When did the guitar hero die?

darthed1981

thecolourbox said:

Jez6345789 said:

Think it was Clapton said if he was to come back in a next life it would be as a DJ as they get way more woman than we ever did 

He'd have got more if he wasn't a bit racist and didn't look like an accountant pulling a face like he was suffering from a hernia

Plus his thing about other people's wives.

darthed1981

hootsmon said:

Did I miss it?

Oh the 70s and on and all those great guitar players, but now we have 10 year old girls givin' them a run for their money....

So Peeps, when did the guitar hero play his last lick?

Are we doing serious answers as well....?

If so, there hasn't been a guitar-led mainstream musical "movement" since Britpop.  Britpop had Bernard Butler, Graham Coxon and Noel Gallagher playing solos in heavily guitar-oriented mainstream bands who had success that is probably not possible any more for bands of their ilk.

Everyone today still uses guitars, but (and naming no names as people get terribly upset if you criticise anyone round here) a lot of the very-successful acts you rarely see without guitars really qualify as "guitar heroes" in the sense the OP means.

That said, is that REALLY a bad thing?  If you were around in the early 80s and remember fondly your jaw dropping to Van Halen or Steve Vai then sure, you would love to see the next one, but kids growing up now probably see guitar solos as the REALLY boring bits in Dad's boring records.  Music in the mainstream is fragmented, there is LOADS of it so easily available, heck, there is enough non-mainstream metal, classic rock, dad rock, indie etc. to keep us all busy for a hundred lifetimes.  Just because the teens don't like the squealy pentatonics any more, who cares?

Change is life.  You can still buy a harpsichord even though they aren't a big part of music any more.  Just because songs don't have solos, nobody is going to come take your guitars away, and nobody is going to stop any of us playing solos.  Well, my wife will stop me but I'm pretty terrible...

Octafish

thecolourbox said:

Jez6345789 said:

Think it was Clapton said if he was to come back in a next life it would be as a DJ as they get way more woman than we ever did 

He'd have got more if he wasn't a bit racist and didn't look like an accountant pulling a face like he was suffering from a hernia

Yeah, think he needs to look to himself more. Don't think guitarists like Page and Hendrix had his problem

Phil_aka_Pip

darthed1981 said:

Everyone today still uses guitars, but (and naming no names as people get terribly upset if you criticise anyone round here) a lot of the very-successful acts you rarely see without guitars really qualify as "guitar heroes" in the sense the OP means.

That said, is that REALLY a bad thing?

yes, it means modern music is boring

richardhomer

I think there are two kinds of guitar hero - those who inspire people who already play - and those who encourage people to take the instrument up.

In the former category - there are lots of heroes still around - in the latter category, I doubt there have really been any since the Britpop days. And for the musical instrument industry - that’s a problem....

Sporky

Phil_aka_Pip said:

darthed1981 said:

Everyone today still uses guitars, but (and naming no names as people get terribly upset if you criticise anyone round here) a lot of the very-successful acts you rarely see without guitars really qualify as "guitar heroes" in the sense the OP means.

That said, is that REALLY a bad thing?

yes, it means modern music is boring

Gosh no. So much excellent non-guitar music now, and the guitar stuff isn't all full of wanky solos and showboating.

thecolourbox

I'm not sure there hasn't been a guitar led mainstream musical movement to be honest, there was the indie stuff in the noughties after the Strokes and White Stripes and Libertines even Arctic Monkeys etc, before that there was even Nu Metal, there's plenty. But different style to those who just play as wiggly and quickly as they can

darthed1981

Phil_aka_Pip said:

darthed1981 said:

Everyone today still uses guitars, but (and naming no names as people get terribly upset if you criticise anyone round here) a lot of the very-successful acts you rarely see without guitars really qualify as "guitar heroes" in the sense the OP means.

That said, is that REALLY a bad thing?

yes, it means modern music is boring

Well below the bit you quoted I pointed out there is actually a shit-fuck-TONNE of music being made with technically wizard players and solos and all sorts, it just doesn't top the charts...

Lets face it even when there was a big movement all it means is most people who liked guitar based music had popular bands they liked in common, the charts were still mostly shite!

Teetonetal

richardhomer said:

I think there are two kinds of guitar hero - those who inspire people who already play - and those who encourage people to take the instrument up.

In the former category - there are lots of heroes still around - in the latter category, I doubt there have really been any since the Britpop days. And for the musical instrument industry - that’s a problem....

And yet modern music is crammed full of guitar. You can here some stonking guitar playing if you look for it.

Off the top of my head; James Bay, Hozier, alt j, ben howard, my baby, George Ezra, Bryde and Trampoline are new acts I've seen in the last 4 years that are guitar driven.

I'd also say Matt Belamy from muse is a certified mainstream guitar hero. 

thecolourbox said:

I'm not sure there hasn't been a guitar led mainstream musical movement to be honest, there was the indie stuff in the noughties after the Strokes and White Stripes and Libertines even Arctic Monkeys etc, before that there was even Nu Metal, there's plenty. But different style to those who just play as wiggly and quickly as they can

wisdom.

