-
It seems to me that some people on the forum take YouTube videos too much to heart.
I believe that the creator of this video has the right observations.
I would also recommend, among others, the guitar- a popular instrument.
About 40 years ago a lot of people wanted to sound like Pat Metheny...why?
Chruses and delay effects were disappearing from stores.
-
10-29-2024 11:22 PM
-
Quite. What's more it's very obvious, if you want to see it.
Originally Posted by jameslovestal
-
Again. It’s really not obvious. Originally Posted by ragman1
One thing I find interesting about this very long thread is that I haven’t heard any particularly compelling examples of modern guitarists who all sound the same.Last edited by pamosmusic; 10-30-2024 at 08:10 AM.
-
I couldn't name them off-hand because I wasn't taking notes at the time. But over quite a considerable period, maybe a year or three, I was just aware, or eventually became aware, that it was all sounding similar. In fact, noticeably similar.
Then later someone here started a thread along those lines and I thought 'Well, they all went to Berklee!'. That was my jokey instant response to myself, no detail, etc, just light-hearted. But then it continued and I decided to look in YouTube and found the video I posted which I think is well-analysed and very accurate. After all, if a thing keeps recurring like that there's definitely something to it. I didn't wish it to be so, it just became apparent.
So, no, personally I can't give you a list but I'll keep my ears open as time goes on and see what there is. You never know.
Actually, it's probably not as bad or widespread as it sounds but focussing on it like this gives it emphasis. But I've no doubt there's a point to it.Last edited by ragman1; 10-31-2024 at 08:52 AM.
-
lol Originally Posted by ragman1
So modern guitarists sound the same, and the reasons are “very obvious” but no I can’t actually name any for you.
-
First of all...they...sound similar but very good.
The similarity in sound is not a minus.
Look at classical guitarists.They are usually very good guitarists and they sound very similar.
They just want to sound like that!
-
The absurdity of the video is that it goes much further than suggesting that all jazz guitarists sound the same, but in fact all jazz musicians! That's right, from vibraphonists to saxophonists, guitarists to flautists, drummers to pianists, they all sound the same.
-
I don’t know man. The guy in the second video does the whole “I won’t name any names” thing and I’m like …
Why not?
If some dude on YouTube thinks Lage Lund and Adam Rogers sound the same, I doubt they particular care. Maybe you could even transcribe them and learn why they sound the same to you, instead of generalizing it to everyone and then speculating.
What little I’ve transcribed of more recent guys would tell me that the things the guy mentions in that second video don’t have much to do with it and that one thing I’ve noticed is that there is a certain type of dissonance that’s more common now than in more beboppy vocabulary. More polytonal, maybe. And that if you look at the actual vocabulary, they wouldn’t look that alike at all, beyond what you’d expect from people coming up in the same decade or whatever. Maybe more scalar stuff.
But again … I’ve transcribed some Kreisberg and Rosenwinkel, but not much of anyone else, so that’s just my gut.
-
I mean … okay … but there is a clear implication to the assertion and anyone would know that it’s not a positive one. Originally Posted by kris
And back to Christians point about how everything sounds the same if you don’t have the ear to know the difference … classical guitarists can ABSOLUTELY tell the difference between other classical guitarists. John Williams does not sound like Manuel Barrueco.
-
He can predict what they're going to sound like before their YouTube video even starts! Originally Posted by James W
I watched the first 5 minutes of the video and skipped thru the rest. Between the title and the first 5 minutes I felt like I've heard this a million times before... "Music sucks now versus how it was so great in the olden days, blah blah blah." I'm just like, shut up, you just sound like an old fart. There will always be people making original music as long humans walk the earth.
-
Yeah, I too watched about the first five minutes of the video and I concur. Originally Posted by supersoul
-
So i decided to finally give this video a chance. Is it really 22 minutes of him talking? I skipped around and found no musical examples to support or refute the claim.
Fucking excruciating.
-
And how many guitarists are there who take Andres Segovia as their playing role model and want to sound like him? Originally Posted by pamosmusic
During the master workshops, techniques for extracting sound from the guitar are demonstrated.
There is also the interpretation of tunes, which is often combined with the sound of the instrument.
