Satriani is a great guitarist (among the best), but a mediocre song writer. He suffers from what I like to call The Solo Syndrome (not a reference to guitar solos). A song tends to be better when multiple musicians have had input, otherwise there’s too much focus on only one instrument. A lot of solo musicians’ music suffers from this.
Take for example Satrianis “Made of Tears”. How much better wouldn’t the song have been if an actual basist had written a cool bass riff to go along with it?
Or another example from Satriani: “Searching”. Excelent guitar hook in the beginning and the end, but I would’ve loved it more if there were other bandmembers who could tell him that the middle section is long and boring and would be better spent playing WITH other instruments instead of TO other instruments.
I find that Steve Vai is a better (and comparable) songwriter (although a lot of his songs aren’t to my taste)
Right on. I was kinda holding back from saying his music is boring, but you explained it better. And I agree, Vai, while also making guitar solo driven music, actually makes interesting songs that you don’t tune out after the first 2 minutes of listening,
I’m a Satriani fan and, while I totally disagree with you calling him a mediocre song writer, I can’t help but understand your point about Searching and Made of Tears. If that’s your sample of his music I totally understand your view.
Searching is just a catchy Whammy trick followed by an unending jam/solo. It’s very uncharacteristic of him. Made of Tears is not a bad song (one of the best on Super Colossal and it’s not a good thing) but is definitely off what I was used to hear from him when that album came out.
The thing is, if you want to know what Satch is about you have to hear what he did before Super Colossal. I like Super Colossal. But for me it’s when his fire died. Sure, you can still hear his genius there but only on the occasional song. For me Ten Words is the last song where you find that. One of his most simple songs. It’s an appropriate farewell. What came after is still good…but it’s not mind-blowing.
Super Colossal came out in 2006, you should hear what he did before if you want to know why he’s considered one of the most melodic guitar players ever. Is There Love in Space already has some signs of his “downfall” but you have to be Searching them (wink, wink).
Before that everything is genius and everything is different. I’d say, in my opinion, he hit his peak on the 2 albums before that (Crystal Planet and Strange Beautiful Music). But even before those two you have lots of material showing what he used to be about.
Steve Vai is maybe more original. It’s a matter of preference. But I’ve only felt about him the same way as old Satch on 2 albums. The rest is nice but meh. I am looking forward to their collaboration though, it gave me good vibes.
For me, that description fits Yngwie more than Satriani. Satch had at least 1%, maybe even a whopping 2% soul. Vai is probably sneaking up on double digits.
I really hate the “soul” accusation. It’s so arrogant and pretentious. Look, I get it, their music doesn’t tell you anything, it’s not your thing, it’s OK. It’s about you, it’s not about them. Not saying there’s anything wrong with you because of it. There’s a lot of great music I simply don’t like. It’s normal.
You don’t feel anything with their music. I do. Lots of people do. Is our “soul” bone defective? Are you the judge of musical taste? Can’t you see we laugh and cry with their music just as easily has you do with what you consider “music with soul”?
My experience is that the same people who accuse them of being 100% technical and souless are precisely the ones so fixated on the technique they can’t actually just see past it and just listen to the music itself. Do you think we get goosebumps because of how fast we see the dude fingers move?
Regarding the actual musicians. I can’t say much about Malmsteen because it’s not my taste but the dude singlehandedly created a new genre. I can’t put him down just because his music is not my preference.
Satriani is certainly the most melodic of them. The guy launched multiple great albums. Until the early 00s. Every album until then was simply amazing. Vai could only launch 2 or 3 with the same quality. But after Super Colossal he lost his edge. He still makes good stuff but never like what he made between 1984 and 2006. It was out of this world (wink, wink).
That’s a big reaction for a tongue-in-cheek comment on an unpopular opinion post! Joe, is that you? I’m sorry they used Steve in Crossroads instead of you, but you gotta let it go! Sometimes the student becomes the teacher!
Joking aside, the whole “soul” thing can be seen as somewhat of a compliment in a sense. Blackmore, Yngwie, Satch, Petrucci, Vai, Johnson, and other neoclassical players strove for technical perfection. The bits and bobs of music that are generally lumped into the idea of “soul” are the mistakes, the imperfections, the unintended, the miniscule fuckups. As an off the top example, think of Merry Clayton’s voice cracking as she belted out a vocal masterwork in her pajamas and curlers after being dragged out of bed at midnight to back up Mick Jagger. It’s imperfect, it’s unrepeatable, and it’s amazing.
