Castlevania II: Simon's Quest - Bloody Tears ~Metal Remix~

[Tensei]

Lots of Words

Very well, I might have misunderstood your assumptions on improvisation, but at least we agree on that. If you find out a melodic phrase during your soloing that works exceptionally well over that given point of the song, what's wrong with remembering that and applying it in similar situations? In an ideal world you'd be making up the solo as you play, but it just doesn't work that way for 99% of the people, you have to know at least a FEW stock licks to get by, even your favoured Yngwie does this.

On that topic, if you want to know what I consider the greatest shredder, look up Marty Friedman, especially during his Megadeth years. The man uses NO STOCK LICKS EVER (might be an exaggeration but meh). Yet he goes through the most obscure scales in existence during his solo's, except he doesn't know it, because he knows shit about theory. Yes, all that soloing is based on his own sense of hearing and musicality. THAT'S what I call a real musician.

I might have confused you with my notions on melody, but I tend to refer to melody purely as the sequence of notes that is used, without the rhythmic context, you obviously refer to it as 'the whole package' so that's probably where the confusion stemmed from. =P

As I said, YOU might think Clapton is an overrated amateur, but point is, his solo's MUST have some appeal, despite being mostly pentatonic, because why else would there have been the whole 'Clapton is God' thing etc. Heck, every single one of my guitar teachers went on and on about Clapton. This is exactly why I think that it's more important to know WHEN to play a note, rather than WHICH note to play (of course this has a role too, but it's less important IMO).

And ok, I digress, most criticism I have of Yngwie's persona is from circumstantial sources (Interviews, the UNLEASH THE FJURY video), but I remember reading somewhere that after Concerto for Electric guitar or whatever that was called, he considered himself to be a reincarnation of Paganini or some shit. Of course I'm biased by these things, but I've NEVER had anyone prove me he WASN'T some stuck-up prick. Especially if you compare him to a guy like Paul Gilbert, who could probably outshred him in his sleep.

About my remix, it's not a really smashing example of my vibrato, but I do tend to experiment with different variations in speed and wideness a lot depending on the song. If I'm just jamming I generally do exaggerate it just for the heck of it. =P

[xRisingForce]

Very well, I might have misunderstood your assumptions on improvisation, but at least we agree on that. If you find out a melodic phrase during your soloing that works exceptionally well over that given point of the song, what's wrong with remembering that and applying it in similar situations? In an ideal world you'd be making up the solo as you play, but it just doesn't work that way for 99% of the people, you have to know at least a FEW stock licks to get by, even your favoured Yngwie does this.

On that topic, if you want to know what I consider the greatest shredder, look up Marty Friedman, especially during his Megadeth years. The man uses NO STOCK LICKS EVER (might be an exaggeration but meh). Yet he goes through the most obscure scales in existence during his solo's, except he doesn't know it, because he knows shit about theory. Yes, all that soloing is based on his own sense of hearing and musicality. THAT'S what I call a real musician.

I might have confused you with my notions on melody, but I tend to refer to melody purely as the sequence of notes that is used, without the rhythmic context, you obviously refer to it as 'the whole package' so that's probably where the confusion stemmed from. =P

As I said, YOU might think Clapton is an overrated amateur, but point is, his solo's MUST have some appeal, despite being mostly pentatonic, because why else would there have been the whole 'Clapton is God' thing etc. Heck, every single one of my guitar teachers went on and on about Clapton. This is exactly why I think that it's more important to know WHEN to play a note, rather than WHICH note to play (of course this has a role too, but it's less important IMO).

And ok, I digress, most criticism I have of Yngwie's persona is from circumstantial sources (Interviews, the UNLEASH THE FJURY video), but I remember reading somewhere that after Concerto for Electric guitar or whatever that was called, he considered himself to be a reincarnation of Paganini or some shit. Of course I'm biased by these things, but I've NEVER had anyone prove me he WASN'T some stuck-up prick. Especially if you compare him to a guy like Paul Gilbert, who could probably outshred him in his sleep.

