D
dawg2k5
New member
It's not wrong to like The Edge...but is he really that good? I think No.
For the style of music U2 plays, he fits like a glove.
For the style of music U2 plays, he fits like a glove.
famous beagle
Well-known member
little guy said:
Yeah, and Charlie Hunter makes Steve Stevens look like a pre-schooler. What's the point? Music is a language and art---not a sport. There are times for chops and times for playing parts that fit the song.
No one in hear is claiming the Edge is a virtuoso. We're just saying he's a good guitar player who's developed a unique voice on the instrument.
B
blgtr
New member
well I really like the edge.. I think he is a great guitar player.. now everybody is doing the delay tricks he does.. but back when he first started his sound was really innovative IMHO
northsiderap
New member
It is wrong
Yes, it is wrong to like the Edge.
But if liking the Edge is wrong, I don't wanna be right.
Apparently a lot of people do like the Edge.
Yes, it is wrong to like the Edge.
But if liking the Edge is wrong, I don't wanna be right.
Apparently a lot of people do like the Edge.
L
little guy
New member
i'm sure my oppinion is swayed in the direction it is, simply because i am sooooooo damn tired of hearing about U2. i feel their music is completely overrated.
K
Karmadog777
New member
Meh 
The Edge ..yeh he plays a guitar and thats his real name
I can think of alot worse players that play better badly and still sound better than his best bad playing.
The Edge ..yeh he plays a guitar and thats his real nameI can think of alot worse players that play better badly and still sound better than his best bad playing.
Doc Holiday
New member
Huh?Karmadog777 said:Meh
I can think of alot worse players that play better badly and still sound better than his best bad playing.
R
robin watson
New member
Technically, the Edge doesn't even come close to, say, Steve Howe...
But Steve Howe is Close to the Edge.
Boom-boom.
But Steve Howe is Close to the Edge.
Boom-boom.
gmiller1122
Addled but happy
No, he's not flashy or fast, and yes, he relies on his delay, etc. But couldn't we say the same about lots of guitarists relying on their effects and/or amps? I'd like to hear some of these guys play without any 'help.' I love playing with effects 'cuz it sure does make me sound better than I am.
Edge has a style that may be easy to imitate, but that doesn't mean anything. He has a style, period, and that's what matters. The fact that he is imitated says a lot. I'd rather listen to him than Satriani or any of these forgettable guitar 'gods' (whose names, not surprisingly, escape me at the moment). Ooh, you're really, really fast...wow....
That being said, I agree that U2's music has not been up to par recently. All down hill after Achtung Baby. I blame Bono.
Edge has a style that may be easy to imitate, but that doesn't mean anything. He has a style, period, and that's what matters. The fact that he is imitated says a lot. I'd rather listen to him than Satriani or any of these forgettable guitar 'gods' (whose names, not surprisingly, escape me at the moment). Ooh, you're really, really fast...wow....
That being said, I agree that U2's music has not been up to par recently. All down hill after Achtung Baby. I blame Bono.
K
kludge
New member
TECHNIQUE IS NOT MUSIC.
Guitarists (and other musicians) go through a period of developing a body of technique and a musical vocabulary. After a while, that mostly levels off (it becomes a matter of refinement, not learning new technique). ALL guitarists, and I don't care how dang good they are, can only play effectively within the bounds of their own technique and vocabulary. Some have larger vocabularies than others, but ALL guitarists are limited. Steve Howe has as broad a vocabulary as anyone, but he can't play like Joseph Spence.
Technique and vocabulary exist to make MUSIC. It doesn't require a great deal of technique to generate a huge body of music. Neil Young, for example, is technically a very limited guitarist, but he's generated a tremendous body of classic work with that limited technique for four decades now. His one-note solo on "Cinnamon Girl" has outlasted entire generations of shredders. Why? Because it's MUSICALLY EFFECTIVE.
What makes the Edge a successful guitarist isn't his technique, but rather how well he creates music with the technique he has. U2 has been a top band for 25 years now (longer than some of their naysayers here have been alive) because their music is effective. It's catchy, it's relevant, it's interesting, and it's demonstrably immune to the winds of fashion. U2's music survived the 1980s shred obsession, the 1990s grunge obsession, and the current decade's floundering without ever changing its basic character. Pretty much any U2 song, even a new one, is instantly recognizable as U2.
