Thursday, January 22, 2009

THE SQUALID LYRICISM OF BOB QUINE

This post was inspired by a bad review I saw of a Lou Reed live video. I've been a fan of Lou Reed since I was a teen, and I still remember my excitement when his "Blue Mask" LP came out. Although I didn't know it at the time, this record represented a kind of return to Reed's roots. He'd made a lot of records since the Velvet Underground days; some were great, some were awful, some were a little bit of both. The main thing missing from even the great stuff he'd done was Lou Reed's guitar playing. With the Velvets, Reed played some of the most definitively twisted guitar solos ever heard-- "I Heard Her Call My Name" being perhaps the best example. (Years after my own ears were bent by listening to these early Reed solos, I found out that he'd been influenced by, among others, Ornette Coleman.) In his solo career, he'd mostly left the guitar playing to others, with mixed results. For this new album, Reed assembled a band that (with some variations in the drum chair) would set a standard for rock ensemble playing very nearly as important as the original Velvet Underground. The rhythm section was killer, but the wild card was guitarist Bob Quine. Quine was a highly unusual player, influenced by (among others) James Burton and John McLaughlin (specifically his work on the "Jack Johnson" album with Miles Davis), as well as by Lou Reed.

Here's a live clip of "Martial Law." (note-- I think this clip is from the Coney Island Baby live dvd. I haven't been able to find a copy, but at this writing all the clips from it seem to be on youtube. You can buy the "Night with Lou Reed" dvd, which has plenty of great solos by both Reed and Quine.)

Quine's collaboration with Reed on the "Blue Mask" album caused some reviewers to compare this group to a jazz combo. Although the triad-based diatonic/blues harmonic vocabulary they worked with has none of jazz's complexity, the interactive ensemble approach (highly unusual for rock, unfortunately) really was similar to an old Blue Note session. Reed's monotone voice was at its most effective in this apt setting-- a tight band, with the metallic twang and trash of Fender guitars coursing around the edges of the sound. Even the ballads had a kind of ugly beauty, with Reed's romantic streak being perfectly offset by Quine's sometimes dissonant counterpoint. With Quine's encouragement, Reed played some hot guitar also, and the album remains a point of reference for me for what two guitars, bass, and drums can do together.

Sadly, this magic collaboration didn't last. I won't dwell on it here, because the story is well documented by Victor Bockris in his book "Transformer," but apparently all the attention Quine was getting from reviewers didn't sit well with Reed's ego. Their relationship deteriorated when Reed mixed a lot of Quine's hotter playing off the followup album, "Legendary Hearts." This album still sounds good to me, but it is instructive to watch live performances of some of the songs where Quine gets a little more space.

Around 1:42 of "Martial Law" in this clip, Reed says, "Okay, babe," and Quine slashes his way through a characteristic solo. I wish the album track had some of this nastiness-- with Quine's playing on this live version, the song really comes to life.