About my remix, it's not a really smashing example of my vibrato, but I do tend to experiment with different variations in speed and wideness a lot depending on the song. If I'm just jamming I generally do exaggerate it just for the heck of it. =P

What's wrong with it? Absolutely nothing. If I come up with a sweet lick, of course I'm gonna keep it. But an important aspect of true musicianship is perpetually improving that number of licks. And I don't know if I'd call an ideal improvised solo 100% made up; as long as you're the one who made up all those licks. What's most important to me is whether it sounds good or not. As for Friedman, I agree for the most part. He is an insane musician, and it's kinda funny to see how he can't explain himself during his instructional videos. But to like someone because they go through obscure scales.. I don't know if that's the mark of a great musician or not. I mean it's cool how he plays and approaches improvisation, but his general sound just doesn't appeal to me.

Crank up your speakers, or use headphones, preferably. Here's one of my best improvisations: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpoHjj0-aTw&mode=related&search=

It's not nearly as clean as I play now, but it's still bearable, and I'm really digging the "melody". I had a "Friedman" type thing going on, I had no idea what scale I played from 1:15 - 1:17, but it sounded badass.

Regarding melody, I use the textbook definition man, the globally recognized definition. Melody is defined as "A rhythmical succession of single tones producing a distinct musical phrase or idea."

As for your whole Clapton is God argument.. I think that's been your worst argument so far. I hope you're not forgetting that we live in a day and age where Billy Joe Armstrong and the fruitloop from Blink 182 are widely considered "gods" by today's teens. Though, I don't think that amounts to shit. You're also forgetting that the only place Malmsteen is widely considered a "god" is in Japan, and some sections of Europe. Even if you don't like him that much, I think we can come to some sort of basic consensus of his amazing playing ability. And as for why you consider rhythm important, are you saying that it's a result of your teachers' influence? Who cares who they like? Why don't you form your own opinions? And, if we were to go to extremes, you said you liked the counterpoint of Stairway to Heaven's solo, so what if we changed EVERY note in that solo to an A? It'd sound like shit! And for rhythms, what if we condensed a song's melody to strictly eighth notes? Then you'd get Moonlight Sonata, which is infinitely better than a Stairway to Heaven solo with a one note restriction.

Man.. you read "somewhere"? Was it even a credible source bro? Christ, you have to realize that the majority of bullshit floating around on the internet is total crap, it's almost as if you want to believe Yngwie is a prick. When you have bullshit interviews like, "Mr. Malmsteen, why can't you play with feeling?" of fuckin' course you're gonna say, "What the fuck?" And such a statement can easily be skewed to fit a personal bias, especially when that interviewer is probably jealous as shit. Read the Guitar World interviews by Joe Lalaina man, or some interviews on his website. Yngwie apologized for being a dick in his earlier days for stints like "Unleash the fury." Let bygones be bygones man, it's elementary as shit to dredge up the past. Let's also not forget that Paul Gilbert cites Yngwie as a primary influence.

[danimal cannon]

Every post in this thread is taking life too seriously. Relax.

The argument that not knowing theory well and practicing to a metronome is bad is a very terrible way at looking at things. BTW in that guitarist debate you guys are having, Marty Friedman is the winner.

Relax.

[Synth]

You sir fail. Theres a reason why Malmsteen isn't as popular as other "guitar gods". Sure he has feeling and emotion in his music. But when the majority of people are saying "his songs sound alike", "all he does is shred", or "he uses the same scale to much" are all of those people wrong when only a few people say otherwise?

And of course, music is completely based on opinions and likes. But theres a reason why people like Petrucci, Vai, Gilbert etc. other than Malmsteen. Why do you think that is?

The way I see it is theres always 2 parts to music. Your skill as a musician,(your appeal to people, your ability to be different, your knowledge in music theory, etc.)and your skill at what ever musical tools you use.

Malmsteen is an excellent guitar player, no doubt. But his musicianship is not so good. I don't see how you can disagree when in his own videos he explains his favorite scale runs that he even says he uses quite often. And obviously he uses the same scale often which(if you know anything about music)also means he is using the same chords. He may be arranging the progressions differently, but its still the same chords which make his songs sound the same. His shred style was innovated, but the same thing over and over and over for 20 years shows his inability to come up with something new.

