specialk Posted February 21, 2013 Posted February 21, 2013 Frikkin' 9 year old. Get off my lawn! http://www.noisecreep.com/2013/02/19/benjamin-bluestein-guitar-prodigy/
Steve Haynie Posted February 21, 2013 Posted February 21, 2013 Soulless and robotic. Yeah. It appears that everything was well practiced, but there was no real personal character coming through. Sure, he is nine, but then he is being compared to other players who can play those licks.
MCChris Posted February 21, 2013 Posted February 21, 2013 I was kidding. Pre-emptive dismissive guitar-nerd critique.
BlueRedWhite Posted February 21, 2013 Posted February 21, 2013 I started playing at that age. Classical guit, nylon strings, and tropical rythms, habaneras, boleros and all that, no picks, fingerpicking only. I didn't have the feeling for any song, the feeling comes with age and experience. And then, there was an unwritten rule that young children shouldn't play steel strings, so i only learned electric way later. So great for that kid, playing an electric, i think that's amazing. As long as he enjoys it, it's gonna be a piece of cake.
Steve Haynie Posted February 21, 2013 Posted February 21, 2013 You were kidding. I was serious.The bottom line is that kid has not convinced me to buy an album-- yet.
LucSulla Posted February 21, 2013 Posted February 21, 2013 In all honesty, I've been around a couple of kids his age in the last 20 years that would smoke him. Not taking away from what he was doing; great start for two years into playing! Getting the ball rolling at 7 means he could be a total monster in another few years and just barely in high school. But are "Crazy Train" and "Eruption" really that weird for a kid learning electric after two years, especially considering this kid is being made a news story?I can remember being in a music store checking out an SG about 2-3 years after I started playing and was just starting to feel that I might actually be pretty damned good at this guitar business. Some kid - couldn't have been older than ten - sits down next to me and starts blasting through "For the Love of God." This was the mid-90s, so it was weird to see anybody my age or younger playing Vai tunes - but this kid just barely taller than his guitar? My ego was so bruised that I just left disgusted with myself.
shredmeister Posted February 21, 2013 Posted February 21, 2013 Not impressed with others copying. Much easier to copy once something is invented. Inventing your own style and sound to me is the goal. Takes many years to do so. Takes a lot to be inventive and original. This is where kids and people in highschool don't have it. They copy.There is much more to good shredding than just playing fast. All the other assets and compnents to good music and good guitar have to be there. You have to know when and how to use speed, where it fits in and when to back off.
MCChris Posted February 21, 2013 Posted February 21, 2013 And there you have it, the requisite over-critiquing of a child on a guitar message board.Of course he's not going to bring much personality to his playing, he's NINE. He doesn't have the life experiences yet.Of course he's copying, he's NINE. No one bashes child classical prodigies for sight-reading and doing exact renditions of timeless compositions. Plus, it's fun for a kid to play the licks of his hero. EVH did it with Clapton, then went on to do his own thing.Of course there are others his age who can "smoke" him, there always are.
LucSulla Posted February 21, 2013 Posted February 21, 2013 Chris, I'm not criticizing the kid. I think he's great and wish I had gotten off to a start that early, nor do I expect him to have his own voice at 9. That takes a long time if it ever happens at all. I am more critiquing this story's positioning him as a phenomenon. KROQ's story calls him a "face-melting guitar shredder." Is that not a bit of hyperbole, especially when there truly are 9-year-old, face-melting shredders? My only question is that if these news outlets want to do a human interest piece on young virtuosos, are there more deserving subjects out there that could be found with a little more work? None of that falls back on the kid, and I don't blame him at all for taking advantage of the buzz or that he is clearly a rare talent. I research media for a living; I can't help that I speculate about circumstances and motivations around some stories, particularly when they intersect with another strong interest of mine.
MCChris Posted February 21, 2013 Posted February 21, 2013 I'm not singling you out, Luc. This happens all the time on guitar message boards, not just this one. It's predictable.In your case, since you research media, you should know that a.) the site where the story lives is skewed toward a hard rock audience, so it makes sense that this kid is featured and b.) he's a participant in Rock'n'Roill Fantasy Camp, which I assume will be on VH1 Classic, so the Viacom PR machine is behind this kid, trying to drum up interest in the show.As for your questions about why the media ignores more deserving subjects, resorts to hyperbole and doesn't work harder, I hope they were rhetorical.
