Bdp, I have a friend who once announced he was going to release an album entitled "Songs in the Key of E." He did not follow through on the promise, but I thought it was a good title. |
If I ever hear "Glory Days" again I will probably choke on my own vomit. Horrid. |
Phasecorrect Wrote:
If I ever hear "Glory Days" again I will probably choke on my own vomit...
If Justin Bieber still matters 40 years from now, I'd probably consider the virtues of choking on someone else's vomit... |
Courant -
"Actually, he choked on someone else's vomit. It remains kind of a mystery. You can't really dust for vomit"
- This Is Spinal Tap |
Whatthe-IMO a major issue with Springsteen is his (outdated?) blue-collar marketing image which some still put to much emphasis on. A mega millionaire is still capable of writing great songs about the down and out. |
That "I've just seen the Rock and Roll future" (NOT "the future of Rock and Roll" as is often misquoted) was written by Jon Landau, then a reviewer at Rolling Stone. He parlayed that highly-influential review into a management gig with Bruce. My favorite review of a Springsteen album (Born To Run) was in Creem Magazine (I don't recall who wrote it), the heading of which read something like "Consumer warning---contains no actual Rock and Roll. An amazing simulation!". I like the review because I, too, do not consider what Bruce does to be Rock n' Roll.
Some may find my definition too narrow and specific, but to be R & R the music must contain, I feel, elements of both it's sources---Hillbilly and Blues, both Rural musics. It's true that Blues also has an urban strain, but it was not yet in much evidence at the birth of R & R. Urban Blues developed when the Southern Blacks left the South for Chicago (and to a less extent Los Angeles), to work in the automotive plants during the day and play music in the bars at night. To rise above the ambient noise level of the big city (and the noisy patrons of the bars!) they switched from the acoustic guitars they had brought with them from the South to electric ones plugged into small amplifiers, and assembled a rhythm section---a drummer and bassist, and often a pianist.
What Elvis and the other white Sun Records artists (Jerry Lee Lewis, Carl Perkins, Johnny Cash, Roy Orbison) heard locally in Tennessee when they would sneak into the "colored" bars in the black part of town (it's tempting to say "on the other side of the tracks", but that would be incorrect; Elvis LIVED on the other side of the tracks, in Public Housing) was very rural (Howlin' Wolf, etc.). What they and the Rockabillies who followed did was combine that Rural Blues with the Hillbilly (itself inherently Rural) they had heard all their lives growing up (The Carter Family, Bill Monroe, etc.), creating a hybrid Pop music---Rock n' Roll. The people who say that Elvis and the other early white Rock n' Rollers stole the music from Blacks who had already created and were playing it, are not acknowledging the white Hillbilly element in early Rock n' Roll. Without it, it's Jump Blues. I love Jump Blues (I've played a lot of Louis Jordan and Big Joe Turner songs in Bands!), but it's not R & R, sorry. Listen to Elvis' version of Bill Monroe's "Blue Moon of Kentucky". With that recording, Elvis CREATED Rock n' Roll! Chuck Berry wasn't recording yet, but he came along shortly thereafter with his signature style of guitar playing (by FAR the most important and influential guitar player in Rock n' Roll's history), and there you have it---THE Rock n' Roll recipe!
I hear neither Blues nor Hillbilly in Springsteen's music. His roots are Folk (Woody Guthrie is obviously his biggest influence) and the sounds found in Urban recordings, especially those on Atlantic Records. Ben E. King, The Drifters, Doo Wop, etc. I'm not a big fan of Folk (finding it too "earnest", serious, academic, self-conscious, and just plain boring. Except for Dylan, who elevated it above all those failings.), and though I love the music of Atlantic Records as much as anyone, Springsteen's mix of it with Folk just doesn't push my musical buttons, so to speak. I respect him to death, though! |
It's a major coincidence that just as Springsteen was being touted as Rock and Roll's future, it's actual future was making it's debut---The Ramones with their first album! Far more influential to Rock n' Roll than Springsteen, or anyone else since The Beatles, in my opinion. No? Name one! That doesn't necessarily mean one will like them, however. I sure do, though there ARE less influential artists I like even more. |
Here's another thought for ya'll (I'm sure you'll let me know if I'm boring you ;-):
Around the same time that Springsteen was being anointed, and The Ramones were heading to England to play (the effect of which was to ignite the whole punk movement over there. Everybody who ended up being in a Punk Band saw The Ramones on that tour. Joe Strummer quit the Pub Band he was in---The 101er's---and started The Clash.), an album came out which was immediately recognized by the more discerning fans of Rock n' Roll as an instant classic. The album also had an enormous influence amongst aspiring musician's of a particular stripe, most notably Tom Petty.....
