EC+335 into a killer sounding amp

Bluefinger said:

....I would have liked it best if he didn't play guitar on this one at all. I like the band a lot and the way they are approaching the song but the guitar simply doesn't work for me here.

Click to expand...

+1 and that gesture would have been "impressive"

yeti said:

Like I said, no use in arguing about taste but some of what's being said just makes me shake my head.
I like Clapton ( a little less after reading his autobiography:ganz ), I have enjoyed his guest-apperances more than some of his own recordings and I probably noodle "claponesque" licks constantly w/o even knowing why, it's essential vocabulary for many of us even though he didn't invent that stuff. The man can play "his stuff", no doubt. But watching EC play with those cats is like watching MiniMe playing Basketball with the '86 Lakers. Yes, he'd get to hold the ball a few times and everybody would think it's cute and be all giggles and gracious BUT it would only be tolerated because the coach (in this case thats Wynton) said that it would. EC can not express himself in this genre (there's no shame in that.) and instead of paying attention to what EC actually plays we're supposed to get all fuzzy about what a gentleman he is and how much he's contributed, etc.

Click to expand...

I think they played with Clapton because he is Clapton ... out of respect for him as a person not because his playing fits their band so well.

yeti said:

Fine for those who care but if you place an equally unqualified unknown player into that ensemble during an after-hours jam session at a Jazzclub, he/she would be asked to put the guitar down after one tune because that's how those Jazz guys roll from what I've seen.

Click to expand...

That's what any professional player would do who wants to keep his performances at a certain level. I think Norah Jones wouldn'T have played with Keith Richards if it wasn't for his contributions to modern music ... the performance itself was horrible. It's just a matter of paying tribute to each other I guess

Jazz guys aren't the be-all and end-all. Any great musician thinks first of himself as a musician, and less of style or genre. Some guys have more limited vocabulary or might not read music (or whatever), but if their basic skill as a "natural" musician is there, it usually transcends style. Style is basically something that outside entities (historians, record companies, whatever) come up with to categorize stuff, so it doesn't mean much.

So, the fact that Clapton does not happen to be a "jazz guy," per se, really doesn't make much difference. What does make a difference, is that he is a great musical mind. I don't know that I'd say the same about any of the guys in that band, though (including Wynton). Yes, they're playing on a pretty good level technically, but if you listen to what they're doing, these guys are a bunch of parrots. I mean, look — Fats Navarro was an innovator, not Wynton. Or Miles, or whoever. Whereas Wynton and his crowd are just guys who have overstudied particular jazz subgenres to death, to the point where it is nostalgia and has no real balls left to it. I'd rather hear Clapton ATTEMPT to play jazz any day of the week, than one of these guys in the band performance posted above, do what they actually "do." At least in the instance of Clapton "attempting," you're going to hear someone stretching and pushing himself. Whereas Wynton and a lot of players like him, constantly play "safe," which shows and is quite boring.
.

vintage58 said:

Jazz guys aren't the be-all and end-all. Any great musician thinks first of himself as a musician, and less of style or genre. Some guys have more limited vocabulary or might not read music (or whatever), but if their basic skill as a "natural" musician is there, it usually transcends style. Style is basically something that outside entities (historians, record companies, whatever) come up with to categorize stuff, so it doesn't mean much.

Click to expand...

I agree that Jazz guys aren't the be-all and end-all but the stuff about "transcending style" and "outside entities" enforcing categories seems naive to me. Music is a vast area and the mentality you invoke here doesn't fly in many areas. If you don't speak the language you are left with very little to say besides point your index finger at your tummy when you're hungry,yawn when you're tired, cry when you're sad, laugh when happy, whistle after some chick when you're horny and so on. If that list sounds like a cliff-notes version of the Blues to you then I've communicated effectively but that doesn't turn my ramblings into poetry. The same applies to music, IMO Expressing yourself is "not the be-all and end-all" in many instances.

Yes, obviously there are specific musical vocabulary and/or specific techniques that need to be mastered, so as to sound conversant in a particular style, but I think that 'larger' musical criteria (e.g., rhythmic feel, tone, etc.) often trump these. One of which is just a certain "intangible" that Clapton has, that a lot of Wynton's crowd sadly do not. Certain people (like Eric) can be aurally recognized the minute they play a certain phrase or note, just because of their sound. But Wynton, who lacks said intangible, does not really have his own sound yet. He does, however, have the exact thing you appear to be placing importance on — i.e., an encyclopedic knowledge (and technical ability to replicate) specific elements of a ton of historical jazz styles. But what does that give the listener? Hearing something that sounds "authentic" within a given style does not, in and of itself, feed the soul. At least not mine! It is instead the spirit in which the notes are played, that does. So, that's what I meant earlier — Wynton and his ilk can play all day long and it leaves me feeling empty. Whereas put on any Miles Davis record and it stops you in your tracks the minute you hear it. I think to some extent, Eric's playing has that type of impact. With guys like him, it's not so much the musical background or context that matters, it's more his presence within the given musical context that overrides the style itself. There's only a handful of players that are in that category, but I think that EC is one of them.
.

vintage58 said:

Yes, obviously there are specific musical vocabulary and/or specific techniques that need to be mastered, so as to sound conversant in a particular style, but I think that 'larger' musical criteria (e.g., rhythmic feel, tone, etc.) often trump these. One of which is just a certain "intangible" that Clapton has, that a lot of Wynton's crowd sadly do not. Certain people (like Eric) can be aurally recognized the minute they play a certain phrase or note, just because of their sound. But Wynton, who lacks said intangible, does not really have his own sound yet. He does, however, have the exact thing you appear to be placing importance on — i.e., an encyclopedic knowledge (and technical ability to replicate) specific elements of a ton of historical jazz styles. But what does that give the listener? Hearing something that sounds "authentic" within a given style does not, in and of itself, feed the soul. At least not mine! It is instead the spirit in which the notes are played, that does. So, that's what I meant earlier — Wynton and his ilk can play all day long and it leaves me feeling empty. Whereas put on any Miles Davis record and it stops you in your tracks the minute you hear it. I think to some extent, Eric's playing has that type of impact. With guys like him, it's not so much the musical background or context that matters, it's more his presence within the given musical context that overrides the style itself. There's only a handful of players that are in that category, but I think that EC is one of them.
.

Click to expand...

What you say makes perfect sense although you're description of Wynton et al. is debatable but let's move past that. I look at (images of) graffiti and understand that many of the traits that make great art are present there and I can appreciate that. Then I look at the Sistine Chapel ceiling and I can merely fathom the awesomeness of it. I don't have the knowledge to appreciate it but I know enough to realize it's not graffiti and I do know that a guy with a spraycan can not contribute anything meaningful, no matter how unique his tag may be. There are 2 kinds of music according to most, good and bad but there are also the categories E-Musik and U-Musik (serious vs for entertainment only) and Jazz straddles the fence to say the least. I prefer all the things that you seem to appreciate in my own musical experience but I try to keep a certain prospective on things. I cringe when lingo is introduced discussing Rock/ Blues guitar...."monstertechnique", "virtuoso" and the like. There are no virtuoso electric guitar players IMO, the electric guitar is a blunt tool designed to make a ruckus ( that's what makes it so much fun) and Malmsteen playing Paganini is a joke even to my untrained ears. We (as a group) are only dazzled because we don't know any better. Ignorance is the prerogative of youth and popular music ( for entertainment value) is essentially stuck in that mode.

Rudy Van Gelder

Truly ubiquitous, superstar.

yeti said:

IMO, the electric guitar is a blunt tool designed to make a ruckus ( that's what makes it so much fun)

Click to expand...

in the hands of a jim hall or pat martino it is a tool for creating poetry, music of great beauty, subtlety and certainly virtuosity. i don't see how one can make such a dismissive, blanket statement.