LucSulla Posted February 21, 2013 Posted February 21, 2013 As for your questions about why the media ignores more deserving subjects, resorts to hyperbole and doesn't work harder, I hope they were rhetorical.No, they weren't. I have my opinions, and I can tell you the arguments, but it is much more interesting to know what the audience believes. As far a the television aspect, I'll admit to being more familiar with the camp itself than the series, but it was my understanding that there were only two seasons but that the fantasy camp itself is not a part of VH-1 but several different camps with the initial being founded in 1997. If they are bringing the series back for a third season after missing 2012, then it would certainly make sense.
jettster Posted February 21, 2013 Posted February 21, 2013 Get out of my yard.... indeed,http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=yhQpTtociVE
MCChris Posted February 21, 2013 Posted February 21, 2013 As for your questions about why the media ignores more deserving subjects, resorts to hyperbole and doesn't work harder, I hope they were rhetorical.No, they weren't. I have my opinions, and I can tell you the arguments, but it is much more interesting to know what the audience believes. As far a the television aspect, I'll admit to being more familiar with the camp itself than the series, but it was my understanding that there were only two seasons but that the fantasy camp itself is not a part of VH-1 but several different camps with the initial being founded in 1997. If they are bringing the series back for a third season after missing 2012, then it would certainly make sense. I don't know what your opinions are or what you've come to know about what audiences want or believe, but I'm sure they have little to do with the fact that everything I listed is 100% characteristic of the mass media in the digital age. Case in point: Diane Sawyer and others like her speaking at length about Michelle Obama's bangs. Walter Cronkite never would have stooped to those depths.As for the second part, show or no show, someone in a PR capacity is promoting this kid, either someone employed by the camp for its benefit or someone the kid knows for his benefit. A large percentage of media stories get placed that way.
LucSulla Posted February 21, 2013 Posted February 21, 2013 I don't know what your opinions are or what you've come to know about what audiences want or believe, but I'm sure they have little to do with the fact that everything I listed is 100% characteristic of the mass media in the digital age.Not sure what you mean here, "they" as in my opinions or the audience? If you mean that you are sure my opinions have nothing to do with the issues you brought up, "media ignores more deserving subjects, resorts to hyperbole and doesn't work harder...," then you would be incorrect in that assumption. However, I also feel there is another side to that story that has shaped the current state of the media. I think the consumer is just as much at fault when it comes to news media offerings as the companies that develop the programming. There are decades of surveys that show the vast majority of those who want hard news, Uncle Walt back prefer to watch Entertainment Tonight-esq programming (and now TMZ) rather than news programming. Media corporations aren't going to shoot themselves in the foot by offering something they know almost no one will watch just because it is a superior product. The audience research on the Internet shows a lean toward entertainment news among a great deal of the audience as well, plus there are pretty huge issues with filtering, both structurally and by consumers themselves. Anyway, I am way, way off topic for this and the whole forum, but I would be more than happy to continue this dialog in PMs.
diablo175 Posted February 21, 2013 Posted February 21, 2013 In all honesty, I've been around a couple of kids his age in the last 20 years that would smoke him. Not taking away from what he was doing; great start for two years into playing! Getting the ball rolling at 7 means he could be a total monster in another few years and just barely in high school. But are "Crazy Train" and "Eruption" really that weird for a kid learning electric after two years, especially considering this kid is being made a news story?I can remember being in a music store checking out an SG about 2-3 years after I started playing and was just starting to feel that I might actually be pretty damned good at this guitar business. Some kid - couldn't have been older than ten - sits down next to me and starts blasting through "For the Love of God." This was the mid-90s, so it was weird to see anybody my age or younger playing Vai tunes - but this kid just barely taller than his guitar? My ego was so bruised that I just left disgusted with myself. I am (still) a sorry sack of sh*t by comparison. I was so slow to learn even basic rudiments of theory, chords and the pentatonic scale. Sheeesh. I'd have traded my left nut to be able to have that kind of dexterity and aptitude. It's embarrassing.That being said, I was writing my own sh*t by the 2nd year of non-playing/learning. Talking complete songs and fairly adventurous at that. It all sucked but it was what was in my head and heart and to this day still makes me smile after I finish laughing my ass off at the horrid technical aspect.