"I'm On Fire", by The Dwight Twilley Band. It (along with "Music From Big Pink" by The Band, though they are very different from one another), is the most astonishing debut album I've ever heard. It remains in my Top 10 Albums of All Time list, and it's a debut! Hearing it in 1975 gave Petty hope that his brand of Rock n' Roll (which showed musical influences and taste similar to Petty's own) would find a home at one of the Los Angeles record labels. So Tom and the rest of Mudcrunch (their name before coming to their senses) loaded up the van and headed for L.A., stopping in Tulsa Oklahoma to ask Dwight for career advice and people to contact in L.A.
Greg Shaw predicted major stardom for Dwight, his singing/drumming partner Phil Seymour, and their amazing guitarist Bill Pitcock IV (the Group name had been Oyster, but when Shelter Records President Denny Cordell heard Dwight's name, he thought it too good to waste) in the great L.A. music publication of the 70's, Phonograph Record Magazine. Alas, it was not to be. At least, not to the degree it should have. Minor success, I guess you'd call it. Petty played bass in one of TDTB's first videos (wearing a choker around his neck!). Phil Seymour, not content playing second banana to Dwight, left after the second DTB album ("Twilley Don't Mind", a good though disappointing follow-up to "IOF") to start his own solo career on Planet Records. He has some success, even a hit single, before ended up playing drums for Carla Olsen in The Textones. Dwight slugged it out in L.A. into the 80's, but all three of them---Dwight, Phil, and Bill---ended up back in Tulsa.
Dwight lives in Tulsa, putting out an occasional album, with little success. Phil and Bill have both passed away of Cancer (Phil's Lymphoma, Bill's Lung---he smoked like a chimney). And Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers, who sounded like nothing more than slightly above average Pop/Rockers to me (especially in comparison to the far more talented Dwight Twilley Band) is a major star. I never claimed my taste was or should be universal! |
Don't worry, Bieber is a flash in the pan teen star, who won't even be a footnote in 40. To each his own, but I have owned over 2k Lps, none of which were Springsteen's. Nebraska would be the one if I broke down. |
Well, I guess John Hammond (John Hammond at Columbia Records was responsible for discovering Benny Goodman, Count Basie, Billie Holiday, Robert Johnson, Bessie Smith, Bob Dylan, Aretha Franklin, Pete Seeger, and Bruce Springsteen, among others.) doesn't know much about good music then, does he? |
I have to say Petty is another artist who had me scratching my head over his popularity. It's not bad stuff, just not the stuff musical dreams are made of (IMHO). I like the guy as a person, from what I've seen, and I think he has good taste in music. But what he does does not drive my monkey wild. |
BDP24 wrote: No? Name one!
Okay... what about
1. The Velvet Underground
2. Aerosmith (not a favorite, but highly influential among the Heavy Metal crowd)
3. Van Halen (see #2 above)
4. Blondie (For a number of reason. Also and technically, RAP-Ture was the first rap song to go to #1 on the Billboard chart - which is not necessarily a good thing. Wretched song but showed that rap could cross-over)
5. Led Zeppelin (see #2 above)
The Ramones were, and continue to be influential, but there are others, some more so than others... |
I listen to "Born in the USA" last night. As you may know "Glory Days" is on it. You think your are listen to a greatest hits album. Could listen to the album over and over. "Glory days well they'll pass you by". Guess they already did some of you.
