John as a guitarist?

wolfgang · Post by **wolfgang** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 11:01 am

O.K., David, Lennon was not musically over-educated, but as rhythm guitarist he was unique.

studiotwosession · Post by **studiotwosession** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 1:22 pm

>>....Lennon was not musically over-educated...<

If we're talking rock and pop, this is totally incorrect.

Self educated? Yes, they all were. But their knowledge of their craft and the various genres they wanted to have down they knew inside out.

They often said, long before anyone knew who they were, they'd travel all the way across town to learn a new chord or hear a new record.

You do that as much as they did for whatever it is you're studying, and play as many gigs as they did in the early years and, degree or not, you'll end up overeducated.

westtexasrickenbacker · Mon Aug 21, 2006 1:56 pm

Glenn has a good point in that, as musicians by trade, if not formal education, the Beatles put in incredible hours when they went to Hamburg. If I played 8 hour gigs, five to seven nights a week for an overly extended period of time, I would improve tremendously.

Couple that with a few things: One, these guys then became the musical elite that other famous 60's musicians flocked to and there was much information sharing and (Two), they put in grueling recording sessions, so improvement occurred there as well.

They did know various styles inside and out. Additionally, they had the talent and melodic ear to take rock n roll to places it hadn't been before.

Pre-Beatles: the average rock song was 3 chords.
Beatles music: The average Beatles song incorporated five chords. That's a more complex melody and song structure.

Ah, but I digress. J.L. was a superb talent able to use a number of Rythmic styles on guitar.

studiotwosession · Post by **studiotwosession** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 4:14 pm

And it wasn't just Hamburg, of course, Alex. In a way, when they weren't in Hamburg, their schedules in the north U.K. were even more active, up to three shows a day, often in two differerent locals, six and seven days a week.

That little 325 put in a ton of overtime.

>>Pre-Beatles: the average rock song was 3 chords. <<

There's a lot of truth to this. The Everlys and Crickets (and Berry when he was in a pop mood) were most of the exception, though the first didn't rock very hard (though they laid down some incredibly powerful tracks.)

karl_teten · Post by **karl_teten** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 8:39 am

When John and Paul first got together rock and roll was still brand new even here in the States.

By 1963 they had hung out Gene Vincent, Roy Orbison, Little Richard.....

studiotwosession · Post by **studiotwosession** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 5:25 pm

In spite of the fact that they seem to have heard every obscure R&B B-side that had made its way to wherever they happened to be (by eating, sleeping and breathing rock for several years straight), one can really see how knocked out they were when they finally got here and found numerous stations playing pop music day and night.

davclr · Post by **davclr** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 8:21 pm

The true testament to The Fabs' genius is the fact that 36+ plus years latter we are still passionately listening, dissecting and arguing about their stuff!

Don McClaine was dead wrong!
The music died in May, 1970.

brammy · Post by **brammy** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:13 pm

>>> Lennon could instantly break all the songs down to their influences and styles and deliver a fabulous critique, on first hearing..... In other words, he had an excellent knowledge of music theory (rock, and pop at least) despite the fact that he had no degree as such.

Glenn, a familiarity with influences and styles is not the same as knowledge of music theory. The Beatles themselves acknowledged that they couldn't read music. The Beatles... Lennon and McCartney .... were wonderful and I'll love them forever and ever ... but great technical musicians they were not. End of story. For instance, I don't dig Beethoven's stuff all that much but I would never presume to think that I'm as familiar with music theory as that dude.

As for the Stones being at their best during the Mick Taylor era, I would agree for the most part. Sticky Fingers was (arguably) their best album. Its kinda like the Beatles - personally my fave rave is the very early stuff... but that doesn't mean I dont recognize the greatness and sophistication and ahead-of-its-timeness of Sgt Pepper.

As for Chet Atkins, whether he was a pop or rock or country musician is not the point I was trying to make. Atkins was a great technical musician and extremely knowledgeable about music theory ... much more so than Lennon. Does that mean I like listening to Chet more than John? No, I'll take Lennon any day ... but my basic point is still the same.

>>>The Fabs' genius is the fact that 36+ plus years latter we are still passionately listening, dissecting and arguing about their stuff!

David.... excellent point!

studiotwosession · Post by **studiotwosession** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:33 am

Kent, I don't think we'd even be discussing the Beatles as "technical" players had it not been for Lennon's comment, which as I've already stated my opinion of. Love the guy, but John is on the record as saying a lot of really absurd things, and I pu that down as one of them.

As for music theory, they either had plenty of it when it came to the genres they liked, even though they had no degrees per se. Or they proved the concept is irrelevant to pop and rock, which of course has been intellectualized since those days. I'm not sure that's a good thing. But like it or not, rock history is now taught in universities.

I'm not chosing a best Stones album, though I know people would also say it's Let It Bleed or Exile. I'm partial to Between the Buttons myself.

wayang · Post by **wayang** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:48 am

We should perhaps clarify the term 'music theory' here...just as music is frequently wrongly characterized as the 'universal language', there's a tendency to use 'music theory' to refer exclusively to 'western' music, where codification has been documented. There are many 'musics' around the world that are not written down, but that doesn't mean they don't have rules which need to be learned and an underlying 'theory'...

In short, Kent, I would say you're far more familiar than Beethoven with Rock-n-Roll Theory....and if that makes Ludwig van roll over, then so be it.

cowboy_joe · Post by **cowboy_joe** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:21 am

If I remember Lennon's quote that we are all refering back too, I think it was something along the lines "I guess I'm technically not very good, but...." It amuses me that at the time he was speaking, the public assumption was probably that he, and George, and Paul, were some of the greatest guitar players ever, and he was just trying to put things right. I mean, it was John Lennon--I certainly wouldn't stand up to him and question his musical abilities, in any regard.

He wasn't a "player," like Atkins or Beck or Hendrix, he was a songwriter, and dare I say it, he didn't need to impress us with any wild solos, some fast triplets on his 325 was plenty....

shamustwin · Post by **shamustwin** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:28 am

Crimeny, the band tackled rock, pop, country, ballads, schmaltz, motown, psychedelia, folk, nearly every style of the day, and did it more credibly than most. Any player in that band had to have been damned good.

studiotwosession · Post by **studiotwosession** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:23 pm

I'm pretty sure his "technical" observation started with Ringo and finished with the rest of the band, and I believe he was also referring to a lot of the long, self-indulgent solo-ing that came into vogue some six months after the last fabs show.

I'm sure they did their share in the full length version (some 20+ minutes) of Helter Skelter, the parts between the fade out and fade in.

Technically speaking, those minutes are likely filled with wailing guitar that is as impressive as whatever anyone else was playing at the time.

winston · Post by **winston** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:19 pm

Ringo was and still is technically brilliant IMO. I would take someone with his skills and his approach to playing music in a heartbeat.

My comment is especially true when you consider the less advanced state of drum technology in 1963 and the size of the kit he played.

I like the material composition of the older drum technology myself but the newer hardware is so much nicer and easier to adjust.

beatlefreak · Post by **beatlefreak** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 2:19 am

Brian wrote:
"My comment is especially true when you consider the less advanced state of drum technology in 1963 and the size of the kit he played."

It's funny about his drum kit. He could have had any number of drums he wanted, but Brian Epstein was determined to make sure Ringo wasn't 'stuck at the back' hidden behind his drums. That's why he only used a 20" bass drum in the early days.