|
Post by mikev on Jul 10, 2013 20:22:39 GMT -5
George had all the time in the world to continue to learn and improve his craft. He could buy any guitar or amp he wanted and get anyone to play with him. He simply chose not to. That's not very laudable, is it? There is always something new to learn - a new scale, a new chord, a new progression, a new rhyming pattern, a new combination of instruments, etc. I know he enjoyed jamming with Alvin Lee and being on stage with Deep Purple. I wish he would have taken that same attitude to his records. That's what I really disliked about Traveling Wilbury's Volume 3. They got Gary Moore to play that tough lead She's My Baby. That shoulda been George. Look at how much he is enjoying the Perkins session, content with his tasty little rockabilly licks. I'm not saying he didn't like to rock, but he chose not to expand other than pick up the ukelele and slide technique post Beatles. He had the rockibilly down in the early 60s.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 10, 2013 23:36:53 GMT -5
As often as John, Paul and George said they didn't need each other in the solo years, John and Paul often had people play George like slide solos in their songs. John especially had Jesse Ed Davis play a lot of slide. Think #9 Dream, I Know I Know. Paul in No Words. Yes and the lead guitar solo on the song "London Town" is very George Harrison-ish.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 10, 2013 23:50:15 GMT -5
The guitar on Wa Wa is pretty rawkin', albeit a slide guitar. I love Wah Wah and love his guitar parts. It is a BIG song. However, as a matter of taste, I think the song is so overstuffed with that Phil Spector wall of sound that it looses a lot of grit that would allow it to be truly RAWK. There is a reason for the saying "less is more." I don't think all those instruments make the song a rockin' song. Try this: I think if George had stripped his song down to the basic 2 guitars, bass drums, and keys it might have been more of a guitar showcase, rather than being all muddled in the mix. Or, if when doing the song live he stepped back off the mike to handle the slide work instead of giving it to others, he might have been able to be considered a RAWK god. Look at Derek Trucks in this video. George could have stopped singing and then play like Derek Trucks. But, instead, George preferred to be the singer and leave the shredding to others. That's the frustrating thing about George:
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jul 11, 2013 3:45:58 GMT -5
I think George's guitar work was great, and it played, mostly, to his strengths. He wanted to be a good guitarist, but he wasn't naturally gifted - it didn't flow out of the end of his fingers, he had to work at it. That's why his early solos are somewhat on the klutzy side, but his licks are always tasty and to the point.
The one thing you could guarantee was that if he was given the opportunity to work it through, ALL his guitar work would be exactly right, whether licks and fills or solos. The slide work merely added another facet.
The one thing you didn't get was the solos which you refer to as shredding, and that was because George simply didn't do that stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 11, 2013 7:16:48 GMT -5
The one thing you didn't get was the solos which you refer to as shredding, and that was because George simply didn't do that stuff. 'Didn't" ... or "Couldn't"?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 11, 2013 7:26:50 GMT -5
I love Wah Wah and love his guitar parts. It is a BIG song. However, as a matter of taste, I think the song is so overstuffed with that Phil Spector wall of sound that it looses a lot of grit that would allow it to be truly RAWK. There is a reason for the saying "less is more." I can't resist asking - if "less is more", then why the disappointment that George did not "RAWK" harder, and more often?
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 11, 2013 7:57:39 GMT -5
Didn't Eric Clapton come to distance himself from "shredding" on electric guitar instead preferring more melodic playing. I have read that, that he got shredding out of his system during Cream and moved on. Perhaps inspired by George's example?
