Which Modern Players have a voice?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sick Michael
  • Start date Start date
stephen sawall said:
Personally I think of new as 5 years old or less. You could stretch it back to 2010. But that is really pushing it.

The age of the performer I don't see as important. If you look at a lot of performances covering a wide range of music styles pop, country, hip hop, rock, funk, etc.... Often there is a very wide range of the age of at the live performances. I have seen it as wide as 20's to near 70 on the same stage together. The age thing only applies to imagine. It is much less a factor in who is actually doing the gigs.
Click to expand...
5 years since the release of music, or since they "got their big break"? Probably the latter, good point @shredhead7 . It's just a tough thing for me to split up unless it's restricted to people in their 20s and teens. Maybe just 5 years since they publicly started releasing music? Even that is pushing it; who hasn't public released something? I guess...if they're in their 40s, they have most likely been playing all their life, right? It's possible that they haven't played out yet, but that person is the exception that proves the rules (bill withers, etc), most have been trying their whole life.

So I totally get why someone would look at Ian Thornley and say "he's not modern, In Loving Memory came out 20 years ago." And if the thread was titled "favorite up and coming players" or whatever, I definitely would not have posted Ian.
But they are still making music and changing and improving (imo); and 100% of their best work has been released since 2012 with Albatross, ghosts, Grace Street, and the 2 newer ones they just dropped. I don't listen to the first 2 albums, they come across as label-controlled with none of the soul of their more recent work. I do listen to some songs off of them live, but he sings things much differently now.
 
Locrain said:
5 years since the release of music, or since they "got their big break"? Probably the latter, good point @shredhead7 . It's just a tough thing for me to split up unless it's restricted to people in their 20s and teens. Maybe just 5 years since they publicly started releasing music? Even that is pushing it; who hasn't public released something? I guess...if they're in their 40s, they have most likely been playing all their life, right? It's possible that they haven't played out yet, but that person is the exception that proves the rules (bill withers, etc), most have been trying their whole life.

So I totally get why someone would look at Ian Thornley and say "he's not modern, In Loving Memory came out 20 years ago." And if the thread was titled "favorite up and coming players" or whatever, I definitely would not have posted Ian.
But they are still making music and changing and improving (imo); and 100% of their best work has been released since 2012 with Albatross, ghosts, Grace Street, and the 2 newer ones they just dropped. I don't listen to the first 2 albums, they come across as label-controlled with none of the soul of their more recent work. I do listen to some songs off of them live, but he sings things much differently no
Click to expand...
5 years from today.
 
stephen sawall said:
5 years from today.
Click to expand...
Yeah... I'm tracking that part. But 5 years from today to what event? When they started releasing music, when they became well-known, when that particular piece was created/released, does the artist have to be new to be modern, or just the material? Cause I could post a lot of big wreck that fits the latter, was written and released within the year, but i'm sure there are other bands that I could do the same with that wouldn't feel modern to me at all. Coheed's new stuff sounds pretty good, and I don't think they sound dated to me, but that is so subjective.

Ok, just so I haven't just filled my post with nonsense rantings lol, here is one that meets the definition of modern by any standard imo. EVHs son, Wolfgang. I was pretty blown away by this, the vocals, riffs, lead playing, hooks, all killer. Great album.

 
People that aren't new, Angel Vivaldi, Matteus Mancuso (who are actually good) and a whole lot of awful Instagram and YouTube guitarists is who everyone's suggesting then?
 
Locrain said:
Yeah... I'm tracking that part. But 5 years from today to what event? When they started releasing music, when they became well-known, when that particular piece was created/released, does the artist have to be new to be modern, or just the material? Cause I could post a lot of big wreck that fits the latter, was written and released within the year, but i'm sure there are other bands that I could do the same with that wouldn't feel modern to me at all. Coheed's new stuff sounds pretty good, and I don't think they sound dated to me, but that is so subjective.

Ok, just so I haven't just filled my post with nonsense rantings lol, here is one that meets the definition of modern by any standard imo. EVHs son, Wolfgang. I was pretty blown away by this, the vocals, riffs, lead playing, hooks, all killer. Great album.

Click to expand...

No event.
Just anything that has happened in the last five years.
If more than five years ago I don't consider it modern.
 
stephen sawall said:
No event.
Just anything that has happened in the last five years.
If more than five years ago I don't consider it modern.
Click to expand...
Ok I now understand slightly more...could have been easy though, you could have just said "The 3rd event you mentioned, 5 years from when the piece of music in question was released." of course there is an event...

