The $%*! frustration thread

[IAmSerge]

Sorry double post...


...Gamefaqs has through the weekend to read my "feedback" request about being not underage, and possibly unbanning me.

...after that, I am making my new account, no matter what.

[Lord J Esq]

This isn't really a "frustration," but there's no better thread for it: I never really "got" the whole guitar culture thing. They're such simples of pop and alternative culture alike, and plenty of folks seem to hold them in almost mystical regard.

I don't have anything against the guitar, but, like I said, I just don't get all the reverence for it. I feel the same way about things like hemp and incense.

[IAmSerge]

This isn't really a "frustration," but there's no better thread for it: I never really "got" the whole guitar culture thing. They're such simples of pop and alternative culture alike, and plenty of folks seem to hold them in almost mystical regard.

I don't have anything against the guitar, but, like I said, I just don't get all the reverence for it. I feel the same way about things like hemp and incense.

Agreed...

[ZeaLitY]

This isn't really a "frustration," but there's no better thread for it: I never really "got" the whole guitar culture thing. They're such simples of pop and alternative culture alike, and plenty of folks seem to hold them in almost mystical regard.

I don't have anything against the guitar, but, like I said, I just don't get all the reverence for it. I feel the same way about things like hemp and incense.

Ditto. I was totally in the tank for Hendrix in my teens and still worship his music, but my contact with him brought me close to that giant guitar culture.

[Mr Bekkler]

Music is important to a lot of people. Especially soulful music. The "current standard" acoustic and/or electric guitar is popular because it was designed to cover a wide range of tones in the easiest way possible. It still takes a lot of thought and practice, just like any hobby.

Because of the wide range and the versatility, creativity is necessary for one to have one's own "sound".

It's the sound that's important, the guitar is really just the tool.

But if you're talking about me referring to Les Paul as legendary, it's because of the songs, stories, and bands that were made possible because of him, and that's pretty much everyone that used an electric guitar. It's a bit hyperbolic, yes, but I'm biased.

[Lord J Esq]

Music is important to a lot of people.

Obviously.

Especially soulful music. The "current standard" acoustic and/or electric guitar is popular because it was designed to cover a wide range of tones in the easiest way possible. It still takes a lot of thought and practice, just like any hobby.

I think this is the past where I have the disconnect with the guitar people. I've listened to a lot of music, and I'll certainly grant that the guitar is a diverse instrument, but it doesn't own a monopoly on this, and there are many other instruments that are more accessible.

I expect it's that special combination of being able to offer the single player a rich chordal accompaniment (many single instruments cannot do that) without taking away their ability to sing (as a wind instrument would). A guitar is a great choice for a one-person music show, because it offers one of the easiest routes for a single person to fill up the musical space.

But if you get into the music theory of it, there are many other great choices as well, and I think we're biased somewhat by thinking of music too often in terms of what a guitar (or a bass) can do. If you're playing with a clarinet, you won't fill up the musical space and you won't be able to sing along, but you'll get even more diversity of sound than you would with a guitar, and you'll be able to be expressive in ways that a guitar can't touch. If you're playing a violin, you still won't be able to fill up the music space, but you'll be able to sing along, perform limited chords, and even create harmony between your voice and the instrument due to their overlapping range. As far as expressiveness goes, I don't know of any instrument more expressive than the violin. If you're playing a piano, you get every advantage that comes with the guitar, plus an extended range.

Yet we don't have clarinet cultures, or violin cultures, or even piano cultures. (There are the communities of those who play these instruments or greatly admire them, but no "cultures" per se.) The guitar enjoys a unique status among all musical instruments, and that's what confuses me.

Because of the wide range and the versatility, creativity is necessary for one to have one's own "sound".

"Sound" is hardly unique to the guitar, and I think that instruments like the oboe and the trombone are considerably harder to unlock creatively than the guitar--and both yield greater rewards than the guitar when played well--yet, again, we don't see oboe or trombone cultures. (The poor oboe seems limited almost entirely to the classical world, despite in my opinion being the most beautiful of all musical instruments. Of course, I am biased on that point.)

But if you're talking about me referring to Les Paul as legendary...

It's true that I did think of this because of your thread, but it wasn't specifically directed against you or him. A very important person in music has passed away, and I completely understand how that touches the multitudes.

[Truthordeal]

I'll do to you what douchebags did to the guitar!

Is this the type of thing you guys are talking about when referring to the "guitar culture?"