This song "Martial Law" is particularly interesting, for a few reasons. It's basically blues changes in D, and as such is a great primer in how blues language and structure can be endlessly recast. It also illustrates how the 10th fret position (or 12th fret if you're tuned down a whole step as Quine seems to be here) of the key of D (playing out of an E shape) has a special timbre and resonance on the guitar. (Other players who made great use of this register are Jimi Hendrix and Eddie Hazel.) I once read that Beethoven's major scales sound different from other people's (to paraphrase another great composer whose name escapes me). I think this tune shows that Bob Quine's pentatonic scales sound different from other people's. Quine worked from a lot of the same pentatonic vocabulary that countless lame bar band and living room hackers use, but somehow made it personal. Even when he was using pentatonic material, his idiosyncratic tone, attack, phrasing, and note choices kept him light years away from the rest of the pack. It sounds to me as if he was paranoid about playing anything mundane, and if he heard himself edging toward cliche, he would throw in something unorthodox to right himself. I read somewhere that Quine preferred Fender guitars because Gibsons made it too easy for him to fall back on dull rock licks, and that quote helped shape my theory here about how he would think while playing.
Quine played a lot more crazy stuff with his classic earlier band the Voidoids. This seminal punk group is mostly ignored or forgotten by succeeding generations of punk fans. Punks have mostly identified with the example of the Ramones and the Sex Pistols, both obviously great, but arguably conservative by comparison with Hell, Quine, et al. The Voidoids added dissonance, "fusion" sounds, etc. into a rock context, just as Reed had brought the avant-garde jazz of Ornette Coleman into the Velvet Underground sound. The Ramones and the Pistols, for all of the rudeness of their image, never really moved beyond an appealing amalgam of Chuck Berry and bubblegum pop. The music of those two bands has an accessible musical base beneath the obnoxious lyrics, making the Ramones/Pistols model tailor-made for the young fan. (You could say that snotty words sung over a nursery rhymelike musical setting is arguably a kind of universal kid thing-- my classmates and I were certainly making up songs like that in elementary school.) For me, the Hell/Quine approach, with its jagged musical ideas and existential lyrics, represents an adult version of punk rock. Maybe this is why the Voidoids have been overlooked; most punk rockers have a kind of juvenile outlook. They're often more clear about what they're against than what they're for, and as a result sometimes age uncomfortably into a kind of "Peter Pan and the Lost Boys" existence. Much the same could be said of rock musicians in general, accounting for the rarity of actual musical development in the typical rock musician.
(Richard Hell apparently had no problem letting Quine grab much of the spotlight on their records, and it should be said, in light of the endless critical praising of Quine's Lou Reed period, that the Voidoids albums are probably Quine's finest hour. The Reed group with Quine is fascinating in a different way because of the brooding intensity-- the sense that ugliness is often being held in check. The Voidoid albums don't skimp on romanticism, either, but there's always plenty of over-the-top nastiness and surreal guitar alongside it.)

You can check out Bob Quine's website, www.robertquine.com/
where they've left up some observations of Quine's about his own playing, influences, sound, etc. These are now sad to read, because of Quine's 2004 suicide following the death of his wife.

The bad review I mentioned earlier was on amazon. Some pinhead dismissed the Lou Reed live video that remains one of the best documents of Quine's work, even though by the time of the concert he was basically there for the money. The reviewer referred to Quine as the "lead guitarist who should be sent back to the greasy diner where Lou found him." I wish I could walk into a diner and find a guitarist as good as Bob Quine.

(MORE)

Wednesday, January 7, 2009

RON ASHETON R.I.P.


I just heard that Ron Asheton died. I just want to say that, while Ron may have not been in the elite class of rock players in a technical sense, he's definitely as important as just about any rock guitarist you could name. I don't think there are any rock guitarists I enjoy listening to more. I'm always hoping a student will show up asking how to play like Ron, but somehow it's always Jimmy Page, Jimi Hendrix, Eric Clapton, Angus Young, Tony Iommi (and some tired modern players I'd prefer not to name). Not that I don't love those guys, but--

Note to young players-- get a fuzztone and a wah-wah and learn some Ron Asheton licks! I hope to write about his playing here soon. In the meantime, if you don't own "Fun House" by the Stooges, go buy it.


The first Stooges record has a lot of Ron also, and it's good, but he had developed a lot of exciting new ideas and sounds by the time they did "Fun House" and the guitar on that record is a giant step forward-- it's sort of an evolution of the garage band sound, incorporating Velvet Underground-type ideas and pointing the way toward punk rock and hard rock. If you dig raunchy wah wah and fuzz, here's a feast of it. The third album is great, also, but at that point James Williamson had come in on guitar. If you want the undiluted Ron Asheton experience, "Fun House" is the way to go.

Since I wrote this, I bought a two-disc version of the first Stooges album "The Stooges." It's got tons of extra tracks-- weird alternate mixes by John Cale, bumped by the record company for being "too arty," and longer early versions of a couple tunes. These longer versions have much more Ron Asheton than the released versions-- which means, a lot more fuzz and wah. Good stuff--


(MORE)

O CHRISTMAS TREE

www.karlstraubmusic.com/o christmas tree.mp3

Here's a tidbit--the melody of "O Christmas Tree," harmonized with some double stops alternating with single note line. Just in time for Christmas!



this would be a good time to explain how to harmonize a line this way, but I'll have to get to it later.
I'm working on this big cup of wassail here. give me a minute.