But if you listen to Dream Theaters cds its obvious that he is constantly trying new rhythm and solo ideas.

I'm not trying to turn this into a Petrucci vs Malmsteen fight, so I will also say that there are plenty of other plays who are always trying to be different and innovated while still keeping their style intact.

Lastly, when pretty much everyone in this thread disagrees with you, what makes you think your individual thinking is right over all of these other peoples?

Edit: And as for you playing, it is sloppy, and it's nothing that hasn't been done before. You pretty much sound like a Malmsteen copy, which I'm pretty sure is what your after.

[SnappleMan]

You sir fail. Theres a reason why Malmsteen isn't as popular as other "guitar gods". Sure he has feeling and emotion in his music. But when the majority of people are saying "his songs sound alike", "all he does is shred", or "he uses the same scale to much" are all of those people wrong when only a few people say otherwise?

And of course, music is completely based on opinions and likes. But theres a reason why people like Petrucci, Vai, Gilbert etc. other than Malmsteen. Why do you think that is?

The way I see it is theres always 2 parts to music. Your skill as a musician,(your appeal to people, your ability to be different, your knowledge in music theory, etc.)and your skill at what ever musical tools you use.

Malmsteen is an excellent guitar player, no doubt. But his musicianship is not so good. I don't see how you can disagree when in his own videos he explains his favorite scale runs that he even says he uses quite often. And obviously he uses the same scale often which(if you know anything about music)also means he is using the same chords. He may be arranging the progressions differently, but its still the same chords which make his songs sound the same. His shred style was innovated, but the same thing over and over and over for 20 years shows his inability to come up with something new.

But if you listen to Dream Theaters cds its obvious that he is constantly trying new rhythm and solo ideas.

I'm not trying to turn this into a Petrucci vs Malmsteen fight, so I will also say that there are plenty of other plays who are always trying to be different and innovated while still keeping their style intact.

Lastly, when pretty much everyone in this thread disagrees with you, what makes you think your individual thinking is right over all of these other peoples?

Edit: And as for you playing, it is sloppy, and it's nothing that hasn't been done before. You pretty much sound like a Malmsteen copy, which I'm pretty sure is what your after.

..you're...

[Chickenwarlord]

Introduction this book is panel written to assist men with establishing their positions

their families and their everyday lives. O'reilly's pocket references put the information you need close at evisceration where you need www.texasholdem.com most.

I believe this is the most fascinating post of the thread.

[xRisingForce]

But when the majority of people are saying "his songs sound alike", "all he does is shred", or "he uses the same scale to much" are all of those people wrong when only a few people say otherwise? Etc. etc. etc.

This is a terrible terrible terrible terrible terrible terrible terrible terrible terrible reason. I shouldn't have to remind you of the notorious logical fallacies of man vs. Columbus, Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, etc.

Sure, originality is important, since it's how we distinguish artist from artist. But I don't think anyone, aside from the "clones", can truly be fully unoriginal. Originality is defined by uniqueness, and if you're not Malmsteen, needless to say I don't think you can be Malmsteen. Even in the clones' music there is a shred, albeit a shred, of originality. True originality is something I've observed and believe to be innate; it can't be learned. I think most of originality is having great musical sense and taste anyway, but then again you can't learn to like something you're adamantly opposed to. You don't have to be originally revolutionary to be a great artist- merely not impersonating another existing artist is originality by definition. Besides, history shows that original brilliance entails art few can appreciate, and I hardly think esotericism is a credible factor. Malmsteen isn't nearly as world renown as Picasso, so he's obviously not at the level where you can defend him with the one statement "Dude, he's Malmsteen!" applicable to Picasso and Hendrix and the like. Even so, plenty of non-guitarists and guitarists who can't play his music can appreciate Malmsteen, but I think due to the paleness of Malmsteen's popularity compared to Picasso, a non-guitarist who readily recognizes his music as genius is in a completely different vein from a non-art major who recognizes Picasso's genius. It's recognition by skill, not by fame. Surely I can't be the only non-art major that thinks Picasso's cubism is more a product of a disturbed mind than artistic genius. Ears for eyes? A mouth for a nose? Brilliance? Hardly. Who even knows how something as visually abrasive as cubism caught on in the first place? Then again, the Western race is one willing to spend enough to make Greenday multi-millionaires.