I'm just say'in ✌️ |
Courant---Okay, you got me! I had a momentary loss of reasoning, not noticing that my nomination of The Ramones as the number one influence since The Beatles applies only to my taste, not to R & R history. I have long thought that Led Zeppelin has had the deepest and longest lasting effect upon the music of anyone since Elvis, including even, yes, The Beatles. Seriously. Whether that's for better or worse is a separate question. I've always found them to sound just as Sonny Boy Williamson described all the white boys that were provided him as backing bands when he toured England in the Summer of '66, telling The Band guitarist Robbie Robertson later that year (The Band had met up with Williamson in Arkansas, and he and they were planning to work together): "They want to play the Blues so bad. Unfortunately, that's how they play it---bad". I think that's the greatest put-down I've ever heard, and one with which I am in general agreement. There are exceptions, however; B.B. King has said that Peter Green was so good he made B.B. sweat.
The Velvets influence stayed mostly amongst similar-minded musicians and music lovers, a very small circle of friends. Van Halen you are certainly correct about---hugely influential, maybe second only to LZ. What was I thinking?! Aerosmith? Eh, I don't know. Doesn't seem like it to me, but I could easily be wrong. Blondie? PU, they're so lame I don't even want to think about that! And it's not just because when I was playing around L.A. with John Wicks (of The Records) he gave his higher-paying gigs to Clem Burke and the crap ones to me ;-(. |
Whatthe, those of us who do not care for the music of the E-Street Band are not necessarily missing out on an absolute truth. It's a relative thing. You like what you like, you don't like what you don't like. I wish I liked everything, life would be a little easier. I wouldn't have to push the "skip" button on the remote so often. Still, not a big problem. I've still got healthy thumbs. |
Dear Whatthe, I find your arguments for raising Bruce to rock-and-roll sainthood rather ... meh. |
Here's the thing. You are knocking Springsteen for you own personal reasons. You have a right not to like Springsteen and/or his music. But you can't change what is fact. Not because I say so. Because the numbers say so. You belittle his achievements and use other bands that have not come close to achieving what he has. Quite frankly your arguments are BS! I am not a fan of classical music but I would not knock Bach and belittle his achievements just because I find it boring. History and facts(numbers) would prove that I would be wrong. Facts are facts. Springsteen's impact on the music industry is indisputable. And your BS does not change that. The earth is round, the sun is the center of our universe, president Obama is a natural born American citizen, climate change is real and Bruce Springsteen is the leader of Rock and Roll!
On another note I drove 6 hours listening to Springsteen straight through. Most enjoyable. I have you guys to thank for it. After a dry spell you got me to revisit the Boss!
I'm just say'in ✌️ |
The numbers also say Bieber is a pop wonder. If he stays in the business and continues to sell will you put him up there with Bruce? |
Artistic merit versus success is an argument as old as Art itself. So is taste. Though Dylan can be considered to be perhaps the most influential Pop music figure of just about everyone (he certainly is for Bruce, as he was for Lennon), some don't hear why. No amount of discussion will, or necessarily should, change that.
No matter how popular Springsteen has been, how many records he's sold, etc., some don't hear why. Speaking not just for Tostadosunidos (which I wouldn't presume to do), or Art Dudley (who has stated he find's Springsteen's appeal a mystery), Or myself, it is a rather widespread feeling amongst the hard-core music fans I know. Sorry, some just find Bruce to be boring (his songs are SO pedestrian). And, no, it isn't out of some sort of elitist mentality. It's just that different people look for different things in music---nothing wrong with that.