ThePrettyDamned

Matt Bellamy is a pretty solid guitar hero.

The chaps from Periphery also - they have popularised a new, modern genre that's entirely guitar and bass centered. 

darthed1981

thecolourbox said:

I'm not sure there hasn't been a guitar led mainstream musical movement to be honest, there was the indie stuff in the noughties after the Strokes and White Stripes and Libertines even Arctic Monkeys etc, before that there was even Nu Metal, there's plenty. But different style to those who just play as wiggly and quickly as they can

I think that comes down to a semantic discussion about what one means by a "movement", certainly those few bands came along in the early noughties, but they set the indie rock world on fire, not necessarily the mainstream.  Ironically, the fact that at this time a lot of people decided buying music just wasn't for them probably didn't help!  Probably fair to say Pete Docherty made a few headlines as well.

But seriously, compare that to Britpop, which really was a musical "movement" by my definition.  If you see a news story about the Brits or sales figures currently its about Ed Sheeran or Taylor Swift, i.e. popular music on it's default "pop" setting.  In the the late 90s it was all about Blur, Oasis, Pulp etc.  whether one likes the bands or not, it was massively popular at the time on a level the early noughties indie bands dont touch, and on-topic, Blur and Oasis had guitar heroes.

Clarky

this thread got me thinking...
what actually is a guitar hero by definition?

dindude

They haven’t died. They’ve just evolved into Instagram “hero’s” giving 20 second bursts of non-musical, appallingly recorded fret-slap. Times change, keep up grandad!

BigBearKris

Phil_aka_Pip said:

darthed1981 said:

Everyone today still uses guitars, but (and naming no names as people get terribly upset if you criticise anyone round here) a lot of the very-successful acts you rarely see without guitars really qualify as "guitar heroes" in the sense the OP means.

That said, is that REALLY a bad thing?

yes, it means modern music is boring

No, you're just too old.

ICBM

Judging music by what instruments were used to make it and whether the players of them were 'good' has always seemed strange and irrelevant to me.

ThePrettyDamned

ICBM said:

Judging music by what instruments were used to make it and whether the players of them were 'good' has always seemed strange and irrelevant to me.

Look up wintergarten. Magic marble machine is amazing, but they have invented a few other interesting instruments too. 

stratman3142

hootsmon said:

... but now we have 10 year old girls givin' them a run for their money....

When I see Youtube clips of youngsters playing licks from Guthrie Govan, Paul Gilbert, Steve Vai, Yngwie Jelly Malmsteen, etc..., it's impressive as a spectacle but I wouldn't see them as being comparable with guitar heroes. While it takes great skill, they're essentially replicating.

Guitar heroes are in the eye of the beholder. I still have players from the past that I want to learn from but continue to discover new players. So they're my personal guitar heroes. My guitar heroes may be copying (or building on) what's gone before, but they're bringing something new to the music in my ears.

I'm currently going through a bit of a Greg Koch phase. Also Cory Wong (Vulfpek) who has a monster groove that I dream of being able to achieve.

Kilgore

Clarky said:

this thread got me thinking...
what actually is a guitar hero by definition?

It's all about the trousers.
 In the 70's crushed velvet flares. In the 80's spandex or leather.
 There are plenty of great guitarists but they fail the 'hero' test due to sartorial errors.

Fretwired

The guitar hero didn't die .. music is more diverse these days. Plenty of good guitarists about if you can be bothered to look. And in news psychedelic rock is back big time .. King Gizzard & The Lizard Wizard are an Australian band at the forefront of this with an updated take on early Floyd .. there are some new British and US bands in a similar vein ...

thecolourbox

darthed1981 said:

thecolourbox said:

I'm not sure there hasn't been a guitar led mainstream musical movement to be honest, there was the indie stuff in the noughties after the Strokes and White Stripes and Libertines even Arctic Monkeys etc, before that there was even Nu Metal, there's plenty. But different style to those who just play as wiggly and quickly as they can

I think that comes down to a semantic discussion about what one means by a "movement", certainly those few bands came along in the early noughties, but they set the indie rock world on fire, not necessarily the mainstream.  Ironically, the fact that at this time a lot of people decided buying music just wasn't for them probably didn't help!  Probably fair to say Pete Docherty made a few headlines as well.

But seriously, compare that to Britpop, which really was a musical "movement" by my definition.  If you see a news story about the Brits or sales figures currently its about Ed Sheeran or Taylor Swift, i.e. popular music on it's default "pop" setting.  In the the late 90s it was all about Blur, Oasis, Pulp etc.  whether one likes the bands or not, it was massively popular at the time on a level the early noughties indie bands dont touch, and on-topic, Blur and Oasis had guitar heroes.

The late 90s also gave us Steps, Vengaboys and Westlife. There were a lot of indie bands in the charts back then - in addition to the above you had Franz Ferdinand, Kaiser Chiefs, Killers, etc. And just like during Britpop just below the surface was much better acts in the same style