Dealing with our Clapton issues

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by strat0124:

Clapton is best when he is pushed by a backup player like Duane Allman, Ry Cooder, Albert Lee, and recently Doyle Bramhall.

 

I'd rather hear any of those guys play solos, sorry.

 

tastefully executed mean ass licks. If you're into Yngwie or the like, you will always trash the man,

 

You're really into prejudgement: yeah, I like Yngwie, and anyone with half a clue would realize I'm not trashing Clapton. The world isn't that simple.

 

I don't think Clapton is "God", and I think he had many contemporaries that were technically better and deserve his high=-profile status. One of my all time favorite players is David Gilmour, someone I could probably technically play rings around, but I'd still prefer to listen to him solo than Clapton. That's not trashing Gilmour - defining technical ability in an *art form* doesn't delineate what is "good" or "bad".

 

Likewise, just because Yngwie has a ton of chops doesn't mean he can't play with feel, and that's getting to be a pretty old cliche.

 

http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by d gauss:

the post referred to neil young only for his tone which i think we can all agree is downright raunchy.

 

Yeah, I liked Neil's Rust period, when he was really into mangulating notes in solos - it was sometimes quite microtonal, but the trick to that, as Jeff Beck demonstrates - is that if you're really into it for the music the microtonality will convey emotion. Incompetant microtonality is just being out of tune and bad.... Neil really would go off and let things fly with feedback, vibrato, warped bends.. he was really trying to get somewhere, even with his primitive technique. The way music should be played.

 

 

the post was about clarence gatemouth brown who was and still is doing amazing things on the guitar since the 40's with a mean-ass neil yound-

 

I dunno... I saw him play in Nashville a few years ago and he had his classic licks present, but I wouldn't say he was really getting into that wild-and-wooly Neil Young territory.

 

Gatemouth Brown falls into a category I think of as "the Old School of Idiomatic Lick Makers". All those old guys, the ones preceding him, their whole bag was built around 2 or 3 licks they invented and patented that were truly great... You know, there's the couple of Albert King licks, the B.B. licks - you go see those guys, you're going to hear an hour and half of those couple of licks.

 

As great as those licks are - I get bored with that. That's not a dis - that's a great accomplisment, to have a phrase associated with you; that's almost the whole point as far as I'm concerned, striving for phrases and combinations that have *never been heard on the planet before*. Music is the best way to accomplish that sort of thing, to do something novel in the scope of human history.

 

http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[Ian Stewart Cairns]

The soul versus technique debate is simply a false dichotomy (presumably adopted by some because it saves having to think too hard). It's a variant of the familiar strain "if you're not for us, you must be against us".

 

It is an incoherent position to hold and fortunately, one most contributors to this debate don't share.

 

The idea that having good technique prevents one from playing with "soul" (whatever that is? - would someone care to define it for me) is ludicrous. To suggest that any human being, playing any kind of guitar, in whichever style, in whichever epoch, lacks "soul" is nothing but a mindless insult. Certainly, quantifiably, some people lack technique, some dont share our aesthetic, others lack cohesion in their playing (E.C.), others lack harmonic sophistication and so on. But how can a human being lack soul? You tell me. But only after, you have defined what soul is.

 

I don't want to turn Logical Positivist on you, but to me the term soul, as with the term God, is devoid of meaning - until a suitable definition is acquired.

 

BTW, if you want to hear a genuinely great English blues player, tune in to Peter Green, a contemporary of Clapton. He has an exquisite touch on the instrument.

 

Ian

[strat0124]

Actually wasn't trying prejudge.....sorry if you took it like that, it was a very generic statement. I don't think Clapton takes his guitar as seriously as some do, he just plays for feel, sorta like the guys he stole all his licks from. Actually the world is that simple......it's just one guy among many, who play guitar. Just a preference thing. Personally I'd rather hear Jimmie Vaughn play "one big note" than hear Satch rip out 64ths for five minutes. Technically incredible....but in my humble...humble opinion, soul-less. And I don't have half a clue.......I have 5/8's a clue! : )

[D. Gauss]

<>

 

in his day he was great...pre-acid meltdown peter. saw him last summer and he can't play a note. how sad is that. porr guy. i hear tell johnny winter ain't fairing much better these days either.