Too much of "guitar music" is forced originality, guitarists spending days on end trying to create some sort of musically nonsensical sound all for the sake of some abstract sense of originality. At this extreme's end you'll have Tom Morello, who'll never use the same pedal twice. I think we can all come to some sort of consensus regarding the.. "mechanicalness" of Rage Against the Machine. Just look at the guitar community man, when a friggin' clown like Joe Stump is the head professor of Berkeley's shred department I think that's a testament to the fact of how a failure can succeed in the music world as long as he attracts like-minded failures.

Before you delude yourself into thinking you know anything about my style, I suggest you go watch several other videos to clear up any misconceptions you may have about my list of influences. Malmsteen is, and will most likely remain, the only guitar driven artist I will ever listen to. This is a VIDEOGAME MUSIC thread for crying out loud, the mere fact that I am, or anyone else is aware of OCRemix and have cared enough to register and post on the forums speaks volumes about the level of respect I have for Videogame/Japanese music. "Open Your Mind", "Shine of Voice", "Clock Tower Stage", you're honestly telling me that I sound like Malmsteen in those videos? Are you stupid or just deaf? Yoko Ishida, Dream, Tetsuya Shibata- hell I'd leave this forum if you'd heard of ANY of them. But I'm solidly assured that you haven't.

There is a reason why Malmsteen is less popular than Petrucci, in the West. And, my friend, it's in fact the exact reason why Videogame music is less popular than Greenday, in the West.

Edit: This is a notification to inform you that you Sir, have been owned. Have a nice musically dry day.

[Tensei]

So, why Malmsteen?

Why not Paul Gilbert (who has a similar style, except he's technically way better IMO), Michael Angelo Batio (same as Paul here), Joe Satriani (Who can write fucking catchy songs without resorting to simple progressions and without vocals)?. Heck, why not Buckethead( Who is just..wow awesome)?.

I mean, there are lots of interesting guitar players out there, even with your notions on "The current state of the world of Shred Guitar". It just seems really narrow-minded to act like Yngwie is the only guitar-driven artist with natural and not 'forced' originality (which is a distinction I completely disagree with, but I'll go over that later). I'm not saying you said that, but it is implied by your "I don't listen to any other guitar players than Yngwie, because nowadays forced originality is prevalent among guitar-driven artists."-statement.

Now, about the crack at Tom Morello, I think it's impossible to make a distinction between what you call forced and innate originality. Sure, Tom Morello probably thought something along the lines of " I'm going to use all the different pedals to get an original sound", but isn't that exactly the same as Igor Stravinsky thinking " I'm going to use old Russian folk themes in my music to achieve get an original composition"? Or Bach thinking " I'm going to incorporate elements of cantata's in my stylistically different pieces to get an original composition?"

Is there actually any artist out there that comes close to fitting your definition of being naturally original? You can call Jimi Hendrix innovative, but you can also accuse him of 'forced originality' for fucking around with his whammy bar and using a lot of different pedals and sound-effects.

About your comparison with Picasso:

Half of appreciating art, is actually understanding art. Yes, Picasso was a genius IMO, and not because he is THE Picasso, but because of the whole idea behind cubism and the way he incorporated it in his oeuvre. Obviously you seem to miss the point if you think it's about replacing ears with eyes, or even about his 'technical skill'. Why something as 'visually abrasive as cubism caught on' is easy to answer: The philosophy behind cubism was attractive to spectators and other artists in that period. In fact, nearly every modern(and most older) form of art has some sort of philosophy or explanation behind it.

You can draw parallels between Schoenberg's music and Kandinsky's visual arts, simply because they're based on the same (expressionistic) idea, conveyed through different means, so if you always thought of art as something purely visual (which is implied by your stance on cubism), I'm happy to have opened your eyes.

Also, don't give Green Day that hard of a time, Dookie was pretty good and I still enjoy listening to it from time to time, you should use someone in your comparisons who never actually was good (Avril Lavigne comes to mind).