(MORE)

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

EDWARD VAN HALEN

This is one of a lengthy series, all done by the same guy.





Most likely, this is the only time I'll post anything about Van Halen. (I guess that if you make a "guitar face" while playing keytar, then it's "keytar face.")

(MORE)

Monday, January 5, 2009

STOMPBOXES


I've spent the last couple years buying guitar effects, reading about them, experimenting with them at home, using them at gigs with good and bad results, etc. There are many, many variables as soon as you plug one electric guitar into one amp with one stompbox. With multiple effects, it gets exponentially more likely that you will get a bad sound, and exponentially more likely that you won't be able to figure out why. I've made a large number of stupid mistakes, even though I only played a small number of gigs. Thus, the information below is the result of much idiocy, wrongheaded assumptions, oversights, onstage stress, etc. (As my band can tell you, if you ask them. A representative quote-- "If you had a real pedalboard, we probably could have played one more song.") Here are a few guidelines that work for me.

1. Do not try anything at a gig that you haven't already tried at home.
2. Do not assume that something will work at a gig, even if it worked at home.


I know that is not exactly encouraging advice. Here's what to do with the information-- keep track of every detail when you get a good sound. Write it all down, but remember that in a live situation, there may be another variable you're not aware of. If you really are on top of all the knob settings, a mysterious bad sound at a gig may be fixable with a small knob adjustment. If you're lucky.

A couple of the most common head-scratching problems-- dying batteries can kill your volume with some pedals, esp. Tube Screamers. Tone can dry up if you use a lot of pedals and cables-- sometimes buffers and line drivers can fix this problem. I get good results by including a Boss tuner and digital delay, which add a little juice to my signal (on top of doing the jobs I bought them for). For more info on this topic, check out Dave Hunter's book "Guitar Effects Pedals," or this link
analogman.com/faq.htm#buffer

3. Volume knobs on your pedals are VERY interactive, with your other pedals, your guitar, your amp, etc. If you set one pedal's volume knob wrong, you can stomp on a pedal (even a different one) and suddenly get much quieter, or even drop out completely. I solve this by putting fuzz/boost/distortion/overdrive pedals in one of two categories--

A. pedals that should make me louder
B. pedals that should color the sound, but without making me louder.


It's easy enough to set them for either category-- just compare the volume with pedal on and pedal off, and tweak the volume knob for the exact volume change that you want. Keep in mind that if you do this with a lower amp volume than you will actually use when performing, the adjustment may be slightly off. I've had pretty good luck with this, but be careful. Keep in mind-- if you're adjusting all of this onstage before you go on, club owners and patrons may freak out. Practicing making these adjustments at home is wise, so you can do it quickly at a club.

4. Treble boosters don't work so well with Telecasters played through Fender amps. (clarification-- if you use an Analog Man "Beano Boost," the low range boost will give you some excellent sizzle with your Fender gear. Avoid the treble boost setting with a Tele, unless you enjoy getting tone lectures from other guitarists.)

5. Get all of your guitars shielded, because if they buzz a little without pedals, they'll buzz a lot with pedals. A good repair guy
can do this for you and it could change your life, especially if you're a vintage Fender amp/single coil guy like me.
(Gary Wright in Annapolis, Maryland shielded my guitars for me. He also works on tube amps. He helped me get rid of a lot of horrible buzzing caused by amp and guitars. You can contact him at garywright2@hotmail.com)
If you have a clue about soldering and things of that nature, check out this great site--www.guitarnuts.com/index.php
(even if you have no clue about guitar repair, reading the info on this site may convince you to get your guitars shielded. )

6. Put your compressor before your distortion.

7. If one fuzz pedal sounds killer, adding another fuzz or two won't necessarily sound even more killer. It might sound hideous. (Of course, hideous is a relative concept--)

