds like black sabbath and Aerosmith) is a disciple of shred guitar and tends to play like that when he solos. Im the complete opposite, i play bluesy licks over a pentatonic scale. shred can sound great in certain places but what about when it is in the wrong place. what im getting at here is does anyone think that shred has become a caricature of itself? simply a matter of brinkmanship on who can play the fastest while disregarding melody and music theory? i was just wondering.

Yngwie never did either. As well as Gilbert, Michael Romeo, Govan, Lane... I can keep going if you need me to.

I'm not a huge fan of just total shred, but it has it's places. No, you're not crazy (maybe). One of my favorite bands has a player that plays more slow passages while the other does a more shreddy type of soloing. A good combination of both goes a long way.
#4
John Petrucci knows more theory than the teachers at Berklee. He can also make your face melt.

EDIT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t25AOSxZZkI

...this one is a bit slow.
Quote by theogonia777
and then there's free jazz, which isn't even for musicians.

Quote by Born A Fool
As my old guitar teacher once said: Metal really comes from classical music. The only difference is pinch harmonics, double bass, and lyrics about killing goats.
Last edited by Dream Floyd at Jun 27, 2010,
#5
Some are good, Some are bad.

Good: Randy Rhoads, very melodic, amazing phrasing ability, my favorite guitar player and one of the innovators of neoclassical shred.

Bad: Rusty Cooley, amazing player, he has real technical skills, but sounds like crap to me.
#6
Quote by GibsonMan321
Bad: Rusty Cooley, amazing player, he has real technical skills, but sounds like crap to me.


True. It's too bad he developed Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), his solo stuff was getting pretty melodic.
Quote by theogonia777
and then there's free jazz, which isn't even for musicians.

Quote by Born A Fool
As my old guitar teacher once said: Metal really comes from classical music. The only difference is pinch harmonics, double bass, and lyrics about killing goats.
#7
shred is shred you know. a lot of what bach or vivaldi did was shred. those guys were shredders. the only difference is they shredded over insane chord progressions weaving multiple shred lines.

it has its place. i do think blues is way more overrated than shred. shred is better. but not best
#8
The problem which most shredders is they spend too much time with a metronome and not enough time practising making music with that tool.

take Yngwie Malmsten for example. When he plays fast it flows, it leads into something (like a climax). He's also spent time on his vibrato, which is the best thing about him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9IeRpjqRCs

then on the other hand you have idiots like this guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wps-C_BJ_HI&feature=related the slwo bits are pretty good, same goes for rusty cooley or MAB (the start of no boundaries is actually wuite melodic and nice) bit these guys just choose to play fast 90% of time, and it's a waste.
Last edited by griffRG7321 at Jun 27, 2010,
#9
Quote by Dude!
does anyone think that shred has become a caricature of itself? .


Absolutely. thats a great way to put it.

That said, I can find an occasional song that I actually like all the way through, and there is some incredible guitar work. But yeah IMO there is something that taints the genre as a whole. anyway, I've ranted about this before.

Quote by griffRG7321
The problem which most shredders is they spend too much time with a metronome and not enough time practising making music with that tool.

take Yngwie Malmsten for example. When he plays fast it flows, it leads into something (like a climax). He's also spent time on his vibrato, which is the best thing about him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9IeRpjqRCs

then on the other hand you have idiots like this guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wps-C_BJ_HI&feature=related the slwo bits are pretty good, same goes for rusty cooley or MAB (the start of no boundaries is actually wuite melodic and nice) bit these guys just choose to play fast 90% of time, and it's a waste.



^ good points, and I agree about the link and guys like Cooley.... .to me what they are doing is sport, rather than music. A perfect example of SGS in action.

Listen to a solo like the one from Message in a Dream by Vinnie Moore. great technique and some speed.... but he plays melodies.... phrases..... MUSIC. and with an awesome tone and feel.


Quote by LightPermeable
a lot of what bach or vivaldi did was shred. those guys were shredders.