I completely understand why some find, has always found, Dylan unlistenable. Fine with me, suit yourself. He's not for everyone---no one is. I understand that non-musician's don't "get" why The Band are so very, very revered by their peers (Los Lobos, John Hiatt, Buddy Miller, Richard Thompson, Nick Lowe, Lucinda Williams, Emmylou Harris, Neil Young, Van Morrison, many, many others---many of my favorite currently working pro's all acknowledge the Band's deep influence on them). How does the fact that Springsteen has had a much more successful career than they relate to his versus their artistic worth, or how much everyone should like him versus them? The Stones have had an even longer run than Bruce. Does that mean they automatically deserve to be liked? When people here express their dislike, or mere antipathy, for Bruce's music, why must they be expected to "admit" that he is a "leader" in Pop music, and very popular? If one doesn't like hamburgers, is that person expected to defend not liking the perhaps most popular food in the world?! |
Bdp24-Great post. I would like to add and simplify, regarding your comments. Dylan and the Beatles created/influenced the singer songwriter genre. The Kinks/Steppenwolf/Blue Cheer helped create "arena rock". The Who/The Doors/The Animals/Pink Floyd were responsible for the alternative/prog rock movement. Some of the bands especially The Who had an influence in all the mentioned genres. Springsteen had top level songwriting ability, then add the arena rock sound which created a very large fan base. |
I loved ABBA (still do!), and no one who knows me could understand why. It was a new experience for me, being part of the audience of a big-selling mainstream entertainment act. Most of my favorites are cult-level artists, but then there's AC/DC too. All depends! |
Bdp,
I'm basically a cult band guy, too. Richard Thompson, Los Lobos, Feelies, Bongos, Matthew Sweet, Kid Creole, Rebirth Brass Band, James Booker, Don Dixon/Marti Jones, etc, etc. Some have had their brief moments on the charts, but as a whole, this isn't a big-time record selling crowd.
However, Todd Rundgren has sold a ton of record and he's an A-list guy for me. My absolute favorite band is Fleetwood Mac and they have sold a billion records. So, I'm familiar with the conundrum you mention.
In my book, ABBA is great fun. I just took my wife and 10 year old daughter to see Mama Mia and we all loved the music. These songs may not break a lot of new ground, but they are absolute brain worms. I'd call it pop music within a rock n roll rhythmic scheme rather than straight-up rock n roll, but I'd say the same thing about The Beatles' music.
BTW, that's not some kind of veiled criticism of The Beatles (whom I regard as pop masters of the highest order). It's more a function of how I have heard the art form evolve over time vs how others have heard it's evolution. In a sense, anyone who is inclined to make sub-genre distinctions within the broader range of pop (or rock or country or funk, etc) music of the last 50ish years, does so by listening in inverse chronological order and seeing patterns. However, the significance of those patterns will differ to each of us.
You mentioned your narrow definition of "pure" rock n roll in an earlier post and I have mine, too. It's a bit different than yours, but - in the end - neither matters too much. Pop music genres cross-breed with each other. The results can be parsed in a bunch of different (but still valid) ways. I have a particular love for my brand of "pure" rock n roll (the songs of Chuck Berry would be a good short-hand definition), but I'll consume pretty much any music that works on its own terms.
I continue to enjoy your posts and the interesting take on this subject.
Marty
Note Bene: Have you ever heard the ABBA live album? It's a two record set that includes a rocked-up version of "Gimme, Gimme, Gimme" that's a must hear for rocking' ABBA fans. |
Fleetwood Mac was interesting until the bubblegum team of buckingham/nicks era. |
They were more than interesting--they were an amazing blues-infused rock band. You can still hear echoes of them today in certain tunes by Los Lobos and ZZ Top. |
Agreed.
I used "interesting" in comparison to the current iteration which is basically a top 40 band. FM, in all make ups, was fabulous prior to buckingham/nicks.
Thanks |
In my book, Fleetwood Mac has produced some great music in every configuration. The purest straight-up pop (or bubblegum, if you prefer) tends to come from Christine MacVie, rather than Buckingham or Nicks and was present in the band's catalog prior to Buckingham or Nicks joining on. Check out the track "Homeward Bound " on Bare Trees for one good example.
For me, the most aggressive hard rock to come out of the Mac is 100% Buckingham. From the album Tusk, which included several Buckingham tracks that are essentially punk to their latest studio release, "Say You Will" which features the screaming electric guitar workout "Come", Buckingham rocks more ferociously than Peter Green or Danny Kirwan ever did. Even hit songs like "The Chain" and "Go Your Own Way" feature extended rock n roll passages.
