Tako wrote:
>I think you're confusing an ability to show off with actual technical
ability. To bring up Andy Summers (Police) again...snip... Summers can do
everything Malmsteen can and more, but feels no need to overshadow his
bandmates (who are also outstanding musicians, by the way). He chooses
instead to serve the music in an incredibly innovative, subtle, and
skilled way.
The fact that YOU don't feel anything special about Malmsteen, doesn't mean
OTHERS won't. And the fact that YOU feel Clapton or Summers are special,
doesn't mean OTHERS will. That's personal preference only. Most guitarists I
know ( it's true, differently from the US, Iron Maiden and Helloween are
still very popular in Brazil, and therefore our guitarists will probably
have a different taste ) appreciate Malmsteen, and not Clapton. If you mean
they do that because they want to feel superior, they might say you prefer
Clapton for a sadistic need to feel inferior! Or I might say that you're
belittling technique to feel superior! That won't take us anywhere, and each
one is going to keep on listening to their preferences.
And you can't assume they don't FEEL anything when listening to Malmsteen,
because the fact that they appreciate technique gives them a different
perspective from yours, so they may FEEL much more than what you FEEL when
listening to Clapton, for instance. BTW, let's be realistic: after all,
feeling in music is something mechanical that musicans do with their fingers
or mouth ( simplifying for simplicity ), or we'll be resucitating vitalist
beliefs and applying them to
something as 'alive' as a CD!
>Even if he
couldn't, Clapton is an original and paved the way for rock guitarists.
Malmsteen probably wouldn't exist without Clapton
And we wouldn't have existed without reptiles, original species that could
move on dry lands. So let's worship Wally Gator!? That leads to Mike's post:
> the problem with recognizing technical superiority seperate from
taste
> in art forms that basically amount to glorified entertainment, is the 'so
> what' factor.
Technical superiority has to be recognized as separate from taste because of
two reasons:
- Taste changes according to time, place, social groups, individuals, MOOD
listen to the Carpenters when you're in love and then when your brain is
normal :-) ), etc. Technical superiority is objective, since all you have to
do is compare it to what was done before.
- Technical superiority means a cultural acquisition, means a development or
a new way to do things. And by 'cultural acquisition' I mean distancing of
humans from animals ( another anti-New Age heresy of mine ), I mean language
over grunting, I mean Order over chance. Of course, if you have assumptions
like those described in my post about the American left ( academic version
of New Ageism ), it makes no sense to you. Regarding the left, I prefer Marx
to the American left- is that just a matter of taste or technical
superiority? :-)
Bye,
Caio Rossi
|