P.S.

Did you know that Picasso wasn't the first one to come up with Cubism by the way? So much for your 'product of a disturbed mind'-theory. =P

[xRisingForce]

So, why Malmsteen?

Why not Paul Gilbert (who has a similar style, except he's technically way better IMO), Michael Angelo Batio (same as Paul here), Joe Satriani (Who can write fucking catchy songs without resorting to simple progressions and without vocals)?. Heck, why not Buckethead( Who is just..wow awesome)?.

I mean, there are lots of interesting guitar players out there, even with your notions on "The current state of the world of Shred Guitar". It just seems really narrow-minded to act like Yngwie is the only guitar-driven artist with natural and not 'forced' originality (which is a distinction I completely disagree with, but I'll go over that later). I'm not saying you said that, but it is implied by your "I don't listen to any other guitar players than Yngwie, because nowadays forced originality is prevalent among guitar-driven artists."-statement.

Now, about the crack at Tom Morello, I think it's impossible to make a distinction between what you call forced and innate originality. Sure, Tom Morello probably thought something along the lines of " I'm going to use all the different pedals to get an original sound", but isn't that exactly the same as Igor Stravinsky thinking " I'm going to use old Russian folk themes in my music to achieve get an original composition"? Or Bach thinking " I'm going to incorporate elements of cantata's in my stylistically different pieces to get an original composition?"

Is there actually any artist out there that comes close to fitting your definition of being naturally original? You can call Jimi Hendrix innovative, but you can also accuse him of 'forced originality' for fucking around with his whammy bar and using a lot of different pedals and sound-effects.

About your comparison with Picasso:

Half of appreciating art, is actually understanding art. Yes, Picasso was a genius IMO, and not because he is THE Picasso, but because of the whole idea behind cubism and the way he incorporated it in his oeuvre. Obviously you seem to miss the point if you think it's about replacing ears with eyes, or even about his 'technical skill'. Why something as 'visually abrasive as cubism caught on' is easy to answer: The philosophy behind cubism was attractive to spectators and other artists in that period. In fact, nearly every modern(and most older) form of art has some sort of philosophy or explanation behind it.

You can draw parallels between Schoenberg's music and Kandinsky's visual arts, simply because they're based on the same (expressionistic) idea, conveyed through different means, so if you always thought of art as something purely visual (which is implied by your stance on cubism), I'm happy to have opened your eyes.

Also, don't give Green Day that hard of a time, Dookie was pretty good and I still enjoy listening to it from time to time, you should use someone in your comparisons who never actually was good (Avril Lavigne comes to mind).

P.S.

Did you know that Picasso wasn't the first one to come up with Cubism by the way? So much for your 'product of a disturbed mind'-theory. =P

Why don't you respond to my other post first? It's on this page.

As for those guitarists, Gilbert, Batio, and Buckethead- I have the highest degree of respect for Gilbert, I've seen his videos and the respect he has for the classical greats. He is a musician. But no way in hell are you gonna sit here and argue that Batio is a musician. BATIO wanks less than Malmsteen? And as for Buckethead, I don't want to outright deny any creativity and originality, I just don't like atonal melody. I find it.. unsettlingly unmelodical and auditorily repelling.

And as for "Why something as 'visually abrasive as cubism caught on' is easy to answer: The philosophy behind cubism was attractive to spectators and other artists in that period," Avril Lavigne is attractive to spectators and plenty of other self-dubbed artists in this period. =)

P.S.: Yep. Gauguin. Picasso was central to the cubism movement though, just how Paul wasn't the inventor of Christianity yet central to its movement. I didn't "miss" anything friend- the whole replacing idea was simply satire. God, I hope you knew that. And I never knew you liked Greenday. I hate eclecticism more than anything else. After your last mega two-post rebuttal, I'm through arguing with you.

[Tensei]

I hate eclecticism more than anything else.

God, you've come to the right site then, because everyone here is like totally cooped up in the niche of their favored musical genre and refuses to listen to anything else, so you should fit right in. Since you don't want to argue with me anymore I'm not going to respond to any of your other points, tempted as I might be. Good job missing most of my important points in that post though.

