Malmsteen would change his mind if he watched this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8_fiqBZiDM

don't know what bug that was but
money4nothin wrote:
Malmsteen would change his mind if he watched this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8_fiqBZiDM

thanks for that link money4nothin.

_________________
you can save the world with your guitar one love song at a time it's just better, more fun, easier with a fender solid body electric guitar or electric bass guitar.

It's not what you know, it's how you use it! Who cares if Hendrix, or anybody else for that matter, knew or didn't know what arpeggio was, as long as he could play it. But I do believe that Hendrix did know much about that and music in general, I just don't understand why is that so important. If there is something you don't like, you avoid it. It's that simple. And I have a tune with Hendrix on piano! Think about that. If I like it or not is another thing. The guy played what he wanted and the way he wanted, who am I to say if that's good or bad?! What's good for me is bad for somebody else, and vice versa, so this is actually an endless discussion we have here. It's not like we can call Hendrix and ask him what he does or does not know. And believe me, I know a couple of guys with a music school diploma in their pocket and with no talent to back it up. I am not a big Hendrix fan, but he was an incredibly gifted musician (not just a guitar player). And I'm talking about his creative potential. What it all comes down to, and it always is the case, is that everything is personal preference! Everything! You are not supposed to play through music theory, but to use it to expand your musical horizons, explore and analyze the world of music. That's how I see it. You're more independent if you know all that stuff, but it does not determine anyone's talent! I also know a couple of guys who talk about music much, but don't actually feel it. Without feeling it...well...you may as well forget everything you think you know about music. Knowing what "arpeggio", "staccato", etc. is will not buy you talent or the feel or the groove. You were born with it or not. Everything else is just the extention of your feel of the music. And Hendrix did feel music. So does Malmsteen, in his own way. And who can measure and decide which is better?! It's completely meaningless! So, just listen and feel, don't measure the knowledge.


EDIT: It's much like music (or any other art) critics. They "know" everything about everything except how to play music by themselves. Well, most of them anyway.

My two cents.

Goran

_________________
"If you're on a path that's beaten, it's not your path." Joseph Campbell

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

"All that is impossible remains to be achieved."
Jules Verne

www.stratcollector.com

Part of being a musician is not how many notes you can play a second, but what you can do with the notes to create music. Malmsteen IMO cannot write a song. His lyrics are just plain silly, boring and predictable. Even though I've heard tons of Malmsteen's songs and even own one CD, I can only name one of his songs off the top of my head. There is a reason he doesn't get that much airplay. Hendrix has stood the test of time.

_________________
Life...... It's sexually transmitted and always fatal

Malmsteen has been spewing his bullsh*t for over 20 years. Nobody listens to him, nor cares.

Regarding classical music and Jimi Hendrix,Jimi was in fact very interested in classical music and according to Kathy Etchingham-Jimi's long time girlfriend-Jimi was quite fond of J.S. Bach and when he found out that his London duplex was once the home of Georg Frideric Handel he was so thrilled and amused that he went out and bought everything he could find by Handel. So despite the absense of classical influences in his music he was quite interested in it and even though he had no formal musical education he had an inate gift of how to piece together intricate harmonies and as evidenced in his last recordings such as Rainbow Bridge and Cry of Love his music was undergoing a total reformation and he was heading off in a new direction.Who knows-maybe Jimi had plans of creating more melodic electronic symphonies-maybe influenced by his interest in classical music-as when he died there were plans in the works to do a project with Jazz great Gil Evans.Jimi died just when his music was about to undergo a big change as he was tired of playing "the same 8 songs" every night and he probably was going to go the route the Beatles did and create in the studio more serious music.

_________________
'65 Strat,65 Mustang,65 Jaguar,4 more Strats,3 vintage Vox guitars,5 Vox amps,'69 Bassman with a '68 2-15 Bassman cab,36 guitars total-15asst'd amps total,2 vintage '60s Hammond organs & a myriad of effects-with a few rare vintage ones.

I guess you and a lot of other people on this forum neglected to acknowledge the fact that Malmsteen has paid due credit to Hendrix. I recently saw an interview with him in which he paid Hendrix credit. Now it's time to pay Malmsteen credit, just like Malmsteen has paid Hendrix credit.