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 11, 2013 9:51:40 GMT -5
I love Wah Wah and love his guitar parts. It is a BIG song. However, as a matter of taste, I think the song is so overstuffed with that Phil Spector wall of sound that it looses a lot of grit that would allow it to be truly RAWK. There is a reason for the saying "less is more." I can't resist asking - if "less is more", then why the disappointment that George did not "RAWK" harder, and more often? That's fair. In this case, by less I mean fewer instruments, fewer overdubs, fewer tracks. George and Spector used layer upon layer upon layer upon layer of tracks for that wall-of-sound sound. I like the recording and the song, but I'm not sure it would not have sounded as good or better if they had cut way back on the tracks. Here's a live cover track, which if recorded in the studio would have had about 12-15 tracks for all the guitars, vocals, drums, and keys. Probably less with efficient use of ping-ponging, but that would not have been needed anymore with the technology of the day.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 11, 2013 10:41:07 GMT -5
Didn't Eric Clapton come to distance himself from "shredding" on electric guitar instead preferring more melodic playing. I have read that, that he got shredding out of his system during Cream and moved on. Perhaps inspired by George's example? There's "shredding" and there is shredding. And, melodic playing is not mutually exclusive to killer rock lead guitar work. As I said, I'm not saying George should have become Eddie Van Halen or Yngwie Malmsteen. But, I'm sure you and a lot of people here were in awe of Eric's lead on While My Guitar Gently Weeps at the Concert for George, Prince playing the same song at George's induction into the Hall of Fame. Those were classic shredding moments - rock moments. No one thinks that Mike Campbell or Brian May or Keith Richards or Stephen Stills or Billy Gibbons or Dave Gilmore or, even, Paul are shredders, but they certainly rock hard and let loose when needed and wanted - for fun, I'm sure. In the case of Brian May and Dave Gilmore they had well-stuctured and melodic guitar leads, but could throw down when necessary. Yes, Eric does not play like his Cream days, but he certainly has not become a strummer. There are countless recent videos of Eric showing lead guitar prowess or going back to his roots, if you will. I do believe that Eric is STILL looking to play that PERFECT note and his mind hasn't played it, yet, but for anyone to think that Eric would not or could not gun sling when on stage with Jeff Beck or Jimmy Page or Derek Trucks or any other noted lead guitarist is wrong. Yes, Eric has expanded his playing to be more melodic and diverse, but giving up "shredding"? I don't think so:
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 11, 2013 10:58:50 GMT -5
Didn't Eric Clapton come to distance himself from "shredding" on electric guitar instead preferring more melodic playing. I have read that, that he got shredding out of his system during Cream and moved on. Perhaps inspired by George's example? Yeah, and to many people, those I Shot the Sheriff and Lay Down Sally days were the beginnings of fallow years for Slowhand. I think the main difference, in truth, was in his tone. It did mellow out a lot. It became a very melodic tone, rather than the loud, highly sustained Cream sound. His playing probably became better after he started playing with Dwayne Allman. But, despite not shredding like in his Cream days, he still often left no doubt that he was the guv'nor. The key thing is whenever Eric is on stage he's the lead or co-lead guitarist. When George was on stage with other guitarists, he's usually the strummer or rhythm guitarist. I hated that.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jul 11, 2013 12:57:28 GMT -5
Didn't Eric Clapton come to distance himself from "shredding" on electric guitar instead preferring more melodic playing. I have read that, that he got shredding out of his system during Cream and moved on. Perhaps inspired by George's example? There's "shredding" and there is shredding. And, melodic playing is not mutually exclusive to killer rock lead guitar work. As I said, I'm not saying George should have become Eddie Van Halen or Yngwie Malmsteen. But, I'm sure you and a lot of people here were in awe of Eric's lead on While My Guitar Gently Weeps at the Concert for George, Prince playing the same song at George's induction into the Hall of Fame. Those were classic shredding moments - rock moments. No one thinks that Mike Campbell or Brian May or Keith Richards or Stephen Stills or Billy Gibbons or Dave