[Shee]

Hmmmm....music is awesome and without it I would have gone totally sane long ago.  As a darn good drummer (the vid to back that claim up is coming... ) I love listening to different beats and all that, but sometimes a guitar just hits the perfect note for me, and there are differing examples of this.  As far as guitar goes, I look to the types like Andy Mckee or Craig D'Andrea as storytellers and then Petrucci and other "shredders" as the movers.  Not a huge metal guy (I don't like screaming like a wuss) but that progressive shit knocks my socks off.  Happens with all instruments, though.

When I was playing in bands, there was hardly any feeling ever that was better than flailing madly (or groovin softly as the case would call for) and watching the crowd not only be into and active but listening, appreciating, rocking out themselves.  Only feelings to ever surpass that would be acting/comedy.  Also, from my time in bands, I have noticed that guitarists have some sort of..."air" about them.  It smells like poo.

Some guitar vids for anyone interested:

Craig D'Andrea - Morrison County - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fv_72VcNreY


Andy Mckee - Ebon Coast - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSnWhsmlGec   (I'm trying to get this down on guitar...can sloppily get about 0:25 to 2:03 down, maybe post a vid or a recording of that as well.....hmmmm...)



Oh yea!  And  my favorite song ever, When The Water Breaks - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGZoCbImptY&feature=PlayList&p=00EDDC7A8B5D617A&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=48
The song is so long they needed 2 vids, but this is the first one...my fave chunk is about 2:00 - 4:03...enjoy!

and hope that made sense...

[Truthordeal]

I freaking hate my college(its entry procedures, anyway) at this point. I move up there in two weeks and it was only last week that they decided to inform me about 300 some odd dollars I still need to pay in fees. I have about $500 to use for books, which are going to cost me about $470 if I buy them new at the campus store(which, as much as I've browsed the Interwebs, it seems I'm going to have to do).

Then just a few days ago, I got this notice about an alcohol course I had to take online. They estimated the first part being about 3 hours long, but it really came to about 5 hours spread over two days. I would not wish this on anyone. It doesn't matter that I'm a teetotaler by choice, and that none of really this applies to me, because the entire thing was pretty much set up for people who were already casual drinkers. 4 hours of answering got-damn surveys, about an hour of actually learning anything. And only about 5 minutes of that hour were even that informative. The rest of it was listening to college-age kids put on a display of dumbassery in trying to grab my attention, which, admittedly, sometimes they managed to do, but only because I have an extremely juvenile sense of humor. If I wanted a laugh though, then I would've trolled Youtube for old Dennis Leary stand-ups and been much happier about it.

One other thing I noticed about the program was that it was hypocritical. They spent about half an hour condemning the alcohol industry for marketing towards a certain group of people with certain images in their advertisements, and in the same breath had a debate between two of the cast members about the show Family Guy. I might as well go on and mention the fact that all of the cast members and extras were attractive college-age students in a film about college-age students. Bleh.

Now damn it, why is all of this so hard? I'm not going to college to drink. I'm going to college to meet new people, prepare myself for life outside of my parents house, gain a little well-earned independence, get ready for the real world and, most importantly, get an education and become certified to teach. I'm looking at this alcohol program that they funded and set up on a new domain, and wonder why my tuition has to be as high as it is to collect survey data and occasionally teach kids about safe drinking.

I won't even go into why it's stupid for them to be encouraging minors to drink. I can understand the Juniors and Seniors, because most of them will be turning 21, but not the Freshmen, for whom it's still illegal to be drinking, even if it is safely. Bah.

[Lord J Esq]

I'm not going to college to drink. I'm going to college to meet new people, prepare myself for life outside of my parents house, gain a little well-earned independence, get ready for the real world and, most importantly, get an education and become certified to teach.

So what you're saying is, you're going to college for the sex and drugs. =P

[ZombieBucky]

i seem to have gotten some sort of flu.
the flu frustrates me.

i shouldnt wake up at midnight to go expel waste from my bowels and my mouth! its just not cool!
at least i didnt do it in the bed, right? lol

[Lord J Esq]

That's no fun. Feel better soon.

[Mr Bekkler]

Especially soulful music. The "current standard" acoustic and/or electric guitar is popular because it was designed to cover a wide range of tones in the easiest way possible. It still takes a lot of thought and practice, just like any hobby.

I think this is the past where I have the disconnect with the guitar people. I've listened to a lot of music, and I'll certainly grant that the guitar is a diverse instrument, but it doesn't own a monopoly on this, and there are many other instruments that are more accessible.

There are other choices, obviously, but none more portable or more popular.

I expect it's that special combination of being able to offer the single player a rich chordal accompaniment (many single instruments cannot do that) without taking away their ability to sing (as a wind instrument would). A guitar is a great choice for a one-person music show, because it offers one of the easiest routes for a single person to fill up the musical space.

