In praise of shred
 

Right, so I have a bit of an affection for shred. There's something quite brilliantly beautiful about men who've spent huge portions of their life playing music that hasn't been fashionable since about 1986 or so. And while they might not produce music that I can listen to always, a lot of these guys can play the absolute shit out of their instruments in ways most of us can't really imagine.

To start us off, here's a lovely clip of Vai, Satriani and Malmsteen playing a Hendrix song.

You could probably argue that post-rock came from this. Discuss.

Perfect examples of why being technically good doesn't make you a good musician in my book. I would rather have kittens claw off my balls than listen to them play. It is the same way I feel about death metal bands.

Depends on your tastes I suppose. I think anyone who advocates not learning an instrument on that sort of basis is cutting of their nose to spite their face.

I also tend to think that appreciating music on a strictly technical-playing level is sort of important. I think a lot of jazz is really difficult to appreciate without some sense of 'these are good musicians', and while shred is legions away from jazz in many ways, it's still possible to enjoy people playing their instruments with a high degree of virtuosity.

Meanwhile, have some SRV.

cliffs of dover is an incredible song.
and i have always respected joe satriani much more than other shreders.

Musicians (*cough* mars volta), even in jazz, that focus too much on being technical end up being a major SUCK FEST.

The balance between style, mood and being technical is where it is at as far as top shelf shit IMO.

MAB. Check out that ridiculous thing at 1.55. Bless him.

I suppose I'd say that that 'balance' is very rare, and it's kind of important to listen to things that emphasise some areas over others. You're not going to get 'style, mood and technicality' in noise (quite the opposite) and, while a lot of noise is probably as dull as shred, it's still necessary that people emphasise those 'other' areas of music.

You're a pervert.
Or just jealous.

Most people I've met who worship the above guitarrists despise those who haven't been practicing at least 20000 hours; that is almost everyone.
(you could add Eric Clapton to your list maybe)

I fucking hate Clapton. I know I can hardly speak, given this thread, but I seriously think he's one of the most over-rated, insidiously dull musicians imaginable. If you'd said Jeff Beck, however, I'd definitely be interested. There's a solo on one of the Beck Yardbirds records which is just one note, attacked in different ways. And he can also play four million notes a second if necessary. Beck - a man with taste.

Buckethead being awesome.

Yeah, Clapton is insufferable shite.

I've also developed an interest in shred lately. My main problem with it though is the way it ends up treating the physical challenges posed by the guitar as a kind of object of fetish and that what comes out of it is little other than an expression of that fetish. I've no problem when a guitarist sometimes incorporates shred elements into their playing because the music they aim to create might at times call for it (as happens with people like SRV or Eric Johnson) but most of the more generic shred guitarists I've heard, while obviously technically impressive, seem to be concerned with little more than using the guitar as a device through which they can demonstrate their physical dexterity. I envy their technique but not what 90% of them do with it or, what I take to be, the motivation behind why they do it.


Beck's one of those guitarists, like SRV or EJ, for whom massive technical proficiency isn't an end unto itself but a necessary means for him to communicate his ideas. I'd categorise a shred guitarist as one who plays 4 million notes a second not because the music he makes requires it, but simply because he can.

I have to take issue with the Clapton is overrated comment, though. I'd agree that his period of invention was very brief and that what he's done, roughly from the mid-'70s onwards, has been pedestrian at best. I'd even agree that during his most fertile period his influence could be seen as being negative but, for about five years, he was the guy who, for better or worse, transformed guitar playing in popular music. The day he plugged a Gibson into a Marshall for what would become the 'Beano' album, he effectively laid down the blueprint that'd see rock begin to replace rnr. There could be questions about how good he was technically although not particularly strong ones. There's certainly lots to dislike about Clapton (both as a player and a person) and, like any famous person, he could be described as overrated. If anything though, I think his significance is now more taken for granted and that, in truth, I'd say that in recent years he's become somewhat underrated (atleast with regards his playing for the Bluesbreakers, Yardbirds and Cream). It's a typical case for me of someone coming along, stirring things up in a new and very major way, then being superseded by those influenced by him and subsequently ignored.

