ZOMG! HE'S TECHNICALLY PROFICIENT!! HE MUST NOT HAVE A SOUL!!

/cool link btw

I believe that qualifies as "ill"...at least from a technical standpoint.

/smoooth, man

the_cnidarian: ZOMG! HE'S TECHNICALLY PROFICIENT!! HE MUST NOT HAVE A SOUL!!

/cool link btw

Please don't tell me you're trying to compare the "look how fast I can play my guitar" wankers to 'Trane.

jake_lex: Please don't tell me you're trying to compare the "look how fast I can play my guitar" wankers to 'Trane.

Oh, I really hope not. That would be a very special kind of ignorance.

This link, by the way, is farking brilliant.

That just puts a different light on my whole day now.

cant watch the link at work, but am playing the track on my ipod. Really astounding stuff.

I feel the comparison to "guitar wankers" is fair. Just because someone can play fast doesn't mean it is without feel or emotion. Coltrane did it on a sax, why cant it be done on a guitar. That is not to say that all fast playing on guitar is emotional, because it's not, nor is all playing on a sax emotional.

kungfu jesus with a side of lime: cant watch the link at work, but am playing the track on my ipod. Really astounding stuff.

I feel the comparison to "guitar wankers" is fair. Just because someone can play fast doesn't mean it is without feel or emotion. Coltrane did it on a sax, why cant it be done on a guitar. That is not to say that all fast playing on guitar is emotional, because it's not, nor is all playing on a sax emotional...

...just ask the guy from Supertramp.

Seriously though, Coltrane was, and will always be one of the heavies. The Quartet period is some of my favorite jazz. Tyner, Jones, and Garrison really complimented 'Trane well, and Elvin Jones is a joy to watch. The man plays like he's running from Cthulu.

/Sorry, reading too much Lovecraft lately...

kungfu jesus with a side of lime: I feel the comparison to "guitar wankers" is fair. Just because someone can play fast doesn't mean it is without feel or emotion. Coltrane did it on a sax, why cant it be done on a guitar. That is not to say that all fast playing on guitar is emotional, because it's not, nor is all playing on a sax emotional.

The reason it's not comparable is effects. Effects make a mediocre guitar player sound much better. A little fuzz and all kinds of clams go unnoticed in the wash. There are no washout effects on sax.

Same goes for jazz guitar. Most speed-demon metal guitarists would have a real hard time on a hollowbody jazz guitar with a clean tone.

One of my all-time favorite tunes. This and "Naima" are both on the same record...outstanding beyond words.

And STFU with the shredder comparisons. Outside John McLaughlin, few of the speed-demon guitarists really play soulfully. Coltrane is not even on the same planet.

John Paul Jones: kungfu jesus with a side of lime: I feel the comparison to "guitar wankers" is fair. Just because someone can play fast doesn't mean it is without feel or emotion. Coltrane did it on a sax, why cant it be done on a guitar. That is not to say that all fast playing on guitar is emotional, because it's not, nor is all playing on a sax emotional.

The reason it's not comparable is effects. Effects make a mediocre guitar player sound much better. A little fuzz and all kinds of clams go unnoticed in the wash. There are no washout effects on sax.

Same goes for jazz guitar. Most speed-demon metal guitarists would have a real hard time on a hollowbody jazz guitar with a clean tone.

That's not entirely true. Metal players work their asses off perfecting a lick (same as Coltrane). Not saying they are up to par with Coltrane, but guys like Zakk Wylde, Yngie, etc could play a lot of their stuff acoustically. They just couldn't improvise anywhere near Coltrane's level.

I love how the pianist is totally lost on the song. I know I couldn't solo over that song, but it just shows how much further ahead Coltrane was.

nocode: I love how the pianist is totally lost on the song. I know I couldn't solo over that song, but it just shows how much further ahead Coltrane was.

Listen to this: Link (new window)

That's the song "Countdown" from the Giant Steps album. That was the band's 2nd take through the song. Coltrane basically handed out the charts with those difficult chord changes that needed to be done really fast. That's why the drums start out in that song, and when Coltrane comes in there's no accompaniment until almost all the way through the first time--the instrumentalists needed some time to actually figure out the song. Probably my favorite Coltrane moment right there, Coltrane soloing brutally fast over his giant steps progression in "Countdown" with absolutely no accompaniment.