 

-d. gauss

[strat0124]

I haven't seen Johnny Winter in a long time....but even back then he looked like a @#$%ing vampire. He was doing SRV's licks way before anybody else back then....the man was a bluesrocker from hell. And he's a Texan to boot.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Ian Stewart Cairns:

But how can a human being lack soul? You tell me. But only after, you have defined what soul is.

 

I'll tell ya how a human being can lack soul: By claiming that "soul" can't possibly have any meaning or validity if it can't be accurately defined and quantified. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

Sheesh, we're talking about MUSIC here, and our internal experience of it. I can be a "logical positivist" as well as the next person, when it's appropriate, but there's a time and a place for it and this ain't it.

 

--Lee

[Ian Stewart Cairns]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

I'll tell ya how a human being can lack soul: By claiming that "soul" can't possibly have any meaning or validity if it can't be accurately defined and quantified. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

Lee, Lee, Lee. Sit down, relax, have a nice cup of hot chocolate. Re-engage your pre-frontal cortex, then re-join the debate once you've calmed down. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Ian Stewart Cairns]

Originally posted by strat0124:

Personally I'd rather hear Jimmie Vaughn play "one big note" than hear Satch rip out 64ths for five minutes. Technically incredible....but in my humble...humble opinion, soul-less.

 

Hi Strat0124 (do you own thatserial # or something), http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

I confess, I don't much care for Satriani's playing either (although I admit, I like Jimmie Vaughan even less). But what I am interested in is how Vaughan's playing can have "soul" whilst Satriani's doesn't. What is it that defines "soul" for you? Is it simply music that is derived from black soul music? Nice vibrato? Slow playing? Or what. I would really like to know.

 

Ian

[Ian Stewart Cairns]

Originally posted by d gauss:

<>

 

in his day he was great...pre-acid meltdown peter. saw him last summer and he can't play a note. how sad is that. porr guy. i hear tell johnny winter ain't fairing much better these days either.

 

That's really too bad. Johhny Winter sure was one hell-for-leather blues/rock artist - I have long admired the intensity of his playing. In the 60's Green was a wonderful player. He remains one of my favourites. In some ways I think of Gilmour, with his articulate string-bending and portamento, as being his natural heir (at least in the 70's).

 

Ian

 

 

This message has been edited by Ian Stewart Cairns on 04-23-2001 at 02:29 PM

[nrg music]

Originally posted by Ian Stewart Cairns:

Originally posted by d gauss:

<>

 

in his day he was great...pre-acid meltdown peter. saw him last summer and he can't play a note. how sad is that. porr guy. i hear tell johnny winter ain't fairing much better these days either.

 

That's really too bad. Johhny Winter sure was one hell-for-leather blues/rock artist - I have long admired the intensity of his playing. In the 60's Green was a wonderful player. He remains one of my favourites. In some ways I think of Gilmour, with his articulate string-bending and portamento, as being his natural heir (at least in the 70's).

 

Ian

 

 

Ian

I cannot agree with ya on that one... Gilmour, whilst being a great in my eyes has no comparison with Peter Green, the styles are miles apart imho. Probably a much more apt successor would be the likes of Gary Moore or Brina Robertson?

 

Simon

[Ian Stewart Cairns]

Ian

I cannot agree with ya on that one... Gilmour, whilst being a great in my eyes has no comparison with Peter Green, the styles are miles apart imho. Probably a much more apt successor would be the likes of Gary Moore or Brina Robertson?

 

That seems fair enough to me Simon...

 

I wan't really meaning to imply that they are stylistically similar, more that they share guitaristic mannerisms. I hear Green's snaky slides and sinewy bends echoed in Gilmour's Shine On You Crazy Diamond for example.

 

As for Gary Moore - well he released that Blues for Greeny album with input from Green himself, didn't he. So I suppose he lays claim to the "authorized impersonator" tag. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

As for Brina Robertson...never heard of her... Do you by chance mean ex-Thin Lizzy man Brian Robertson? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

Ian

 

This message has been edited by Ian Stewart Cairns on 04-23-2001 at 03:31 PM

[strat0124]

Actually the 0124 is my birthday....just an effort to make a screename that nobody had.