Contrast that with what the technical shredders were intending to do: they wanted to hit every note with exacting precision every time they played. It’s no less impressive than those one-off moments like Gimme Shelter, but it’s markedly different. Listeners who don’t identify with the sound sometimes perceive a sort of sterility in the style, whether deserved or not. The degree of technicality alone can almost come across as machine-like. That doesn’t mean that it has no merit, or that anyone who feels it deeply is in some way “defective”. These guys wouldn’t have had 40+ year careers if nobody was feeling what they were doing.
Enjoy what you enjoy, groove to what grooves you, and above all else, be secure enough in your own taste that a bit of banter about a genre doesn’t seem like a personal attack. Remember: Barry Manilow has sold over 85 million albums, so there really is a market for everything!
Blackmore, Yngwie, Satch, Petrucci, Vai, Johnson, and other neoclassical players strove for technical perfection
Assumptions. All of them? You know that how?
The bits and bobs of music that are generally lumped into the idea of “soul” are the mistakes, the imperfections, the unintended, the miniscule fuckups
That’s your opinion. I’ve heard that one a thousand times. I respect it even if I totally disagree.
I agree that an “imperfection” doesn’t ruin a song, necessarily. Yes, sometimes it makes it even more special. But that doesn’t mean ANY imperfection will improve ANY song and certainly doesn’t mean the lack of “imperfections” will make one sterile. An orchestra playing Mozart or Stravinsky is as “perfect” as it gets. But one wouldn’t call it soulless. Some actually feel that way but they wouldn’t admit it for fear of being seen as unsophisticated. I’d respect them a bit more if they actually owned it.
It’s imperfect, it’s unrepeatable, and it’s amazing.
I don’t mean to antagonize you, but I’ve heard this argument a thousand times and it bothers me because it shows how you assume stuff like Satriani is by definition mechanic and that is somehow obvious for everybody. You arbitrarily define what you consider an universal truth, stopping any kind of argument. It passes off as arrogance from somebody who doesn’t know what they’re talking about (how other people perceive the music from technical players).
All the virtuosos you mention have those so-called “imperfections”. A song like Satriani’s Starry Night in the studio version is simply magic that cannot ever be reproduced. Other songs, like Flying in a Blue Dream are totally different beasts in the album and live. Some are actually played differently. Steve Vai’s Whispering a Prayer is something so beautiful live I don’t think he ever bothered to try to reproduce it in an album.
What you call imperfections are not imperfections. They’re perfect. But perfection is something very subjective in music. I liked the way you described Merry Clayton’s performance. But it was not imperfection. Clearly you saw that perfection much clearer than me. When I hear Satriani I hear that perfection. It’s not the perfection of his technical precision. Other styles, like some types of electronic music, also have that perfection in its own way. I fail to see it because it doesn’t touch me. But it’s my “failing” not the music. It feels mechanic to me because I fail to see what’s under the surface due to my own limitations. But those limitations can be stretched or even beaten on all styles.
Contrast that with what the technical shredders were intending to do: they wanted to hit every note with exacting precision every time they played.
More assumptions. You know this how?
It’s no less impressive than those one-off moments like Gimme Shelter, but it’s markedly different.
If your previous assumption is correct, I would disagree. They would definitely be less impressive because it would not be about the music. But I don’t think your assumption is correct.
Listeners who don’t identify with the sound sometimes perceive a sort of sterility in the style, whether deserved or not. The degree of technicality alone can almost come across as machine-like
And it’s not my place to tell them their taste and perception is wrong. If they feel it’s machine-like it’s because it feels like that to them. I totally get it. And most people stop there, but other people can’t accept it’s just their perception and attack the music itself and its fans for “liking machine-like music” and “they themselves prefer something with soul”. Can’t you see how that kind of statement puts other people’s tastes down while elevating their own?
How would you feel if a Satriani fan asked what music you like and, after hearing your response, they’d smile condescendingly and say “well, that music has its merits…sure…but it’s too simple. I myself prefer music with more complexity and instead of basic jingles”. We could agree he would sound like a stuck-up pompous ass, right? That’s how people with the “soul” argument come off, intentionally or not.