Gilmore or, even, Paul are shredders, but they certainly rock hard and let loose when needed and wanted - for fun, I'm sure. In the case of Brian May and Dave Gilmore they had well-stuctured and melodic guitar leads, but could throw down when necessary. Yes, Eric does not play like his Cream days, but he certainly has not become a strummer. There are countless recent videos of Eric showing lead guitar prowess or going back to his roots, if you will. I do believe that Eric is STILL looking to play that PERFECT note and his mind hasn't played it, yet, but for anyone to think that Eric would not or could not gun sling when on stage with Jeff Beck or Jimmy Page or Derek Trucks or any other noted lead guitarist is wrong. Yes, Eric has expanded his playing to be more melodic and diverse, but giving up "shredding"? I don't think so: I had a newfound appreciation of Prince after that blistering lead on WMGGW, and he stayed true to the song!!! Translation: It didn't sound like Eddie Van Halen hammer-ons. BTW...of the guitarists you mentioned- I think May has done some shredding, much in the way of Don Felder or Joe Perry if you know what I mean. Gilmour has come close.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 11, 2013 14:31:41 GMT -5
In your first reply to my post sayne you seem to say I am full of it about Clapton but in the second reply to the same post, you seem to concede a change in his playing and say that's when Clapton fell in the eyes of many! Prince was amazing on WMGGW, one of the greatest guitar solos for my money. And I have been watching a lot of Springsteen DVDs and don't laugh but he is a shredder especially on the Darkness On the Edge of Town material. Springsteen started doing a lot of lead guitar solos again on the tour promoting The Rising whereas for years he had delegated that to Nils Lofgren or his original second guitarist Little Steven Van Zandt. I just watched a three hour 1978 Springsteen concert and Bruce and Stevie Van Zandt really let fly some good electric guitar solos throughout the concert. I started liking Springsteen on "The River" album and there is not much lead guitar work throughout nor is there a lot on subsequent albums but on Darkness, solos are prevalent and Springsteen and Stevie let fly. "Adam Raised a Cain" from a 2009 special performance of the album DOTEOT at the Paramount Theatre, Asbury Park. This was what was left of the original E Street Band meaning Nils Lofgren doesn't play nor Springsteen's wife, Patti Scialfa, so all guitar work falls back on Bruce and Steven. This dvd was included in the deluxe DOTEOT boxset that is really cool.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 11, 2013 18:23:07 GMT -5
Did George play the Hey Bulldog solo? Happy Nat has a comment on that over at Beatles' Rarity.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 11, 2013 21:56:12 GMT -5
. . . I think that part of him got stifled by playing in the Beatles. I mean, a jam band guitarist wouldn't have worked in that context. You had those immaculately constructed songs and George would only have a few bars to cram in a melody that had to work within the structure of the song. I agree that he rocked a lot more in his Hamburg days and the early years of Beatlemania and that the songs John and Paul were mostly writing did not allow George (intentionally?) to improve his lead playing. But, having said that, there is Taxman as that big elephant in the room. Also, there were opps for George to rock, but never took off, like at the end of Got to Get You Into My Life. I do think, though, that your last sentence is a rather "apologist" sentiment that does not really benefit George. The Stones, the Who, the Kinks, and tons of other people also had to deal with the limited 3 minute pop song structure, yet they had their guitarists do killer leads. Even when album rock came into being and songs got longer and longer, the Beatles still didn't put in a lot of comparable leads as other bands. Not saying extended solos did not exist (I Want You (She's So Heavy), but just saying that the Beatles were playing with the same constraints that other bands had. Not saying the Beatles should have had an In-a-Gadda-da-Vida, but they certainly could have done a Midnight Rambler or Sympathy for the Devil. I think John was heading that way, though. I wonder how different Badge would have been if it was a Beatles song.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jul 12, 2013 3:51:35 GMT -5
I'm so glad they didn't. I wouldn't have liked the Beatles catalogue half as much if it had been full of "rawking" and "shredding" (whatever that stuff is - some sort of chicken salad, sounds like).