Elliot Easton said:

in the hands of a jim hall or pat martino it is a tool for creating poetry, music of great beauty, subtlety and certainly virtuosity. i don't see how one can make such a dismissive, blanket statement.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct. I was using the term "electric guitar" as it's used in Rock/ Bluesrock, Metal, etc. By that I mean "distorted amps, FX and stuff". When I listen to overdriven tones playing fast and furious I really like what I hear but it lacks the subtleties that distinguish a "Virtuoso" from a "shredder". Malmsteen or EJ are amazing electric guitar players but their instruments of choice don't have the expressive qualities to even scratch the surface. It's very technical but it's still a ruckus to my ears. Great classical players ( Bream, Segovia, etc.) or the guys you refer to accomplish so much more with much lighter artillery, if that makes sense. And don't get me started on hornplayers, etc.

Toots Thielemans could be argued to be the pre-eminent virtuoso of the harmonica. But, it sounds like part of your litmus test for a virtuoso is the "worthiness" of the instrument that the given player plays. You seem to be implying that a nylon-string classical guitar is a legitimate musical instrument, but that an electric steel-string guitar — specifically when played at certain volumes or with certain signal processing — somehow isn't. So, in the case of Toots, can you seriously deny or diminish his very real virtuosity on the harmonica, just because the harmonica might be viewed by some as a "lesser" musical instrument, or as "not a real" musical instrument?

Similar things have been said about the difference between an acoustic piano and a synthesizer. But I would have to agree with what Miles once said: "Electric instruments won't kill music — bad music will kill music." (Or something like that.)

Music evolves, obviously. And I, for one, do think we've reached a point in musical history where the concept of virtuosity could be legitimately applied to electric guitarists, including those who use distortion and effects. What about a guy like Al Di Meola? He plays loud and distorted in some settings, but he also has done a ton of flamenco-oriented and classical-inspired music on nylon-string acoustics, at a level of technical mastery that is perfectly commensurate with the traditional meaning of the word "virtuoso."

I would, though, still draw a line of my own when it comes to the use of that word. For example, I do not now (and will never) view a fucking turntable as a musical instrument, nor will I ever view a DJ as a "musician."
.

The overuse of the word "genius" is the one that really gets my goat! Don't get me started on that one! If you're not talking about the level of Einstein, Mozart or Gershwin then leave it out!

Oh, come on. You don't consider Justin Bieber to be a genius? Get real.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Well, maybe "The Bieb".

vintage58 said:

Toots Thielemans could be argued to be the pre-eminent virtuoso of the harmonica.
.

Click to expand...

I LOVE Toots! Bluesette, "Midnight Cowboy", "Man Bites Harmonica", etc. Just the loveliest tone and phrasing. But did you ever hear of Larry Adler? He WAS a virtuoso of the chromatic harmonica and performed classical pieces with it. He was very famous and acclaimed until he got blacklisted in the McCarthy era for being a communist. The tool doesn't matter. It's what you get out of it!

Elliot Easton said:

I LOVE Toots! Bluesette, "Midnight Cowboy", "Man Bites Harmonica", etc. Just the loveliest tone and phrasing. But did you ever hear of Larry Adler? He WAS a virtuoso of the chromatic harmonica and performed classical pieces with it. He was very famous and acclaimed until he got blacklisted in the McCarthy era for being a communist. The tool doesn't matter. It's what you get out of it!

Click to expand...

Larry Adler sounds familiar, I gotta check out his stuff. One of my best friends is a drummer who started a few years before me at the NYU Jazz Department (where he and I both got performance degrees in the late 1980s, at that point the faculty there was essentially the entire Mel Lewis Jazz Orchestra), anyway this guy plays drums a lot less these days and now basically eats, sleeps, and breathes harmonica. So, many times when I talk to this guy, Toots obviously comes up every now and then. Myself, I remember playing "Bluesette" a lot at jam sessions about 23 years ago, I always liked that tune. Anyway, somehow this friend of mine got invited to some kind of retrospective of Toots's life, that was held some time in the last few years at Carnegie Hall (and that Toots attended). It was the type of thing where my friend had to meet someone at the stage door who was going to let him in, but the whole thing fell apart, basically my friend was supposed to mention his name as being a guest of Toots, but somehow everything got botched and no one was letting him in, but he hung around for a few more minutes. Anyway, this older raspy-voice guy steps out to get some air and asks my friend's name, and this guy actually recognized it, and I'm pretty sure it was Lee Konitz (!), if you can imagine. So Lee brings my friend inside, seats him in the audience in like the third row, next to (of all people) Tony Bennett. So, he had a short conversation with Tony, and Tony was asking him how he knew Toots, and my friend explained that he'd been studying the harmonica intensely for a few years, and all Tony had to say (and repeatedly), was, "Toots is the greatest, Toots is the greatest." My friend does a pretty good impression of Tony making this statement, which still gets a laugh out of me whenever I hear it, because I can just imagine Tony saying something like that.