I'm a huge Peter Green fan and believe that Danny Kirwan is a criminally underrated guitarist and songwriter. Later Fleetwood Mac guitarists like Bob Welch, Dave Mason, and Rick Vito add up to an over time guitar line-up that I prefer to all others, all due respect to The Allmans, Mothers, etc. Among that lot, Buckingham's my choice, but that's obviously a matter of personal taste.
Catchy pop songs are a big part of the overall Fleetwood Mac experience, but so are the blues rock of Green and Kirwan, the guitar driven pop of Bob Welch, the spacey mid tempo pop and intensely personal singer-songwriter material from Stevie Nicks, and the everything including the kitchen sink from Buckingham.
The notion that Buckingham and Nicks transformed Fleetwood Mac from a blues rock band into a pop band ignores an extended period in between the departure of Green and the arrival of Buckingham and Nicks. It also ignores a ton of great material they've done thereafter. Obviously everyone's entitled to an opinion, but characterizing Buckingham Nicks period Fleetwoood Mac as "bubblegum" says more about the individual doing the characterizing than it does about the music. |
Oh snap, a personal insult.
That speaks directly to the individual rather than the subject matter. |
Sorry if I offended.
My point was that your characterization of Mac's music as interesting until the "bubblegum team " reflects a rather limited view of both Mac's music prior to Buckingham Nicks and after their arrival (for the specific reasons stated). That's the substance of the subject matter - and I'll stand by the assertion.
You might want to listen thru the Mac catalog a bit more carefully before assigning the broad characterization. There was plenty of pop before BN and there's a ton of material thereafter that's a million miles from bubblegum. You're certainly entitled to prefer the before to the after, but that doesn't change the fact that your brush was simply too broad. |
I'm older than you, have all the original pressings, and saw the band 5 times before 1976.
Don't lecture somebody who knows more than you. It could be embarrassing. |
I was away for a few days, and missed all the excitement!
Marty, I have the live ABBA CD, but haven't listened to it yet (it's only been, what, ten years? I have about 6,000 of them left from my days as the Indi CD buyer at a Tower Records store, most of them still sealed! I just sold 1200 of them to Amoeba records to fund my new Pickup Arm). And you're right Marty, ABBA's Bjorn & Benny were absolute masters of "the hook". Better at melodies than McCartney, and maybe even than Brian Wilson! If you like Pop, you must know of The Wondermints, Brian's touring Band. The original bassist Brian Kassan (he left right before they hooked up with Brian---doooh! They weren't doing enough of his songs) started a Group after he left that he named Chewy Marble. I play on about half of the second album, "Bowl of Surreal". He's a real good Pop songwriter and, like all members of the L.A. Pop scene, an absolute Brian Wilson worshipper.
I have to hand it to you Marty---you're the first person I've read say what I've long felt, that The Beatles were a Pop Group, not a Rock n' Roll Band. I love your brand of Pop/Rock (the term Power Pop has lost all meaning from overuse, hasn't it?). Don Dixon is a great producer as well as artist. I'll bet you like Marshall Crenshaw too. One of the best Bands I ever saw live was his 5-piece, in '82 at one of the New York clubs (The Peppermint Lounge, I think). He had Graham Maby (Joe Jackson's original bass player) on 6-string Fender Bass (the one from the 60's, with light-gauge strings, tuned an octave below a guitar), as well as standard 4-string electric bass, his Brother Robert on drums, and another guitarist (beside himself), and all of them sang. Fantastic!
The Fleetwood Mac I love is the line-up that did the Kiln House album. It was unusual (and welcome) to hear a pretty popular Group (especially British) doing music with such unashamedly American 50's R & R as it's source and inspiration. And in 1971, in the middle of a not-very-R&R era (the hippie bands saw to that). The Danny Kirwan/Jeremy Spencer guitar team was great I thought. I also like Lindsey Buckingham, and thought FM's huge success with him taking over was well deserved. I has seen he and Stevie live locally in '68, in their Group Fritz (San Jose had a LOT of Groups/Bands, being probably the Garage Band capitol of the country in the 60's. When The Doobie Brothers got their deal with Warner Brothers in '71, my Band auditioned for their former gig as the house band at the infamous Chateau, a biker bar up in the Santa Cruz mountains. We didn't get it).