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 12, 2013 5:46:57 GMT -5
I'm so glad they didn't. I wouldn't have liked the Beatles catalogue half as much if it had been full of "rawking" and "shredding" (whatever that stuff is - some sort of chicken salad, sounds like). You and others are missing the whole point of ALL of this. I am not questioning the arrangements of Beatles songs or George's ability as a guitarist. It's not like I'm saying that Yesterday should have been a rocker. All I've been trying to say is that many of us wish George would have been more of a hot shot lead guitarist - when it was appropriate to do so. And, we wish George would have manned-up as a lead guitarist when in the company of other lead guitarists. It's fine to say that one likes George's playing just fine. But, to many of us, he could have done so much more AND not have taken anything away from what you and others liked about him. If he had done the lead in Taxman or While My Guitar Gently Weeps, for example, all the things that people currently like about his playing would not have changed. But, we who wanted him to RAWK would have been satisfied, too. While many of you were happy to see him strumming his guitar during Sweet Marie and the Dylan 30th Anniversary Concert, some of us would have wanted to see him represent as a lead guitarist sometime during the show. Not many people know this, but when he was doing his All Things Must Pass album, he actually had Peter Frampton there as a session man. Peter tells the story of how he started strumming, assuming that's what George wanted, but George stopped him and told him to play lead. What's up with that? George IS a lead guitarist and it is HIS record. Name one major band's lead guitarist who would let other guitarists take the load. I think none. So, there is no need for people to defend George on how he played. This is more about a part of his arsenal that he seldom, but think could have, exploited. He grew up as a rocker. I'm sure his Hamburg days were filled with great lead guitar. But, it changed. If he wanted to be cleaner, fine. But, he didn't need to be tamer. This is rock and roll we're talking about.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 12, 2013 6:32:14 GMT -5
You and others are missing the whole point of ALL of this. I am not questioning the arrangements of Beatles songs or George's ability as a guitarist. It's not like I'm saying that Yesterday should have been a rocker. All I've been trying to say is that many of us wish George would have been more of a hot shot lead guitarist - when it was appropriate to do so. And, we wish George would have manned-up as a lead guitarist when in the company of other lead guitarists. It's fine to say that one likes George's playing just fine. But, to many of us, he could have done so much more AND not have taken anything away from what you and others liked about him. If he had done the lead in Taxman or While My Guitar Gently Weeps, for example, all the things that people currently like about his playing would not have changed. But, we who wanted him to RAWK would have been satisfied, too. While many of you were happy to see him strumming his guitar during Sweet Marie and the Dylan 30th Anniversary Concert, some of us would have wanted to see him represent as a lead guitarist sometime during the show. Not many people know this, but when he was doing his All Things Must Pass album, he actually had Peter Frampton there as a session man. Peter tells the story of how he started strumming, assuming that's what George wanted, but George stopped him and told him to play lead. What's up with that? George IS a lead guitarist and it is HIS record. Name one major band's lead guitarist who would let other guitarists take the load. I think none. I understand what you're getting at, sayne, and I agree with you -- !!!!
|
|
markc
Very Clean
Posts: 447
|
Post by markc on Jul 12, 2013 8:25:08 GMT -5
I think George would defer to better lead guitarists if they were present. If he wanted a solo on one of his songs to sound like Capton, he'd get Clapton. George did outplay EC on WMGGW at the Bangladesh concert and held his own at the Prince's Trust. But even the Apple Jam jams are disappointing. And the Beatles often used gimmicks to mask the lack of shredding, such as the use of bakcward guitar solos, the white noise in I Want You (She's So Heavy) and the wah-wah and Leslie in the Get Back sessions. Slide became the twist that actually worked out for George and became his signature. Others came to emulate him. I think Mike Campbell's soloing took a decided George bent after the Wilbury period. EC has since done some slide solos that sound more GH than EC.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 12, 2013 9:55:54 GMT -5