-
The guitar sounds like a guitar. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
I don’t know what point you’re trying to make here. And yeah lots of people emulated Segovia, but pretty immediately, other ways of interpreting music and playing started developing. Originally Posted by kris
-
Well there are different camps. Julian Lage plays in a lot of different styles, but much of the time he's in the Bill Frisell ambient camp. Occasionally Ben Monder goes that direction. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
As far as Kreisberg and Rosenwinkel...I've listened to Kreisberg a lot with Dr. Lonnie, but I'm just now getting into Rosenwinkel. I think this is a good example of people who stylistically come from the same place. I'm sure if you analyze it deeply you'll find distinct differences.
Look at these videos--soloing about 5-6" in on each one:
And they both come from the Metheny school of delay. (Kreisberg even playing a 175.) Again, an expert doing a deep listen could tell who's who, but a casual jazz guitar aficianado probably would flunk a blindfold test.
I guarantee you someone who does not listen to classical guitarists obsessively could not tell the difference. Focusing on the 1% of listeners of a genre who have incredible ears and a huge knowledge base misses the point that for 99% of the others it can be hard to distinguish a difference. Classical is a good example of a very narrow stylistic range. Jazz guitar is much broader with more potential for large differences. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
-
Right. I mean. You’re making my point here, right? That there are different camps at all means they don’t all sound the same. The idea that you’d put Ben Monder in that camp is kind of weird to me, and that you could even do that credibly (and it makes some sense) speaks to the diversity of sound. Julian absolutely comes from a very Frissell kind of place but they absolutely unequivocally do not sound the same. So that’s a great list. Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff
Right. So superficially they might sound the same, but on closer inspection they’re quite different.As far as Kreisberg and Rosenwinkel...I've listened to Kreisberg a lot with Dr. Lonnie, but I'm just now getting into Rosenwinkel. I think this is a good example of people who stylistically come from the same place. I'm sure if you analyze it deeply you'll find distinct differences.
Not picking up what you’re pointing down here. A few long scale runs but … Kreisberg sounds very different than Kurt in this clip. Honestly if you looked for something more up from Kreisberg you’d probably find one where they sound more alike.Look at these videos--soloing about 5-6" in on each one:
Not familiar with this school, but it sounds like we’re talking about tone? In which case Kreisberg was using an octave splitter or something in that video.And they both come from the Metheny school of delay.
Okay, so this is just kind of a silly framing of the conversation. First of all, lay listeners think Kenny G and Kenny Garrett sound the same, so I don’t think that’s the audience we’re talking about here. If you’re talking about sort of jazz dorks who love music but don’t transcribe then I’m just not sure you’re right about this.Again, an expert doing a deep listen could tell who's who, but a casual jazz guitar aficianado probably would flunk a blindfold test.
…
I guarantee you someone who does not listen to classical guitarists obsessively could not tell the difference. Focusing on the 1% of listeners of a genre who have incredible ears and a huge knowledge base misses the point that for 99% of the others it can be hard to distinguish a difference. Classical is a good example of a very narrow stylistic range. Jazz guitar is much broader with more potential for large differences.
I know for a fact you’re not right about classical guitar. Enthusiastic listeners absolutely can tell the difference and have collections of different interpretations by different people etc etc. I know those people. Again, if you’re just referring to people who put on “coffee house classical” or “classical guitar for a rainy day” then I think what you’re saying is true, but I’m not sure why anyone should expect those people to be able to tell the difference between Julian Bream and Ana Vidovic.
A useful analogy might be when I go to modern art museums with my dad. He is not a painter. Like … not at all. Doesn’t own paint. Has never taken a class. Is just super into it. I’ll stand in front of a Rothko or something and I just don’t get why what he’s doing is that different than what Jackson Pollock or whoever was doing.
My dad: they’re very different. You’re an idiot.
me: correct.
Because I don’t know enough to tell the difference.
All bluegrass sounds the same to an interloper too.
If we’re saying that modern jazz sounds the same to lay listeners, then this is just not an interesting argument to make, and it also doesn’t identify anything about modern jazz that is different than jazz in the 1960s. My grandad did not like jazz and thought it all sounded the same. He was hearing Herbie Hancock and Dave Brubeck.
