I appreciate the skill of Steve Vai, Joe Satriani, etc... They're quite impressive to watch, but gosh, their music is just so boring to listen to. Even baby songs have often a more catchy tune than stuff they play.
Is this because I'm a music imbecile that knows nothing about music and just can't grasp their godly music?
Or is it cause their "catchy tune" talent is non-existent?
It blows my mind how somebody can be that good on an instrument, yet compose such shitty music.
Thoughts?
The basic reason is rhythm - or lack of.
Joe Satriani came about when very clinical/fake rhythm sections were in fashion in studio production - not all artists did it back then (Tom Waits, for instance) - but late eighties production, coupled with the tendency to write fairly disposable "chugging" riffs during the New Wave of British Heavy Metal/pop metal era meant a lot of Joe Satriani tracks actually have really bland, slightly fake grooves to them.
His actual tone and sense of melody is great - but he's basically a prog musician, and many of them are considered terminally uncool - (the futuristic sound, pointless 'virtuosity' etc . . . )
As for Vai etc - he's bland/prog AND has far less melody than Satriani + far more widdly widdly
They're all imitating a fairly dull, nerdy Englishman called Allan Holdsworth, he used modes and played horizontally across the entire neck going "widdly widdly widdly" before any of them. They're teen-friendly "rock fashion" versions of Allan Holdsworth.
Some widdly widdly widdly guitarists go more classical - Yngwie etc? Not sure - there's something faceless and impersonal about an album of just instrumental tracks when a lot of music focuses more on group interplay or vocal tracks etc.
I'm not saying Satriani is terrible - his tone, melodies are great - but there's notable setbacks to the way he does music, and he's the biggest seller in the modern "guitar" genre.