Malmsteen is original. The path he chose to take when he was young and practicing his guitar was unlike the path that most guitar players take. Thats why so many guitar players sound and play alike. They're all clones of each other. Malmsteen chose the classical route. He listened to the violinists and great composers and tried to accomplish that on his electric.

And he succeeded totally.

I think what Yngwie meant was that particular event on TV was all noise, not Hendrix's playing altogether, I may be wrong though...

Now that this thread is back up. I think that it's the medias fault. This is a free country, and you can say anything you want, and I think Malmsteen was being interviewed at the time he made the statement. SO, Everyone want to focus on that "statement" and throw their own feelings on it. Malmsteen has the right not to like hendrix and he can even think hes better than hendrix and he has the right to say it, Some will agree and some will disagree. Dosen't make it true or false, only in ones own opinion. People have said that Malmsteen has a big Ego, but isn't thinking ONE knows the real answer for everyone else having a big Ego as well? Think about it. I like Jimi Hendrixs' style of playing better than Malmsteens, But I did listen to Yngwie back in the early '80's and was amazed at his playing abilities. Never heard anyone play that fast when he first came out. Also he's not the only musician to have a big ego is he? He just soiled the Holy Grail for a lot of people when he made a statement about Hendrix. I'm sure Jimi will get over it, He didn't seem to be the type of guy to get too caught up in other peoples opinions of his style of playing. He just did his thing. and it was beautiful. PEACE. P.S. also Malmsteen Plays Strats so he cant be all bad.

I love how these shred guys bang on about diminished arpeggios as if they were the defining feature of classical music. There really are not all that many diminished arpeggios in classical music (compared to other chord structures) Bach or ortherwise. Really, there are 1000x more major arpeggios in classical music. Sweep some of those Yngwie. I suspect yngwie may know less about classical music than your average intermediate piano student.

If Bach meet yngiwe he would punch him in the neck, pound down a beer, finish a chicken leg and still complete 14 pieces of music that afternoon.

Diminished arpeggios are a prominent feature in classical music if you knew anything about the genre. Do you hear them in Def Leppard or John Cougar? Do you hear them in Heart or Bruce Springsteen? Mozart, Bach, etc. used them quite a bit to resolve to the tonic chord.

Yngwie can sweep any chord there is. Any chord. Piano students in college will know more about classical music than those that are just hacking it out for fun with a local teacher. Fact is Yngwie is one of the most intelligent guitarists to ever walk this earth. He's even composed parts for symphonies and is very adept at theory which is a typical weakness for everybody else.

Have a cup of coffee and wake up.

I'd like to do the same thing to him. (literally) Now that's not my usual demeanor!

Do you hear Malmsteen on the radio?? Not in my neck of the woods. The whole Neo Classical went south a long time ago. Malmsteen should start a band with that woman "The Great Kat". They can stroke each others egos.


Diminished arpeggios, sweep picking the same crap over and over only really impresses your average 13 year old metal head. The fact remains that Hendrix was a sonic explorer breaking new ground. Malmsteen had it all handed to him from other musicians, which is why he can't write a decent song, get airplay or get a decent recording contract. That and he's just an a-hole and acts like a spoiled 12 year old.

Listen to Frank Zappa's "Yellow Shark" Ensemble Modern if you want to hear what a true composer can do.

_________________
Life...... It's sexually transmitted and always fatal

+1

Zappa was a genius.

Andy

_________________
Pending Greatness

Maybe I do need a coffee...I posted a much more detialed, and aplogetic, post but it seems to have become lost. Perhaps it will show up?

Anyway, I stand by my statement that diminished arpeggios are not a major component of classical music. Sure, they occur more often than in Def Leppard but that his hardly an argument. Because somehing doesn't occur in one thing it hadly means that it is a defining feature of another because it occasionaly shows up. I know two Bob dylan songs with diminished arpeggios. Are diminished arpeggios a defining feature of Bob Dylan?

Shred guitar siezed on a very minor part of classical music and made it a major part of what they do. That is great! They made their own thing. Its great when people do that. Its a bit of a stretch to then go backwards and say that the thing they made their own was a defining feature of earlier style of music.

With all due respect it sound like your knowledge of classical music comes from neo-classical guitar. I suspect Bach's opinion of what yngwie does would not be very high.