|
|
Post by swurveman on Aug 11, 2015 9:59:49 GMT -6
I'm wondering what you guys think of him as a guitar player.
He sounds like Dickey Betts to me- but less focused- which makes this boring to me, but maybe I need a fresh perspective to enjoy it. So, if anybody loves his sound and style I'd like to hear your opinions.
|
|
|
|
Post by odyssey76 on Aug 11, 2015 19:26:29 GMT -6
Not a Phish fan by any stretch but living in Vermont, well......you hear a lot of Phish. That being said, Trey Anastasio is an absolute monster of a guitar player. I'm a huge Allman Bros. fan but technically speaking Trey is a couple leagues above Dickey. If you're talking Duane, Warren Haynes or Derek Trucks then there'll be plenty of arguments as they're all as good as it gets IMO. Thing about Anastasio is his versatility. From jazz/fusion to rock and blues, he does it all at the highest level. Unfortunately he also "noodles" at the highest level....  |
|
|
|
Post by jimwilliams on Aug 12, 2015 9:20:00 GMT -6
Noodle was the term I was going to use. I find him un-inspiring as a player. I saw Phish once at Irvine Meadows when I got some comps to see Bob Dylan. The music was boring, but the volume was painful. 120 db SPL's don't sound good even with music you like. I had ear plugs and it still hurt.
They ended up emptying the venue except for a few burned out hippy chicks all dancing around on acid.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Aug 12, 2015 11:33:04 GMT -6
yeah, to me that kind of playing isn't saying to much, noodling is a perfect word to describe it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Aug 12, 2015 17:04:53 GMT -6
Pentatonic major scale, occasionally in a mode, big yawn. This bores the shit out of me. Of course I can appreciate some of his fluent playing, and maybe he's a pleasant fellow, but it doesn't speak to my heart or soul in any form.
|
|
|
|
Post by b1 on Aug 12, 2015 17:22:52 GMT -6
I don't get it at all... I've never heard anything from Anastasio or Phish that remotely interested me. I don't think I've ever listened to any of those "tunes" all of the way through. I need to wash now...
|
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Aug 12, 2015 17:30:51 GMT -6
Pentatonic major scale, occasionally in a mode, big yawn. This bores the shit out of me. Of course I can appreciate some of his fluent playing, and maybe he's a pleasant fellow, but it doesn't speak to my heart or soul in any form. I know nothing about this band - though I know they are very popular, so listening with no preconceptions going in I would mostly agree - and hope it's just this particular tune and this particular solo, but it's generally uninspired, there's no sense of motion in the macro, and nothing technically virtuostic going on. Maybe, just maybe I hear a unique voice at times, but it only interests me for micro-seconds and quickly reverts to your garden variety standard cliche´ pentatonic lick. Like I said, I've gotta hope and believe (however hopelessly) that whoever recorded this just picked the wrong solo at the wrong time. |
|
|
|
Post by sopwith on Aug 13, 2015 4:02:18 GMT -6
Ok I'm coming from the perspective of being a Phish fan for a long time, but... they're gonna be a hard sell on a singer songwriter forum. Their eclecticism is at once their strength and also their weakness. The Phish following loves the huge fusion of genres, but compared to any true practitioners of each genre, they're pretty middle of the road.
I will say though - the number of instrumentalists in the world who can light up 15,000 people a night (without amy radio hits) for 20 years going is very slim, and Trey is certainly one. Yes, the combination of light show and scene play a large part in their success, but ultimately he's uniting a whole bunch of people around NON-lowest common denominator music, and I think that should be celebrated.
|
|
|
|
Post by jayson on Aug 13, 2015 5:41:21 GMT -6
Gotta confess I've never been much of a Phish fan; I wouldn't say that's a slam on them, just lack of in depth exposure on my part. But then again with Phish - and pretty much all jam bands - I think there's kind of a Les McCann and Eddie Harris "Compared to What?" postulate that you have to include in considering what they do: It might not speak specifically to me, but compared to most of the other talentless, superficial crap floating in the pop-music toilet these days it's brilliant.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Aug 13, 2015 8:47:16 GMT -6
It's much less about music and much more about taking advantage of a drug culture, there are plenty of bands that resort to gimmicks to make up for their limits, Dave Mathews, slipknot come to mind. U have to be high, or altered by visual stimuli to think its good, the music is an ancillary experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by jayson on Aug 13, 2015 9:34:56 GMT -6
That seems a bit simplistic. I don't think using the social hangups of one sub-group of the music consuming public as a yardstick for evaluating the musical preferences of another does much, if anything, in terms of effectively evaluating the significance of the art. Even if what you say is the case, the same could have been said of jazz or blues as well, to say nothing of bands like the Beatles, Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix, the Grateful Dead, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Frank Zappa, The Allman Bros. etc.
