The slow death of the electric guitar • Hacker News Board

Re: The slow death of the electric guitar

#241

Post by camus2 » Sun, Jun 25, 2017, 4:22 PM UTC

kochthesecond wrote: post #160

wvh wrote: post #126

My generation, the last of generation X, probably wanted to express existential angst with loud music such as altern rock and metal – music centered around distorted guitars. Metal took more hopeful '50s and '60s guitar music and turned it into darkness and despair, just like the hippie philosophy and in a way the general world view did. The millennial generation – my younger brother – clearly follows a different pat…

I would also argue metal was never mainstream. The mainstream was always further takes on pop, which to an increasing degree draws from all the others innovating, if in a moderately expressed way. Listen to mainstream popular music now and you can often find some of the intensity extreme metal explored.

> I would also argue metal was never mainstream.

Come on, it is/was, at least in Europe. Plenty of famous metal bands in the late 90's early 2000. Even death metal had a few commercial successes.

Re: The slow death of the electric guitar

#242

Post by wazoox » Sun, Jun 25, 2017, 4:27 PM UTC

jvandonsel wrote: post #220

Naive question: Do these various electric guitar models (Gibson, Fender, etc) actually sound distinctive? Or is it all about brand cachet?

The original models of the 50s and 60s sounded very differently. Modern incarnations of the old classics (Telecaster, Stratocaster, Les Paul, SG) are still produced and sold in large numbers, but it's mostly for the brand, as you mentioned.

Nowadays modern electric guitars are much more versatile. They generally can emulate the sound of the classics easily, but they play differently, they lack their slow, thick necks, their poor tuning, their noisy pickups... :)

Re: The slow death of the electric guitar

#243

Post by meggar » Sun, Jun 25, 2017, 4:27 PM UTC

InitialLastName wrote: post #209

johan_larson wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The electric guitar is now what the saxophone was in the fifties: the iconic instrument of the hottest music of dad's generation.

Let's be fair, the saxophone had a quick resurrection in the late 90's/early 00's. Source: Played baritone sax in an early 2000's ska band

At least we can always count on ska coming back. Isn't it about time for the fourth wave?

Re: The slow death of the electric guitar

#244

Post by ams6110 » Sun, Jun 25, 2017, 4:34 PM UTC

alexilliamson wrote: post #189

kochthesecond wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would also argue metal was never mainstream. The mainstream was always further takes on pop, which to an increasing degree draws from all the others innovating, if in a moderately expressed way. Listen to mainstream popular music now and you can often find some of the intensity extreme metal explored.

I would argue that KISS and Van Halen were incredibly main stream and are usually considered metal... at least van Halen

Van Halen and KISS were not really metal in my book -- glam rock/pop, along with most of the other 80s "hair" groups. Guitar-heavy to be sure, but not really metal.

Re: The slow death of the electric guitar

#245

Post by tnecniv » Sun, Jun 25, 2017, 4:38 PM UTC

srean wrote: post #77

SwellJoe wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This made you a much better player than just looking up a video or tab though." I disagree. Not about the "just looking up a tab" bit, but about the general gist of your argument that "the hard way teaches you better". Easier access to knowledge is always better when you want to learn things, and the internet is absolutely the best access to knowledge that has ever existed. I've been playing guitar since long before…

I dont think he meant "better because you did it the hardway" but "better because you spent time on the finer details of the phrasing" That said, it seems you had a lot on your chest and it feels good to get it off

What I meant is that learning songs by ear makes you a better musician because you are effectively doing ear training at the same time. Ear training is an important part of growing musically that many people over look because it is tedious, but it's what allows experts to play what they hear in their head when improvising. If you just play what's written out on a page, you won't benefit as much in this regard.