An event is defined as "a thing that happens". You just said...:

"No event.
Just anything that has happened"...

...see where my brain starts to crack here? I also don't really know what you mean still, since you didn't clarify what type of event you meant.

It is very difficult to talk about very much of anything without referring to events (again, just stuff that happens...basically the history of the universe is just a sequence of events), whether or not we chose to use that word. If you say five years...well...five years from what? There is always an event. The way you describe in the above post, the event seems to be the initial release of the material...if the song dropped in the last 5 years it is modern, or at least eligible for that title...though I am still forced to guess at that. I assume you don't mean five years from a show being played, otherwise K.I.S.S. would be modern. And I assume you do not mean 5 years from initial formation of a project since this really restricts your choices, many projects are just getting off the ground at that point, and you would miss out on a ton of killer modern music.

I still don't think I have a decent personal definition of what "modern" means to me...but it has made for a good thought experiment thread.
 
There’s so many amazing new guitarists on YouTube that can play it’s ridiculous. These cats need to find a great singer who sings and put together great songs with melody . I miss great songs with shredding solos and singers with vocal talent . Either great guitarist are instrumental atm or they are in a metal band with a not sound good singer these days . We need the lsd singer and guitar hero combo again badly
 
Locrain said:
Ok I now understand slightly more...could have been easy though, you could have just said "The 3rd event you mentioned, 5 years from when the piece of music in question was released." of course there is an event...

An event is defined as "a thing that happens". You just said...:

"No event.
Just anything that has happened"...

...see where my brain starts to crack here? I also don't really know what you mean still, since you didn't clarify what type of event you meant.

It is very difficult to talk about very much of anything without referring to events (again, just stuff that happens...basically the history of the universe is just a sequence of events), whether or not we chose to use that word. If you say five years...well...five years from what? There is always an event. The way you describe in the above post, the event seems to be the initial release of the material...if the song dropped in the last 5 years it is modern, or at least eligible for that title...though I am still forced to guess at that. I assume you don't mean five years from a show being played, otherwise K.I.S.S. would be modern. And I assume you do not mean 5 years from initial formation of a project since this really restricts your choices, many projects are just getting off the ground at that point, and you would miss out on a ton of killer modern music.

I still don't think I have a decent personal definition of what "modern" means to me...but it has made for a good thought experiment thread.
Click to expand...
Your way over complicating this. :)

It doesn't matter if they have been around 3 weeks or 50 years. It doesn't matter what kind of music they play. Could be country or hip hop. It doesn't who they are or what they have done more than five years ago.

The only thing that matters is what they did in the last five years. There isn't any more. For me modern means current. Happening now.

That video sounds great. Excellent actually.
 
a while back a song/solo played by one of my heroes 40 years ago popped into my head and i was determined to learn it. that in itself says a lot about the ability of the guy. and he is a player who still has a voice….and his take was *much* cooler than mine—-that first lick is tricky! know who?

 
This guy is getting a lot of attention in the U.S. of late.



 
Locrain said:
Ian Thornley of Big Wreck. Just saw them a couple weeks ago, one of the best live sets I have ever seen. He sings live like Chris Cornell did on albums, almost perfect. He is a monster lead player among living frontmen that sing and play at the same time. I think he is about the best alive. Killer slide player as well Total Triple Threat, I know his lead playing might be considered "nothing special" among people that just do that, but when you take into mind that he wrote this, he's singing, playing rhythm throughout (they tour as a 3-piece when needed), and just killing it on lead as far as I'm concerned. He definitely has his own style, we were a little worried that they might not be playing, because the tickets said "special guest subject to change", and we couldn't see his Suhr cabs onstage and just saw EVHs (2nd guitar player). Literally as soon as he started playing, just simple swells and licks, my buddy and I smiled in relief, his phrasing and melody choice is unique, once you are familiar with his voice, on guitar and vocally, a Big Wreck song sounds like a Big Wreck song.

This is a heavier one, definitely shows his chops all around. Skip to the end for the solo.



This starts out with the bass player just killing it, then the band comes in, there are 3 or 4 long solo breaks for Ian to show off, over a great song. Skip to 4:20 and 6:20 for the main solos.

Click to expand...


And, he's been playing/singing/writing/performing at this level since the mid 90's! Truly one of the baddest men on the planet!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top