Granted, there's a lot of it I don't like, (Dave Matthews has a voice that make me cringe) that doesn't necessarily make it "bad"(His rhythm section does pretty much kick ass).
If you're saying that somehow stuff like Taylor Swift, Miley Cyrus, Justin Beiber or Kid Rock...or pretty much anything you're unfortunate enough to hear on the radio these days is somehow superior because it doesn't utilize any gimmicks to make up for it's shortcomings - well...you certainly have a right to your opinion.
Personally, I'd rather spend 8 hours listening to any of the more prominent jam bands, than one hour of Katy Perry or Lady Gaga; at least the jam band guys have a musical DNA that I can relate to.
|
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Aug 13, 2015 18:46:50 GMT -6
It's much less about music and much more about taking advantage of a drug culture, there are plenty of bands that resort to gimmicks to make up for their limits, Dave Mathews, slipknot come to mind. U have to be high, or altered by visual stimuli to think its good, the music is an ancillary experience. It's interesting you say that. When I was younger it was hippies that told me, condescendingly, that I just didn't get it when I told them I didn't like the Grateful Dead. Today it is hipsters. Most of the people that tell me I don't get it don't play an instrument. Nevertheless, it worked for the Grateful Dead and it's working for Phish. So, they have a market. |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Aug 13, 2015 19:02:53 GMT -6
That seems a bit simplistic. I don't think using the social hangups of one sub-group of the music consuming public as a yardstick for evaluating the musical preferences of another does much, if anything, in terms of effectively evaluating the significance of the art. Even if what you say is the case, the same could have been said of jazz or blues as well, to say nothing of bands like the Beatles, Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix, the Grateful Dead, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Frank Zappa, The Allman Bros. etc. Granted, there's a lot of it I don't like, (Dave Matthews has a voice that make me cringe) that doesn't necessarily make it "bad"(His rhythm section does pretty much kick ass). If you're saying that somehow stuff like Taylor Swift, Miley Cyrus, Justin Beiber or Kid Rock...or pretty much anything you're unfortunate enough to hear on the radio these days is somehow superior because it doesn't utilize any gimmicks to make up for it's shortcomings - well...you certainly have a right to your opinion. Personally, I'd rather spend 8 hours listening to any of the more prominent jam bands, than one hour of Katy Perry or Lady Gaga; at least the jam band guys have a musical DNA that I can relate to. well yes, it was a very simplistic statement, but totally true, the TS, MC, JB etc, rely SOLEY on theatrics and gimmickry, it's all visual plotted, sexual parlor tricks(see twerking haha), there is virtually nothing else, the bands you mentioned earlier were a stark juxtaposition, very rarely SEEN and only heard, it was actually about their MUSIC, of course there will always be followers of a cultivating social scene, dave mathews/phish/GD fan bases were the white pot heads of the day. The great bands didn't need anything but their music to get fans, Jimmy page could make you feel with the sound of his guitar, the way the guy from slipknot could make you feel by looking at him, but a second later Jimmy could take you in the completely opposite direction, the problem for Slipknot dude is he's a one trick pony=boring, it's a symptom of this gimmicky time in which we live, pop music has become FUCKING boring, it's about everything BUT MUSIC. of course this is JMO, YMMV |
|
|
|
Post by keymod on Aug 14, 2015 3:49:52 GMT -6
I have never enjoyed the whole "jam=band" thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by jayson on Aug 14, 2015 6:28:32 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Aug 14, 2015 7:19:28 GMT -6
"The only real diff" is zep was insanely talented, not noodle nut meandering around, the equivelence u just inexplicably made...is the diff between watching goats graze to driving an Indy car. Of course I'll painfully disclaim, it's subjective.
