Blackmore on Satriani

I really like Richie Blackmore's helm in Deep Purple, but was not so impressed with his band Rainbow. I think he is a top player, but one has to be careful regarding making public statements regarding other musicians. As a player myself, I always admire other musicians styles and techniques. It's what keep music fresh in my opinion. When someone starts making critical judgement regarding a musician like Joe Satriani, I just get the feeling like there is a sense of a bruised ego or envy going on.

We all have our opinions on what we like or dislike, but an intelligent player will always recognize talent and technique when they hear it. Joe Satriani is a talented musician pure and simple.

 

I think all artists are put in a position where we as fans want to know what THEY like and listen to...then we turn around and criticize them for it. I guess if you don't want to know, don't ask.

 

what are you basing your statement of boring and not melodic off? ...
you may find instrumental music boring and you can accuse vai of many things, but you cannot accuse him of failing to use melodies

 

that's the first thing about this thread that has really made me smile.
thank you sir!

 

And I appreciate it that you took the time to listen.

 

I did.

 

Hey Mark! Cool, glad that made you smile. I thought the thread needed some humor. Now I'm gonna add a video of some fine, fine, super fine guitar playing. Hope you (and others) can dig it. This one really scratches that itch for me

 

I know what you mean. It doesn't bother me, but I just think it's silly to judge musicians based on how proficient they are on the instrument. Some people are as dismissive of 3-chord players as others are of the technical ones. We all have our biases, but how many notes per bar they're playing and stuff like that shouldn't come into it, because while it is true that some players can convey plenty of emotion with just a few notes, it is no less true that a whirlwind of notes can convey stuff too, and no emotion is better than or superior to another. The question shouldn't be "how technical is their playing", but "do I like it how that sounds" or "does it make me feel anything", and if we're not feeling anything it doesn't automatically mean there is no "feeling" or "soul" there. All it means is "it's not for me."

Fortunately, these 'wars' mostly take place only among music fans. Musicians themselves tend to be much more appreciative and respectful, that's why they often influence and learn from each other, incorporating things they saw or heard elsewhere into their own stuff and covering the work of other artists.

 

Especially the musicians overdubbing other musicians' videos.

 

well it wouldn't let me play it here, but your words reflect my feelings ...

 

I don't hear much 'soul' in Satriani's guitar playing and that's why, although technically amazing, it leaves me cold.

Blackmore's got a lovely 'touch' and a lot of feel in his solos - at least back in the Purple/Rainbow eras which is what I'm familiar with - and a great sense of melody, drama and excess. It feels good to listen to, it moves me in the way it was intended to and it's creative without being distracting, it's 'appropriate' for the song. I rate Blackmore highly.

 

I have seen Vai several times and he is one HELL of an emotional player. (Satch is too for that matter.) I never understood why so many people seem to think technical ability and "feel" are mutually exclusive, it shouldn't be a zero-sum game!

I remember an interview with Vai about that song where he stated it was the product of a month long spiritual quest, which included "fasting" from many foods, normal activities, and even sex. I'd say that adds more than a little depth!

 

"Soul" what is it and does it smell? Anyway, I guess every "soul" is different, to say one's music is "soulless" is pure buggery b.s. Every note, chord, piece of music played or written by anyone, regardless of musical "talent", is full of soul. If it is created it has "soul", now it might not be your cup of tea but that does not make it less valid or "good". Some are more musically proficient, some are "sloppy", both are full of "soul". I love Ritchie's music (up to 1990), but that doesn't mean his music from that point to now has less soul, it has just as much as before, but it doesn't tickle my fancy (yet). Satriani, Vai, Muddy Waters, Blackmore, etc. etc. - all have equal soul in their music.

