Tom Morello Masterclass - online guitar course

thegummy

King85 said:

Barnezy said:

I do find it slightly ironic that someone who was fighting against the capitalist system, is now commercialising his knowledge that he could just as easily share for free.

I guess everyone is a communist until they have some money. 

Agreed big time! It can't take a huge amount of his time and effort to film a few videos and host them but then I again I don't really expect anyone to do something for free it's just nice when they do, especially when they have (or possibly had) a stance such as Toms.

Synyster Gates has a tonne of free stuff on his site and charges nothing for it, legend.

Nice one, will need to check that out.

Not the style I play but I do think the band are really good so hopefully can take something from it.

TeleMaster

The guy has done a zillion benefit gigs and free shows. He’s not a sell out because he charges a little bit of money for guitar lessons. Nor is he a hypocrite for making money in a society that forces for you to make money to survive.

Signing to Epic allowed them to become as widespread as possible but they didn’t make the social changes they wanted to. Personally, I don’t think the scrutiny levied against him stands up because when you peel away the thinly veiled layer of sneering you realise it’s mostly just opportunist mudslinging. 

Sometimes i I think a person can live their life a certain way, and do 99% of things as best they can, and they take a tiny, insignificant side step that doesn’t completely fit with the perception of who they are meant to be and people are just too happy to slam them and completely question their reputation and integrity for something so minor that it shouldn’t even be brought up. 

Strangefan

thegummy said:

Strangefan said:

Some really stupid comments in the thread,  just sayin

So you went against the grain?

Erm yep....  

danishbacon

Unrelated but 9 years ago I was somewhere in the middle of this mass of warm bods: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa0Iavgv0XE

I remember asking a friend a day or two before, 'I wonder if Rage has a big fan base in Brazil'. He laughed. Some 50 thousand showed. 


Re masterclass, I've been watching Deadmau5 and found it very interesting.

DLM

@missmisstreater discusses this product in some depth at about 17:30 here:

thecolourbox said:

 a style completely independent from the usual classic rock pentatonic

Errr... the riffs?

thecolourbox

Yeah but the approach of the riffs for me is not the same as the stuff courses usually focus on - I can't stand for the life of me stuff like Clapton, SRV, ACDC because it just feels like it comes from an approach I just don't relate to. I don't massively like RATM music either but it feels like it has more in common with what I like than usual guitar lessons

thegummy

TeleMaster said:

The guy has done a zillion benefit gigs and free shows. He’s not a sell out because he charges a little bit of money for guitar lessons. Nor is he a hypocrite for making money in a society that forces for you to make money to survive.

Signing to Epic allowed them to become as widespread as possible but they didn’t make the social changes they wanted to. Personally, I don’t think the scrutiny levied against him stands up because when you peel away the thinly veiled layer of sneering you realise it’s mostly just opportunist mudslinging. 

Sometimes i I think a person can live their life a certain way, and do 99% of things as best they can, and they take a tiny, insignificant side step that doesn’t completely fit with the perception of who they are meant to be and people are just too happy to slam them and completely question their reputation and integrity for something so minor that it shouldn’t even be brought up. 

It's not really a case of "selling out". It's that they're just normal people who took the chance to be famous rock stars like we all would have.

The reason for the sneering is because they pretended to hardcore socialist revolutionary types who were above being normal people who'd take a chance to be famous rock stars.

I'd imagine most people old enough to have been in to them when they were on the go have long since seen that they were just selling rebellion to teenagers like a lot of rock bands, just from a political angle rather than nihilistic/hedonistic.

When you say he's forced to make money to survive, is it actually the case that he's not currently making enough money from music sales etc. to live a normal life that a working class person lives?

Maybe the doubters can be proved wrong - is there any evidence that they really did live the lifestyle of a normal working man and used the rest of their wealth for charitable causes?

TeleMaster

thegummy said:

TeleMaster said:

The guy has done a zillion benefit gigs and free shows. He’s not a sell out because he charges a little bit of money for guitar lessons. Nor is he a hypocrite for making money in a society that forces for you to make money to survive.

Signing to Epic allowed them to become as widespread as possible but they didn’t make the social changes they wanted to. Personally, I don’t think the scrutiny levied against him stands up because when you peel away the thinly veiled layer of sneering you realise it’s mostly just opportunist mudslinging. 

Sometimes i I think a person can live their life a certain way, and do 99% of things as best they can, and they take a tiny, insignificant side step that doesn’t completely fit with the perception of who they are meant to be and people are just too happy to slam them and completely question their reputation and integrity for something so minor that it shouldn’t even be brought up. 

It's not really a case of "selling out". It's that they're just normal people who took the chance to be famous rock stars like we all would have.

The reason for the sneering is because they pretended to hardcore socialist revolutionary types who were above being normal people who'd take a chance to be famous rock stars.

I'd imagine most people old enough to have been in to them when they were on the go have long since seen that they were just selling rebellion to teenagers like a lot of rock bands, just from a political angle rather than nihilistic/hedonistic.

When you say he's forced to make money to survive, is it actually the case that he's not currently making enough money from music sales etc. to live a normal life that a working class person lives?

