Roger Waters~Animals Reissue...Issue

SteveG wrote: rogerthat wrote: We'll just have to disagree on that.  I don't think anything Gilmour did with Floyd comes close to Blood On the Rooftops. I also don't think Hackett imitates Gilmour. If there's anyone he imitates, it's Fripp. oh, I didn't mean tone and style, just being melodic. Gilmour is king.

SteveG wrote: Perhaps I find Hackett more technical then moving and emotional.

rogerthat wrote: SteveG wrote: Perhaps I find Hackett more technical then moving and emotional. I find both Hackett and Latimer highly emotional and on occasion more so than Gilmour.  There is more than one way to express emotions.  That is why I have resisted the canonization of Gilmour in this thread so hard, as if he's the ABCD of guitar.  There's room for everyone.  I will leave it there.

I had to duck out on this discussion earlier, it warrants a better response that what I originally gave. I don't see how saying that Gilmour is more melodic than the others is canonizing him, as he is far less technical than the others. All have their own positive traits. Assigning credit where it's due is not canonization. And going to extreme means to resist doing it seems like what it is. Extreme. 

Edited by SteveG - June 15 2021 at 07:43

So, we are arguing over subjective options now? However you feel about the others is fine with me. It's your subjective opinion and you're entited to it. The same as I'm entited to mine. Did you forget this in your quest not to canonize Gilmour?

rogerthat wrote: SteveG wrote: So, we are arguing over subjective options now? However you feel about the others is fine with me. It's your subjective opinion and you're entited to it. The same as I'm entited to mine. Did you forget this in your quest not to canonize Gilmour? If all that you are saying is YOU find Gilmour more melodic, then I have no argument with that. Your original post claimed that Gilmour's melodicism is quite unique among an undefined group of (presumably) rock guitarists.  That does not sound particularly subjective to me.  Had I known otherwise, I wouldn't have bothered.

Yes, I find Gilmour to be the most melodic. A subjective opinion. I find the others to be less melodic. Another subjective opinion. What else could they have possibly been, Madan? Statistical facts? And even if I find him unique among other guitarists, that is also subjective, regardless of the fact that he has his own playing style and sound. Which is not subjective.

Edited by SteveG - June 15 2021 at 10:17

You're damn right I'll have the last word: Gilmour is God.

Well, there's always some god that's a little bigger.

In addition to Andy Latimer, I think Bjørn Riis from Airbag also has a similar tone inspired Gilmour.

iluvmarillion wrote: Gee, if you had asked me I would have said that Andy Latimer is hands down more melodic than the other two. And comparing Gilmour to Hackett is impossible if you do it song by song. You could only compare the two by guitar technique. One is classically trained while the other is Blues trained. Gilmour isn't the sort of guitarist who would want to do Blood on the Rooftops while Hackett couldn't do Echoes (he could maybe do the Latimer Echoes but not the Gilmour Echoes).

Saying one is more melodic than the other is not saying that the others are unmelodic. They wouldn't be prog heroes and great guitarists if that was the case. Again, I find Latimer to be more technical than Gilmour but Gilmour to have more soul in his playing. But ultimately, this is splitting hairs. As far as comparing Gilmour to Hackett, that's like comparing apples to oranges.

rogerthat wrote: Dellinger wrote: ^ OK, perhaps I was harsh at describing it harsh, and perhaps I'll be needing to hear this new version a few more times. Bit it certainly doesn't sound as beautiful to my ears... adding lots of stuff that wasn't there originally doesn't necessarily make it better. And about Gilmour surely not being able to play many things from Hackett, I myself said so on my post you are quoting. I was mentioning this version of a Gilmour song played by Hackett not to make less of Hackett, but because you were saying how Hackett can do all that Gilmour does and more... and I'm just saying how he couldn't... in a way... sure, he can play all the notes (something Gilmour surely would have trouble, or just couldn't do, with Hackett's songs), but for me, he couldn't make it sound quiet the same, he couldn't achieve the same beauty... or not the same kind of beauty, I mean, once again, he can do so very beautiful stuff of his own. But in the end, it's not a matter of one being better than the other, it's just that they are both able to do different kind of things, and in a different way, and both can achieve beauty to thoroughly enjoy, and both might have trouble playing what the other can. Just as with Dick Parry and Mel Collins... there is also the thing about Mel Collins playing Wright's parts, which in theory I might have liked, but I have trouble finding the melodies I love so much within his playing (actually, perhaps Latimer might have been the right choice to attempt this cover, both for the guitars and for the flutes playing Wright's parts). The problem as I see it is you took my statement too literally.  Look, Steve Perry singing Dylan would not sound as good to Dylan fans because we all get attached to the sounds of the original.  Again, when I said Hackett can do everything Gilmour can do, I simply meant that he is very well able to play slow and soulful solos for ballads as well as heavier, faster material.  I don't think ANYONE can pass the requirement of a guitarist having to sound exactly like the other and it would also be completely unnecessary.  When these musicians got Hackett on board for Shine On, they wanted him to play it as a Steve Hackett solo, NOT to sound like Gilmour.  I am sure he would play it very differently if he was specifically asked to play it note for note the way Gilmour did.  He would probably also swap his Gibson for a Strat.

Anyone can sing Bob Dylan songs better than Dylan... well, of course, not quiet so, and it depends on taste. But I remember not really knowing much of Dylan, but suddenly finding that one, and then another, and so on, songs that I liked were actually Dylan's originals... then I would go and want to hear those originals, and they were just not nearly as good. I got the impression that he wrote great songs, but needed someone else to play them in order to sound good. Now I have looked for a bit more from Dylan, and have come to apreciate some of his songs as he played them originally... and in great part it depends on the songs itself, and the particular performance. However, back with Gilmour, yeah, of course I understand Hackett can play slow and melodious too, I just went with the particular comparison because you mentioned Hackett, and I had just heard this particular version in which I myself just couldn't find the same beauty as with Gilmour's original... and yeah, I'm sure Hackett's take on the song is actually technically more difficult, yet I still enjoy better the way Gilmour plays it. You then mention Blood on the Rooftops... and that one I just can't get into, yeah sure, Gilmour might not be able to play it right, but in that particular case I wouldn't care. And there are still so many other Hackett songs that I love that I'm sure Gilmour can't play right. I will just enjoy both at what I love from them.