 

It’s a guitar, there are no rules IMO

 

Oh, I never claimed I think I am the "master of all that is feeling", that's your anger and defensiveness projecting. That said, I do think RC had a point back in 1989, while I do like some of Vai's work, particularly on the first two DLR albums, I find his guitar instrumental tracks sterile, like I do Satriani's. In the same way I admire the skills of a brain surgeon, I do admire the obvious talent and training needed by Via and Satriani to perform that technically well, but it leaves me cold.

Also, FWIW, I do think that the emergence of these technical guitar wizards in the mid-1980s was no perversion, rather it was inevitable once someone got the idea to electrify a guitar, and once the Beatles turned the studio into an instrument. Once pop musicians started manipulating the electrical element, treating it as a substantive contributor to the sound rather than merely a conveyer of sound, the Guitar geek stuff of the 80s is on the cards. Vai, Malmsteen, Satriani, etc. just take what was nascent in those earlier developments technologically to a logical, not illogical, extreme.

Much as in hip-hop, the emergence of "turntabilism", scratching and manipulating turntables for their own sake rather than in their original role supporting the MC was inevitable as well.

Let's face it: our modern society is based on an ever-more-refined division of labor, with specialties dividing into still further sub-specialties. Via et al. are in that tradition.

But it's just not interesting to my ears. Now technical skill in the service of a good song - like Vai's playing on say "Yankee Rose"? Crank that up!

 

That last point is a good one. Someone who actually taught guys like Steve Vai and Alex Skolnick may well have too much chops to make a mistake no matter what he does.

 

Chances are he isn't spending time wondering who to throw a water bottle at... the focus helps to avoid the bad note.

But both are brilliant players.

 

Blackmore second tier? To me a outrageous statement. A brilliant guitarist with a huge amount of highlights in his great career.

 

Well, that's one word for it. You're too kind, old school.

 

OK I'm all off base. Guess I misunderstood, and thought you were making a statement about Jeff's Jazz ability that I disagreed with (my bad). I'm a player too (rock), and I just got a funny visual in my mind thinking of Jeff comping behind a horn player. I didn't mean to come off patronizing, and apologize for that. Clearly you realize the chords and timing in playing jazz deserve a world of respect.

Peace

 

do you say that John mclaughlin is sterile?
do you think john coltrane is sterile?
if your answer is yes. we just have to take it that you do not like their music. it has nothing whatsoever to do with soul, feel or any other metaphysical thing, that cannot be seen or judged, because the only person that knows whether they put their heart and "soul" into it is the performer.
if your answer is no, then you are judging modern guitarists with a different stick and therefor your personal bias (whatever created it, and however it manifests) has dictated the response "soulless, without feel".
Like i say. you can like it or not like it, but you cannot with any authority state that any other human is doing something without feel or soul, because you have no earthly idea, and essentially are lying if you say you do.

for example i like yankee rose just fine. i think eat 'em and smile and especially skyscraper are great albums.
the same soul that played on those recordings, also played on flex-able, passion and warefare and fire garden etc etc.
The reality is, you just don't like the music. that is nothing to do with some metaphysical nonsense and everything to do with you as a listener.
essentially comparing eat 'em and smile to passion and warfare is the same as comparing the archies sugar sugar to miles davis 'round midnight.
that doesn't mean that any of those songs is without value, it means they are not in the same street directory ... that is what makes me angry.
i don't care if you like something or not. just don't pretend to have some higher reasoning for doing so.

 

I tend to agree with him. I really like Satriani but he is very polished and perfect, and that does get boring sometimes imo. Not only that, but these 'perfect' guitarists don't come across as having as much of an identity compared to players who are great guitarists but are a bit more sweaty, rough and ready.

 

Maybe I mellowed with old age LOL.

 

For my taste, on the G3 video with Yngwie /Vai/Satch, Yngwie is more raw and exciting and his Marshall is the best sounding amp on the stage. Though I dislike his overplaying on the blues tune.
It's not appropriate to attempt discrediting technical virtuosity, but there can be appeal in a rawness. Something Yngwie hasn't entirely lost, last I checked.