I think George would defer to better lead guitarists if they were present. If he wanted a solo on one of his songs to sound like Capton, he'd get Clapton. George did outplay EC on WMGGW at the Bangladesh concert and held his own at the Prince's Trust. But even the Apple Jam jams are disappointing. And the Beatles often used gimmicks to mask the lack of shredding, such as the use of bakcward guitar solos, the white noise in I Want You (She's So Heavy) and the wah-wah and Leslie in the Get Back sessions. Slide became the twist that actually worked out for George and became his signature. Others came to emulate him. I think Mike Campbell's soloing took a decided George bent after the Wilbury period. EC has since done some slide solos that sound more GH than EC. Keith Richards wouldn't defer. Sure, he'd let the superior guitarist take a solo, but he'd come in and try to give as he got. Pete Townsend the same. As for WMGGW, did you know he had Jessie Ed Davis there to take the leads if Eric did not show, which George was not sure he would. And, why even bother to have someone else do the lead? Do it yourself, lead guitar man. Also, as for out doing Clapton. I don't think so, but even if he did, we all know Clapton had just arrived from England AND he was strung out on smack. He couldn't even remember being there, other than being loaded and barely aware of what was going on. And, about holding his own, the arrangement isn't really a hard solo, though. George pretty much plays it the same way ALL the time. I bet Eric and everyone else expresses it differently from show to show. I have grown to really like the Apple Jams, but I bet George plays rhythm most of the time while Eric and Dave Mason do the "real" jamming. You are right about the "gimmicks," although I like them a lot. Don't know about the motive you've stated, though.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 12, 2013 10:36:21 GMT -5
Not said here yet is that George all but hung up his guitar from 1965 through 1967 to learn to play the sitar and otherwise explore fully Indian music and religion. He was no longer the George who had a guitar growing out of his side and practicing non-stop. Yeah, he was still playing in the studio(but this was also the era Paul was doing more and more lead guitar solos) and live but by his own admission in his free time he was just not practicing guitar like he had since a young teen. And let's face it, 1965 to 1967 was the crucial era in the development of the gunslinging Rock and Roll guitar heroes(not the great Blues guitarists, they were all earlier). To my ears in 1964 George is still towards the head of the class in lead guitarists but yeah, that all changes by 1965 but that is because George abdicated from the western guitar. I do regret that decision I must say. By 1968 George realizes he is a guitarist and will never be a sitar player worthy of Ravi Shankar's praises and he also knows he is way behind in the lead guitar game. He mans up and I think does well through much of the White Album and throughout 1969 Beatles recordings for a guy who is rediscovering his craft. I think George's normally cautious nature as well as genuine lack of ego around his guitarist friends allowed him to bring in other lead guitarists if that improved the recordings or the rare live performances he did post-1966. I have always been bothered by the fact that George didn't play lead guitar on "Taxman" and WMGGW. That is a good point, sayne, that we would all feel better about his legacy as a lead guitarist had he at least played those two solos He may have nailed something great on "Taxman" but Paul denied him that opportunity. George voluntarily relinquished that on Weeps calling in Clapton and at first blush that is disappointing but really, should we criticize him for bringing in the guy who was considered the best Rock guitarist of the time? Some of my old high school friends who were budding guitarists and Clapton fanatics thought that was cool and never criticized George. Another thing to remember is George brought Clapton in because up to that point John and Paul didn't give a shit about Weeps and George said the early recordings of it were lousy. George brought Clapton in so the others would behave! He says that on Anthology! LOL, suddenly Paul comes up with that cool piano intro with Clapton there, etc. Maybe WMGGW never would have been a "classic" if George had not brought in Clapton, a guy considered so good and an equal contemporary that John and Paul were going to behave in front of him. Maybe George swallowed his pride, brings Clapton in just so Weeps gets on the album! He sacrificed his ego to benefit the song. I think people get your point but some don't care whether George shredded or not. I personally wish he never would have gone into the Indian music at all and stuck hardcore to his electric guitars but we don't know how that would have changed history. Maybe without the spiritual fulfillment of Indian beliefs and music, George would have become another Rock casualty of drug or alcohol abuse. Who knows. The history is written and writers like Simon Leng tell us why we can be comfortable and proud of George's guitar legacy as is and I know sayne, you've said the same, you appreciate what he brought to the table. I take it you wanted George to also be able to do screaming lead guitar solos when necessary and I know Paul McCartney(and maybe John Lennon) would agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 12, 2013 11:35:56 GMT -5