If we’re saying that modern jazz sounds the same to enthusiastic listeners, then it’s just not true. Pretty obviously it’s not true.
And for whatever it’s worth, the dudes who made both of these videos are putting on the clothing of expertise here, so I think they’re trying to say something insightful about the music. But what they’re saying is, at best, not insightful, and at worst bullsh**
-
I don't listen obsessively to classical guitar even though I play it - and nor do I have incredible ears, but I am sure I could tell the difference between players - of course, being able to distinguish does not necessarily mean I would be able to tell you who is actually playing but I could definitely say that there was a difference, and I think the percentage who could tell the difference would be definitely bigger than one. Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff
And I would dispute what you say about classical guitar having a narrower stylistic range than jazz. I don't think that's the case - just listen to Elliott Carter's Changes or Brian Ferneyhough's Kurze Shatten and compare them to something by Carcassi or Giuliani (to say nothing of earlier composers, mostly not written for classical guitar but considered part of its repertoire).
-
Sometimes it's good for me to try and find the positive in things that bother me, and so I tried for this.
Perhaps I am not the audience he is trying to reach; maybe he's talking to the musicians who make the YouTube video demos that all sound the same to him. He's telling them to have something distinctive to offer, not just to be technically proficient. Something along the lines of, "Don't try to be Allan Holdsworth, be yourself, whatever that is."
-
I haven't watched the video or read all the comments. But sounding unique imho is actually very hard to do.
-
yes....
-
I suspect that just about everybody on this forum can recall a time in their youth when an elder said of the popular music of the period that it all sounds the same. I'm old enough and with broad enough interests to remember such comments being made about doo-wop, early rock, "trad" jazz, bluegrass, various flavors of metal, rap, and current heavily-processed/Autotuned pop. (Also, in cross-cultural conversations, about baroque and early and 20th-century classical.) And I suspect that for most us the reaction was "Naw--listen to this and then this. . . ." Because we were paying attention to various details that less invested listeners weren't all that interested in.
My understanding of what goes on with audience reception (which is the label I'd put on this conversation*) runs along the lines of Christian's and Cunamara's posts. Not to get deep into the rough-and-ready, not-terribly-technical aesthetic language I developed in years of teaching literature and reviewing books, but among the useful notions are center and periphery, imitation and innovation, fashion and tradition, comfort and surprise, technical extension and experimentation, and the evergreen "the same only different." (And that last one should probably be first.)
* Because "sounds alike" is a report from the listener, not the artist or some non-human comparative/analytical device.
-
But sounding like one of my heroes is also very hard to do. Originally Posted by Joseph2
As a general rule of thumb I think this statement is true: the closer you listen to something or someone and the more knowledgeable about a type of music you are, the more idiosyncrasies and details you'll notice and the more distinctions you'll be able to make.
-
I like Bruce Formans adage....
When you are younger than 40 you think 'I gotta sound like myself!'
You get beyond 40 and you say 'oh no, I sound like me!'
-
I don't disagree with anything you're saying, but I think you need to define the audience. Someone trained at Berklee who has studied modern players in detail would have little difference distinguishing between players, and the same with a conservatory-trained classical guitarist. But the larger community of guitarists--I mean, some of us don't even listen to modern players or only keep up with a couple. And same with classical. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
And then there's the larger community of jazz lovers or even casual listeners who couldn't distinguish Pat Martino from Pat Metheny. Just because there are differences doesn't mean most people are attuned to them.
I think this does apply to bluegrass and other genres. I can tell the difference between Billy Strings and Michael Daves and Molly Tuttle and Tony Rice and Doc Watson, but how many casual listeners who haven't listened to all their work could?
BTW I recently listened to the last Allmans album and spent a lot of effort trying to distinguish Derek Trucks from Warren Haynes on the solos and comping. And I've listened to all their albums and seen Derek 3 times. It isn't always as obvious as it seems.
Again I think it depends on the audience. I wasn't referring to the "classical" guitar repertoire, but rather to the playing style. Classical training seems to me to be very formulaic. Oh sure one can vary tempo and attack. But no one is holding their guitar down near their pelvis or playing with a pick or doing anything extremely unique technically. The great players work within this framework, but there's no denying it's a much narrower framework than jazz or rock guitar. Originally Posted by James W
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos