• Guys, we've spent considerable money converting the Les Paul Forum to this new XenForo platform, and we have ongoing monthly operating expenses. THE "DONATIONS" TAB IS NOW WORKING, AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE ANY DONATIONS YOU CAN MAKE TO KEEP THE LES PAUL FORUM GOING! Thank you!

EC+335 into a killer sounding amp

Y

yeti

Guest
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."
.

I find it interesting that you exclude the mighty turntable and the DJ.
Anyway, I don't have a litmus test,especially regarding instruments, a harmonica will do just fine. The definition of the term "Virtuoso" has been contested since its inception. In my view a virtuoso must exhibit exceptional training and skill in music theory as well as on his chosen instrument. He must then use that skill solely for the purpose of elevating the music and resist any trivial display of skill and gimmickry. There are other definitions but I like this one. A distorted guitar ( distortion usually employed to cover up playing deficiencies) played at artificially high volume (any idiot can do that) and aided by use of FX gadgets is not a toolset useful in this pursuit IMO. Let me point out that I enjoy all this stuff a great deal but it gets in the way of becoming a virtuoso, IMO.
Speaking of Di Meola: Al Di Meola is a great player, so is John McLaughlin but "Friday Night in SF" is still a dreadful album in my book. McLaughlin trying to play beyond his abilities and Di Meola forgoing musicality altogether for the sake of flash, leaving poor Paco to keep this trainwreck from derailing completely. I felt that way about it when I was 15 and still do, others may disagree.
It's really quite simple: Andrea Bocelli shouldn't sing Opera at the MET, Keith Emerson shouldn't try to play Piano Concertos and "Johan Sebastian" Malmsteen shouldn't be allowed to come onstage in a tuxedo, is that too much to ask? ( and Steven Tyler shouldn't try to sing the national anthem:ganz )
One more thing regarding Wynton: I think he's a clever guy. He knows his PBS viewing, foreign film loving cultural snob audience (being sarcastic here, don't get worked up) and he plays to them. He reminds me of B.B. King in that B.B. is also very aware of his audience. He's a very successful cross-over artist who manages to keep his credibility intact with his homebase while also delivering to a different segment of music fans who might only know him through guys like Clapton, Green, etc. I'm also reminded of some comments I've heard about Flaco Jimenez. I've heard of many Tejano/ Conjunto musicians' bewilderment regarding Flaco's popularity with gringo musicians. These guys didn't think much of Flaco's abilities and had never heard of this Ry Cooder guy. My advice is to judge for yourself. I like Wynton and Flaco.
 
Last edited:
Y

yeti

Guest
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!

Thank You for that!:applaude
 

vintage58

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 13, 2003
Messages
3,958
I find it interesting that you exclude the mighty turntable and the DJ.
Anyway, I don't have a litmus test,especially regarding instruments, a harmonica will do just fine. The definition of the term "Virtuoso" has been contested since its inception. In my view a virtuoso must exhibit exceptional training and skill in music theory as well as on his chosen instrument. He must then use that skill solely for the purpose of elevating the music and resist any trivial display of skill and gimmickry. There are other definitions but I like this one. A distorted guitar ( distortion usually employed to cover up playing deficiencies) played at artificially high volume (any idiot can do that) and aided by use of FX gadgets is not a toolset useful in this pursuit IMO. Let me point out that I enjoy all this stuff a great deal but it gets in the way of becoming a virtuoso, IMO.
Speaking of Di Meola: Al Di Meola is a great player, so is John McLaughlin but "Friday Night in SF" is still a dreadful album in my book. McLaughlin trying to play beyond his abilities and Di Meola forgoing musicality altogether for the sake of flash, leaving poor Paco to keep this trainwreck from derailing completely. I felt that way about it when I was 15 and still do, others may disagree.
It's really quite simple: Andrea Bocelli shouldn't sing Opera at the MET, Keith Emerson shouldn't try to play Piano Concertos and "Johan Sebastian" Malmsteen shouldn't be allowed to come onstage in a tuxedo, is that too much to ask? ( and Steven Tyler shouldn't try to sing the national anthem:ganz )
One more thing regarding Wynton: I think he's a clever guy. He knows his PBS viewing, foreign film loving cultural snob audience (being sarcastic here, don't get worked up) and he plays to them. He reminds me of B.B. King in that B.B. is also very aware of his audience. He's a very successful cross-over artist who manages to keep his credibility intact with his homebase while also delivering to a different segment of music fans who might only know him through guys like Clapton, Green, etc. I'm also reminded of some comments I've heard about Flaco Jimenez. I've heard of many Tejano/ Conjunto musicians' bewilderment regarding Flaco's popularity with gringo musicians. These guys didn't think much of Flaco's abilities and had never heard of this Ry Cooder guy. My advice is to judge for yourself. I like Wynton and Flaco.
Myself, I don't like Wynton. The main thing that I don't like about him is that he appears all too willing to believe his own press. And either he or much of the public (or both) likewise seem too quick to put him alongside Dizzy, Miles, etc. as one of the truly great trumpeters. Obviously the guy can play, and I certainly don't fault a person for embracing commercial success or fame. My only gripe with him is that it's like he's appointed himself the "ambassador of jazz," as if he's some kind of tour guide. If you watch him in a lot of interviews — like in the Ken Burns documentary, for example (and don't get me started on Ken Burns.... that's for a whole 'nuther Oprah!) — he talks about people whom he would be chronologically unable to have ever known, as if he knew them personally — going on about their personality traits, etc. I can't remember specific examples of this, but let's just say that just because Wynton is from New Orleans, he can't really comment on what Ferdinand LaMenthe was like as a person. And yet he does shit like that all the time. And most people (especially people not really familiar with jazz) eat it up with a shovel. As a result, I find him irritating. I mean, I once dated a woman who was friends with someone who knew him well, and she was telling me that (at the time, at least) Wynton employed a person to be with him at all times to write down what he said, so that a record of his viewpoints existed (or something like that). 'Nuff said. I can't imagine someone like, say, Bud Powell, ever doing something so positively vain.

Anyway, the position that Wynton has carved out for himself, is, I would have to admit, a good thing for one reason: namely, if his visibility and popularity turns on some kid to jazz who otherwise wouldn't have been turned on to jazz, then that's great. (Just as long as the kid has the common sense to see that Wynton's predecessors are the people whose records he or she should be learning from [laughs].)

All this other other stuff about so-and-so "is" a virtuoso or "is not" a virtuoso — for me, at least — amounts to overthinking things. I mean, it does make for an interesting analytical discussion. But strictly as far as my own enjoyment of music as a listener goes, my main test for any music I hear would probably be, Does this music speak to me or not? If it does, I typically like it. And if it does not, I typically don't. That's it. I'm generally not as concerned about what instrument is being played. I do appreciate training on an instrument, but not in and of itself. If the musician in question, for instance, sucks as a communicator, then his or her technical skill will usually not save his or her playing. Basically I think if a musician or composer has the ability to "transport" a listener to a specific place — and (this is important) NOT by accident — to me, that's a virtuoso. I do understand that the term "virtuoso" ordinarily is synonymous with possessing a certain amount of technical skill, but I view mastery over the USE of musical vocabularly as also belonging in that whole equation. And I am generally more impressed by that. In other words, let's say that playing superhumanly fast or accurately is a musical tool. Well, my point is, I'm usually a lot more impressed by someone's ability to know HOW and WHEN to use that tool, and also by his or her comprehension of what effect the use of that tool will create in a listener, than I am by the given mechanical skill (be it fast playing, good articulation, whatever) itself.
.
 

DHBucker

Active member
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,367
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.

And to think all these years I have been inspired to the depths of my soul by a hack guitar player from Surrey..... My friend I find inspiration in work that ranges from the primal and gutteral to what many see as the the pinnacle of virtuosity. EC is not a jazz player for sure and I have indeed heard him part the sea while playing in "his" element. I just took this performance as a novelty and enjoyed it for what is really is. We can get bogged down with technicalities in regards to what makes someone a great jazz ,classical, or even rock guitarist but we would miss the point and fun of a performance, painting, or other work of art in the process. I wouldn't call this ignorance...it is anything but that.... I wasn't floored by EC's playing, but I was floored by his artistry and willingness to say publicly that he is sitting in a difficult chair.....So he knew what he was up against and yet took up his courage and expressed himself in a very public way. That to me is the definition of not only a great artist, but a person of character and grace. EC earned grace and we all know he did some deplorable things over the years as a human being (I read his biography too), none of this diminishes his stature as a musician in my view. He has accepted his failings as a human being and rose above addiction, severe heartbreak, and the music business in general to deliver to us some very moving and inspiring work. Layla moves me even more today than when I heard it as a child knowing the story and pain behind it and other songs. In the end the genre makes no difference, or even technical virtuosity...It is being able to make the listener feel your emotions and intentions, even if for a brief second. Wasn't it BB King that said If "I can reach someone with three notes I've done my job"?
 

Axel

New member
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
3,510
memes-of-people-get-this-wrong.jpg
 

Axel

New member
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
3,510
I'm sorry Axel, I don't get your meaning with the pic.

I'm not sure either. I tried to state the meaningless in debating good/bad music, geniuses etc. Everyone will have their own opinion and maybe that's all there is to it. And thats's the beauty of the diversity of music also. Comparing personal experiences is useless, regardless of how lonely it makes one feel.
 
Y

yeti

Guest
...My only gripe with him is that it's like he's appointed himself the "ambassador of jazz," as if he's some kind of tour guide. If you watch him in a lot of interviews — like in the Ken Burns documentary, for example (and don't get me started on Ken Burns.... that's for a whole 'nuther Oprah!) — he talks about people whom he would be chronologically unable to have ever known, as if he knew them personally — going on about their personality traits, etc. I can't remember specific examples of this, but let's just say that just because Wynton is from New Orleans, he can't really comment on what Ferdinand LaMenthe was like as a person. And yet he does shit like that all the time. ...

yeah, well that's what good interview subjects usually do or would you want him to say "well, I've never met the man but he used to pour himself some large quantities of Absynthe every night before going to bed, or so I've heard, since I wasn't really there" It's the format of those (Ken Burns) Docs and again Wynton knows what they want. I wouldn't be surprised if Ken TOLD him to please say it like that. My dayjob revolves around stuff like that so I know to never judge someone by how they come axcross on TV. But I do agree that Ken Burns' body of work is hard to take, definitely not a "Virtuoso"
 
Y

yeti

Guest
And to think all these years I have been inspired to the depths of my soul by a hack guitar player from Surrey..... My friend I find inspiration in work that ranges from the primal and gutteral to what many see as the the pinnacle of virtuosity. EC is not a jazz player for sure and I have indeed heard him part the sea while playing in "his" element. I just took this performance as a novelty and enjoyed it for what is really is. We can get bogged down with technicalities in regards to what makes someone a great jazz ,classical, or even rock guitarist but we would miss the point and fun of a performance, painting, or other work of art in the process. I wouldn't call this ignorance...it is anything but that.... I wasn't floored by EC's playing, but I was floored by his artistry and willingness to say publicly that he is sitting in a difficult chair.....So he knew what he was up against and yet took up his courage and expressed himself in a very public way. That to me is the definition of not only a great artist, but a person of character and grace. EC earned grace and we all know he did some deplorable things over the years as a human being (I read his biography too), none of this diminishes his stature as a musician in my view. He has accepted his failings as a human being and rose above addiction, severe heartbreak, and the music business in general to deliver to us some very moving and inspiring work. Layla moves me even more today than when I heard it as a child knowing the story and pain behind it and other songs. In the end the genre makes no difference, or even technical virtuosity...It is being able to make the listener feel your emotions and intentions, even if for a brief second. Wasn't it BB King that said If "I can reach someone with three notes I've done my job"?

I never refered to EC as a hack but you practically put those words in my mouth anyway, so let me try to make my point again but this time we'll talk about Rory Gallagher, a player whom I greatly admire. I remember a German music writer describing him a "the world's best guitarist"..."perfect technique" and so on. and I'm thinking :bigal , only a moron would say something so ignorant, Rory was never a technical guy and I believe he'd be the first to admit that. People talk about Clapton the same way "world's greatest", "God" and whatnot as if he could play anything. Well, he can't, that's what this thread is about. I'm only expressing my disdain for having great musicians labeled in such a way. I never said anything dismissive about EC as a Blues/ Rock player and that's what he is. put him into a foreign habitat and he's lost, let him do what he knows and he's one of the best. Peace
 

Elliot Easton

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 5, 2003
Messages
3,478
Maybe it's the fact that Clapton doesn't really change his style for whatever setting he's placed in. I've noticed that he just 'does Clapton' no matter who he plays with. See, if I were thrown into a situation like that I'd probably try to play a bit of jazz to fit in and fall flat on my face! He doesn't seem to take those chances, just playing blues no matter what's going on around him. You're hoping he'll stretch a bit but he doesn't. Could that be a source of some of the frustration people have expressed?
 

TM1

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
Messages
8,349
Elliot, you're very eloquent as always in your comments. I appreciate your observations. I would like to think that you could sit right in with Wynton cause of your time spent @ Berklee College of Music. Not just anyone can study there. Takes a special talent to get in and do well.
 

Elliot Easton

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 5, 2003
Messages
3,478
Thank you, my brother. BTW, you made both of my '65's-the 335 and the Trini play so much better. They've become real 'go to' guitars thanks to your good work. You wouldn't think that they'd be good for the twangy, Tiki Gods stuff I'm currently working on, but you'd be wrong. Al Caiola never needed single coils and check out his version of "Bonanza"! I think that the ES's are my favorite of all Gibson electrics. So versatile...
 
Last edited:
Y

yeti

Guest
Maybe it's the fact that Clapton doesn't really change his style for whatever setting he's placed in. I've noticed that he just 'does Clapton' no matter who he plays with. See, if I were thrown into a situation like that I'd probably try to play a bit of jazz to fit in and fall flat on my face! He doesn't seem to take those chances, just playing blues no matter what's going on around him. You're hoping he'll stretch a bit but he doesn't. Could that be a source of some of the frustration people have expressed?

I agree almost 100% and in my mind what you're saying is really not far off from what I was trying to say. Maybe you think "he won't" while I think "he can't", same difference in the end. But I'd add that in his "guest appearances" (the ones that make sense) he actually "does Clapton better" than on his own recordings of "late". I have no idea why that is.
 

jimmymack

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2003
Messages
198
Well said vintage58. Perfect.

I've always felt that Wynton Marsalis should play classical music (which he does wonderfully due to his masterful technique and chops- someone else wrote the music) and stay away from jazz. To me he sounds stiff and unconvincing. Too much hype, not enough soul. To me.

How can anyone rule out a distorted guitar as a viable instrument? C'mon now. It is NOT always used to mask anything. It is a sound, unlike a clean guitar, but played on a 6 stringed instrument that is amplified electronically, the notes being fingered on a fingerboard, with frets. Another color for the guitar. Overused - maybe, but it is the sound of modern guitar. And does not get in the way of virtuousity. Producing crappy music with said instrument gets in the way of being a virtuoso.

Does this mean that an electronic organ (Hammond B3 squeezed thru a Leslie) is not a virtuosic keyboard instrument?????
 

Elliot Easton

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 5, 2003
Messages
3,478
I agree almost 100% and in my mind what you're saying is really not far off from what I was trying to say. Maybe you think "he won't" while I think "he can't", same difference in the end. But I'd add that in his "guest appearances" (the ones that make sense) he actually "does Clapton better" than on his own recordings of "late". I have no idea why that is.

Less pressure playing on someone else's stuff, or at least you tend not to have the time to be the perfectionist you can be on your own time, so you tend to bash it out and get the job done. Or not.:jim
 
Y

yeti

Guest
...How can anyone rule out a distorted guitar as a viable instrument? C'mon now. It is NOT always used to mask anything. It is a sound, unlike a clean guitar, but played on a 6 stringed instrument that is amplified electronically, the notes being fingered on a fingerboard, with frets. Another color for the guitar. Overused - maybe, but it is the sound of modern guitar. And does not get in the way of virtuousity. Producing crappy music with said instrument gets in the way of being a virtuoso.

Does this mean that an electronic organ (Hammond B3 squeezed thru a Leslie) is not a virtuosic keyboard instrument?????

I'm obviously not successful in making my point, sorry about that. I'm not ruling out distorted guitar as a viable instrument. So let me try another way: think of "distorted guitar" as BBQ. Now there's all kinds of BBQ, icky grub of all sorts, sauces differ greatly, etc. but there are truly accomplished BBQers (both backyard warriors and pros, hell they even have a BBQ-U on TV) that will take your tastebuds to heaven and back.... but it's still BBQ, tangy sauce that satisfies the senses but dulls them for anything else, at least temporarily. You can eat potato-salad with it or chips but don't waste your money on a fine wine to wash it down with because you won't be able to taste anything, so my advice is to go grab a beer, yeah, I like beer and BBQ....more than I like French cuisine, or Italian cuisine or Sushi, Caviar or anything else that "grows" in the ocean. BUT I DO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE AND I WOULD NOT PRETEND THAT BBQ IS EQUAL TO "HAUTE CUISINE" AND I WOULDN'T SEND THE GUY WHO WON AT THIS YEARS RIBFEST TO WORK IN EUROPE'S FINEST KITCHENS. I'm not dissing EC or the electric guitar, I just know that if I had to choose ONE cd to listen to for the rest of my life it would be something by Heifetz or Coltraine, something performed on an instrument capable of going much deeper because of it's tone being much more direct than a gadget-signal-chain and truth be told, we all like that better to a certain degree, the guys we admire keep things rather simple in comparison. Peter Green played ONE guitar, amp and cable, he didn't change for every song, didn't need to and so the story goes...
 
Y

yeti

Guest
yeti, curious to know what you think of the below-linked performance. Do you view these as serious musical instruments? Would you consider these guys virtuosi, or not?
.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogxTQXAgY3Q
.
.
.
.

I've seen this one at least 50 times, absolutely love everything about it, especially the tone and mild distortion of that tripleneck Fender steel. To paraphrase the OP " J&S + Fender steel into a killer amp". The tune and performance speaks for itself and yes, they use serious musical instruments. But I do not consider them virtuosi. I don't know to what extend these guys mastered their instruments, but based on what I know of them I would not want to listen to them playing Bebop or Bach. Buddy Emmons is a different story, maybe. The steel guitar is a beautiful instrument but it has its' limitations. Tommy Tedesco could have picked up a lapsteel and figure out how to play this stuff within a few hours if a recording date would have required it (who knows, he probably did). Do you think he could have picked up a violin ( not a fiddle) and survived a scoring session as a member of the string section after a few hours with the instrument? I don't think so.
Someone asked about a Hammond B3 into a leslie: Yes, that's great but it does not or will it ever be in the same realm as a Silbermann pipe organ and hearing/ seeing John Lord act all "serious musician" in front of his firebreathing portable box of tubes and wires doesn't make him a "master organ player". You also mentioned Miles Davis' view on Synthesizers: Well, they really didn't have much staying power, did they? Sure keyboard players like to have a Minimmoog sound in their arsenal but in the end it's just a couple of LFO/VCO's making noise, closer to a turntable than say a real piano. They are not serious instruments no matter how skilled Joe Zawinul manipulates them.
Virtuoso is just an overused term, I remember ads in GP for Kendrick amplifiers, endorsed by "guitar virtuoso" Terry soandso and this stuff happens all the time, seems like every electric guitar player who's ever progressed beyond "intermediate" skill is considered a "Virtuoso". Why? Since when is Rock'n'Roll about being an accomplished musician. That mindset leads to boring music ala Steve Vai ( another Virtuoso, good grief).
 

markwayne

New member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
22
. . . 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.
.
Oh man, you can't possibly be lumping Miles Davis in with Wynton. Can you? I will say the Wynton is a very, very, perhaps excessively, gifted player who, by virtue of being able to play pretty much anything with precision and relative ease, never got around to developing the soul of a Miles. Wynton could, and did, do it all. And I respect him completely. But I don't listen to him and I do listen to Miles.

I think Clapton might be the anti-Wynton. A man who has only focused on one small niche for a very long time and still, somehow, missed the mark slightly. I honestly sometimes have a hard time picking out Clapton's playing because he stays so safe that there aren't enough edges to make the form recognizable. I like much of Clapton's early work when he was still searching and digging and even a bit of his really, drug-addled period. Once he found that, slow, country-blues niche, however, he just seems to have settled in for good. Compare that with, say, BB King who soaked up so much of the jazz idiom and has huge ears but still sounds like BB King even when he's throwing in some flat fives and playing over changes.
 
Top