|
|
|
|
Post by sopwith on Aug 14, 2015 20:07:32 GMT -6
tonycamphd - I'm as big a Zep fan as you will find, but if you think Page didn't noodle or meander, I've got about 50 versions of Dazed and Confused for ya. And to put down players because they're not as good as Page...might as well be putting down every modern painter cause they're not as good as Monet. What modern players DO you like? Anyone who's playing large venues? Personally, I love the combination of sound and light that Phish make. They're the first to admit that a phish concert isn't solely about the audio - and yes, their longtime lighting guy now lights Bieber. It's the whole experience. If some people think that drugs are required, so be it. I don't feel that way, but it's better than a drunk ass crowd to me. Not that these will change anyone's mind about Trey, but here are a couple recent clips anyway. Hopefully enough chromaticism for ya. I too wish they had better lyrics, but hey you can't win em all.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Aug 14, 2015 21:13:51 GMT -6
i'm bored, there's nothing to it more than that, these bands are more about a scene than the music from my perspective, all musicians have bad days, it's when they have the great days it makes me smile, page and those types had MANY great days, i've still not heard a single thing from phish that gives me an iota of excitement in my heart, that's my experience, and my opinion, and we're here to share both, it is what it is, no offense intended to anyone on a personal level
|
|
|
|
Post by b1 on Aug 15, 2015 2:46:25 GMT -6
Todd Rundgren & Utopia was one of the first progressive rock bands. Their jams had context
and substance. It was more orchestrated than jam, but would suffice for either.
Rundgren was both a Pop & Rock star. He could write radio hits or be a freak for the freaks.
He kinda freaked me out but I remember this concert on TV. I didn't think it made it into the
digital age, but here they are on Don Kirshner's Rock Concert; circa early 70's.
|
|
|
|
Post by keymod on Aug 15, 2015 3:41:48 GMT -6
Utopia were a great band. Saw them live in a club in Connecticut back in the early '80s.
|
|
|
|
Post by b1 on Aug 15, 2015 4:05:53 GMT -6
For those who don't know how diverse Rundgren is, here's a clip of the 30 years he's appeared on Letterman.
|
|
|
|
Post by jayson on Aug 15, 2015 7:42:11 GMT -6
Geez Tony, I hope I didn't give you the impression I'm offended - from where I sit it's just an interesting conversation.
To some extent I think improvised music gets a bad rap. It's really as old as music itself; I'd be willing to bet that the most iconic pieces of music ever written started life as something that was blurted out while improvising. How many blues tunes started out as something that was made up on the fly? Certainly became the core of what guys like Charlie Parker, John Coltrane and Miles Davis did.
I can understand folks who might have cultural issues with that scene. Back in the early 80s I went through my Dead-head phase and spent a few summers touring, making money selling shirts, bagles and beer and, of course, meeting girls - heluva lot of fun. Eventually I couldn't stomach the people who adopted "Dead-headism" as some sort of religion. It was impossible to have any form of intelligent conversation with them; every third sentence would quotes of song lyrics and you can imagine what the sole topic of conversation was. But in all fairness, from what I've heard, that phenomenon sickened the people in the band a hell of a lot more than it sickened me.
Musically I can honestly say that to me the Dead occupy the unusual position of being both the best and worst band I've ever seen. It took talent to do what they did well, and when that muse refused to sing the result could be downright embarrassing for both the audience and the band - but when it really worked it was a pretty special thing to witness. I'll certainly give 'em this much; those guys had impeccable taste in gear!
|
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Aug 15, 2015 8:16:44 GMT -6
Geez Tony, I hope I didn't give you the impression I'm offended - from where I sit it's just an interesting conversation. To some extent I think improvised music gets a bad rap. It's really as old as music itself.. +1. Improvising just happens to be back in style. Improvising as an 'in vogue' art form goes back even before the Baroque era.. One very famous story involved King Frederick, who having heard of J.S. Bach's improvisational skills, asked Bach to improvise on the spot on a pretty complicated theme provided by the king in three-parts. In fact, musical conventions of the Renaissance are strikingly similar to those of today's Jazz and Pop music. 'Continuo' parts of the day were written for keyboard and lute players (basically the rhythm section) in 'figured bass.' Its nomenclature looks eerily similar to the chords you see on today's charts. Improvising during performance may have taken more of a back seat in the ensuing Classical, Romantic, and Modern eras, bet let's not kid ourselves - those composers could do it. It's part of the essential tool-kit of any composer. |
|
