Diversity

Brian B · **Joined:** Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:34 am **Posts:** 97

Negative Creep wrote:

Brian, I agree with you but nobody else will.
You'll probably hear some bullshit about "source material" or something, that's what I got with Jeff Buckley.

It just comes down to different interpretations of how you define 'diversity'.

I suppose interpretation makes it more interesting though

Matt Gee · **Joined:** Mon Jun 20, 2011 6:36 am **Posts:** 208

dreamcoil wrote:

beatles, then zappa i guess

wtf are these other options? jeff buckley and queen diverse?

please make it stop

who remembers the list Alex gave us of the genres queen has covered. what an unbelievable dipshit.

batman · **Posted:** Wed Aug 31, 2011 10:06 pm

I have this memory of when I first started posting here many years back I tried to assert Jimi Hendrix's diversity and ended up making up this genre called "fast blues." I can't remember who but someone (rightfully) called me out on how bullshit that was. I was 15. Holy shit I've really been here a while.

Dreww · **Joined:** Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:11 pm **Posts:** 5822

I think we posted on the same guitar tab forum for awhile as well.

batman · **Posted:** Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:29 am

sho nuff!

corrections · **Joined:** Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:11 pm **Posts:** 14795

Negative Creep wrote:

Brian, I agree with you but nobody else will.
You'll probably hear some bullshit about "source material" or something, that's what I got with Jeff Buckley.

It just comes down to different interpretations of how you define 'diversity'.

Just because you don't understand the arguments advanced by others doesn't mean they are bs.

corrections · **Joined:** Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:11 pm **Posts:** 14795

Brian B wrote:

Georgi wrote:

Brian B wrote:

Zappa used diverse styles/techniques for his own interest, I suppose. The Beatles used diversity of sound and in the process completely changed their music and popular rock/pop music with it. Zappa never approached that. The Beatles were like the Beethoven's of late 20th century popular music - music never reverted to the simpler style that was popular before them. That's pretty amazing.

That's not really true though, is it. There are plenty of simple Beatles songs. And there are millions of simple pop songs after the Beatles finished.

I could have been more clear. Early beatles innovations, Rubber Soul innovations, Revolver innovations, Sgt. Pepper innovations, Abbey Road innovations, etc. opened more possibilities for everyone. The simple styles/techniques I refer to are the light poppy ones used predominantly before The Beatles started pushing boundries. They could get away with it because of their popularity, of course. I don't think it's about exclusively moving past older styles, etc., but instead refers to extending and adding to musical possibilities.

Are we discussing rock music only? Because much of the jazz and pop that was popular before the 50s was more complex than much of what the Beatles were doing.

Finlandia · **Posted:** Fri Oct 07, 2011 3:10 pm

I want to say something in this thread but it's probably not a good idea. So I won't.

p. mutant · **Joined:** Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:08 am **Posts:** 155

Frank Zappa, but he still sucks.

thejew · **Posted:** Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:34 am

p. mutant wrote:

Frank Zappa, but he still sucks.

Pretty much this.

boo boo · **Joined:** Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:36 pm **Posts:** 10835

I don't see how Buckley comes close to approaching the others in diversity.

Also some people here especially people like George who do nothing but listen to the most boring guitar music all day seem to think diversity simply means being able to mimic as many other styles as possible. Diversity doesn't only cover styles but mood and structure as well.

To me real diversity is being able to take a huge range of influences and shape it all into your own style. Of all of these I'd say Queen did it the best. They did whatever they felt like doing, and they always did it their way.

I prefer The Beatles and Zappa as overall artists, and while they didn't have as cohesive of a sound as Queen they still gave their own unique spin on many different genres.

Simply imitating something down to every technical detail doesn't appeal to me. That's why virtuoso guitarists bore me so fucking much.

Having some limitations means you have no choice but to do things your own way because you can't quite do it the way everyone else does it. That's not to say very skilled musicians can't be unique (see: PROG) but many of the most unique artists I can think of are not very advanced in the technical skill department.

Still there's definitely such a thing as too many limitations, if you have too many limitations you will just be another punk or indie band.

George · **Joined:** Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:43 am **Posts:** 4166

you still haven't tired of putting words in my mouth, have you...

boo boo · **Joined:** Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:36 pm **Posts:** 10835

What? You only like boring old fogey music. I'm pretty sure that's not just my imagination.

George · **Joined:** Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:43 am **Posts:** 4166

not that. i meant that if you saw my post on the first page, i also commented on the many different ways "diversity" can be approached, not just in terms of genres. (-:

Forgotten Son · **Posted:** Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:28 pm

boo boo wrote:

Simply imitating something down to every technical detail doesn't appeal to me. That's why virtuoso guitarists bore me so fucking much.

I don't understand. Can you give some examples of virtuosos who are guilty of this? All the virtuosos I can think of who play numerous genres still have a discernible sound, be it a broad or specific to that genre.

Diversity

Who is online