Soul.....ah yes..the magic ingredient. I guess it has to do with your own personal taste, background, and perspective. For some Aretha was the model for singers with soul.....others may define Karen Carpenter as having a certain "soul". In my eye, a soulful guitar player would be connected to the blues/R&B and have that inherent ability to know when NOT to play, as opposed to the Rocketeers of Guitar Gymnastics who play everything they know in thirty seconds. Just my humble opinion.....

I guess because my background is deeply rooted in the blues, it's difficult for me to embrace the Yngwies/Satriani/Vai/Morse/Johnson's of the guitar world. I have to admit, John McLaughlin blew my mind in the early seventies, as did Steve Morse in the Dixie Dregs. But connecting with the genre is difficult for me. There's not alot of tonal separation between one or the other, in fact the styles are so similar it's difficult to tell one from the other unless you follow these guys closely and know the songs. Probably someone deep into this music will say the same about bluesmen.......I understand. Technical brilliance and soulful play aren't synomynous fo sho. I imagine they are all capable of doing it.....just gets boring for them. I guess it's the difference between thinking Rimsky Korsakov and thinking Bo Diddley. So I guess what I'm saying is "SOUL" is in the eye of the beholder. I just have a different perspective.

[Ian Stewart Cairns]

So I guess what I'm saying is "SOUL" is in the eye of the beholder. I just have a different perspective.

 

Hmmm...

 

Interesting reply strat0124. Thanks for that.

 

I wonder, is soul quantifiable?... are there degrees of soulfulness? Are black people intrinsically more soulful than white? Are North Americans more soulful than Europeans? Do singers have more soul than drummers?

 

Is B.B. King more soulful than Eric Clapton?

 

Did J.S. Bach lack soul? (all those streams of semi-quavers, y'know).

 

Do synthesizer players ipso facto lack soul?

 

Or is it just a vague, meaningless, catch-all phrase, used in a Pavlovian stimulus-response fashion by some, purely out of convenience?

 

Anyone?

 

Ian

[fet]

Vocals and good songs have kept EC at the top, not guitar playing.

[Scott from MA]

Ian, all these deep questions about soul are making my teeth hurt. Maybe you can only percieve as much soul as you have, and that's why I don't get it. I'm the whitest man in America, and the only soul I have keeps my feet from scraping on the sidewalk.

[nrg music]

Ian wrote:

>>As for Brina Robertson...never heard of her... Do you by chance mean ex-Thin Lizzy man Brian Robertson? >>

 

For sure Ian.... Sorry about the spelling had a long day http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

Simon

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Ian Stewart Cairns:

Lee, Lee, Lee. Sit down, relax, have a nice cup of hot chocolate. Re-engage your pre-frontal cortex, then re-join the debate once you've calmed down. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/b]

 

Nope, sorry. If you wanna understand what "soul" is, I'm gonna have to ask you to have a couple of beers or a nice shot of Jack Daniel's, DISengage your pre-frontal cortex, and re-join the debate once you're sufficiently buzzed and you've got a huge boner and the object of your affections has just informed you that you're a loser.

 

--Lee

[Scott from MA]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

you're sufficiently buzzed and you've got a huge boner and the object of your affections has just informed you that you're a loser.

 

 

Whoa... were you looking in my window?!?! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Ian Stewart Cairns]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

Nope, sorry. If you wanna understand what "soul" is, I'm gonna have to ask you to have a couple of beers or a nice shot of Jack Daniel's, DISengage your pre-frontal cortex, and re-join the debate once you're sufficiently buzzed and you've got a huge boner and the object of your affections has just informed you that you're a loser.

 

Does the fact that my brother died in my arms after a motorbike accident count?

 

Ian

 

 

 

This message has been edited by Ian Stewart Cairns on 04-23-2001 at 05:29 PM

[Jimmy James]

There's lot of things you can feel from a guitar player and it doesn't all have to be tagged "Soul." Soul is subject so therefore it means different things to different people. Satriani put out a CD awhile back that was very Bluesy and earthy. It may not have been Soul the way you think about Otis Redding, but it had a lot of feeling and had less shred appeal than "Surfing with the Alien."

