King Crimson vs. Gentle Giant Part 1

LSDisease wrote: Fripp wasn't a virtuoso by any means

Talking of virtuosity, here (starting from 4:46) is one of the most complex guitar solos I've ever heard, something many widely popular and recognized virtuoso guitarists (like Ritchie Blackmore or, pardon me for a rude word, Yngwie Malmsteen) could never be able to play.



Edited by ole-the-first - January 22 2014 at 06:51

^What's so virtuoso in a typical metal solo? You can find the same thing on any Iron Maiden or Judas Priest album.

Not between the music I currently listen, but I listened enough to know about them. ITCOTCK, is a great album, and the only one I own of this band, and as an overall effort is better than every Gentle Giant thing that I could listen. Beyond this I like some tracks of KC. The overated matter, is a question of tastes. I can think KC is overated, but just because it's not my cup of tea. When many people like it, surely is because they are good, unless in some musical direction.

LSDisease wrote: No you won't. Steve was more talented guitarist than all those typical metal guitarists combined together.. He also played flamenco and other types of music. And if you listen to that solo you'll hear that it's very clean and played with precission. I can't say the same about that Fripp solo. Poor articulation that's the key to understand why Fripp isn't a virtuoso. If you listen very closely you will hear his fingers slipping off the strings when not intended. Fripp was good because of his imagination, his ideas, not the way he played. His guitar work is rather sloppy.

Speaking of 'poor articulation' anyone who quotes a virgin ubermensch proclaiming You're going to women? Don't forget your whip! (albeit in German) is begging for correction methinks....

If Fripp is not a virtuoso can you confirm if this 'sloppy' lack of accuracy is perhaps the reason that Bob is ranked 34 places behind Johnny Ramone but 36 places ahead of Alex Lifeson  in Rolling Stone's 100 greatest guitarists of all time league table?

LSDisease wrote: ExittheLemming wrote:   Speaking of 'poor articulation' anyone who quotes a virgin ubermensch proclaiming You're going to women? Don't forget your whip! (albeit in German) is begging for correction methinks.... If Fripp is not a virtuoso can you confirm if this 'sloppy' lack of accuracy is perhaps the reason that Bob is ranked 34 places behind Johnny Ramone but 36 places ahead of Alex Lifeson  in Rolling Stone's 100 greatest guitarists of all time league table? He wasn't a virgin ubermensch of course but it doesn't matter. Are you quoting Rolling Stone? Really? It's the most worthless music magazine ever. And not to say I'm Led Zeppelin fan but read what they wrote in their first review of LZ debut album (bashing it). Later on, they called them "the heaviest band in history". Johnny Ramone was definitely a virtuoso with his 3-chord progressions LOL. And did they mention Kurt Cobain as well? I'm sure they did. Check this out http://www.allaxess.com/guitar-blog/guitar-news/guitar-worlds-100-greatest-guitarists-of-all-time

Rolling Stone, like all other music journalism magazines, is and has been comprised of several critics whose opinions on the music they write about differ. RS's main flaw is that is has very little unity, not that the subjective opinions of two critics negate each other.

That said, Gentle Giant.

LSDisease wrote: Polymorphia wrote:   Rolling Stone, like all other music journalism magazines, is and has been comprised of several critics whose opinions on the music they write about differ. RS's main flaw is that is has very little unity, not that the subjective opinions of two critics negate each other.   The thing they placed Johnny Ramone in the guitar giants table is enough to say, they've no idea what a true virtuosity is. Virtuosity: "great technical skill". Ramones were anything but technical.

Sure, but it was "Greatest Guitarists of All Time." Great would imply influence, taste, a bit of fame, and sometimes innovation (which Johnny Ramone did to an extent, but, honestly, innovation is completely based on the listener's perspective). If the list were "Most Virtuosic," Jimi Hendrix would not have been on the list at all. Even Howe would probably lose to several jazz fusion guitarists who have a more intimate knowledge of music theory and stronger chops. These "guitar giants" would easily be dwarfed by the tiny guys who are way more fluent on their instrument.

But, those guitarists aren't great. Steve Howe, Robert Fripp, Johnny Ramone, and Jimi Hendrix helped in a big way to define specific sounds that had influence on guitarists to come. That is the nature of their list. I agree that it in no way proves whether a guitarist is "truly virtuosic" or not (which is only a relative argument to begin with), and I have problems with the list myself, but that's no reason to call RS worthless.

LSDisease wrote: We weren't talking about the influential guitarists. We were talking about virtuosity. Only that. I don't really care who was the most influential guitarist of all time and probably no one does. We can't even measure that. We can't also say who is the biggest virtuoso but we can say who is a virtuoso and who is not.

I still think Rolling Stone is worthless. Because Alex Lifeson was definitely more influential than plenty of guitarists ranked ahead of him.

Earthmover wrote: in the court but gentle giant is great