8. Check out these sites--

www.analogman.com/
for pedal modifications, terrific knockoffs of classic and unavailable pedals (often improving on the originals), and other great stuff that Analog Mike either builds or sells. Analog Man's stompboxes are not cheap, but everything I've bought from them has profoundly changed my sound and playing. In some cases, a pedal made or modified by Mike makes me feel like I bought a pricey boutique amp-- as far as I'm concerned, anything that makes me sound this good is worth the money. If I use a pedal every time I plug in, I'm getting my money's worth. In the old days, I bought many pedals that never really got the sound I was looking for. Since I've started buying from Analog Man, my main problem is deciding which great sound to use.

www.geofex.com/
this is the site of the brilliant R.G. Keen. I don't understand even 1 percent of what he's babbling about, but if you want technical info about how pedals, amps, etc. work, this is the place. (Check out his "Disortion 101.") Keen was kind enough to answer some of my dumb questions about "oscillation" a while back, and I got the impression he would have been happy to answer even more. If you're interested in building your own pedals, he's got lots of ideas about that, too.

9. I'll probably regret saying this, as soon as the guitarists on the web read it and want to put in their two cents, but I've found that often I can get closer to some player's sound with the right pedal than with the right guitar or amp. I use a Tele and a Fender Deluxe Reverb, and I've been able to ape the sounds of many Gibson and Marshall players. I've concluded that many pedals can more or less obliterate the "natural" sound of a guitar or amp without breaking a sweat. That being said, ideally you should use a good guitar and amp along with your pedals. I'll let you decide what "good" means.

10. Maybe I should have put this one first. Pedals, effects, stompboxes, and the like are MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. This means you need to LEARN HOW TO PLAY THEM.
This is partly just following the directions of the makers about settings et al, but in most cases you need to adjust your playing to get the best sound out of a pedal. In other words, buying a couple pedals won't make you sound like Eric Clapton did in 1966 (or 1967.) You will also have to learn how to play like Eric Clapton. If a vintage Fuzz Face could actually make a lousy guitarist sound like Jimi Hendrix, it would be worth the insane collector's price you have to pay to get one. The legendary Roger Mayer, who worked on Jimi's pedals and was often with him in the studio, says that when other guitarists played through Hendrix's gear they sounded awful. (My advice-- don't buy an overpriced EBay vintage pedal. Just buy the AnalogMan knockoff, and practice more.)

(I'll probably add to this, but I'm putting it up for now. let me know if you have questions or comments.)


(MORE)

Friday, January 2, 2009

"NOW YOU'RE BACK IN LOVE AGAIN" guitar solo (work in progress)

I'm trying an experiment here. I'm in the process of recording an album with my Combo, and i'm constantly being hounded by people asking when it will be done. (Well, not constantly-- but people do ask me about it from time to time.) Anyway-- I thought I'd kill two birds with one stone by giving you a chance to "listen in" as I work on the record. I'm working up a guitar solo and fills for my song "Now You're Back In Love Again." I'm going to record some sketches of the kinds of things I might play in the solo, and talk about some different approaches I'm using.

With this kind of post, I'm not planning to transcribe it all out for you-- the material is here for you to hear and think about. Some of it will be pretty advanced, perhaps even mystifying to you-- but I think it will still be helpful. I've spent many hours listening to players who were doing things I didn't understand-- I've spent a lot of time studying the work of non-guitarists (Charlie Parker, Sonny Rollins, Mark O'Connor's early fiddle tune recordings, etc.) so that I could see how they put ideas together. I believe that you can learn a lot even from stuff you can't play. (I took a few lessons from my friend Eric Rose more than ten years ago, and I couldn't understand more than five per cent of what he was doing. Things he was trying to show me then crop up in my playing now just about every time I pick up the guitar. I'm not sure exactly how it happened, and it certainly didn't happen overnight, but I learned a hell of a lot more from him than was clear at the time.)

As you listen to this material, please feel free to email me or comment with questions about how I played something, why I played it, why it fits the chords, etc. I'm not going to blather endlessly about all of that right now, but if I get feedback I'll be happy to go into more detail.