Not only has the Edge developed and maintained a consistent character that has stood the test of time, he's proven himself nearly inimitable - there are very few successful Edge soundalikes. And that's not because it's uninteresting, as some here would claim. In my experience, imitative playing is the mark of immaturity, of guitarists who are unwilling to work hard, or who lack the imagination to develop a distinctive sound. There's no shortage of Stevie Ray Vaughn and Kirk Hammett wannabes, and frankly, they're not interesting either. But really, that dotted-triplet echo playing is harder than it seems! Generating interesting moving lines and not making mistakes requires both musical and physical technique. One missed note can throw your whole line off, unlike many other styles.
I will also add that there is MUCH MUCH MUCH MORE to being a rock star than playing guitar well! First, there's being a good bandmate. Bands are a lot like marriage (or so my bandmate tells me... maybe that's why she isn't having sex with me ). U2 has not changed its lineup for 25 years, for a dozen albums and countless shows. That means that the Edge knows how to get along with his bandmates! How many of the curmudgeons here bloviating about his lack of technique are thought of by their fellow musicians as "that arrogant prick", if indeed they're in a stable band at all? Another thing is being PROFESSIONAL, meeting the right people and making a good impression, being pleasant and generous and humble, managing money effectively, developing an inner circle of honest critics and listening to them, etc. It means showing up when you say you'll show up, playing well even if your heart isn't in it that night, recording on time and under budget. Oh, and there's maintaining a rock star image. You may mock his nickname, but it's HIS nickname - along with the hats and five o'clock shadow and leaned-back stage posture that make him instantly recognizable.
I think it's quite clear that the Edge has a solid professional attitude, that he is a good bandmate, that he manages his image and his career well, that he has good advisors and trusts them - AND he has the imagination and taste to keep producing new and original music out of his admittedly limited technique. The end result of it is that he sells millions of records and plays to sold-out arenas, while you're sitting on the Internet talking about how much he sucks.
Guitarists (and other musicians) go through a period of developing a body of technique and a musical vocabulary. After a while, that mostly levels off (it becomes a matter of refinement, not learning new technique). ALL guitarists, and I don't care how dang good they are, can only play effectively within the bounds of their own technique and vocabulary. Some have larger vocabularies than others, but ALL guitarists are limited. Steve Howe has as broad a vocabulary as anyone, but he can't play like Joseph Spence.
Technique and vocabulary exist to make MUSIC. It doesn't require a great deal of technique to generate a huge body of music. Neil Young, for example, is technically a very limited guitarist, but he's generated a tremendous body of classic work with that limited technique for four decades now. His one-note solo on "Cinnamon Girl" has outlasted entire generations of shredders. Why? Because it's MUSICALLY EFFECTIVE.
What makes the Edge a successful guitarist isn't his technique, but rather how well he creates music with the technique he has. U2 has been a top band for 25 years now (longer than some of their naysayers here have been alive) because their music is effective. It's catchy, it's relevant, it's interesting, and it's demonstrably immune to the winds of fashion. U2's music survived the 1980s shred obsession, the 1990s grunge obsession, and the current decade's floundering without ever changing its basic character. Pretty much any U2 song, even a new one, is instantly recognizable as U2.
Not only has the Edge developed and maintained a consistent character that has stood the test of time, he's proven himself nearly inimitable - there are very few successful Edge soundalikes. And that's not because it's uninteresting, as some here would claim. In my experience, imitative playing is the mark of immaturity, of guitarists who are unwilling to work hard, or who lack the imagination to develop a distinctive sound. There's no shortage of Stevie Ray Vaughn and Kirk Hammett wannabes, and frankly, they're not interesting either. But really, that dotted-triplet echo playing is harder than it seems! Generating interesting moving lines and not making mistakes requires both musical and physical technique. One missed note can throw your whole line off, unlike many other styles.