You nailed it.

But if you get into the music theory of it, there are many other great choices as well, and I think we're biased somewhat by thinking of music too often in terms of what a guitar (or a bass) can do. If you're playing with a clarinet, you won't fill up the musical space and you won't be able to sing along, but you'll get even more diversity of sound than you would with a guitar, and you'll be able to be expressive in ways that a guitar can't touch. If you're playing a violin, you still won't be able to fill up the music space, but you'll be able to sing along, perform limited chords, and even create harmony between your voice and the instrument due to their overlapping range. As far as expressiveness goes, I don't know of any instrument more expressive than the violin. If you're playing a piano, you get every advantage that comes with the guitar, plus an extended range.

Yet we don't have clarinet cultures, or violin cultures, or even piano cultures. (There are the communities of those who play these instruments or greatly admire them, but no "cultures" per se.) The guitar enjoys a unique status among all musical instruments, and that's what confuses me.

I assure you that's all purely about popularity and ease of use. You don't need to rosin a bow, you don't need a large space. You can play loudly or quietly as the setting demands, and it's one of the few instruments that's deemed "acceptable" in popular music today, which is unfortunate. While I enjoy classical music, I also enjoy rock music. I love dance music, and any time the three can intersect it's brilliant (check out the Arcade Fire album Funeral if you haven't already). As far as other instrument "cultures", there's just not enough musicians (obviously an opinion). Most musicians I know, and that includes recording engineers that don't even play instruments, choras vocalists, violinists, pianists, banjoists, synthesizer players, and drummers, are all adamantly protective of their instruments, and love the chance to meet up with others who have the same hobby. It's not just guitar. And it's not even just music. That's any hobby. Again, the guitar is just a popular choice. That doesn't make it any better, but more importantly for my point is that it doesn't make it any worse.

Because of the wide range and the versatility, creativity is necessary for one to have one's own "sound".

"Sound" is hardly unique to the guitar, and I think that instruments like the oboe and the trombone are considerably harder to unlock creatively than the guitar--and both yield greater rewards than the guitar when played well--yet, again, we don't see oboe or trombone cultures. (The poor oboe seems limited almost entirely to the classical world, despite in my opinion being the most beautiful of all musical instruments. Of course, I am biased on that point.)

First of all, "sound" is such a broad term that I shouldn't have even used it. I'll give you that. Every instrument has it's own sound, but the guitar, being so popular, arguably has the most versatility, in effects pedals, different amp combinations, different tuning styles, and the ability to fit into almost every kind of music.

But if you're talking about me referring to Les Paul as legendary...

It's true that I did think of this because of your thread, but it wasn't specifically directed against you or him. A very important person in music has passed away, and I completely understand how that touches the multitudes.

That's cool. I just thought I should point out why I was responding to your post so it didn't seem so random.

Just so you know, I do play guitar, but I'm not just some music fanboy. Les Paul was just that awesome.

[Samopoznanie]

As far as expressiveness goes, I don't know of any instrument more expressive than the violin. If you're playing a piano, you get every advantage that comes with the guitar, plus an extended range.

Yet we don't have clarinet cultures, or violin cultures, or even piano cultures. (There are the communities of those who play these instruments or greatly admire them, but no "cultures" per se.) The guitar enjoys a unique status among all musical instruments, and that's what confuses me.

Well, let's face it, you're not going to get laid for playing a mean woodwind *cough* or tickling the ivories. Cultures don't emerge from expressiveness, they emerge from imagery, attitude, popular appeal etc. You don't get that when you're standing by your lonesome, knocking out a Caprice by Paganini, stunning a piece of work as it may be.

Its as much the guitar's synthesis of musical and cultural elements, its ability to keep a solo to just a few seconds yet capture people's attentions and emotions (as compared to say a drum solo), and that extra bonus of being able to bend the strings to get those hard-to-find notes that gives the instrument its unique status, IMO.

[KebreI]

As far as expressiveness goes, I don't know of any instrument more expressive than the violin. If you're playing a piano, you get every advantage that comes with the guitar, plus an extended range.

Yet we don't have clarinet cultures, or violin cultures, or even piano cultures. (There are the communities of those who play these instruments or greatly admire them, but no "cultures" per se.) The guitar enjoys a unique status among all musical instruments, and that's what confuses me.

Well, let's face it, you're not going to get laid for playing a mean woodwind *cough* or tickling the ivories. Cultures don't emerge from expressiveness, they emerge from imagery, attitude, popular appeal etc. You don't get that when you're standing by your lonesome, knocking out a Caprice by Paganini, stunning a piece of work as it may be.

A piano leaves the woman most and wanting...