PREPARING A SOLO


I've been listening a lot to Miles Davis's recording of "Some Day My Prince Will Come." This classic recording is in a 3/4 feel. I like to think of 3/4 as a series of waves that come breaking over my head, and I'm trying to swim over each of them. Listening to a great performance in 3 (even if the tune is otherwise very different, as in this case) helps me to start picturing the bar lines in this way. 3/4 can be a trap for the improviser, because you can start playing ideas that mimic the bar lines (i.e. each idea you play corresponds to a single bar). When this happens, your solo can have a clunky feel. My "wave breaking" analogy helps me create lines that play through the bar line, and instead of my ideas getting weak at the end of each bar, I try to put accents there.

Because this tune has a lot of chords in it (I was trying to write in a Richard Rodgers vein) I need to make sure I can find the changes in various places on the neck. Chord melody is a good preparation method.

(a note on these mp3s-- these are sketches, to give you an idea what the different approaches sound like. sometimes these takes are a little clumsy, esp. the one where I'm playing short ideas around chord shapes. If I'm really practicing in this way, I probably wouldn't play along with a track the whole time. I might spend spend a long time just playing stuff on one chord, really trying to burn it into my brain. I also would normally not play a whole solo with just one of these approaches, because that can sound choppy. These exercises are to help you find ideas around chords, and memorize where they are on the neck with respect to chord shapes. I should also point out, this rhythm track features Matt Tebo on drums and Jeff Muller on bass. I'm playing chords faintly in the background. This is a very rough recording at this point, so don't blame the band or the producer! We'll spiff it up later. )

My approach to chord melody uses a couple different kinds of ideas-- sometimes I put the melody line in the top voice above a chord shape,

www.karlstraubmusic.com/back in love chord melody.mp3

other times I play a chord and then play short ideas around it. (This helps me to memorize where little runs and licks relate to a chord shape.)

www.karlstraubmusic.com/back in love lines around chords.mp3

I may even play some chord-based "riff" ideas. By this I mean very minimal ideas that are more rhythmic then melodic; I might play a chord shape a couple times in a row with a punchy accent pattern, or I might play a note or two before playing the chord, etc.

www.karlstraubmusic.com/back in love riffs.mp3

After I do this for a while, I'm warmed up. After some work with chord melody (which can be a warmup, or a tough workout, depending on where you are in your development. It wasn't so long ago that putting together ideas like this on a set of chords could have me fumbling around for hours with few good results. It takes a lot of work to get it together), I'm seeing chord shapes on the neck, and I've got some ideas about playing in different positions.

Now I do some single note line playing, to warm up my picking.

www.karlstraubmusic.com/back in love single note.mp3
If I am disciplined, I'll try to resist playing bending and blues-based stuff. Probably I'll end up going in that direction for a bit, though.

www.karlstraubmusic.com/back in love bluesy.mp3
(The point here is that I don't want to just put a lot of pentatonic licks on the record. There are some nice changes there, and I want to play some lines that really bring out the tensions and resolutions built into the chords. Bluesy stuff is easier to do-- it sounds great, but it's kind of a default mode at this point. Ultimately, I'd like the solo to outline the harmony pretty well, and throw in some Roy Buchanan raunch here and there to give it some attitude. So I'll make sure I can play in that style around the changes, and in different places on the neck, so that if I run into trouble trying to follow the changes I can slip into that bag to get me out of a tight spot.)

at this point, I can listen to the various sketches, and try to get a sense of whether any of it is really strong enough to keep. I can also figure out what sounds weak, and why. Eventually, I can plan out a solo, using some combination of these approaches.
For the real solo, I'll try to use motivic techniques to make the solo melodic and "compositional," but practicing all of the above is essential for getting the terrain under my fingers. Once I've got a lot of these shapes and positions in my brain, I can start thinking about music, rather than licks, the neck, etc. That's when it gets interesting--

(TOOK A BREAK HERE FOR A FEW DAYS)

During a brief interlude for family life, gig, etc. I had a chance to think about all of the above. Here's an update--

