Pantera's Heaviest Album?

[genocide roach]

You make some very good points their, it's to bad genocide roach is as ignorant and immature as he is, otherwise that post might have done some good.

ignorant? no. arrogant is more like it.

skill is measurable. whether someone likes it or not isnt.

proficiency in scales, arppegios (sweeping included), chords, speed, technicality are all ways to measure how good someone is. using all of that, dime doesnt stand up to other players. you may like his music, but he wasnt the best. shit, people liked limp bizkit, are you gonna tell me wes borland is the best guitar player just because you like his music? i doubt it.

besides, pantera fans are the last people on earth to decide whats good and what isnt.
~gR~

 

[The Ozzman]

besides, pantera fans are the last people on earth to decide whats good and what isnt.
~gR~

 

[genocide roach]

oh cmon, i gotta get atleast one cheap shot in every post about pantera
~gR~

 

[The Ozzman]

Actually, you don't. It's pretty annoying when it's in every post, regardless of the band (unless it's a band like Nickelbad)

 

[AchrisK]

oh cmon, i gotta get atleast one cheap shot in every post about pantera
~gR~

I feel the same way. It's really nothing personal (to Panterrible fans).

 

[Murder In Technicolor]

Far Beyond Driven is their heaviest I would say, its also my favorite of theirs, Pantera will always get credit for CFH, but for nothing after that or before it by "metalheads".

 

[SouthernTrendkill]

ignorant? no. arrogant is more like it.

skill is measurable. whether someone likes it or not isnt.

proficiency in scales, arppegios (sweeping included), chords, speed, technicality are all ways to measure how good someone is. using all of that, dime doesnt stand up to other players. you may like his music, but he wasnt the best. shit, people liked limp bizkit, are you gonna tell me wes borland is the best guitar player just because you like his music? i doubt it.

besides, pantera fans are the last people on earth to decide whats good and what isnt.
~gR~

You're talking out of your ass behind a screen of illusions.

"Technicality." When you said that, what did you mean? And does it NOT include scales, chords, and speed? Because you implied that it is something seperate from those.

Everybody talks about "technicality" but how many of us are classical scholars? The vast majority of everyone who claims to know technical skill is lying and bullshiting. We use our personal impressions and PRETEND that they are technical facts. We hear a guitarist who seems quite impressive and assign the illusion of legitimecy to our perspective with words like "technicality." For anyone to make a legitimate judgment on a musician's proficiency in theory, they'd have to be fluent in theory and also know how to play the songs! It's rare that someone would be able to accurately assess the music's complexity just by listening. Unless, of course, you are talking on the subjective level of the listening experience.

More important than that is the fact that you're assigning things to the word "good" that are wholly subjective. Why the hell should classical standards define what is good? I'm not listening to classical music! For you to say that someone's lack of proficiency in music theory makes them "worse" of a guitarist than someone else, you are defining your own version of what should define level of goodness. I refer you back to my examples of speed versus accuracy versus engagement. There is no consensus on what defines good, and there will never be one. One can claim that Dimebag is better or worse than other players, but they can't ever claim it on anything other than their raw, fallible, personal opinion.

 

[genocide roach]

technicality = ability to play complex rythms and phrases. odd time signatures, abstract patterns, etc.

and i'm probably one of the few people here who has actually studied music theory. so shove it.
~gR~

 

[SouthernTrendkill]

technicality = ability to play complex rythms and phrases. odd time signatures, abstract patterns, etc.

and i'm probably one of the few people here who has actually studied music theory. so shove it.
~gR~

"Actually studied music theory..." so I take it you aren't a classical scholar though, eh? I bet tons of d00ds here have studied music theory.

 

[genocide roach]

was working on it until i enlisted 3.5 years ago.
~gR~

 

[The Ozzman]

Yeah, but just because you know theory and can judge how 'technical' something is doesn't mean it can automatically be judged as 'good' (at least in my eyes)

Look at Necrophagist, for example..