 

People lump Satriani in this great big bag. Massive sweeping generalizations. Whammy bars and and hot rodded signature models. I've head him play Blues and Jazz very effectively and with lots of nuance. He's a professional musician and teacher. He was also chosen by Mick Jagger to do a solo tour because he could do all the Keith Richard parts as well as all the modern styles. He's not a one trick poney.

 

Same thing with Yngwie. I saw him a few months back and I was very moved. In fact I lost my voice from screaming. He was amazing. Again not in a Otis Redding way but in the way that you feel when you're hearing and seeing something spectacular. He has a lot of showmanship and the music supports this. He actually puts on a full show. Sights AND sounds.

 

Hearing sparse, one note says it all "Soul" guitar playing all the time can get just as boring as a guy who constantly plays fast all the time.

 

I believe if you can play fast you can play slow as well. But the opposite is not true. I think Clapton plays with a lot of Soul. When he backed up Lenny Kravits at an awards show ceremony doing "All Along The Watch Tower," he in my mind showed everybody that he still had the goods. He played his ass off and it made me realize that just because he has a heavy reputation doesn't mean he has to constantly show it off and prove something on every single recording.

 

He was like a great kung-fu master. He patiently waited for his moment and graciously killed everyone in the room without commenting on himself. Great heartfelt and expressive playing.

 

He may not be God but he can play his ass off with the very best of them when he feels like it.

 

------------------

http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/144/oscar_jordan.html

[strat0124]

Excellent Jimmie

[coyote]

I liked Yngwie better w/ Alcatrazz than at any time since. Rising Force was an amazing record, but the man still puts his entire shtick out there in the first six measures. The entire remainder of the concert is therefore just more of the same.... He needs to learn that kung-fu bit.

 

Originally posted by Jimmy James:

Same thing with Yngwie. I saw him a few months back and I was very moved. In fact I lost my voice from screaming. He was amazing. Again not in a Otis Redding way but in the way that you feel when you're hearing and seeing something spectacular. He has a lot of showmanship and the music supports this. He actually puts on a full show. Sights AND sounds. /B]

[Lee Flier]

Nice post Jimmie. A minor point here:

 

I believe if you can play fast you can play slow as well. But the opposite is not true.

 

I beg to differ, there are LOTS of people who can play fast who can't play slow. That is, they have no idea where to put the notes so that they convey any emotion or compositional ability. Note: I am NOT saying that the ability to play fast automatically negates the ability to play slow or have good phrasing or convey emotion, mm-kay? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif I'm just refuting the statement above as it stands because that is another common misconception that gets thrown around.

 

--Lee

[Tedster]

Jimmy said:

 

>>>He played his ass off and it made me realize that just because he has a heavy reputation doesn't mean he has to constantly show it off and prove something on every single recording.

 

This is a powerful statement. Wouldn't it get fantastically boring if every "guitar hero" had a 10 minute solo in every song? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

>>>He was like a great kung-fu master. He patiently waited for his moment and graciously killed everyone in the room without commenting on himself. Great heartfelt and expressive playing.

 

I read a funny interview with Neal Schon. He said he always lays back on his albums. At concerts sometimes there are "young guns" scoping out the ol' gunfighter, kids who've learned everything from the albums and think they've got ol' Neal in the bag. Then he unleashes a barrage of stuff that wasn't on the albums and slays 'em.

[Kris]

Some friends of mine toured and opened for Satriani a while back and he played to a sequenced dat tape and his band faked it. Made me laugh.

 

My OPINION is that soul comes from being real to the music, and playing from your soul is like you are a conduit to something inside that you can't really control but maybe tap into and be in the moment. When the eyes are shut and there's nothing left there except the music coming out. For sure, just showing off your chops and how fast you can play and stringing licks together, preconceived is not soulful (again, IMHO).

[Ian Stewart Cairns]

Originally posted by Kris:

My OPINION is that soul comes from being real to the music, and playing from your soul is like you are a conduit to something inside that you can't really control but maybe tap into and be in the moment. When the eyes are shut and there's nothing left there except the music coming out. For sure, just showing off your chops and how fast you can play and stringing licks together, preconceived is not soulful (again, IMHO).