I did a lot of listening to Miles Davis records recently. The "Miles in Person at the Blackhawk" album, now available with many more tracks, was a helpful point of reference. This Miles group, according to some commentators, was his most swinging and grooving band ever. I'm not sure that's literally true, but after a lot of listening to a lot of different Miles albums, I certainly don't disagree. Miles says in his "autobiography" that he wasn't very stimulated by Hank Mobley's tenor sax playing. Maybe, but I really started digging Mobley's work from listening to this live stuff. He's definitely old-fashioned by comparison with Coltrane, Cannonball, et al, but Mobley's Lester Young/Charlie Parker-influenced sound sounds pretty damn good in 2009. At any rate, along with the fact that they swing like hell on these recordings, Miles and his band play solos that have everything my playing has been lacking--

I've been working on developing my jazz/bebop vocabulary for a few years, and it's mostly clicked for me-- I'm doing a lot better at playing changes. All the Miles listening reminded me of something that I keep forgetting, though-- a solo doesn't make it if it's not cohesive and conversational. Miles is perhaps the ideal exponent of this philosophy. Although by comparison with most of us mere mortals, Miles had chops to burn, his improvising is not really about chops-- it's about ideas. Miles communicates with his lines-- while his sound is like someone singing, his ideas are like someone speaking. Unlike many of his contemporaries (Coltrane comes to mind) who were busy cramming as many notes into a bar as possible, Miles was creating statements with his instrument, by building phrases out of small licks, sentences out of phrases, paragraphs out of sentences, etc. As part of this approach, he was using space as an expressive device.

All of this is stuff I've known for years, but on the evidence of my recent playing I needed a reminder. There's a thing that happens in your improvising that I call "the drag." This is when you paint yourself into a corner, and you can't figure out where to go on your instrument to continue an idea. Using Miles as inspiration, I realized that I need to be able to continue ideas for longer without getting slammed by "the drag." Practicing with this in mind can help. One effective way to practice is to play lines until you get to a drag, then backtrack and figure out a solution. I did a lot of this kind of practicing, and then had a chance to try it out on a country gig. I'm a sideman in "Honky Tonk Heart," a band playing old honky-tonk country and western swing. On our recent gig at JV's, I tried to play more cohesive lines and avoid the drags. One way to get this together is to end an idea quickly and definitively when you feel a drag coming on. Then leave some space, and continue with a related idea.

I thought that at least some of what I played at this show used these ideas pretty well. When I get a chance to hear the recording of the gig, I'll check and see if there are some moments I can put on here for you to listen.

My next series of clips will demonstrate some of these concepts.

MORE TO COME!


text and music copyright 2008 Karl Straub

(MORE)

CAN YOU HAVE TOO MUCH TECHNIQUE?

You often hear a player being derided for being too technical, and not soulful enough. I'd like to put my thoughts about this here. Many times I've been the person making this kind of complaint about one player or another-- I can picture a few musicians right now that I'd put in this camp (I won't mention any names-- I always get in trouble when I do that!)

WARNING-- STRAUB ANALOGY COMING UP

Playing music is like being able to walk. Your ability to put one leg in front of the other and get from point A to point B is your technique. Your brain decides where you will walk to-- point B, and how you will get there, is up to your brain. These are your musical ideas, and they include whatever you are feeling, or thinking about. Because I see it this way, I question the notion that a musician can have "too much technique." Blaming good technique for what a player chooses to play is like blaming your legs for the fact that you walked into a puddle.

Technique is the ability to execute the musical ideas in your brain. If you memorize a lot of patterns, and play them over and over until they are very fast, you will be able to play with fluidity. Most people are impressed by fluid playing, but the content of your ideas is important also. For much of my playing life, I have worked on my ideas more than on my technique. More recently I have concentrated more on technique, and I've also tried to integrate the two, with excellent results. The goal is to develop your ideas, and develop the technique to execute them. If you can play everything you have in your mind, then you don't need to work on your technique. If you only have two or three musical ideas to play, you should be working on developing more ideas. The best way to do this is by studying other musicians, looking for ideas you can steal from them.

I try to work up technique exercises that have interesting musical ideas. This way I am developing in both areas at once-- as you should also. Whenever possible, the exercises I post will be good for your technique and for your ideas.


(MORE)