I have to ring in on the whole Coltrane v Shredder Guitarists thing. I haven't heard the argument of chord progression come into play yet, so I figured I'd throw it out there. Most of the shredder songs I've heard have very simple chord progressions and are mostly diatonic, meaning the guitarist didn't have to alter the scale or key he was playing in while soloing. Compare that to Coltrane switching keys every half second. It's very difficult to get your mind to switch mode of thought that fast, much less make it sound melodic.

John Paul Jones: The reason it's not comparable is effects. Effects make a mediocre guitar player sound much better. A little fuzz and all kinds of clams go unnoticed in the wash. There are no washout effects on sax.

totally wrong. lots of guitarists play either clean or acoustic and lots of sax players use effects.

nocode: I love how the pianist is totally lost on the song. I know I couldn't solo over that song, but it just shows how much further ahead Coltrane was.

LostSaidDocument is right, tommy flanagan was reading the chart right before the session and had no idea the tempo was going to be so insanely fast.

as a bonus, heres mclaughlins 1978 tribute to coltrane(hence the title). the chord changes are very similar to giant steps and its VERY f*cking fast. oh yeah, no effects and a hollowbody for you JPJ.

do you hear the voices you left behind (new window)

mahavishnunj: totally wrong. lots of guitarists play either clean or acoustic and lots of sax players use effects.

No, completely right. I actually pointed out that it's harder to play with a clean tone, so I'm not really sure you understand what you're talking about.

Show me a guitarist that shreds with tons of distortion, and I'll show you someone that sounds shaky with a clean tone. The only effects generally used by sax players is a hint of reverb or similar. Not fuzztone or distortion. Note the use of the word "generally". We're not talking Sex Mob distortion here.

mahavishnunj: John Paul Jones: The reason it's not comparable is effects. Effects make a mediocre guitar player sound much better. A little fuzz and all kinds of clams go unnoticed in the wash. There are no washout effects on sax.

totally wrong. lots of guitarists play either clean or acoustic and lots of sax players use effects.

nocode: I love how the pianist is totally lost on the song. I know I couldn't solo over that song, but it just shows how much further ahead Coltrane was.

LostSaidDocument is right, tommy flanagan was reading the chart right before the session and had no idea the tempo was going to be so insanely fast.

as a bonus, heres mclaughlins 1978 tribute to coltrane(hence the title). the chord changes are very similar to giant steps and its VERY f*cking fast. oh yeah, no effects and a hollowbody for you JPJ.

do you hear the voices you left behind (new window)

I see your McLaughlin/Clarke/Jack D/Chick and raise you the ultimate in Johnny Mac cleanliness...
Shakti (pops)

John Paul Jones: Show me a guitarist that shreds with tons of distortion, and I'll show you someone that sounds shaky with a clean tone.

greg howe, mclaughlin was SHAKIER with tons of distortion than he was with an acoustic in the early days, dimeola, hell even yngwie is clean on acoustic guitar. i could go on if you need more.

John Paul Jones: Not fuzztone or distortion. Note the use of the word "generally".

'generally' sure, but its not like you never hear it. the brecker brothers have used tons of effects from the beginning. eddie harris. i just heard some live nicholas payton last night where the sax player had more distortion than jimi hendrix. so i think ive demonstrated i know what im talking about at least(if not more)than you do.

oh yeah, allan holdsworth has plenty of straight clean tone shiat from the 70s and those 2 acoustic records. i cant wait for you to show me where he was shaky!

This is some good stuff, I should buy a John Coltrane album now.

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: This is some good stuff, I should buy a John Coltrane album now.

Yes. Yes, you should.

/submitter

mahavishnunj: 'generally' sure, but its not like you never hear it. the brecker brothers have used tons of effects from the beginning. eddie harris. i just heard some live nicholas payton last night where the sax player had more distortion than jimi hendrix. so i think ive demonstrated i know what im talking about at least(if not more)than you do.

oh yeah, allan holdsworth has plenty of straight clean tone shiat from the 70s and those 2 acoustic records. i cant wait for you to show me where he was shaky!

Pointing out a few exceptions does not negate the rule, my friend.

you said:

John Paul Jones: Show me a guitarist that shreds with tons of distortion, and I'll show you someone that sounds shaky with a clean tone.

i did. you havent.

mitchcumpstein: I have to ring in on the whole Coltrane v Shredder Guitarists thing. I haven't heard the argument of chord progression come into play yet, so I figured I'd throw it out there. Most of the shredder songs I've heard have very simple chord progressions and are mostly diatonic, meaning the guitarist didn't have to alter the scale or key he was playing in while soloing. Compare that to Coltrane switching keys every half second. It's very difficult to get your mind to switch mode of thought that fast, much less make it sound melodic.

Umm which guitarists are you listening to, I could suggest some artist that have amazingly complex music and play with percision and skill. But if we show you them, then all guitarist have no soul. So we show you some one who can bend and play with feel and he is sloppy. Please read later arguments about buckethead, he is the answer to all your guitar related questions.

John Paul Jones: mahavishnunj: 'generally' sure, but its not like you never hear it. the brecker brothers have used tons of effects from the beginning. eddie harris. i just heard some live nicholas payton last night where the sax player had more distortion than jimi hendrix. so i think ive demonstrated i know what im talking about at least(if not more)than you do.

oh yeah, allan holdsworth has plenty of straight clean tone shiat from the 70s and those 2 acoustic records. i cant wait for you to show me where he was shaky!

Pointing out a few exceptions does not negate the rule, my friend.

Buckethead can play amazing with a clean tone, satriani plays amazing with a clean tone, paul gilbert plays amazing with a clean tone. I think you need to reevaluate some of these artists before you go and make blanket statements. By your logic Coltrane played amazing on this album so all sax players are amazing. Giant steps is mind numbing in its perfection and beautiy, however there is modern guitar music that is also mind numbing and perfect. I am sure that there were nights were Trane missed a few notes, or had to use a slur to get to where he ment to be. No muscian is perfect.

/I think you have your smarmy pants on a bit to tight
//I love that there isn't a day that goes by that I cant make a valid argument in the music thread without discussing Buckethead

mahavishnunj: i did. you havent.

Walk into any guitar store. Go check out a local metal band. Hell, check out most "popular" metal bands. That's what I'm talking about. They cover their mediocrity with distortion. When gifted and skilled musicians that have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have skills dabble with effects (like your Brecker reference and my Sex Mob reference), it's hardly the same thing.

Somehow, you seem to think that I'm talking about John McLaughlin, which is hysterical since he's a shining example of my point.

But hey, keep believing that I think Stanley Jordan, Allan Holdsworth, etc can't play. It's quite entertaining.

kungfu jesus with a side of lime: /I think you have your smarmy pants on a bit to tight

I talked about Paul Gilbert and Satriani?

*re-reads thread*

Nope, I didn't. You must have me confused with someone else.

John Paul Jones: The reason it's not comparable is effects. Effects make a mediocre guitar player sound much better. A little fuzz and all kinds of clams go unnoticed in the wash. There are no washout effects on sax.

I just realized... kungfu jesus with a side of lime and mahavishnunj appear to think that John McLaughlin, Buckethead, Allan Holdsworth and Joe Satriani (among others) are mediocre.

Now I'm really confused.

John Paul Jones: I just realized... kungfu jesus with a side of lime and mahavishnunj appear to think that John McLaughlin, Buckethead, Allan Holdsworth and Joe Satriani (among others) are mediocre.

Now I'm really confused.

you should be confused, i never said anything remotely like that. in fact, it was so clear i guess ill repeat it for you:

John Paul Jones: Show me a guitarist that shreds with tons of distortion, and I'll show you someone that sounds shaky with a clean tone.

i did that, and you were unable to show me where any of those guitarists i named were 'shaky' with a clean tone. you then changed your stance to:

John Paul Jones: Walk into any guitar store. Go check out a local metal band. Hell, check out most "popular" metal bands. That's what I'm talking about. They cover their mediocrity with distortion.

that is completely different from the initial comment i responded to.

for the record, i do think satriani is mediocre as hell though.

John Paul Jones: Somehow, you seem to think that I'm talking about John McLaughlin, which is hysterical since he's a shining example of my point.

i mentioned him once, so i dont get where youre coming from with this either. except that hes an even better example of my point, being that he was CLEANER on acoustic guitar than a 'distorted as all hell electric' at least up until 75 or so.

John Paul Jones: But hey, keep believing that I think Stanley Jordan, Allan Holdsworth, etc can't play. It's quite entertaining.

are we reading the same thread or are you meaning to post somewhere else? i have no idea if you like these guys or not, i just provided you with numerous examples of people that you cannot expose as 'shaky with a clean tone' that have also used assloads of distortion before. you still havent, and you wont. i even gave you high level improvisers(except yngwie)to really show how retarded that comment was but you seem to be missing the point entirely, so ill give up now.

John Paul Jones: John Paul Jones: The reason it's not comparable is effects. Effects make a mediocre guitar player sound much better. A little fuzz and all kinds of clams go unnoticed in the wash. There are no washout effects on sax.

I just realized... kungfu jesus with a side of lime and mahavishnunj appear to think that John McLaughlin, Buckethead, Allan Holdsworth and Joe Satriani (among others) are mediocre.

Now I'm really confused.

When you say a mediocre guitarist cant play without distorition what point are you trying to make, that he is mediocre. What do you call a guy without a job that lives with his girl friend? A mediocre sax player. Comparing a mediocre guitarist and shred muscian to a god like Coltrane is stupid. It is even more befuddling to assume that sense mediocre guitarist cant play without distortion, that all guitarist cant play without distortion.

To be honest at this point I don't think you know what you are arguing, and that is probably due to the fact that you are retarded. Don't feel surprised, argument based retardation affects lots of people on the internet. So go ahead and blab on about your cirular logic, and compare mediocre guitarist to coltrane, thats cool. You enjoy giant steps so you can get a pass. now enjoy this picture of buckethead:

mahavishnunj: that is completely different from the initial comment i responded to.

The f*ck it is. Read my original post: "Effects make a mediocre guitar player sound much better." I even used the same key word in there to make it easier for you to understand.

i did that, and you were unable to show me where any of those guitarists i named were 'shaky' with a clean tone. you then changed your stance to:

You pointed out guitarists that proved my point. Apparently, guitarists you considered 'mediocre' as per my original post, which makes no sense whatsoever.

Now kindly go fark yourself and your willful ignorance.

kungfu jesus with a side of lime: To be honest at this point I don't think you know what you are arguing, and that is probably due to the fact that you are retarded.

i think this is valid. ive shown the dude THREE TIMES the EXACT QUOTE i corrected him on and he still doesnt get it. ive read his responses twice and i still dont understand. i think hes drunk early or something.

kungfu jesus with a side of lime: So go ahead and blab on about your cirular logic, and compare mediocre guitarist to coltrane, thats cool.

Oh for the luvva God, you must be insane. Sixth post in this thread:

kungfu jesus with a side of lime: I feel the comparison to "guitar wankers" is fair.

i.e., you compared John Contrane to "guitar wankers", then accuse me of comparing mediocre guitarists to him -- which I never did. All I said was that the majority of guitar players (not necessarily famous, fabulously gifted guitar players) that play with shiatloads of distortion do so to cover their technical inadequacies -- it's just easier. Same goes for keys players that live and die by the transpose button, and play in C on every tune.

What the fark?

mahavishnunj: i just provided you with numerous examples of people that you cannot expose as 'shaky with a clean tone' that have also used assloads of distortion before.

There's a vast world of difference between "used assloads of distortion before" and "can't play without effects".

It kills me that for the past few hours, I've been listening to Pandora keyed to John McLaughlin, and Melvin Sparks, Al DiMeola, Larry Carlton, John Scofield, et al have been featured... yet you're so dense, you think I'm talking about them.

I farking give up.

John Paul Jones: kungfu jesus with a side of lime: So go ahead and blab on about your cirular logic, and compare mediocre guitarist to coltrane, thats cool.

Oh for the luvva God, you must be insane. Sixth post in this thread:

kungfu jesus with a side of lime: I feel the comparison to "guitar wankers" is fair.

i.e., you compared John Contrane to "guitar wankers", then accuse me of comparing mediocre guitarists to him -- which I never did. All I said was that the majority of guitar players (not necessarily famous, fabulously gifted guitar players) that play with shiatloads of distortion do so to cover their technical inadequacies -- it's just easier. Same goes for keys players that live and die by the transpose button, and play in C on every tune.

What the fark?

I put guitar wankers in quatition implying it was sarcasm. I do not feel that any guitarist who can play a good solo or can shred should be called emotionless or a wanker. I hate how all good guitarist are called wankers or blanketly called shredders. So perhaps we are not that far from each other. A good guitarist is to a good sax player, as a mediocre guitarsit is to a mediocre sax player. If you agree to that then we are ok. If not I continue to assume that you are retarded.

John Paul Jones: All I said was that the majority of guitar players (not necessarily famous, fabulously gifted guitar players) that play with shiatloads of distortion do so to cover their technical inadequacies

no, heres what you said for the 15th time:

John Paul Jones: Show me a guitarist that shreds with tons of distortion, and I'll show you someone that sounds shaky with a clean tone.

this implies that anyone who uses distortion cant play as clean without said distortion. i gave you more than enough contrary examples and then paul gilbert and joe satriani showed up somehow. btw, distortion isnt necessarily 'an effect', you and i both know tons of players who use natural overdrive to get the tone to break up. now that you have said 'the MAJORITY of guitar players' which is absolutely NOT what you said first(see your own quote above)you are making a little more sense. im still not following the rest of what you two are talking about with mediocre guitar players and shiat so im letting that rest.

to bring this thread back from total gheyness, theres a badass bluegrass version of giant steps called 'giant hornpipe' on mike marshalls 'gator strut' record. i cant find a handy link, but you guys can find it on certain sites that deal with that sort of thing;)

mahavishnunj: John Paul Jones: All I said was that the majority of guitar players (not necessarily famous, fabulously gifted guitar players) that play with shiatloads of distortion do so to cover their technical inadequacies

no, heres what you said for the 15th time:

John Paul Jones: Show me a guitarist that shreds with tons of distortion, and I'll show you someone that sounds shaky with a clean tone.

this implies that anyone who uses distortion cant play as clean without said distortion. i gave you more than enough contrary examples and then paul gilbert and joe satriani showed up somehow. btw, distortion isnt necessarily 'an effect', you and i both know tons of players who use natural overdrive to get the tone to break up. now that you have said 'the MAJORITY of guitar players' which is absolutely NOT what you said first(see your own quote above)you are making a little more sense. im still not following the rest of what you two are talking about with mediocre guitar players and shiat so im letting that rest.

to bring this thread back from total gheyness, theres a badass bluegrass version of giant steps called 'giant hornpipe' on mike marshalls 'gator strut' record. i cant find a handy link, but you guys can find it on certain sites that deal with that sort of thing;)

so now my problem is with you. How the hell is satriani overated. The man invented/reinvented the idea of modern guitar and instrumental rock. Please explain this statment, please I am dying to hear the line of bs you can generate for this argument.

mahavishnunj: no, heres what you said for the 15th time:

I know what I said, and it's absolutely true.

this implies that anyone who uses distortion cant play as clean without said distortion.

No, my original comment said "mediocre guitar players". You somehow concluded that I was talking about guys like John McLaughlin, which is an amazing logical leap.

now that you have said 'the MAJORITY of guitar players' which is absolutely NOT what you said first(see your own quote above)you are making a little more sense.

It's exactly what I said, right from the beginning, unless you think that the majority of guitar players are stupendously gifted, and only a small number are mediocre. Right from the beginning, man. I've never changed that stance, you just interpreted it completely, ridiculously backwards.

Oh, and if you've never heard the "show me a __ and I'll show you a ___" phrase before, you really have some learning to do.

Man, everyone's an idiot today.

John Paul Jones: No, my original comment said "mediocre guitar players".

you did?

John Paul Jones: mahavishnunj: totally wrong. lots of guitarists play either clean or acoustic and lots of sax players use effects.

No, completely right. I actually pointed out that it's harder to play with a clean tone, so I'm not really sure you understand what you're talking about.

Show me a guitarist that shreds with tons of distortion, and I'll show you someone that sounds shaky with a clean tone. The only effects generally used by sax players is a hint of reverb or similar. Not fuzztone or distortion. Note the use of the word "generally". We're not talking Sex Mob distortion here.

the word 'mediocre' doesnt appear once in the quote i was responding to. theres the whole post for you to examine since you know what you wrote so well. you said in an earlier post(that is NOT the one i was responding to or i wouldve quoted THAT post)that effects make mediocre players sound better. this can be true. however, you never said anything about mediocre players in YOUR OWN QUOTE THAT I WAS RESPONDING TO.

John Paul Jones: You somehow concluded that I was talking about guys like John McLaughlin, which is an amazing logical leap.

not really, you said,'Show me a guitarist that shreds with tons of distortion, and I'll show you someone that sounds shaky with a clean tone.' i showed you a bunch, and none of them are shaky with a clean tone. thats about as cut and dry as it gets man.

kungfu jesus with a side of lime: so now my problem is with you. How the hell is satriani overated. The man invented/reinvented the idea of modern guitar and instrumental rock. Please explain this statment, please I am dying to hear the line of bs you can generate for this argument.

i didnt say 'overrated' i said 'mediocre' and i think thats being generous. i think 'guitar rock' is one of the shiattiest forms of music that has ever existed, but you make a point-hes responsible for popularizing it. he certainly didnt 'reinvent' jack shiat, id be more interested in hearing from YOU why one would think that. hes not the lamest of the guitar rock guys but hes not even close to the better writers or the better players of that genre(i know, thats like saying cancer is better than aids, but whatever).

John Paul Jones: The reason it's not comparable is effects. Effects make a mediocre guitar player sound much better.

This was my Boobies on the topic. My second post in the thread. The entire basis of my argument from then to now. I haven't changed positions on anything.

mahavishnunj: the word 'mediocre' doesnt appear once in the quote i was responding to.

There's no arguing with an idiot, apparently.

John Paul Jones: Oh, and if you've never heard the "show me a __ and I'll show you a ___" phrase before, you really have some learning to do.

'show me a pre-op tranny and ill show you a guy in a chicken suit farking a giant cheeto'?

mahavishnunj: however, you never said anything about mediocre players in YOUR OWN QUOTE THAT I WAS RESPONDING TO.

Yeah, of course not. I'D ALREADY SAID IT.

Jesus Christ.

John Paul Jones: There's no arguing with an idiot, apparently.

we finally agree!

mahavishnunj: the word 'mediocre' doesnt appear once in the quote i was responding to. theres the whole post for you to examine since you know what you wrote so well. you said in an earlier post(that is NOT the one i was responding to or i wouldve quoted THAT post)that effects make mediocre players sound better. this can be true.

I just had to re-read this and comment on it. Your argument, then, is that every post in a thread is a unique entity, and is not based on previous posts by the same person. So in order to have a discussion, you need to re-state every point in every post.

Right. Keep reaching.

In other news, I'm now phenomenally pissed off that this thread on Giant Steps turned into an Internet f*ckfest. Goddammitsomuch.

John Paul Jones: In other news, I'm now phenomenally pissed off that this thread on Giant Steps turned into an Internet f*ckfest. Goddammitsomuch.

then learn how to comprehend how posting works. i didnt respond to your 2nd post because i agree with it(except for the part about 'sax has no washout effects' that i KNOW you know is wrong). see how easily all this couldve been avoided? i responded to a seperate post, which actually was a 'unique entity'. YOU said,'Show me a guitarist that shreds with tons of distortion, and I'll show you someone that sounds shaky with a clean tone.' you didnt say,'show me a MEDIOCRE GUITAR CENTER ASSHOLE from a group called corpse f*cker and i can probably prove to you that hes not a clean player without distortion'. you may have MEANT that, but we cannot read your mind on the internet. i can repost your own posts a million times and youll probably still never get it so i really am done now. although, did i get the quote right with the fill in the blanks?

as a concellation prize(since you probably wont understand a word of this post either), heres an 11 year old playing giant steps:

Ariel (new window)

mahavishnunj: i didnt respond to your 2nd post because i agree with it(except for the part about 'sax has no washout effects' that i KNOW you know is wrong). see how easily all this couldve been avoided?