. . . I think George's normally cautious nature as well as genuine lack of ego around his guitarist friends allowed him to bring in other lead guitarists if that improved the recordings or the rare live performances he did post-1966 . . . I like everything you wrote, so I'll address this one point. Was it lack of ego or lack of confidence? Oh, George had an ego. I think his ego made him defer, for not wanting to look inept next to others. Musicians like to play with other musicians. You can see the joy in the faces of Clapton, Beck, Page, Townsend, Vai, Satriani, Knofler, Richards, etc when they play with another guitarist, lead for lead. For these guys, I don't think it's about competition. I think it's about weaving, feeding off one another. Hearing what the other guy does and coming up with something that fits and that allows the other person to build off what you do. It's a "conversation", if you will, rather than 2 auctioneers talking over one another. George could have easily been the second lead guitarist in all those situations where he simply strummed. Or, even bring out that slide and deliver that way. Johnny Winter would have. So would have Bonnie Raitt:
|
|
markc
Very Clean
Posts: 447
|
Post by markc on Jul 12, 2013 11:36:19 GMT -5
I loved the backward guitar on Revolver. But I think George once said he'd tried that for WMGGW before he called in Clapton. I also like the Leslie effect in 1969, and as used in It Don't Come Easy. It did get tiresome on the Nagra tapes, but we weren't meant to hear all that. One thing Ringo always said was they put out their best stuff.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 12, 2013 14:33:06 GMT -5
Not many people know this, but when he was doing his All Things Must Pass album, he actually had Peter Frampton there as a session man. Peter tells the story of how he started strumming, assuming that's what George wanted, but George stopped him and told him to play lead. What's up with that? George IS a lead guitarist and it is HIS record. Name one major band's lead guitarist who would let other guitarists take the load. I think none. This is perfectly understandable to me. George as primary songwriter is already dealing with the physical structure of the song, the lyrics, the concept, the arrangements, the mixes, etc. Most musicians only have so much energy to give to a particular song before the well runs drive. Its perfectly understandable that George would look to another guitarist to add to his creation. Paul -- who certainly fancied himself as much a guitarist as a bassist -- could have easily over-dubbed all the guitar solos on the Wings stuff. But he wisely deferred to Denny, probably for the same reason.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 12, 2013 14:37:12 GMT -5
To me, the beauty of George's guitar work with the Beatles was how he fit himself like a glove around John's chord changes. He'd often be playing along to John's chords while adding these intricate guitar runs that perfectly enhanced the inherent melodies within John's chord changes.
His work with Paul's songs was a little different. Paul seemed to employ him more like a hired gun. Like in the crunching, almost Heavy Metal-esque guitar solo in "Let it Be" that completely shifts the song from the quiet, soulful gospel ballad into a rawk song.
|
|
markc
Very Clean
Posts: 447
|
Post by markc on Jul 12, 2013 15:11:30 GMT -5
Especially the Spector version! George Martin blew it on that song.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 12, 2013 17:26:52 GMT -5
The Get Back sessions were the Beatles learning the songs as well as the rehearsal tracks. You get Paul singing chords on Let it Be and Two of Us. You can't expect George to play the song completely realized in these early versions.
If you've hear the Hey Jude version with George's guitar on it, you'd say "That's not very good. Paul was right to axe it." But really, George was learning the song. He would have worked something out by the time the song was finished.
These tapes go on and on forever and I would listen to them all and love them, especially the Get Back sessions. These guys were making great music, even though they weren't perfect finished songs.
George thought he was good. Didn't he challenge Eric to a guitar duel, with Patti as the prize?
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 12, 2013 17:37:04 GMT -5
Did George play the Hey Bulldog solo? Happy Nat has a comment on that over at Beatles' Rarity. www.thebeatlesrarity.com/ in case you couldn't find it.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 12, 2013 18:09:01 GMT -5
So, most sources say John played the lead? Hmmmm.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 12, 2013 18:28:31 GMT -5
So, most sources say John played the lead? Hmmmm. Hey, Geoff Emerick says it was George! He was there. He wouldn't remember it wrong, he wouldn't lie.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 12, 2013 18:53:07 GMT -5
George thought he was good. Didn't he challenge Eric to a guitar duel, with Patti as the prize? I heard that Eric played his guitar with mittens on just to give George a fair chance, but as it turned out Eric still won Patti.
|
|