Enjoy what you enjoy, groove to what grooves you, and above all else, be secure enough in your own taste that a bit of banter about a genre doesn’t seem like a personal attack.
I hear you. But I should point out that me disagreeing with you and trying to make my point concisely also came off to you as a personal attack (which it wasn’t). So, something to consider.
Satriani is a great guitarist (among the best), but a mediocre song writer. He suffers from what I like to call The Solo Syndrome (not a reference to guitar solos). A song tends to be better when multiple musicians have had input, otherwise there’s too much focus on only one instrument. A lot of solo musicians’ music suffers from this.
Take for example Satrianis “Made of Tears”. How much better wouldn’t the song have been if an actual basist had written a cool bass riff to go along with it?
Or another example from Satriani: “Searching”. Excelent guitar hook in the beginning and the end, but I would’ve loved it more if there were other bandmembers who could tell him that the middle section is long and boring and would be better spent playing WITH other instruments instead of TO other instruments.
I find that Steve Vai is a better (and comparable) songwriter (although a lot of his songs aren’t to my taste)
Right on. I was kinda holding back from saying his music is boring, but you explained it better. And I agree, Vai, while also making guitar solo driven music, actually makes interesting songs that you don’t tune out after the first 2 minutes of listening,
That’s very far from true. The last decades have brought forth countless young talents. Every single one of them smokes satriani in a pipe. Easily.
I’m a Satriani fan and, while I totally disagree with you calling him a mediocre song writer, I can’t help but understand your point about Searching and Made of Tears. If that’s your sample of his music I totally understand your view.
Searching is just a catchy Whammy trick followed by an unending jam/solo. It’s very uncharacteristic of him. Made of Tears is not a bad song (one of the best on Super Colossal and it’s not a good thing) but is definitely off what I was used to hear from him when that album came out.
The thing is, if you want to know what Satch is about you have to hear what he did before Super Colossal. I like Super Colossal. But for me it’s when his fire died. Sure, you can still hear his genius there but only on the occasional song. For me Ten Words is the last song where you find that. One of his most simple songs. It’s an appropriate farewell. What came after is still good…but it’s not mind-blowing.
Super Colossal came out in 2006, you should hear what he did before if you want to know why he’s considered one of the most melodic guitar players ever. Is There Love in Space already has some signs of his “downfall” but you have to be Searching them (wink, wink).
Before that everything is genius and everything is different. I’d say, in my opinion, he hit his peak on the 2 albums before that (Crystal Planet and Strange Beautiful Music). But even before those two you have lots of material showing what he used to be about.
Steve Vai is maybe more original. It’s a matter of preference. But I’ve only felt about him the same way as old Satch on 2 albums. The rest is nice but meh. I am looking forward to their collaboration though, it gave me good vibes.
100% technique, no soul
That’s how I describe his music
For me, that description fits Yngwie more than Satriani. Satch had at least 1%, maybe even a whopping 2% soul. Vai is probably sneaking up on double digits.
I really hate the “soul” accusation. It’s so arrogant and pretentious. Look, I get it, their music doesn’t tell you anything, it’s not your thing, it’s OK. It’s about you, it’s not about them. Not saying there’s anything wrong with you because of it. There’s a lot of great music I simply don’t like. It’s normal.
You don’t feel anything with their music. I do. Lots of people do. Is our “soul” bone defective? Are you the judge of musical taste? Can’t you see we laugh and cry with their music just as easily has you do with what you consider “music with soul”?
My experience is that the same people who accuse them of being 100% technical and souless are precisely the ones so fixated on the technique they can’t actually just see past it and just listen to the music itself. Do you think we get goosebumps because of how fast we see the dude fingers move?
Regarding the actual musicians. I can’t say much about Malmsteen because it’s not my taste but the dude singlehandedly created a new genre. I can’t put him down just because his music is not my preference.
Satriani is certainly the most melodic of them. The guy launched multiple great albums. Until the early 00s. Every album until then was simply amazing. Vai could only launch 2 or 3 with the same quality. But after Super Colossal he lost his edge. He still makes good stuff but never like what he made between 1984 and 2006. It was out of this world (wink, wink).
That’s a big reaction for a tongue-in-cheek comment on an unpopular opinion post! Joe, is that you? I’m sorry they used Steve in Crossroads instead of you, but you gotta let it go! Sometimes the student becomes the teacher!
