Yngwie Malmsteen vs. Symphony X

[shredmaster]

ı think its not really right to compare them because theyre very different but ı cant stop myself.
I think theyre technically the same because after a certain level(where you become a virtuoso)there is no better its just opinion.For ex:do you think Joe Satriani cant play Yngwies crazy runs?Of course he can if he wants but he doesnt because he is not Yngwie.
Same deal here Malmsteen used to practicing alot hours since he was young and became so comfortable with his instrument.ıf he wants to play romeo stuff(tapping ,str skipping)all he has to do is practice 5 hours a day for a week and he is done.Same deal with romeo.Its just their choice of style.
But obviously ı think playing romeo stuff is harder than Malmsteen(Actualy Malmteens attack might change my idea anytime)

Joe Satriani CAN`T do any of Yngwie`s crazy runs. He dooesn`t have a good enough picking technique to do that, it`s as simple as that i think. Joe concentrates on the legato-stuff and to play tasteful modal guitar music.
But Romeo beats them both IMO.

 

[PoisonSeed]

I'm sharing exactly the same view as ABQShredHead and I really dislike this comparison as this have made so many progmetal-ignorant "musicians" to walk around and accuse Romeo of being an Yngwie clone. I've heard that so many times I really feel like beating the shit out of those guys. Sometimes It's like some people think Malmsteen has patented harmonic minor scales, as soon as someone puts one such passage in a lead/riff/solo he's accused of being an Yngwie clone.

 

[soulshred]

Joe Satriani CAN`T do any of Yngwie`s crazy runs. He dooesn`t have a good enough picking technique to do that, it`s as simple as that i think. Joe concentrates on the legato-stuff and to play tasteful modal guitar music.
But Romeo beats them both IMO.

I belive he has but its just my idea ofcourse.

 

[SyXified]

So now the question becomes who's the better tapper of the two? We can take it a step further then - Ricky Skaggs is the god of all guitar because his banjo rolls are unmatched by either Michael Romeo or Yngwie Malmsteen. And he does it all on a steel-stringed acoustic. We can open this discussion up to any guitar player with a niche style that no other guitar player can cop fluently. Stanley Jordan, anybody? Wanna compare tapping abilities?

Style again becomes my argument - MJR and YJM are both masters of their styles and the guitar in general to suit their styles. There is not comparison between their two styles and judging one over the other is nothing but stating an opinion as to your taste in music.

Hey, I'm not talking about who is a better artist or musician, I'm JUST talking technique. The fact is you could consider either one the better musician, and it's perfectly valid to say a better guitarist than these two is someone who is really simple and tasteful like Ross Childress or Brian May. But technically speaking, yes, tapping enters into the equation as well as any other technique available on the ELECTRIC guitar. Which means that Stanley Jordan does get major points for some innovative moves, though he falls short in many other areas.

The idea is that Romeo could do anything Malmsteen could do technically on guitar but cleaner and ON TEMPO! Malmsteen could not pull off a lot of the stuff Romeo does. Imagine the two in a game of guitar HORSE. If Yngwie tried to pick his single most challenging move, MJR would have it down in no time. If MJR then played the Sea of Lies interlude, that would take Yngwie months of practice to even come close to, and considering he has already declared that he knows all music theory and can play anything he wants, one questions whether he would actually take the time to do so.

If you are going to say that someone is a master of their own style, well then that just means that everyone is a master of their own style and you can't compare anyone to anyone, which is just silly. If everyone has their own unique style that can't be compared to anyone elses, catagories like 'best rock, blues, funk guitarist' disappear. Then it's just best Yngwie Malmsteen or best Michael Romeo. If everyone is a master of their own style they have no reason to strive to improve or be innovative. Yngwie would be master now and if he got better he would be master there and if he got sloppier he would be the master of that.

Is it okay to compare guitarists..... YES!!!! How the hell do you think we got guitar to the virtuostic level of play today? Everyone trying to out do eachother! Let's face it, it's an art but it's also a competition, and any true guitar player wants to be faster, cleaner, more innovative, and more recognized than the other guy. If there was no competition everyone would still be strummin away at the open chords, never bothering to experiment with new things or technically train their hands to move quickly and more intricatly. The 80s were all about competition, and the guitarist who could rip the other guy a new one went home with the babes, and that's the damn way it should be! That was also the time period that really pushed the limits of what one could do on guitar, and it was the competition that drove the artform to greater heights.

This whole new hippie-esque 'everyone's good in their own way' attitude really irritates me. It's the same attitude that ushered in the grunge era and the idea that musicians don't actually have to be able to play their instruments. It's the cry of all these nu-metal and rap rock jerks who are really just coping out of the fact that they are lazy and untalented. When Bach and Chopin were doing things no one else was (or was capable of) doing, music got pushed to a higher level and you can bet even back then it was a pretty big competition (don't listen to Chopin and tell me he's not trying to say that he can out do the other guy)! Competition is what fuels the progress of the artform, and without competition we would never even have an Yngwie Malmsteen or Michael Romeo. Personally, I'm glad we do.

 

[AxeGrinder]

To answer this, one only needs to get on their favorite file sharing software and find a copy of Yngwee and Ronny James Dio doing "Dream On". Then force yourself to listen to the whole thing... it's just simply awful!
It shows Yngwees total lack of anything even resembling creativity.
My vote would be for Steve Vai. I seen him with Alcatraz and he really put Yngwee to shame. He could play all of the neoclassical riffs, only, with more flare and feeling.
Vai and Romeo are my favorite two guitarists... in that order, because they are the two hardest for me to imitate.

 

[ABQShredHead]

Good expose, SyXified, but I'm sticking to my guns. And I'm not even a hippie. I agree with the competition spin you put on everything, but to say that Malmsteen cannot woodshed Romeo's licks, and vice versa, would be profoundly wrong. Even I can sit in front of the music and cop Romeo. I don't see how one can be better than the other aside from opinions about style.

Malmsteen made me a better player. Malmsteen made Romeo a better player. Malmsteen made 99% of the guitar players in the '80's (I've excluded Neil Young) better players. His effect on the guitar scene even today is immeasurable.

In your mind, Romeo has better technique than Yngwie; in my mind, they are two masters of their instruments and their styles and I appreciate both to that degree.

 

[Hyoukinmono]

I seriously don't know what the people who say that Yngwie plays without feeling are listening to. Yngwie's music is incredibly emotional and expressive, whether he's playing fast or slowly.

I guess it's just something that some people get and some don't.

 

[theodyssey]

Lets all get out our guitar shreading penises and see who's is bigger!!!