cradleofflames,
RE: "Does it really matter how fast people were playing before and now?". No, of course not, and no one has said it does. This thread is not a referendum on shred guitar. I thought I had made it fairly clear that it's about maintaining a balance between gear-chasing and actual practice as a means of improving one's guitar sound.
RE: "Why do you think there's been such a huge classic rock resurgence?". Perhaps because it's good music? Frankly, there really isn't any particular resurgence of guitar-oriented music; it simply never completely went away. Some younger players, who normally ignore the music of older generations, have become bored with the lackluster guitar playing of their own generation and have begun to delve into the history of rock guitar to see what else is possible.
Most of the rest of your post was a subjective opinion piece on how Gilmour is "better" than Page, or how Satriani and Petrucci are "better" than Malmsteen and Vai. While such claims are not particularly useful in the context of this thread, it's at least useful to note that to be able to play like any of the gentlemen mentioned above, even the least "shreddy" of them, requires a great deal of familiarity borne of time spent on the instrument. Gilmour's tastefulness is no less easy to replicate than Yngwie's raw speed. Gear alone, no matter how high the quality, will not make you sound like either man, therefore, my original point still holds.
Though I was part of that scene, I, too, am glad that shred for the sake of shred is history. But what many players ignorantly do is to confuse excellent technical ability with a two-dimensional stereotype of shred wanking. To call Wes Montgomery or B.B. King tasteless because they played very fast would be absurd. It's likewise just as silly for many players who claim that, because they are too lazy to practice enough to play well technically, they are somehow magically more soulful, tasteful or melodic instead. Yes, B.B. can say more with one note than most of us may say in our entire musical careers, but that vibrato of his didn't arrive by magic, it came through many years of dedicated playing and practice.
jdurso,
You make a great, if oversimplified, point about the relative strengths and weaknesses of various eras of rock history. Bands like the Beatles played through gear that would be considered marginal to crappy by today's standards, even well into their professional careers. However, they proved that great songs can be written and played with gear that isn't "boutique". The best example may be the fact that Sgt. Pepper was recorded on a 4-track tape recorder.
Today's players have access to the best gear that musicians have ever been able to get, and most long-time players will tell you that good gear does help you sound better than crappy gear...no surprise there. What I notice too often today though is that younger players buy into the idea that "the right gear", whatever that may be, is what you need to be a good player, often eschewing disciplined practice as a result. This results in a lower average ability among today's players and, more importantly, fewer choices in the ways they can express themselves musically.
There are fewer historically important, innovative guitarists in the last 16 years than in previous years of rock's history. Whether one chooses to play shred with it or not, technical ability is still one of the most important factors in giving a guitarist the widest possible palette with which to paint his musical expressions. Good gear helps, too. Both at the same time would seem ideal, no?
Anyway, thanks again, guys, for the thoughtful and topical discussion.