Joking aside, the whole “soul” thing can be seen as somewhat of a compliment in a sense. Blackmore, Yngwie, Satch, Petrucci, Vai, Johnson, and other neoclassical players strove for technical perfection. The bits and bobs of music that are generally lumped into the idea of “soul” are the mistakes, the imperfections, the unintended, the miniscule fuckups. As an off the top example, think of Merry Clayton’s voice cracking as she belted out a vocal masterwork in her pajamas and curlers after being dragged out of bed at midnight to back up Mick Jagger. It’s imperfect, it’s unrepeatable, and it’s amazing.
Contrast that with what the technical shredders were intending to do: they wanted to hit every note with exacting precision every time they played. It’s no less impressive than those one-off moments like Gimme Shelter, but it’s markedly different. Listeners who don’t identify with the sound sometimes perceive a sort of sterility in the style, whether deserved or not. The degree of technicality alone can almost come across as machine-like. That doesn’t mean that it has no merit, or that anyone who feels it deeply is in some way “defective”. These guys wouldn’t have had 40+ year careers if nobody was feeling what they were doing.
Enjoy what you enjoy, groove to what grooves you, and above all else, be secure enough in your own taste that a bit of banter about a genre doesn’t seem like a personal attack. Remember: Barry Manilow has sold over 85 million albums, so there really is a market for everything!
Assumptions. All of them? You know that how?
That’s your opinion. I’ve heard that one a thousand times. I respect it even if I totally disagree.
I agree that an “imperfection” doesn’t ruin a song, necessarily. Yes, sometimes it makes it even more special. But that doesn’t mean ANY imperfection will improve ANY song and certainly doesn’t mean the lack of “imperfections” will make one sterile. An orchestra playing Mozart or Stravinsky is as “perfect” as it gets. But one wouldn’t call it soulless. Some actually feel that way but they wouldn’t admit it for fear of being seen as unsophisticated. I’d respect them a bit more if they actually owned it.
I don’t mean to antagonize you, but I’ve heard this argument a thousand times and it bothers me because it shows how you assume stuff like Satriani is by definition mechanic and that is somehow obvious for everybody. You arbitrarily define what you consider an universal truth, stopping any kind of argument. It passes off as arrogance from somebody who doesn’t know what they’re talking about (how other people perceive the music from technical players).
All the virtuosos you mention have those so-called “imperfections”. A song like Satriani’s Starry Night in the studio version is simply magic that cannot ever be reproduced. Other songs, like Flying in a Blue Dream are totally different beasts in the album and live. Some are actually played differently. Steve Vai’s Whispering a Prayer is something so beautiful live I don’t think he ever bothered to try to reproduce it in an album.
What you call imperfections are not imperfections. They’re perfect. But perfection is something very subjective in music. I liked the way you described Merry Clayton’s performance. But it was not imperfection. Clearly you saw that perfection much clearer than me. When I hear Satriani I hear that perfection. It’s not the perfection of his technical precision. Other styles, like some types of electronic music, also have that perfection in its own way. I fail to see it because it doesn’t touch me. But it’s my “failing” not the music. It feels mechanic to me because I fail to see what’s under the surface due to my own limitations. But those limitations can be stretched or even beaten on all styles.
More assumptions. You know this how?
If your previous assumption is correct, I would disagree. They would definitely be less impressive because it would not be about the music. But I don’t think your assumption is correct.
And it’s not my place to tell them their taste and perception is wrong. If they feel it’s machine-like it’s because it feels like that to them. I totally get it. And most people stop there, but other people can’t accept it’s just their perception and attack the music itself and its fans for “liking machine-like music” and “they themselves prefer something with soul”. Can’t you see how that kind of statement puts other people’s tastes down while elevating their own?
How would you feel if a Satriani fan asked what music you like and, after hearing your response, they’d smile condescendingly and say “well, that music has its merits…sure…but it’s too simple. I myself prefer music with more complexity and instead of basic jingles”. We could agree he would sound like a stuck-up pompous ass, right? That’s how people with the “soul” argument come off, intentionally or not.
I hear you. But I should point out that me disagreeing with you and trying to make my point concisely also came off to you as a personal attack (which it wasn’t). So, something to consider.