I've watched a video of Jeff Beck and Jimmy Page playing together, recently, which was great. Even though I'm not a particular fan of either, when I practice I'd rather listen to people who give an air of knowing what they're doing, rather than in your face weird, or too noisy guitarists. Another rule I set for myself is trying to stay away as much as I can from the ''SY school of guitar-playing'', at least when it comes to this instrument, not because I have major problems with it, of course, just because I strive to be influenced by it from afar. Besides, I really enjoy quite a bit of prog, viruoso-psych, and more popular old rock to start with.

Never much enjoyed shred for the sake of shred, which isn't to say that I don't happen to enjoy a few guitar players which exhibit exceptional levels of talent.

Hendrix, Page, Buddy Guy, Johnny Winter (sometimes)....BLUES! Those guys that make their guitars sound like they are screaming, whining, moaning, orgasmin', exploding,...as opposed to some of those other guys that (to me) just sound like they've mastered that typewriter thing while sitting on the couch countless hours playing + watching TV. I just don't feel too much of that stuff. Often times it just sounds (again...to me) more like a display of ability than raw emotion.

Like someone else said, though...it's always nice when a healthy balance can be found between the two.

This is very similar to myself, as it happens. I'm much closer to the alt-rock mode of guitar (though I'd rather say I was closer to Derek Bailey or Keiji Haino than Moore & Ranaldo) so I try and avoid listening to too much that's similar to me. Something like shred fulfils a lot for me because it's so far removed from what I do but definitely brings new ways of playing

I've never really got the blues though. Some of it's alright (Son House) but a lot of it really doesn't do anything for me. I think it's all a bit to austere for my liking, not much in the way of relief. Whereas Malmsteen or whoever is at least preposterous.

by SHRED you mean guitar virtuosos rippin it up?

I find I like them when they ahve to work through the constraints of a song's structure. Steve Vai had some amazing guitar work in david Lee Roth's band but his solo shit is terrible. Satriani or Malgmsteen I have never enjoyed. It's like listening to someone practice Etudes all day.

Eddie Van Halen pre-1985 was a monster. The things he could do on a guitar were just amazing, having grown up classically trained and in a musical family. he did shiot that everyone else copied.

The guitar solos on Rust In Peace, Peace Sells, and So far So Good... by Mustaione and his other guitarist shred fucking fiercely.

Once I got over my bias towards texas blues musicians around 10th grade I found Stevie Ray Vaughn super amazing. The motherfucker could come up with endless lines and riffs and choruses just like any great jazz player. he was amazing to watch fuck a guitar up.

Instead of shred, I like to listen to stuff like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVrRTVKVr6Q

Which is the same idea, super technical playing, a million notes, but I can actually stomach this, and not just because the Captain wrote it. I don't know what you'd label that guitar composition under, and there's no sweep- or tremolo-picking or whatever, but it's just as technically challenging, if not more so, than a lot of "shred" stuff.

My old guitar teacher use to worship shred, loved satriani and the others, he would often shred on his acoustic, once even playin that dancing with aliens song by satriani which actually sounded pretty decent on acoustic.
I can't connect with that idea of 'classical' shred, although the technical ability is blantantly undeniable.

I do like a bit of shreddin when it is incorporated in songs that rock. Mascis could shred with the masters, and brought some of that ability into new depths.
Are there many female guitar heroes around?

This girl can sure shred http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8zJ29G2Ujk

The Great Kat. One of the words in her name is misleading though.

Whenever I listen to Dinosaur, I always yearn for some proper shred. Planned out rather than noodly up and down bollocks. Another band I've never been able to tolerate.

Megadeth riffage and shredding fantastic - HOLY WARS (the riff at 2:26 is like an unearthed monster from Tony Iommi's cerebellum circa 1975)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d4ui9q7eDM