Speaking of Chuck Berry Marty, for anyone unaware of the following guy, you absolutely must acquaint yourself with Dave Edmunds. Imagine a guitarist who perfected Chuck Berry's guitar style, sings as well as just about anyone (plus arranging harmony parts as well as anyone this side of Brian Wilson), and is a superb record producer (for The Flamin' Groovies---the great "Shake Some Action" album, the Fabulous Thunderbirds, The Stray Cats---don't hold that against him!, Rockpile---he and Nick Lowe's supergroup, and many, many more. One of Rock n' Roll's all-time greats! |
I forgot one thing. I agree with you Marty, my description of the ingredients necessary for a recipe to be Rock n' Roll IS too narrow, and was said mostly as a means of explaining why I don't consider what Springsteen does to being R & R. While the definition fits R & R's original incarnation (the Sun Records artists), R & R, being a hybrid Pop music, is free to evolve, incorporating new elements and influences, and discarding old ones. There remains, however, a minimum requirement of those original ingredients needing to be present in a music to fit any definition of it, and I don't think Bruce's music meets that minimum. That alone doesn't make it "good" or "bad", it was just a topic of intellectual discussion! |
I'm a huge fan of both Dave Edmunds (particularly with Nick Lowe in Rockpile) as well as Marshall Crenshaw whose playing skills matured over time in a very impressive fashion.
As to old Mac vs New Mac, I'm a guitarist and songwriter who has studied the band at each iteration to within an inch of its life. I will stick with my position - you haven't listened to Nicks and/or Buckingham very carefully if you think that they are the "bubblegum team" (your words) that sank the band. |
Martykl...I agree with you 100% about Fleetwood Mac. I have seen several times before the Buckingham/Nicks era and MANY times since. The newer incarnation was, IMHO, one of the best bands to grace the stage. |
I truly love virtually every version of Fleetwood Mac that's ever seen a stage or tracked a tune. (The "faux" Mac stand-ins who toured in the mid-70s per some contract dispute might be excepted). IMO, Peter Green was arguably the best of the Freddie King guitar lineage (tho those who prefer Clapton, Santana, Knopfler, Mick Taylor, Stan Webb et al all have a case). From the get-go, Fleetwood Mac was special, IMO.
As stated earlier, I'd argue that Danny Kirwan is a sadly overlooked songwriter, player, and (perhaps first of all) arranger of songs for guitar. My first public guitar performance was my own acoustic arrangement of Kirwan's song "Dragonfly" (from BDP's preferred Kiln House line-up). I also believe that Jeremy Spencer is the living spirit of Elmore James.
As Mofi notes, the classic Christine, Lindsey, Stevie line-up can make a strong case as the best of the lot, because they do more things well than any other iteration. They truly are masters of a huge range of styles - from pure pop to blues (on the too rare occasions they go there) to punk to pretty much everything you can think of.
In the end, I listen to what my mood dictates. Songs like Man of the World, Black Magic Woman, Green Manalishi, and Oh, Well are all in regular rotation in my listening room. As are later albums like Tusk, Rumors, Say You Will, Tango, and The White Album. Along with mid period albums like Heroes, Kiln House, and (especially) Mystery to Me.
Lindsey Buckingham is such a bizarre and fascinating guy (not to mention otherworldly guitar player) that his stuff (both Mac and solo) is first among Mac members for me. My intention was never to dis Peter Green, et al, but rather to argue that Buckingham (first and foremost) and Stevie Nicks were not responsible Fleetwood Mac's "pop sell out" per the popular narrative we've seen repeated here. They certainly polished up the erratic blend of pop sounds that Mac had adopted after the departure of Green, Kirwan, and Spencer, but they didn't make Mac a pop band. That happened before they joined.
I envy Andrew in that I never saw the Green, Kirwan, Spencer line-up perform live. I do love the dozen or so live albums of that iteration of the band that I own. I also believe that the Stevie, Lindsey, Christine version is a monster live band. In the end, I don't want to toss apples in favor of oranges. I'll enjoy the whole fruit salad. |
Marty, FWIW, John Mayall considers only Clapton to be in the Freddie King mold. He says Mick Taylor is more like Albert King and Peter Green is more like B.B. King. I don't know Mick's style as well as the others but I agree about Eric and Peter.