 

Kris, I am in almost total agreement with this post. The remaining question is, who is to be the judge? How can we ascertain that what on the surface appears to you (or me) as 'just showing off your chops', is not coming from the soul, is not just another way of expressing heartfelt emotions? I suppose the disappointing answer is, we can't. At least not yet. This is in large part, why, I find the term "soulless" to be devoid of any real meaning (notwithstanding any religious issues).

 

Ian

[nrg music]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

 

I beg to differ, there are LOTS of people who can play fast who can't play slow. That is, they have no idea where to put the notes so that they convey any emotion or compositional ability. Note: I am NOT saying that the ability to play fast automatically negates the ability to play slow or have good phrasing or convey emotion, mm-kay? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif I'm just refuting the statement above as it stands because that is another common misconception that gets thrown around.

 

--Lee

 

Nice one Lee

 

Simon

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Ian Stewart Cairns:

Kris, I am in almost total agreement with this post. The remaining question is, who is to be the judge?

 

Why is it necessary to you for there to be "a" judge? This is music - there are many judges.

 

How can we ascertain that what on the surface appears to you (or me) as 'just showing off your chops', is not coming from the soul, is not just another way of expressing heartfelt emotions?

 

If you play something intended to communicate your emotions, and it doesn't touch your audience, then you've failed in what you're trying to do, even if the audience might be impressed with other aspects of your playing. Of course, nobody is going to succeed completely at communicating what they intended to 100% of their listeners. But the term "soul" isn't totally meaningless - you CAN get a sense of whether somebody succeeds more often than fails. For example, I've heard a lot of people call Keith Richards a lot of names that aren't very nice, but "soulless" is almost never among them. On the other hand, even though a large number of people might find Bob Seger "soulful", you can also find a large number who think he's totally contrived and not sincere in his "emoting" at all. Then at the other end of the spectrum you have somebody like Robert Fripp who is quite OFTEN described as "soulless." That doesn't tell you anything universally objective about any of these performers, but it does tell you something. To say that a subjective term is totally meaningless just because it can't be defined in any objective way is bogus, especially when it comes to describing as subjective an experience as music.

 

--Lee

[Ian Stewart Cairns]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

Why is it necessary to you for there to be "a" judge? This is music - there are many judges.

 

How can we ascertain that what on the surface appears to you (or me) as 'just showing off your chops', is not coming from the soul, is not just another way of expressing heartfelt emotions?

 

If you play something intended to communicate your emotions, and it doesn't touch your audience, then you've failed in what you're trying to do, even if the audience might be impressed with other aspects of your playing. Of course, nobody is going to succeed completely at communicating what they intended to 100% of their listeners. But the term "soul" isn't totally meaningless - you CAN get a sense of whether somebody succeeds more often than fails.

 

I understand this. You can have an aesthetic experience. But no matter how close you are, the person sitting next to you, at the very same concert does not have the same experience as you. What if she finds the very same music you describe as "soulful" to be "soulless"? Is the music then soulful or soulless? Or somewhere in between? Which interpretation should carry more weight? Yours or hers? Neither. You either agree to disagree or it degrades in to a shouting match.

 

For example, I've heard a lot of people call Keith Richards a lot of names that aren't very nice, but "soulless" is almost never among them. On the other hand, even though a large number of people might find Bob Seger "soulful", you can also find a large number who think he's totally contrived and not sincere in his "emoting" at all. Then at the other end of the spectrum you have somebody like Robert Fripp who is quite OFTEN described as "soulless." That doesn't tell you anything universally objective about any of these performers, but it does tell you something.

 

Yes, it may give you an inkling in to what one person's internal, cognitive representaion of the word "soul" is. Nothing more.

 

To say that a subjective term is totally meaningless just because it can't be defined in any objective way is bogus, especially when it comes to describing as subjective an experience as music.

 

This is simply begging the question. Assuming the issue that is up for debate. What I am trying to establish is whether or not it is bogus. Just saying it is doesn't make it so.

 

Ian