Re: The slow death of the electric guitar

#246

Post by jdietrich » Sun, Jun 25, 2017, 4:40 PM UTC

agumonkey wrote: post #113

kaoD wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could it be that you're uneducated (which is fine, there's so much music produced nowadays that's hard to be educated in all niches) and listening to shitty electronic music that the mainstream industry is advertising endlessly to recycle the same formula again and again for cheap gains? Similar to shitty music like "The Archies - Sugar Sugar" or anything from The Ramones. There's an endless stream of shit music from…

How many people in the electronic genre could play Bach ? I mind no medium, no genre, nothing at all. If you give me something musical, even tapping on bamboo, or an old DX7 (see this demo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3rrjQtQe5A , the pianos samples are dense, and the harmonies aren't dull) synth, I'd welcome it. The link you gave are not bad, but they lack soul, feel, weight. It's a common thing in electronic mu…

>How many people in the electronic genre could play Bach?

More than you might think. A.G. Cook and Danny L Harle are arguably the most influential figures in contemporary pop and are both classically trained composers. Harle has worked with Carly Rae Jepsen and produces some obnoxiously saccharin pop music, but he has also released an album of harpsichord duets.

The heart and soul of electronic music isn't melody or harmony, it's timbre and rhythm. There's a grammar of timbre which completely eludes most classical musicians.

Re: The slow death of the electric guitar

#247

Post by throwaway135634 » Sun, Jun 25, 2017, 4:43 PM UTC

srean wrote: post #77

SwellJoe wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This made you a much better player than just looking up a video or tab though." I disagree. Not about the "just looking up a tab" bit, but about the general gist of your argument that "the hard way teaches you better". Easier access to knowledge is always better when you want to learn things, and the internet is absolutely the best access to knowledge that has ever existed. I've been playing guitar since long before…

I dont think he meant "better because you did it the hardway" but "better because you spent time on the finer details of the phrasing" That said, it seems you had a lot on your chest and it feels good to get it off

I was under the impression that they meant it was good for you because training your ear like that is really good for a musician

Re: The slow death of the electric guitar

#248

Post by jdietrich » Sun, Jun 25, 2017, 4:44 PM UTC

eyeJam wrote: post #235

moogly wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. Technologically the instrument ran its course. While the tech was still innovative in the 90s with the new digital effects, it hasn't changed much in 20 years. This is... whilst not exactly incorrect, it's not the whole truth either. The article touched a little bit on this with the robotic tuner thing, but didn't fully explain why. In my experience partaking in internet guitar forums over the decades, the vast…

> can't break your headstock off — a quite common way to damage your guitar Really? Are people using their guitars as hammers? I think it's pretty damn hard to break a headstock off. Much more common damage to a guitar is denting the frets, distorting the neck or busting the tuning pegs. I'd put "breaking off the headstock" as the 99th percentile of common ways people materially damage their guitar.

Gibson guitars are notorious for broken headstocks, due to an archaic and inherently defective design. Modern scarf-jointed headstocks do occasionally break, but they're more prone to cracking around the machine head holes.

https://www.google.com/search?q=gibson+broken+headstock&tbm=...

http://jacksinstrumentservices.com/why-do-les-paul-headstock...

Re: The slow death of the electric guitar

#249

Post by elihu » Sun, Jun 25, 2017, 4:46 PM UTC

eyeJam wrote: post #235

moogly wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. Technologically the instrument ran its course. While the tech was still innovative in the 90s with the new digital effects, it hasn't changed much in 20 years. This is... whilst not exactly incorrect, it's not the whole truth either. The article touched a little bit on this with the robotic tuner thing, but didn't fully explain why. In my experience partaking in internet guitar forums over the decades, the vast…

> can't break your headstock off — a quite common way to damage your guitar Really? Are people using their guitars as hammers? I think it's pretty damn hard to break a headstock off. Much more common damage to a guitar is denting the frets, distorting the neck or busting the tuning pegs. I'd put "breaking off the headstock" as the 99th percentile of common ways people materially damage their guitar.

It's common with Gibsons due to the angle of the headstock relative to the grain of the wood.

Re: The slow death of the electric guitar

#250

Post by OhWhoCares » Sun, Jun 25, 2017, 4:54 PM UTC

I think that the very act of playing an instrument is much less impressive than it used to be, and that's because of computers and electronic music. Back in the day, the only way to make those heavenly sounds was to a human to pick up an instrument and play, and that's why musicians were considered demigods - they were the only thing in the world that could render music. And then the computers came and playing music became one of those "a computer can do that" activities, and thus is much less impressive.