I would disagree with that. IMO the mentality behind shred didn't even exist back then. Sure, you had people with technical ability, but the music was always..... musical.

this idea that all other aspects of music can be ignored so longs as a person plays really fast didn't exist until the 1980s. As much as I like Yngwie..... I do blame him for planting the seed. From what I remember that was the beginning of the shred mentality ( speed = the measure of all things )
shred is gaudy music
Last edited by GuitarMunky at Jun 27, 2010,
#10
From my standpoint as more of a "roots" player, I think a lot of "shred"-type players could have profitably listened to Mark Knopfler.
And similar artists.... Knopfler constructs solos like orchestral pieces, with a beginning, middle, and end with plenty of standard musical elements like melody, harmony, tension release...

Frank Zappa once deprecatingly referred to players putting as many "gnat-notes" as possible into a measure....
#11
I like guitar playing that's more mellow and gives you a good feeling when you're high as ****! Pink Floyd, Allman Brothers, old-school blues and smooth jazz are good examples of what I like to hear.
R E D W A T E R
D I S T I L L E R Y
#13
I wouldn't describe Rusty Cooley's material as pure wankage and shit, hes an accomplished musician and definitely one of the best in terms of technicality. His album with Outworld is pretty good. When shred is melodic and put in a good context like the albums of Holdsworth , Steve Vai and Govan it sounds awesome. Shred guitar isn't overrated the Jonas Bros are overrated
#15
Playing incredibly fast technical bits for the sole purpose of playing fast and technically is something I'm not huge on.

Playing incredibly fast technical bits with the feel/emotion of the song and the melodic, harmonic, rhythmic, and stylistic elements of the song in mind is absolutely stunning.

Same goes for slow playing and simple music. Making simple/slow music for the simple intent of slowness/simplicity isn't necessarily that great. If you can play slow/simply while expressing the emotional intensity and the aforementioned song elements, you have my praise as well.
Only play what you hear. If you don’t hear anything, don’t play anything.
-Chick Corea
Last edited by food1010 at Jun 27, 2010,
#17
Quote by Dream Floyd
True. It's too bad he developed Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), his solo stuff was getting pretty melodic.


Um, you're thinking of Jason Becker. Rusty Doesn't have ALS.
#18
It all has it's place. I do think that shred is generally better with heavier music however, and it doesn't have too much of a place outside metal.
And no, Guitar Hero will not help. Even on expert. Really.
Soundcloud
#19
Stop dealing in absolutes, there is no 'school of mindless shredding' or a 'school of slow soulful playing' in opposition.
Sure there are players who try to hit a thousand notes a second with no motive of melodic synergy but there are also players who jack up the effects and play it safe with the same bend and tonic.
Excellent players like the ones mentioned in this thread usually don't get caught up in the false dichotomy of 'technical' versus 'soulful' playing.

Esp John Petrucci, but I'm probably a bit biased lol
lol guitar
#20
im not to huge on shred like it took me for ever to like sweep picking it was the same sound over and over(and repetitions make me want to shoot myself)
i hardly everplay the same note multiple times just maybe during solos just for a little emotion like a bend up and back up and back and thats it 3 is enough lol ... for verses i noticed blues repeat notes like with pentatonic back and forth.. plus the blues scale have one flat in it that kinda makes me screech a lil those are my only 2 complaints about blues... with shred .. escape the fates newest cd has nice leads
#21
Quote by Serpentarius
Stop dealing in absolutes, there is no 'school of mindless shredding' or a 'school of slow soulful playing' in opposition.
Sure there are players who try to hit a thousand notes a second with no motive of melodic synergy but there are also players who jack up the effects and play it safe with the same bend and tonic.
Excellent players like the ones mentioned in this thread usually don't get caught up in the false dichotomy of 'technical' versus 'soulful' playing.

Esp John Petrucci, but I'm probably a bit biased lol

thank you for saying some ppl play it safe with repetitions.. they may change the phrase a little bit but still same notes..
#22
Some shred is shit, some is good.

/thread


Pretty much.

Regardless, I think people will always complain that someone plays too many notes (be it Bach, or Mozart or Holdsworth) - I prefer to listen to the players than the critics when it comes to how much soul or feel they play with. If Francesco Fareri tells me he's making the music he wants to make, I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt.