Title: Which CDs from Malmsteen are the most Classical?
Description: More Classical than 80's Metal.
Unstereotypical - March 21, 2008 03:47 AM (GMT)
Which ones of all of Yngwie's CDs are the most Classical based?
I know "Concerto for Electric Guitar" CD and "Rising Force Self-Titled" CD are, but other than those 2 CDs, which ones of his other CDs are the most Classical based?
"Marching Out" CD?
"Oddessy" CD?
"Fire and Ice" CD?
"Attack" CD?
"Unleash the Steel" CD?
I am just wondering, b/c I love that man's guitar playing and how he adds the Baroque Classical music in with his songs.
I already have "Concerto for Electric Guitar" and "Rising Force Self-Titled" CDs. I would like to get more of his CDs, but I don't know which one of his other CDs to get that has the most Classical music on it?
I do not care for his cheap 80's Hair Fluff stuff. I heard that the best singing ever on any of his CDs is the "Marching Out" CD, and the "Self-Titled" CD.
Devon8822 - March 21, 2008 05:04 AM (GMT)
All of his albums are the exact same genre and contain the same amount of "classicalness"... What 80s fluff stuff? There is no 80s fluff stuff... He was an 80s guitarist... if you like Rising Force, than you will like the rest. what you should do is get his albums in order from his first to last... so since you have Rising Force now, get Marching out next.
It is generally considered that his first albums are the best. All of his album are equally classical. I would recommend getting Marching Out next.
neoshredder - March 21, 2008 07:04 AM (GMT)
80's fluff might be Odyssey. I'd stay from that one if you don't like 80's stuff a lot. Rising Force and Marching Out are probably the best ones.
plaidman - March 22, 2008 05:42 AM (GMT)
My Favourite Yngwie material is his "Concerto for Guitar in E Flat Minor" but my other 2 favourites after that are "Alchemy" and "Instrumental Best".
You pretty much can't go wrong with Yngwie though. I would say of all the albums, "Odyssey" is the weakest (With the exception of the first track "Rising Force").
The best DVD's I've seen are the Concerto with the New Japan Philharmonic and Yngwie Live! which I think was shot around 1998 or 1999 in Brazil. Brilliant stuff.
In my opinion, Yngwie is the best electric guitarist of all time and he's the best classical composer since Bach. Don't get me wrong, I love Beethoven, but Yngwie's compositions are more intricate and difficult than any composed since Bach...
Devon8822 - March 22, 2008 02:53 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (plaidman @ Mar 22 2008, 05:42 AM) |
My Favourite Yngwie material is his "Concerto for Guitar in E Flat Minor" but my other 2 favourites after that are "Alchemy" and "Instrumental Best".
You pretty much can't go wrong with Yngwie though. I would say of all the albums, "Odyssey" is the weakest (With the exception of the first track "Rising Force").
The best DVD's I've seen are the Concerto with the New Japan Philharmonic and Yngwie Live! which I think was shot around 1998 or 1999 in Brazil. Brilliant stuff.
In my opinion, Yngwie is the best electric guitarist of all time and he's the best classical composer since Bach. Don't get me wrong, I love Beethoven, but Yngwie's compositions are more intricate and difficult than any composed since Bach... |
I'm gonna have to strongly disagree with what you've said... YOU CAN'T COMPARE HIM TO BACH AND BEETHOVEN! They are completely different, not better of worse... subjective. It is fact that art form is a subjective thing not objective, Therefore saying that one guitarist is the best... is absolutely ridiculous, I hope for those 'JIMI HENDRIX IS #1 PLAYER EVAR!" people to die. He sure is good... and he may be your favorite guitarist but the whole thing is subjective. BTW Yngwie is my favorite player 2 :D
plaidman - March 22, 2008 05:16 PM (GMT)
I agree with you to a point about guitar playing being subjective, as long as the players are of equal talent. If they're equally as talented but play different styles, it's subjective.
But there are players who play better than others technically. (For instance, all other guitar players are better than I am and that is NOT subjective, 'cause I suck! haha.) It's a fact that Eric Clapton is a WAY better player than I am. That is not subjective, it's fact.
If you have a guy who plays very sloppily and misses notes here and there, he's not as good as a player who hits every note correctly - technically. Wouldn't you agree to that? (Even if you like the style of the sloppy guy over the technically good player.) :)
I'll use singing as an example. Freddy Mercury was a fantastic singer. Jimi Hendrix and Stevie Ray Vaughan couldn't sing to save their lives. I suppose the subjective part comes in when I absolutely love their songs anyway and feel they wouldn't have sounded as good with better singers singing them. I like some of Queen's stuff, but I'll listen to Stevie and Jimi all day, every day. But that still doesn't change the fact that Freddie was a better singer with a greater range.
I do get what you mean that people like what they like despite the talent of the band. Motley Crue actually had fans and they are not very talented musically. I can listen to old, sloppy blues players all day when I turn off the music of more talented players.
But the fact remains...some people are better than others at any given task, whether it be driving race cars or playing musical instruments or whatever. I guess it boils down to 2 issues: How good are they technically (fact) vs. (Subjectively) do you like their stuff or not? :D
acdc51502112 - March 23, 2008 03:27 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (plaidman @ Mar 22 2008, 05:16 PM) |
I agree with you to a point about guitar playing being subjective, as long as the players are of equal talent. If they're equally as talented but play different styles, it's subjective.
But there are players who play better than others technically. (For instance, all other guitar players are better than I am and that is NOT subjective, 'cause I suck! haha.) It's a fact that Eric Clapton is a WAY better player than I am. That is not subjective, it's fact.
If you have a guy who plays very sloppily and misses notes here and there, he's not as good as a player who hits every note correctly - technically. Wouldn't you agree to that? (Even if you like the style of the sloppy guy over the technically good player.) :)
I'll use singing as an example. Freddy Mercury was a fantastic singer. Jimi Hendrix and Stevie Ray Vaughan couldn't sing to save their lives. I suppose the subjective part comes in when I absolutely love their songs anyway and feel they wouldn't have sounded as good with better singers singing them. I like some of Queen's stuff, but I'll listen to Stevie and Jimi all day, every day. But that still doesn't change the fact that Freddie was a better singer with a greater range.
I do get what you mean that people like what they like despite the talent of the band. Motley Crue actually had fans and they are not very talented musically. I can listen to old, sloppy blues players all day when I turn off the music of more talented players.
But the fact remains...some people are better than others at any given task, whether it be driving race cars or playing musical instruments or whatever. I guess it boils down to 2 issues: How good are they technically (fact) vs. (Subjectively) do you like their stuff or not? :D |
I see what your reason is and no matter what it a matter of opinion, there is no clear way to say between Yngwie and Steve Vai, but between me and Yngwie it is quiet obvious where even family would say Yngwie is better. :lol:
plaidman - March 23, 2008 04:14 AM (GMT)
Indeed. Please note in my original comment I did start the sentence with "In my opinion..." :D Hope you all have a happy Easter and rock on!
The Groove Mine - March 23, 2008 02:23 PM (GMT)
OK, all of you have made good points. Alot of this is just personal preference and opinion, but I will say this~ The old composers (the original shredders) wrote pieces that orchestrated HUGE instrumental sections, all of which were playing different scales and progressions at the same time. Yngwie is incredible, but he orchestrates a significantly smaller band section. Not to say that he couldn't orchestrate a larger group (I know, I've heard and own Orchestra in E flat minor Op.1), but really in comparison, his compositions are more simplistic in nature. And let's not forget, Beethoven was DEAF! And still wrote incredibly intricate muti-sectioned pieces, I have to assume he did it with God given instinct and mathematical equations (music theory is based on math). In total, all the composers spoken of in this topic were, and are incredible, and it's futile to say who's better in my opinion. All of them bring something to the table, and we all feast from this table they have set.
acdc51502112 - March 23, 2008 08:30 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (The Groove Mine @ Mar 23 2008, 02:23 PM) |
| OK, all of you have made good points. Alot of this is just personal preference and opinion, but I will say this~ The old composers (the original shredders) wrote pieces that orchestrated HUGE instrumental sections, all of which were playing different scales and progressions at the same time. Yngwie is incredible, but he orchestrates a significantly smaller band section. Not to say that he couldn't orchestrate a larger group (I know, I've heard and own Orchestra in E flat minor Op.1), but really in comparison, his compositions are more simplistic in nature. And let's not forget, Beethoven was DEAF! And still wrote incredibly intricate muti-sectioned pieces, I have to assume he did it with God given instinct and mathematical equations (music theory is based on math). In total, all the composers spoken of in this topic were, and are incredible, and it's futile to say who's better in my opinion. All of them bring something to the table, and we all feast from this table they have set. |
suggestion, don't say "god given" I might, depending on my mood might flip out on that. so just try and leave that stuff out of comments
Devon8822 - March 23, 2008 11:01 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (plaidman @ Mar 22 2008, 05:16 PM) |
I agree with you to a point about guitar playing being subjective, as long as the players are of equal talent. If they're equally as talented but play different styles, it's subjective.
But there are players who play better than others technically. (For instance, all other guitar players are better than I am and that is NOT subjective, 'cause I suck! haha.) It's a fact that Eric Clapton is a WAY better player than I am. That is not subjective, it's fact.
If you have a guy who plays very sloppily and misses notes here and there, he's not as good as a player who hits every note correctly - technically. Wouldn't you agree to that? (Even if you like the style of the sloppy guy over the technically good player.) :)
I'll use singing as an example. Freddy Mercury was a fantastic singer. Jimi Hendrix and Stevie Ray Vaughan couldn't sing to save their lives. I suppose the subjective part comes in when I absolutely love their songs anyway and feel they wouldn't have sounded as good with better singers singing them. I like some of Queen's stuff, but I'll listen to Stevie and Jimi all day, every day. But that still doesn't change the fact that Freddie was a better singer with a greater range.
I do get what you mean that people like what they like despite the talent of the band. Motley Crue actually had fans and they are not very talented musically. I can listen to old, sloppy blues players all day when I turn off the music of more talented players.
But the fact remains...some people are better than others at any given task, whether it be driving race cars or playing musical instruments or whatever. I guess it boils down to 2 issues: How good are they technically (fact) vs. (Subjectively) do you like their stuff or not? :D |
I understand your points... however, as the critical thinker than I am, I am going to prod this one.
We can all look at the little kid down te street who can't even play a power chord and say that Yngwie Malmsteen is better than him right? Wrong!
When you think deeper about it... its still an art form which is 100% subjective. Say the little boys mom listened to yngwie and runs away with her ears bleeding... but when she sits and watches her son with a cup of tea listening to him attempt to play the intro to stairway to heaven... to her... her son is better.
This is thinking deep into it.
There is subjective and than there is objective... no halfway point... if its subjective... ITS SUBJECTIVE. which means... NO GUITAR PLAYER IS BETTER THAN ANY OTHER GUITAR PLAYER. Yngwie Malmsteen is not better than Kurt Cobain mentally nor technically at guitar say some emo kids favorite guitarist is Cobain... and Yngwie means nothing to him, maybe because he cannot musically understand yngwies music, or is ignorant, it doesn't matter why, in that boys world kurt cobain is the best.... another kid... classically trained... w/e... loves Yngwie appreciates his talent... hates cobain cus hes a nub.... Theres two opinions... which one is right? neither... because its not objective. Its a hard thing to describe you really have to think deep and be a critical thinker, I expect to get alot of you going "wtf is this guy on, not understand what i am saying".
That being said, my personal belief is that the words skill as it means to me... as in what I define as good... I think Yngwie is a master, and Cobain is terrible (good songwriter though, however i don't like that kind of thing). Now, in this forum... everyone pretty much shares a view of talent and skill because we are all knowledgeable in the aspect of music. to US, and only us... we may be able to say that talent/skill is an objective thing... or at least somewhat similar or closer, as it is impossible. You get what i mean by that though. So to you and me Yngwie is the ownage. Its not about the knowledge and knowing what Yngwie can do with his fingers and/or mind that makes him good/skilled... it is about what you define good/skilled as.
Someone may define being a skilled/good guitar player, in a completely different way that you. Its all about the definition... and in general we have a similar one... but there cannot be 1 set definition for anything... if there was there would never be an argument... EVER... argument is based upon definition.
It is even easier to understand the concept if you compare painters... since generally people tend to accept that kind of art as subjective more than musical art.
If I draw a line on a paper and you draw a line on a paper... who's piece of art is better? First of all... You need to define what makes one piece of art as "better".... is it... how straight the line is? How long the line is? Maybe you think that it being longer makes it better... While I think the straighter it is the better...
THINK DEEP BITCHES
:ph43r:
acdc51502112 - March 23, 2008 11:29 PM (GMT)
well that was the philosophy is dadaism art and its still shit. Thanks for making things more complex than they already were! lol :lol:
yngwie308 - April 5, 2008 03:45 AM (GMT)
I like parts of Magnum Opus and of course Trilogy, Rising Force.
To me Yngwie has the most talent and therefore is able to jam and improvise around his incredible technical prowess on the guitar.
This is what his imitators don't get.
I haven't heard any of these so called Malmsteen imitators sound remotely like Yngwie at all, which is no suprise.
Yngwie is truly a maestro, by the definition of the word.
yngwie308
acdc51502112 - April 5, 2008 09:02 AM (GMT)
I totally agree, and what really pisses me off is what my guitar teacher said about Yngwie. He said that Yngwie's stuff is just constant exersises and all he's doing is show off his speed.
baroque - April 5, 2008 02:47 PM (GMT)
Many people said that too...
yngwie308 - April 5, 2008 02:56 PM (GMT)
Which is so ironic as Yngwie usually says in his interviews that he dosen't think he is playing particularly fast, he admits it is fast in a sense, but not for the sake of it. And his playing isn't merely repetitive exercises over and over.
After seeing him live from about 3 feet away, the pics in my avatar and signature are taken by me.. :lol: , I can tell you that his playing is truly a masterpiece to watch up close.
yngwie308
Devon8822 - April 5, 2008 03:42 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (acdc51502112 @ Apr 5 2008, 05:02 AM) |
| I totally agree, and what really pisses me off is what my guitar teacher said about Yngwie. He said that Yngwie's stuff is just constant exersises and all he's doing is show off his speed. |
Many people said that about Mr. Paganini too... ashame, Yngwie truly is a guitar god
acdc51502112 - April 5, 2008 03:48 PM (GMT)
agreed! Yngwie FTW!!!!1 oh and dev we can't miss him next time around. It really pisses me off when people put down amazing guitarist simply that they're better, but i guess it's a bit of that human nature coming in to play since i some times put other guitarist down.
jethrotull - April 9, 2008 04:28 AM (GMT)
Fire and Ice has some pretty nice classically influenced passages and melodies.