[Nekofrog]

Michael Romeo > Yngwie Wankfuck.

[The Legendary Zoltan]

Oh come on you guys. EVERYONE knows that Zoltan is the greatest guitarist EVER!

[SnappleMan]

haha, this Yngwie bullshit is STILL going on? I guess I'll start contributing to this idiocy...

His guitar playing doesn't suck. He's a good player, his problem is that he can't write good music.

Now if you wanna talk about a good player, Jason Becker is where it's at!

[Sixto]

What's a Jason Becker?

You want good guitar playing? It's right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNoZg9kl-zE

[zircon]

lmao, I love whoever does those.

[SnappleMan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEwIRZ9pLCM&mode=related&search=

[The Legendary Zoltan]

Rising Force, it kind of blows me away that the only guitarist you REALLY seem to dig on is Yngwie. If you like classical style shredding and good song writing check this out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFYhZ8vMpRU

This is Rhapsody of Fire. The guitarist/composer is called Luca Turilli. He doesn't ALWAYS use the same scales, he writes fully orchestrated freaking HUGE complex songs, and I swear the dude, just DOESN'T seem to make mistakes. He plays every insane sweep and tremolo picked solo note for note in his songs, just like the CD with 100% accuracy. Blows my mind.

Anyway, what do you think of that? He shreds a lot and it fits into the solo perfectly. I wish I had a video of his 3 or 4 minute insane solo from the last song on their fifth album. I think you would LOVE that.

[xRisingForce]

Rising Force, it kind of blows me away that the only guitarist you REALLY seem to dig on is Yngwie. If you like classical style shredding and good song writing check this out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFYhZ8vMpRU

This is Rhapsody of Fire. The guitarist/composer is called Luca Turilli. He doesn't ALWAYS use the same scales, he writes fully orchestrated freaking HUGE complex songs, and I swear the dude, just DOESN'T seem to make mistakes. He plays every insane sweep and tremolo picked solo note for note in his songs, just like the CD with 100% accuracy. Blows my mind.

Anyway, what do you think of that? He shreds a lot and it fits into the solo perfectly. I wish I had a video of his 3 or 4 minute insane solo from the last song on their fifth album. I think you would LOVE that.

Eh, he's alright. He doesn't write the fully orchestrated songs though, the keyboardist is the one that takes care of 100% of the orchestration. Orchestration is definitely this band's strong point, so their keyboardist would be their biggest asset, since he's the brains behind the songs in the first place. I really dig the orchestration though, Dark Tower of the Abyss is so kickass.

As for "exclusively" liking Malmsteen as the only guitarist I listen to, I think the true meaning of my words were lost somewhere along Tensai's incessant need to.. "educate" me. I never said that Malmsteen is the only guitarist that I dig, he's the only guitar driven artist that I listen to, two entirely different things. Examples of guitar driven artists would be Michael Angelo Batio, Paul Gilbert (I do have much respect for this man), Steve Vai (As do I for him too), Shawn Lane (What a champion this man was), Joe Satriani, Cacophany, Jason Becker- I think you get the point. If your conceived notion is that Malmsteen is the only guitarist who I think is good, I'd be in the United States and you somewhere in the deep Korean sea. I think Jimmy Page can write some mean shit, like "The Rain Song", which is easily a contender for my favorite Western ballad; I think Jimi Hendrix's compositional genius in the field of rock and roll is something yet to be matched by 99.9% of the guitarists that came after him; I can groove to Michael Romeo 25 hours a day, I actually saw Symphony X in concert and they blew my mind; both guitarists from DepaPepe have a ludicrous amount of compositional skill in regards to melody and counterpoint, as does Kotaro Oshio; I entirely dig the session (or not session) guitarist who did the solos to T.M. Revolution's "Heart of Sword"; the guitarist in Arturo Sandoval's jazz band is a monster blues player; I'm not afraid to admit that I loved and still love Kirk Hammett's solos in Metallica, and I think James Hetfield writes the most badass metal riffs ever. I could go on for a day but you'd probably get bored, and I think I've more than proved what this paragraph set out to anyway.