I tend to pick things out of fruit salads. I love the earliest F. Mac incarnation and it gradually falls off from there. I do admire the talent of the famous last version and like some of the stuff they did. But, wow, people get carried away IMO. |
Tostado,
Personally, I hear Freddie's influence in all of the above, tho clearly at different levels. I certainly understand the influence that BB had on Green's sound (and, for that matter, the difference that choice of hardware and expanded technique had on Green's sound), but I'm always struck by the commonality as well as the delta in the playing of Clapton and Green. Sort of consistent with my earlier post re: the definition of pure rock n roll. It really comes down to how you parse and where you draw the lines.
When I need my shot of elegant blues playing, Green is usually my first choice. However, I frequently like to wander into other playing sensibilities. At the other end, guys with less blues influence - be that Richard Thompson or Lindsey - are essential to maintaining a well balanced diet of guitar music, for me.
I guess I pick at the fruit salad, too - it's just that I'll go for different fruits at different times. |
Going back to the sources (something I'm prone to do, as an amateur musicologist---aren't we all?!), I've always preferred both Albert (whom I saw live in '68---fantastic!) and Freddie to B.B. The defining characteristic of B.B.'s playing is that fast finger vibrato he uses a lot on a single, long-held note, which I don't care for. I hear a lot of that influence in the San Francisco guitarists (in Big Brother, The Airplane, Country Joe & The Fish, Quicksilver). It seems to be used by guitarists with, shall we say, less than well-developed technique. I don't hear it in any of Mayall's guitarists, or in British players in general.
I don't think it was directed at me, but just in case.....it was not I who referred to Buckingham/Nicks as a "bubblegum team". But if I had, it would not have been done to denigrate them---I much prefer bubblegum music to some others. I would rather listen to, say, The Rubinoos that The Grateful Dead, for instance. That didn't keep me from getting some gigs with hippie type bands, but it didn't help! |
The defining characteristic of B.B.'s playing is that fast finger vibrato he uses a lot on a single, long-held note You should go back and listen to more B.B. Your description is lacking. |
Certainly each of the three Brits in question were influenced somewhat by each of the three Kings--listen to how much Strange Brew sounds like Albert's Crosscut Saw, for instance--and by other early blues artists as well. I hear a ton of B.B. in Peter's early records and thought it worthwhile to mention what Mayall, after many years of listening and reflection, had to say on the subject. As for B.B., he once said that Peter Green was the only white blues player who made him sweat, FWIW. |
He's no David St.Hubbins. I'll tell you that. |
You're right Onhwy61; it's not just on long held notes, but on short ones as well ;-). I'm also not crazy about B.B.'s tone. There's not enough tube saturation for me (B.B., try a lower-powered amp cranked up to 11), but that, of course, is a matter of taste. What isn't?!
Speaking of amp power, guitars, and tone, a Telecaster isn't known as a Blues guitar (Country is a completely different story), yet in the hands of the right player can be excellent. Danny Gatton sure made one sound good, didn't he? That was with the stock Fender pickups replaced with Joe Barden's, his favorite. When I recorded with Telecaster player Evan Johns (a Gatton bandmate at times) he plugged his Tele into a blackface Super Reverb and turned it up full. It sounded great, but was LOUDER THAN HELL! |
BB King also had a tendency to play in a pentatonic minor/blues scale hybrid box just below the 12th fret on the B and G strings. Mainly just four notes plus bends, etc. He got a ton of mileage out of that little box and Peter Green would often linger there while improvising, too. To my ear, that often gave his playing a little BB flavor.
As to the "bubblegum team" comment, that came from someone else. I, too, won't always object to the term, but it's so frequently applied (incorrectly) to Buckingham and Nicks that I'll always respond when I see it. Buckingham is so academic about his song structures (and uncomfortable about that fact) that he's kind of funny to listen to when discussing his process. He refuses to learn standard notation because (as he puts it) "That's a left brain process and rock n roll is a right brain art form". FWIW, I actually 100% agree with him, but I learned to read so long ago that I guess I'm a lost cause.