 

[genocide roach]

thats a bad example, cuz they rule! hehehe
~gR~

 

[thisisaformicatable]

Everybody talks about "technicality" but how many of us are classical scholars? The vast majority of everyone who claims to know technical skill is lying and bullshiting. We use our personal impressions and PRETEND that they are technical facts. We hear a guitarist who seems quite impressive and assign the illusion of legitimecy to our perspective with words like "technicality." For anyone to make a legitimate judgment on a musician's proficiency in theory, they'd have to be fluent in theory and also know how to play the songs! It's rare that someone would be able to accurately assess the music's complexity just by listening. Unless, of course, you are talking on the subjective level of the listening experience.

A fine example of the retardation of the "everything's just opinion" standpoint. It doesn't take much knowledge to make an objective assessment of the level of skill/proficiency displayed by a musician. Technicality is not "subjective" so long as evidence is cited and measures are noted.

 

[SouthernTrendkill]

A fine example of the retardation of the "everything's just opinion" standpoint. It doesn't take much knowledge to make an objective assessment of the level of skill/proficiency displayed by a musician. Technicality is not "subjective" so long as evidence is cited and measures are noted.

HA! I'm calling your bluff. Give me your example of what it would be to accurately cite technical ability, and I'll try to pick it apart with my existential epistemology.

 

[Alteredmindeath]

Douchebag Darrel isn't a legend.

Toni Iommi is a legend.
Rob Halford is a legend.
Ronnie James Dio is a legend.
King Diamond is a legend.
Chuck Schundler is a legend.
Dave Mustaine is a legend.
Lemmy Kilmister is a legend.

Schundler? A bitch needs a slap?

 

[IWP]

George Lynch > Dimebag

I still stand by this statement.

 

[ohiogrinder]

I still stand by this statement.

apples and oranges

Actually, you don't. It's pretty annoying when it's in every post, regardless of the band (unless it's a band like Nickelbad)

or as I call them, Nickelcrap. Anyone who thinks Nickelcrap is better than any metal deserves a lashing.

Yeah, but just because you know theory and can judge how 'technical' something is doesn't mean it can automatically be judged as 'good' (at least in my eyes)

Look at Necrophagist, for example..

what he said. many of my favorite bands are poor musicians but make up for it in sheer aggression, enthusiasm and power.

 

[thisisaformicatable]

HA! I'm calling your bluff. Give me your example of what it would be to accurately cite technical ability, and I'll try to pick it apart with my existential epistemology.

Two guitarists playing the same riff: one makes many mistakes and the other doesn't. Therefore the one who makes more mistakes (less accurate playing) is displaying a lower level of skill.

Do you play guitar? Haven't you ever noticed that some songs are harder to play than others? That's not because they're subjectively "different", but because playing some music requires more practice - a higher level of skill - than others.

 

[SouthernTrendkill]

Two guitarists playing the same riff: one makes many mistakes and the other doesn't. Therefore the one who makes more mistakes (less accurate playing) is displaying a lower level of skill.

Do you play guitar? Haven't you ever noticed that some songs are harder to play than others? That's not because they're subjectively "different", but because playing some music requires more practice - a higher level of skill - than others.

I've been playing guitar for years and have handfuls of original albums. Practice is not a measure of anything -- one person will take five minutes to take Mozart's most complicated melodies and transcribe them onto a guitar, while another person will take ten weeks to learn the riff for Smells Like Teen Spirit. It doesn't work to define skill with how difficult it is to play because there is nothing even remotely resembling a consensus on that. Some people find it easy to shred and others find it difficult to play chords. Complication also doesn't work for defining skill because that requires a subjective assessment of the work; is something uberfast more complicated than something with a bunch of relatively simple but simultaneous melody lines?

On a hypothetical level, yes skill can be easy to judge.

But no music is actually like this. Your example can work only on a purely hypothetical level. The idea of skill makes sense, but it's impossible to put into practice in any actual music discussion. Dimebag and Dave Mustaine don't play the same songs. Nobody plays the same songs. This would only work if you're comparing Dime to some guy in a Pantera cover band. In the world of original music, there's not even any way to know what is and isn't a mistake in a performance, because anyone is liable to intend to play anything.

 

[thisisaformicatable]

My god. Let's try an example: Roland Dyens vs. Kurt Cobain. Are you telling me that there is no way to determine whether one is more technically skilled than the other? You don't think we can objectively say that the pristine control and wide range of technical mastery displayed by Dyens performing "Vals des Loges" requires a higher level of *skill* than a rousing rock bar performance of "Smells Like Teen Spirit"?