[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
And I would disagree. I have no trouble following it at all. [/quote]
You are missing the point here. I’m not literally talking about how easy it is to follow his playing. I’m talking about how his need to show off dominates his song construction. That is a perfectly reasonable and accurate observation, and not hard to understand, especially for a player…unless you are deliberately trying sidestep my argument and I get the feeling you are.
[quote]
This is completely unfounded.
Does that statement apply for the following piece? [/quote]
No, it doesn’t apply because :
- She is an accomplished musician with a highly developed faculty for learning complex pieces that took years to cultivate (I addressed this in an earlier post when I said YM’s songs are not easily memorized by anyone other than those in possession of perfect and/or relative pitch - in other words, trained musicians).
- Neither she or Chopin have any connection to Malmsteen, or say in his music.
- Chopin didn’t write songs to show off his playing, unlike Malmsteen.
4)The basic structure of the etude you posted would be easier to approximate than Malmsteen’s chord progressions. It has the potential to stay in the memory longer.
The best music should be accessible to everyone, not just musicians. It’s no coincidence that Malmsteen’s fan base is made up almost entirely from guitarists: they appreciate his technical ability, not his music. Be honest.
[quote]
This is because of the complexity in terms of phrasing. Also, Metallica and AC\DC have very basic musical structure. This is like asking the average person to listen to Verdi’s Rigoletto and then comparing it to Britney Spears’ ‘Oops I did it again’.
One is easier on the mind and ears than the other. This is not proof of greatness in either case.[/quote]
Blaze, I’m convinced you’re just skimming over my posts. I’ve been through all this already. See above. “Complexity of phrasing” is not an adequate explanation when he uses that same complexity for the sake of it. It’s all smoke and mirrors.
[quote]
He was one of the few, if not the first to blend metal and classical music together.
Metallica and AC\DC borrow heavily from blues and other rock.
How is Malmsteen’s style not his own? [/quote]
He didn’t just blend metal and classical though: he was a Paganini fanatic who was inspired to transpose his style to a guitar. Metallica and AC\DC drew influence from a wide range of players. Malmsteen in his early years was basically a Paganini clone (he was, and still is, creatively limited by what Paganini did). He has never fully gotten away from that - it makes him and breaks him at the same time. That’s why his style isn’t his own.
[quote]
You would be incorrect. He is not one of the best musicians, but he definitely is one of the best guitarists. [/quote] I wouldn’t be “incorrect” because they are obviously two sides of the same coin. Technically, I rate him very highly, but he wouldn’t come within spitting distance of my top ten - taking everything into account, I’d rate far less accomplished guitarists above him.
I’m a musician myself, but I don’t feel any urge to bow down before him just because he is technically dazzling. In fact, the opposite is true: the musical training I’ve had helps me to see how contrived his playing really is.
[quote]
I find some of his music exciting.
Let’s agree to disagree.[/quote]
I’m cool with that. I wouldn’t presume to tell anybody who and what they should be listening to anyway. I just personally say ‘meh’ to Malmsteen.