Nevertheless, when you check out a song like "Time Precious Time", you can see that he's failed miserably at stamping out his left brain.
BTW - there's a great Guitar World Magazine on-line interview about the composition of that tune. Worth checking out for anyone who is interested in that sort of thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCGKFY9NBZY |
Bdp,
I have Barden's on my Tele for that precise reason. Yet somehow, I still don't sound quite like Danny Gatton. |
Be sure to tell Albert Collins and Muddy Waters your opinion about the Tele and blues. |
My opinion about the Tele and Blues is just as I stated: "A Telecaster isn't known as a Blues guitar"..."yet in the hands of the right player can be excellent". For playing Blues, a Telecaster is certainly not the first, or second, or even third guitar anyone thinks of, is it? The fact that Albert Collins and Muddy Waters play/ed one does not change that fact. Sheesh, so touchy. For Country, the Telecaster is of course number one. The Tele is actually my favorite guitar, but then I love Country more than Blues, generally, and Bluegrass even more, which is all acoustic. And I love the Dobro even more. Forget Eric Clapton.....Jerry Douglas is God! |
I don't play a ton of electric guitar anymore, but 80% of that time is spent with a Telecaster. I play almost entirely blues or rock n roll and the Tele does yeoman's work for me. It will twang if you want it to, but won't if you don't. One or another of my 40ish other electric guitars could probably be useful for this or that, but I always seem to grab the same instrument. It's funny, but - at the end of the day, for me - it's a relationship. Maybe less about you picking a guitar for a given style and more about a given guitar picking you. |
BTW, I'm also a big fan of Union Station. I haven't seen them in a while, but Jerry opened the last show I saw with an amazing solo set before settling in to play with the band. I'd agree that he is a singular talent. |
Sheesh, stop making ridiculous statements!
It was Bruce's 66th yesterday. So he was 24 when he did BTR. Wow! Does Bruce still use a Tele? |
The guitar that has taken me a long time to come to like is the Strat. I was too young to catch Buddy Holly, but a lot of the early-60's Surf guitarists played a Strat, and I had all The Ventures and Astronauts albums. Then it kind of disappeared until Hendrix appeared (hope I'm not forgetting anyone in between. Wouldn't want to make any more ridiculous statements ;-). I don't really care for Jimi's tone (that's being polite---I actually really dislike it. His playing as well, but I won't go there), finding it too "barbed-wirey", if you know what I mean (it sounds to me the way chewing on tin foil feels).
The Strat sound seemed to be kind of in between the thin, no sustain single-coil sound of the Tele, and the thicker, lots of sustain Humbucker sound of Gibson's, etc., having neither the charm nor character of either (I did however appreciate it's versatility). But so many of my favorite guitarists (Ry Cooder, Richard Thompson, even Robbie Robertson after being a Tele player for so long, to name a few) played a Strat that I just accepted it.
It has taken until fairly recently for me to be won over by the Strat's own subtle personality, but I finally get it. It's still a Fender, not providing much help to it's player or obscuring his lack of technique, style, or ideas. But, in the hands of the right player, is a very expressive guitar. I just love that chimey, harmonics-overtone sound that can be coaxed out of it's upper register! |
I own one 'Strat style guitar (a Tokai lawsuit guitar with Lace single coils). It looks great, is very playable, and sounds pretty damn good. I almost never touch it. I just never took to Strats. I do love me my Richard Thompson, tho.
BTW, Bdp, I share your issues with Jimi. I fully understand why he's revered and admire him as much as a player can be admired, but I find him hard to listen to. Even worse (I might get drummed out of the guitarist fan-boy club for this one) I can't get too excited by Eddie V, either. He's an absolute monster, but, to me, his songs seem to exist mostly to accommodate the playing - rather than the playing being there to complete the song. I know that I'm just about alone on this one, so no admonitions from outraged 'Goners are necessary. |