I will also add that there is MUCH MUCH MUCH MORE to being a rock star than playing guitar well! First, there's being a good bandmate. Bands are a lot like marriage (or so my bandmate tells me... maybe that's why she isn't having sex with me
). U2 has not changed its lineup for 25 years, for a dozen albums and countless shows. That means that the Edge knows how to get along with his bandmates! How many of the curmudgeons here bloviating about his lack of technique are thought of by their fellow musicians as "that arrogant prick", if indeed they're in a stable band at all? Another thing is being PROFESSIONAL, meeting the right people and making a good impression, being pleasant and generous and humble, managing money effectively, developing an inner circle of honest critics and listening to them, etc. It means showing up when you say you'll show up, playing well even if your heart isn't in it that night, recording on time and under budget. Oh, and there's maintaining a rock star image. You may mock his nickname, but it's HIS nickname - along with the hats and five o'clock shadow and leaned-back stage posture that make him instantly recognizable. I think it's quite clear that the Edge has a solid professional attitude, that he is a good bandmate, that he manages his image and his career well, that he has good advisors and trusts them - AND he has the imagination and taste to keep producing new and original music out of his admittedly limited technique. The end result of it is that he sells millions of records and plays to sold-out arenas, while you're sitting on the Internet talking about how much he sucks.
gmiller1122
Addled but happy
Amen, Kludge!!!
turnitdown
$10 PayPal=Your Ad Here!!
Kludge wins "Longest Post"!!!!!!!!!!
Good post Mr. Kludge!!
Good post Mr. Kludge!!
punkin
Univalve & Avatar Speaks
Ummm...what was the question?
Oh, and if there's an answer, that would be nice too.
Thanks!
Oh, and if there's an answer, that would be nice too.
Thanks!
rayc
retroreprobate
TAKE AWAY THE SEQUENCER as well as the other tricks in his bag except for 1 pedal & an amp & you have 1 good guitar player playing 1 guitar with what can be a drone, a thin but interesting line or, sometimes fat chords.
Personally I don't like his music & his SOUND is almost as gimmicky as Big Country's.
Cheers
rayC
Personally I don't like his music & his SOUND is almost as gimmicky as Big Country's.
Cheers
rayC
F
faderbug
.
kludge said:
amen my brother!!!
T
trabalais
New member
To be fair to him, there's a distinct possiblity that U2's music doesn't allow him to really show us everything he can do. They're not a play 2 verses and a chorus and then have a five minute solo kind of band. There's not another guitarist I can think of that adds the kind of textures and rhythm he does. I think he's great because he doesn't do what everyone expects a lead guitarist to do and yet he is an integral part of their sound.dawg2k5 said:
Thomas
www.yourhomestudio.com
Free Home Studio Newsletter - signmeupnow@yourhomestudio.com
gmiller1122
Addled but happy
trabalais said:
Good point. He seems very content to be part of a band. His sounds aren't buried by the others, but rather complements them well.
It's also interesting to look at their history and remember that they were awful "musicians" when they started. Their first priority was to be in a rock band. The instruments they played seemed secondary. You could take that as being awfully naive (which we all are at that age) or as refreshingly determined. The fact that the Edge grew as a guitarist before our eyes I think is part of his mystique. This reminds me of REM's Peter Buck. On "Murmur" his guitar stylings were <ahem> simple.
A few decades later, and he has created a recognizable and influential sound. Neither play super-fast riffs, but you hear them, and you know it's them. I don't think I could tell the difference between Satriani and those other guitar virtuosos. (What the hell are their names!?!)
F
faderbug
.
now i'm pretty certain SOMEONE is gonna kick your ass for blasfemic use of the name satriani.
J
johnny5dm
New member
All I have to say is this:
Name ONE other guitar player who can fill out a song with just drums and bass like Edge can. Come on. Just one.
I'd argue that no one else out there has ever had the ability to generate rhythm, lead, and pad sounds simultaneously like Edge does.
Name ONE other guitar player who can fill out a song with just drums and bass like Edge can. Come on. Just one.
I'd argue that no one else out there has ever had the ability to generate rhythm, lead, and pad sounds simultaneously like Edge does.
6gun
New member
I'll bet you could yank him from U2 and he'd be a seriously lost puppy in any other band that did anything remotely different from his 'thing'.
I like U2, but not an Edge fan here. I respect his success, that's aboot it.
I like U2, but not an Edge fan here. I respect his success, that's aboot it.