So no- if you're thinking that I worded it in an easily misconceivable way or anything of that nature, no, I didn't.

...my blog clearly states that Malmsteen remains the only guitar driven artist I'll listen to, and that I don't give two shits about shredding.

There it is, plain as day. =)

And no, Tensai-san, I'm not "cooped up" in the "niche" of my "favorite" musical genre- I don't have one as you can clearly see, my musical tastes are all over the place. I don't hate eclecticism, not at all. I guess it was my fault for not clarifying adequately. What I hate is mindless eclecticism, eclecticism for the sake of its own shit, just so you can say you listen to everything, and there are certainly those who'll try their hardest to force themselves into believing that they like something with a bona fide appreciation that they didn't initially have. I think it's so gay that people do that, if you don't like something at the least you'll have a better, more honest-to-yourself, and well thought out reason for not liking it than some pseudo-logic today's teens constantly conjure up to defend their "diverse" and "versatile" musical tastes. Not to be elitist here, but I think music is viewed much in the same way as the Wii's motto towards videogames: family fun to the point where your grandmother could beat Ken in a smash match! Eclecticism is an easy way to make yourself seem like your musical sense is more expansive than it really is; it's like the first step in a "Music Appreciation for Dummies", so to speak. If you don't have it, and I'm so sorry for being vague here, other's knowledge can only take you so far without an inherent ability to realize unteachable characteristics of your own ability. I strongly believe the same to be true of any art. C'mon, as much as we, much less I (being as he is my favorite character), want to see Rock Lee take down Sasuke.. it's never gonna happen. My preference in artists, from KOTOKO to Masato Kouda to Kansas to Motoi Sakuraba to Maynard Ferguson, is, I say with no arrogance, definitely diverse. I think we can all agree on that. I'm no Videogame music listener who listens to jazz just so I can say that I do, my taste is bound by one key element: melody. Shoot, I'd leave this forum if you'd merely heard of DepaPepe or Kotaro Oshio, or even Tetsuya Shibata. I just don't listen to bullshit wanking like half of "No Boundaries" (it has its amazing moments, but I guess he ran out of ideas or something because the transitions are just pages and pages of chromatic scales thrown into a blender) or Takayoshi's bullshit, or anything that doesn't place a heavy emphasis of importance on melody. Even if you completely despise the artist he's turned into, can we all civilly agree that "Far Beyond The Sun" is a masterpiece deserving of our respect as guitarists, no, musicians?

[Tensei]

I regret that you presume that I have any other criterium for music than " Do I like it?". And even if that was the case, Green Day is hardly anything to brag about, especially against who doesn't really like it, don't you think so? I don't have an eclectic taste because I want to, it's just that way.

I really can't help it that I want to listen Megadeth one moment, put on some Chopin Waltzes after that, and finish it off with a bit of St. Germaine. In no way do I claim that I know a lot about Romantic Piano or Acid Jazz, but I just like the musical pieces I have heard from those genres, and if someone suggests to me " Hey, you like Chopin? Well you should check out that and that guy, since he makes some pretty cool Romantic Piano music too" I will definitely do so, NOT because I will be able to brag about how I am eclectic and educated and stuff to others, but because I presume I will genuinely like the music.

Blame OCR for my eclecticism and my realising that no matter what the genre, there will always be at least one good artist/song in that genre.

I don't remember me saying anywhere that you thought YJM was the only GOOD guitar-driven artist, I was just puzzled by the fact that you said pretty much refused to listen to similar artists, because face it, YJM's style isn't all that unique or anything.

And no, I'm afraid I can not agree that Far Beyond the Sun is a masterpiece. Technically impressive, yes. Compositional masterpiece? Not rly.

[xRisingForce]

???

Tell me, do you have a habit of developing temporary leprosy in your eyes before you respond to my posts, or do you just skip over them entirely before you proceed to spew nonsensical bullshit that I've more than likely refuted several times?

[Sixto]

I like Green Day.

[Tensei]

Exactly, I bet Billy Joe Armstrong is a better downpicker than YJM