Toots can be a pretty blunt guy, though, as I understand things. At least recently. Apparently there was some master class a couple of years ago that Toots did at NYU, and he basically tore apart all of the students after they played a tune for him. He even asked one of them if they had a backup career plan. This is in front of an auditorium full of (previously) beaming parents dressed up in ties and furs. I wish I had been there, the whole thing sounded pretty hilarious. Sort of like that infamous "Buddy Rich chews out band" tape, I'm guessing.
.

Elliot Easton said:

Well, maybe "The Bieb".

Click to expand...

OK.... just not this guy (see below). I still have to laugh at what you said when I last posted these pics (which, by the way, was over five years ago) — specifically, a few posts after these pics appeared, you recounted some Mayer-related experience that you'd once had, that you described as nearly bringing on your own "Elvis/Robert Goulet moment." For me, those qualify as four of the funniest consecutive words that this forum has yet produced.....

I remember, haha! Also, let's not forget that it was Toots playing a Rickenbacker guitar with George Shearing in Germany that inspired John Lennon to acquire one for himself!

C'mon guys, it's not about whether EC should have played! The date was set, the tickets sold, and the recorder was rolling. It's about selling another album, with a clever, interesting and promising matchup. It's music, it's entertainment. And that's what it is supposed to be.

I agree that anyone playing the way EC did in that vid, might have been passed by for the next song. There are far too many better players out there. Locals and non-professionals I have seen. But yes, most of them have played EC licks for who knows how many years. Only now, they have progressed.

I think I get disappointed because I have heard EC play such marvelous music, and solos, and have such marvelous tone. And I think he pulls out his best playing when he sits in on other artists' albums (Johnny Johnson's for one).

So when I heard him on this vid (what good is this beautiful fantastic 335 if it sounds like any box off the shelf ?) I like my tone way better with my humble rig. Because I work at it, and I get some really good results. I am not trying to brag or anything so silly, but If I can get it, he should have "tone from the Gods" with all of his resources and a tech, and a major recording date! I know many will agree that his tone in the last decade has just been "off".
Its a shame. We all wanted better. And his tone is separate from the notes he plays, or what he said, or what song they picked to play. I think he could have done far better, especially inspired by playing with these "serious" jazz guys. It's like many artists who want to join into another genre, and get to do so because of their stature, and then just don't live up to the demands, and kinda slink back into a comfort zone. It sells CD's.
Maybe the producer told him to just lay back for some reason.

Have you ever heard MIke Bloomfield play with the Woody Herman Orchestra? Now there's a guy who delivered. Great tone and feel, and he didn't hold back. You can hear him feel the inspiration from the band, and produce some GREAT Mike Bloomfield. I doubt they sold many albums, but it was produced out of love for the genre.

OK, I'm done. I know - I take it very personal as obviously you guys do. I have really enjoyed reading this thread. Thanks.

Elliot Easton said:

I remember, haha! Also, let's not forget that it was Toots playing a Rickenbacker guitar with George Shearing in Germany that inspired John Lennon to acquire one for himself!

Click to expand...

Fortunately John didn't also cop Toots's haircut for use in the Fab Four.. :hee



.

jimmymack said:

Have you ever heard MIke Bloomfield play with the Woody Herman Orchestra? Now there's a guy who delivered. Great tone and feel, and he didn't hold back. You can hear him feel the inspiration from the band, and produce some GREAT Mike Bloomfield. I doubt they sold many albums, but it was produced out of love for the genre.

Click to expand...

Great album! Even though it had a LP Custom on the cover rather than Michael's guitar! I had that record during my high school years, but then again I tried to get any record that had Bloomfield! Mother Earth, Live at Bill Graham's Fillmore West, both SuperSessions, etc., etc.