John as a guitarist?

[teeder]

Glenn wrote,

"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."

I love the Beatles, but I can't agree with this statement. There's no way they were on the "wailing" scale as high as Clapton, Beck, Hendrix, or even Townsend at those times.
But, they didn't need to be. Their music never suffered from it. The others relied on it.

Put me down as another vote for the "Taylor" years of the Stones. Sticky and Exile are tied for my favorites.

[revolver323]

Music theory a great thing to know, but I have played the past 50 years with people who know music theory inside out and sometimes, it don't mean diddly. In fact, it has been my experience that in many cases people who know music theory and have formal training are the most stubborn and closed-minded people on the planet when it comes to listening to and considering "different" forms of music. In that way, they are no better than a rock player who learned by listening to records but is unwilling to listen to classical because it's boring. I've played in many a band with players who know what to play and take very inventive solos, but when asked what they did, have no clue. They instinctively know where a chord progression leads simply because they've heard songs with similar progressions so many times, or maybe because it just "sounds like it should go there." My best friend is a song writer/guitarist who can't read music and has never had a day of theory. Yet he writes melodic, wonderful, commercial tunes that don't simply recreate what he has heard elsewhere. Conversely, I play every week in church with musicians who are "schooled" but are lost without a piece of music in front of them. The music minister has a doctorate but can't remember from week to week the structure of a simple rock-based contemporary Christian tune that has three chords. And because he's "Schooled" he can't let a song end unless it "resolves" to the chord that "it should end on." If one of the singers gets lost, the three of us in the rhythm section who came up out of rock know what to do instinctively, but the people reading music plow straight on through what's written until they have to stop playing. Don't get me wrong -- I advise anyone to learn to read and get some training in theory and structure. But there is no substitute for experience. In the case of John & Paul and so many others, their schooling came from playing so much and listening. Surely they had/have a gift for music, just like my friend. Whatever the case, it takes all kinds. I'll admit though that you don't know the meaning of torture until you've played in an orchestra where the cellists insist on counting "Mission Impossible" instead of just feeling it.

[westtexasrickenbacker]

Very well said, Dave.

I have similar experiences with "Schooled" musicians who look at me like I'm mad when I ask them to improvise something. It's funny.

There are very good schooled musicians out there and very good unschooled players in terms of theory.

My experiences have definitely been more fun playing with the unschooled group. We seem to get a more cohesive sound and the stress-level is lower.

[winston]

Dave I have to agree with you in part. But caution, that perhaps it is too sweeping a generalization to place every schooled musician in the same category as those described in this thread.

[teeder]

Good post Dave!

[studiotwosession]

Kevin, I disagree with the Hendrix, Clapton, etc. statement.

Of course, all of those guy were as players quite a bit different from each other.

But more importantly, as the licks in "the End" prove, they all, including Lennon, could indeed wail and make it sound great.

Whether one's doing it minutes at a time live, or in short spaces in the studio is irrelevant as to whether one can in fact do it and do it well.

I have no doubt that they all could, and did in fact, do it. Only unlike their peers, they chopped 23 minute takes down to 3 minutes.

But that just goes to show that one of the things that made them the great band that they were, as well as songwriting, musicianship and showmanship, was superior taste (which often came from their producer and the fact that they were smarter and more studied, if self taught, than the rest.)

A funny thing; the band Clapton gained his long solo-ing reputation in split after 3 years, Hendrix died, and the Who shortly thereafter did the opera, with shorter worked-out bits and not long after abandoned the 20 minute long versions of Magic Bus (I guess there was nowhere to go from there for them all, something the fabs may have known when it all started.)

Also, while I admire Townshend's unique style of guitar, I'd rate all the three fabs guitar players as better than him.

[einar]

Great, bold statement, Glenn!

[Scastles]

I agree with the fact the boys could play, and wail as good as the next, but it wasn't the foundation of their style. We caught glimpses of it on Abbey Road, but with Hendrix and Clapton, flaying away, more often than not, was their style. Who knows what we may have heard though if the Fabs had hung on with one another for a couple of more years.

[winston]

"Also, while I admire Townshend's unique style of guitar, I'd rate all the three fabs guitar players as better than him."

I could not agree more.

[studiotwosession]

Pete, of course, like the fabs, perhaps more than their other peers mentioned above, was also a song-oriented guitarist (even during the few years before and after Live at Leeds.)

Hendrix, IMO, was more song oriented than most give him credit for. His greatness is due at least as much for his songs and his band as his playing, which always overshadows the rest (yep, flash always wins out, frontmen get more credit than they're due, etc.)

Pete's style and ability certainly changed a bit, if he didn't improve, throughout the 70s and into his solo works. His stuff around Woodstock was much more basic and unpolished than his playing post Moon.

He really is incredibly unique...was there at the foundation of the walls of amps (really had a lot of his innovations ripped off by Jimi), long semi improv sets (for better AND worse) and did quite a lot of different things considering he hardly ever barres a chord (though he used capos extensively.)

[cowboy_joe]

I respect Townshend as a player, and writer, but I always wonder why he didn't get up and sing more songs during the early days. Daltry had a great voice, indeed, and his performance made a lot of Who songs as good as they are, but Pete is not a bad singer at all.

I do think there is a significant difference in thought and approach between being a guitar player in a band of two or three guitarists, and being the one and only guitar player in the ensemble. I think I actually played less, or at least left more space between what I played, on stage when I was working with only a drummer and bass player, compared to when when I was playing in a group with two guitars and keys.

[studiotwosession]

There's also a significant difference between the mindset of a single guitarist band playing in the studio (with various tracks at one's disposal) and playing live.

[westtexasrickenbacker]

Hendricks, Clapton and Beck are great talents.

I've never thought Townsend belonged in that group. He's an interesting rhythym guy who does some solos. I agree with the others that say the individual Beatles were better guitarists. At least in taste.

As far as his lead playing goes, I think Townsend acquired a master reputation in part because The Who played extremely loud, not because of chops.
I'm not saying he's not good, I'm just saying he's not that good. And he's said as much in interviews over the last 10 years.

[wayang]

Well, the opinions are flying now...and that's good; what a boring place this would be otherwise, droning on and on about screw threads and soldering...

However...the Beatles 'smarter and more studied' than Hendrix? That's unsupportable. And 'superior taste'? The ensuing decades have shown that to be more a case of calling each other on their individual incidences of 'inferior taste' when they were a band...and a great deal of their good taste came from that oboist sitting at the 'desk' in the next room.

Nobody was advising Jimi what not to do...and as soon as the individual Beatles found themselves in a similar situation, the results were not always stellar.

On the issue of 'wailing' comparisons...there's journeyman-like competence, and then there's otherworldly ability...

[randyz]

The Who was a band blessed with three terrific players (Townshend, Entwistle, Moon), one great songwriter (Townshend) and an adequate singer (Daltry). Townshend was barely adequate as a guitarist in the beginning. He definitely improved as a guitarist and showman through their constant touring. Anybody who has seen video of him playing 'Young Man Blues' live at Woodstock or the Isle Of Wight in 1969 would have to admit that he had developed into an excellent blues-rock guitarist. I've read that Paul McCartney recorded 'Helter Skelter' in 1968 to prove that The Beatles could play as loud and heavy as The Who. Townshend (like everybody else around at the time) was in awe of Jimi Hendrix and learned a lot from him, but Pete was no slouch.