How can you possibly think that you can dispute events that are in the same thread?

mahavishnunj: John Paul Jones: The reason it's not comparable is effects. Effects make a mediocre guitar player sound much better. A little fuzz and all kinds of clams go unnoticed in the wash. There are no washout effects on sax.

totally wrong. lots of guitarists play either clean or acoustic and lots of sax players use effects.

You did respond to that post, and you said I was totally wrong. Now you say "i didnt respond to your 2nd post because i agree with it".

mahavishnunj: although, did i get the quote right with the fill in the blanks?

I actually thought you were trying to be funny. No, not even close.

as a concellation prize(since you probably wont understand a word of this post either)

Hard to understand when the words don't actually exist. Consolation, however, is a word.

Just stop now, before you embarrass yourself further.

John Paul Jones: You did respond to that post, and you said I was totally wrong.

correct, youre right i responded and you were also wrong with what you said. mind bending right?

John Paul Jones: Now you say "i didnt respond to your 2nd post because i agree with it".

i didnt respond to your 2nd post during the bulk of this gay argument. just the once, to show you said something wrong(which you did). i agree about the effects thing, i disagree with the sax thing as ive stated 3423 times already.

John Paul Jones: I actually thought you were trying to be funny. No, not even close.

we must just say it differently here then.

John Paul Jones: Hard to understand when the words don't actually exist. Consolation, however, is a word.

i spelled a word incorrectly-my whole deal is shot now!

John Paul Jones: Just stop now, before you embarrass yourself further.

owning you has been too easy, so im neither embarrassed or happy about it. at least you have good taste in music, youre just not very good at the internet i guess.

Playing with distortion is different than using a clean tone, but not necessarily easier. I have seen some excellent guitarists with clean tone struggle mightily when asked to play something with distortion. The idea that distortion masks imperfection is a ridiculous oversimplification. It masks some forms of imperfection, but exposes others... the best example being the need to control even the most subtle vibrations of the neighboring strings.

mahavishnunj: correct, youre right i responded and you were also wrong with what you said. mind bending right?

What's really mind bending is that you've actually changed your mind on that post three times now. When you agreed with me (only a few posts ago!) you even quoted the same post:

mahavishnunj: i didnt respond to your 2nd post because i agree with it(except for the part about 'sax has no washout effects' that i KNOW you know is wrong). see how easily all this couldve been avoided?

See, that part about 'sax has no washout effects' was part of the same post. The one you said was wrong. Then wasn't, and now is again.

It's all right there, at the top of the thread. Also, obviously you can run a sax through distortion (I referenced Sex Mob for just that reason) but the frequency of players doing that isn't anywhere near the same levels as guitarists (and I KNOW you know that's true).

mahavishnunj: owning you has been too easy, so im neither embarrassed or happy about it.

Son, the only thing you've owned is yourself. The really sad part is that you don't even realize that you originally misunderstood me (probably not on purpose, but once you realized, then you were just trying to look like slightly less of an imbecile), and have been agreeing with my point throughout most of the thread. That's funny.

To be honest, if you weren't such a dick about it, we'd probably have enjoyed a discussion on jazz in this thread instead of me trying to hammer one single valid point through your head for an afternoon.

Holy crap that was boring. What's the big deal about a bunch of disjointed, pointless wanking?

loser_death_spiral: Holy crap that was boring. What's the big deal about a bunch of disjointed, pointless wanking?

nobody cares about the music, we all just liked the animation.

I know I'm a little late to the party, but how does a John Coltrane thread devolve into a "my guitarist is better than your guitarist" clusterfark and no one mentions Sonny Sharrock? Phenomenal player (whether clean or distorted), made great records with Elvin Jones and Pharaoh Sanders, and played uncredited on "A Tribute to Jack Johnson" because McLaughlin was too intimidated.
What gives?