07-17-2007, 04:51 AM
Precisely my point, Rad. Guitar can only do one or the other. Piano offers either a contrast, or a bolster.
I've touched a guitar, Pigero. I've played it. Little more than picking out chords and figuring out bits from some of my favorite songs, but I can fiddle with it. I hate playing it. I'm used to the piano, which, to my apparently untrained ears, seems so much fuller when played correctly than a guitar.
If you forced me to play piano with one hand, then you might have an argument for guitar > piano. But as long as both hands are working fine, I don't think there's any competition.
As for the idea that more notes means better, that's just silliness. I doubt that brain can properly interpret that many notes, and even if it could, there's no way any guitarist can put feeling and emotion into each of the 30 or 40 notes he's playing per second. It'd just be overwhelming, and probably somewhat awesome, but not exactly mindblowing musically.
To be honest (and I know this is going to catch some serious flack), I've always seen the sort of rock most of you like as the equivalent of musical junk food. It's food, and it works, and it tastes different than home-made stuff, but it's got very little actual depth. I'm definitely not one of those classical-only enthusiasts (I can't stand the music majors from my school who know everything about Purcell, and have never heard of Green Day), but rock has never really made me think outside of the box. Avant-garde, it isn't (though it seems like it should be).
I've touched a guitar, Pigero. I've played it. Little more than picking out chords and figuring out bits from some of my favorite songs, but I can fiddle with it. I hate playing it. I'm used to the piano, which, to my apparently untrained ears, seems so much fuller when played correctly than a guitar.
If you forced me to play piano with one hand, then you might have an argument for guitar > piano. But as long as both hands are working fine, I don't think there's any competition.
As for the idea that more notes means better, that's just silliness. I doubt that brain can properly interpret that many notes, and even if it could, there's no way any guitarist can put feeling and emotion into each of the 30 or 40 notes he's playing per second. It'd just be overwhelming, and probably somewhat awesome, but not exactly mindblowing musically.
To be honest (and I know this is going to catch some serious flack), I've always seen the sort of rock most of you like as the equivalent of musical junk food. It's food, and it works, and it tastes different than home-made stuff, but it's got very little actual depth. I'm definitely not one of those classical-only enthusiasts (I can't stand the music majors from my school who know everything about Purcell, and have never heard of Green Day), but rock has never really made me think outside of the box. Avant-garde, it isn't (though it seems like it should be).