Maybe the doubters can be proved wrong - is there any evidence that they really did live the lifestyle of a normal working man and used the rest of their wealth for charitable causes?

I don’t agree that they were just ‘selling rebellion’. They spent enough time in the Chiapas jungle in Mexico with the Zapatistas, doing benefits for political prisoners like Leonard Peltier, Mumia Abu Jamal, stop the war stuff etc to prove that they actually believed it. 

After RATM they’ve been heavily involved in many political causes. Opponents of Trump, raising the minimum wage to $15, prison reform etc etc. Zack De La Rocha has a modest house and drives an old pickup truck, they don’t live the lives of excessive rock stars. 

I agree their label may have capitalised on it, but they believed in, I don’t doubt that. 

thecolourbox

Sorry to have brought this up! Just thought the course might have interested some as it did me. Hopefully those that it does interest have found it too

thegummy

TeleMaster said:

thegummy said:

TeleMaster said:

The guy has done a zillion benefit gigs and free shows. He’s not a sell out because he charges a little bit of money for guitar lessons. Nor is he a hypocrite for making money in a society that forces for you to make money to survive.

Signing to Epic allowed them to become as widespread as possible but they didn’t make the social changes they wanted to. Personally, I don’t think the scrutiny levied against him stands up because when you peel away the thinly veiled layer of sneering you realise it’s mostly just opportunist mudslinging. 

Sometimes i I think a person can live their life a certain way, and do 99% of things as best they can, and they take a tiny, insignificant side step that doesn’t completely fit with the perception of who they are meant to be and people are just too happy to slam them and completely question their reputation and integrity for something so minor that it shouldn’t even be brought up. 

It's not really a case of "selling out". It's that they're just normal people who took the chance to be famous rock stars like we all would have.

The reason for the sneering is because they pretended to hardcore socialist revolutionary types who were above being normal people who'd take a chance to be famous rock stars.

I'd imagine most people old enough to have been in to them when they were on the go have long since seen that they were just selling rebellion to teenagers like a lot of rock bands, just from a political angle rather than nihilistic/hedonistic.

When you say he's forced to make money to survive, is it actually the case that he's not currently making enough money from music sales etc. to live a normal life that a working class person lives?

Maybe the doubters can be proved wrong - is there any evidence that they really did live the lifestyle of a normal working man and used the rest of their wealth for charitable causes?

I don’t agree that they were just ‘selling rebellion’. They spent enough time in the Chiapas jungle in Mexico with the Zapatistas, doing benefits for political prisoners like Leonard Peltier, Mumia Abu Jamal, stop the war stuff etc to prove that they actually believed it. 

After RATM they’ve been heavily involved in many political causes. Opponents of Trump, raising the minimum wage to $15, prison reform etc etc. Zack De La Rocha has a modest house and drives an old pickup truck, they don’t live the lives of excessive rock stars. 

I agree their label may have capitalised on it, but they believed in, I don’t doubt that. 

If they really have lived a working man's lifestyle then I hold my hands up and admit I was wrong about them.

I had heard he was a junkie which would mean excessive spending by necessity but maybe that wasn't true.

DLM

thecolourbox said:

Sorry to have brought this up!

Don't be daft!

TeleMaster

thegummy said:

I had heard he was a junkie which would mean excessive spending by necessity but maybe that wasn't true.

No one says they live the most modest of lives imaginable, but they definitely don’t live like Axl Rose or attend multiple red carpet events. You have to give them some leeway as they do have some money and they are public figures with security concerns. 

I can’t stress the amount of benefits they’ve done. And the work they done with impoverished Native American and Chiapas communities.

Its almost laughable saying Zack De La Rocha is a drug addict. He’s been pretty much straight edge since the 80’s...

thegummy

TeleMaster said:

thegummy said:

I had heard he was a junkie which would mean excessive spending by necessity but maybe that wasn't true.

No one says they live the most modest of lives imaginable, but they definitely don’t live like Axl Rose or attend multiple red carpet events. You have to give them some leeway as they do have some money and they are public figures with security concerns. 

I can’t stress the amount of benefits they’ve done. And the work they done with impoverished Native American and Chiapas communities.

Its almost laughable saying Zack De La Rocha is a drug addict. He’s been pretty much straight edge since the 80’s...

Was he junkie prior to that or is the accusation just total bollocks?

TeleMaster

thegummy said:

TeleMaster said:

thegummy said:

I had heard he was a junkie which would mean excessive spending by necessity but maybe that wasn't true.

No one says they live the most modest of lives imaginable, but they definitely don’t live like Axl Rose or attend multiple red carpet events. You have to give them some leeway as they do have some money and they are public figures with security concerns. 

I can’t stress the amount of benefits they’ve done. And the work they done with impoverished Native American and Chiapas communities.

Its almost laughable saying Zack De La Rocha is a drug addict. He’s been pretty much straight edge since the 80’s...

Was he junkie prior to that or is the accusation just total bollocks?

I don’t know if he was ever a junkie. I think he dabbled when young, as lots of us have, but as a long time fan I’ve never heard him being massively into drugs at any time in his life. He became straight edge when he got into Minor Threat. He did take up smoking because he wanted to find a way to connect with the Zapatistas when he went to live with them, but I think that’s it.