MCChris Posted February 21, 2013 Posted February 21, 2013 I don't know what your opinions are or what you've come to know about what audiences want or believe, but I'm sure they have little to do with the fact that everything I listed is 100% characteristic of the mass media in the digital age.If you mean that you are sure my opinions have nothing to do with the issues you brought up, "media ignores more deserving subjects, resorts to hyperbole and doesn't work harder...," then you would be incorrect in that assumption.I used some hyperbole of my own with the "100%" bit, as there are exceptions to every rule. But if what you say is true (and it is) that audiences prefer easily digestible and ultimately meaningless crap, then there's no point for a media outlet to seek out more interesting stories, ignore provocative language and work a single iota harder than is minimally required to serve up pablum. So, tell me how I would be incorrect. Like I said, I have no idea what your opinions are, but if we were talking about science and my opinion is that the sky is orange, who's incorrect?
LucSulla Posted February 21, 2013 Posted February 21, 2013 I never said you were incorrect in the first place. I actually agree with that part of it, only that I don't think that it encompasses the entirety of the situation and that the other parts are equally important. The only thing I will say is that serving up meaningless crap can be pretty hard work, especially when you can get scooped on twitter and the like these days, and there are many journalists who would love to get back to hard news themselves. Some of these people do work incredibly hard to serve what is ultimately no purpose in the progression of humanity, and they know it. There is a lot of time and effort spent on trying to get news back the way it was, but the problem is that too most researchers and professionals, "the way it was" means a scenario where there are three national television stations, PBS, and everyone reads a newspaper. Very few people seem to be looking at how to connect hard news to today's audience. Most spend their energy trying to figure out how to make today's audience play fair and behave like it is 1980 still. They fail, we get watered down nightly news, and TMZ makes gobs of money. You figure out how to solve that disconnect from either direction, and you will have more than enough money to buy everyone here a standard. I do believe the solution is out there, but I don't know what shape it will take.
MCChris Posted February 21, 2013 Posted February 21, 2013 The only thing I will say is that serving up meaningless crap can be pretty hard work, especially when you can get scooped on twitter and the like these days, and there are many journalists who would love to get back to hard news themselves.We'll have to agree to disagree on that. The only "work" I can see in the new paradigm is being tethered to a mobile device and having to always be on the grid. In terms of putting out a legit story with confirmed named sources, a.k.a. real hard work and news, I'm seeing less and less of it these days. Anyone can put out anything whenever they want with no accountability to the truth if there are no named sources. Look at Deadspin in their original breaking of the Manti Te'o story. It was based on an unnamed source who was "80% sure Manti was involved" in the hoax. You'd have been kicked out of the journalism school I went to if you tried to turn in that story in a class.
LucSulla Posted February 21, 2013 Posted February 21, 2013 There are definitely some interesting ethical issues, particularly online, these days.
Bennyboy-UK Posted February 21, 2013 Posted February 21, 2013 I've noticed a distinct maturity develop with the chap called Mattrach on youtube, from when he was v young to getting older. It's all great playing, but the later videos demonstrate a little restraint and some different styles. Funny old world...
Ting Ho Dung Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 I've been following this girl for a few years. You guys are saying that soul and style comes out in time. This is the first video I saw of her:http://youtu.be/GVyzuEBFfBUThen recently I saw this one. http://youtu.be/d4QsW7MgMkcI'd say she has matured. I got some heat for posting a girl guitar player from one member (I don't remember who) on this board a while back. But I think both the one I posted before and this one are deserving of recognition.
diablo175 Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 I've been following this girl for a few years. You guys are saying that soul and style comes out in time. This is the first video I saw of her: http://youtu.be/GVyzuEBFfBU Then recently I saw this one. http://youtu.be/d4QsW7MgMkc I'd say she has matured. I got some heat for posting a girl guitar player from one member (I don't remember who) on this board a while back. But I think both the one I posted before and this one are deserving of recognition. +1 She definitely plays with fire and verve. Goddamn, I would've been madly in love with her back when I was 16...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.