Tuesday, February 24, 2009

PETER GREEN VS. CLAPTON



Just picked up an interesting collection on early fleetwood mac.

It's called " the pious bird of good omen." Oddly, the track listing on the back is wrong, and the album includes a few of their best tracks, padded out with a bunch of outtakes, false start takes, etc. many of which have killer Peter Green playing. It's also a fascinating window into their recording process, communication, etc.

I bought this against my better judgment, as the online review was lukewarm at best, and it turned out to be an amazing find. It's a mixed bag, but it's really got some great stuff on there. After listening to this a few times, here's my new, polished take on the clapton vs. peter green debate--



1. Clapton has two or three albums worth of really top level playing, with a boatload of great phrasing and melodic ideas, plus some of the best guitar sounds in rock history. Essential listening.

2. Peter Green has as much technique as Clapton (if that matters), also with great sounds, and is arguably more emotionally intense and soulful than Clapton. His best work is also essential listening. I wouldn't call him "better" than Clapton, but Clapton partisans need to take Green into account-- He definitely makes it impossible to rate Clapton as the runaway best white British blues guitarist.

So, for what it's worth, here's my boiled-down take. I listen to Peter Green for the emotional intensity, and Clapton for phrasing and note choice.

(MORE)

Monday, February 23, 2009

PEDAL SHOOTOUTS-- PROS AND CONS


There are an unholy amount of guitar pedals available today. Overdrive, distortion, fuzz, etc., etc. It's not uncommon for a guitarist to own several of each kind of pedal. (My colleague Andy has observed that my collection of five different fuzz pedals is absurd overkill; I probably shouldn't tell him I'm considering buying more.) Many talented designers and modification gurus are building great stuff, and modifying generic assembly-line pedals to make them better than what you buy at the store.

The internet has helped this world of boutique pedals grow, until we have a bewildering array of variety out there, and a bewildering number of ways people can throw their two cents into the discussion. I've spent probably more than fifty hours online, watching demo clips, reading reviews, searching through forum chats, and trying to absorb all kinds of endless babble about all the pedals I can choose from. I've bought a huge pile of pedals, and mostly been happy with them. I want to talk here about the phenomenon of the "pedal shootout."



You see these clips on youtube where a guy plays through one pedal, then another, and talks about the pros and cons of each. As I'm about to make some critical generalizations about these shootout posters, let me offer a disclaimer upfront. I respect anyone who's gone to the trouble of trying out these different pieces of gear, and filming themselves demonstrating them. It takes a lot of work, and although I'm thinking about doing something similar, at this point I haven't done it. That said, I have some problems with the pedal shootout, in theory and practice.
Many of these clips suffer from pretty serious flaws-- as the commenters crassly observe, again and again. Some of these flaws are more cosmetic than significant (i.e. clip has too much unnecessary information about the player's personal life, dead time while player talks to his dog who wanders into the shot, etc. My pet peeve is the strange need many rock guitarists have to keep saying how much something rocks, or just to endlessly slip in tiresome verbal idioms to remind all of us that he is a "rock" musician). Beyond the numerous time-wasting indulgences, there is a more serious problem with the whole idea of comparing pedals individually.

I've found that many pedals sound best in conjunction with other pedals. The most obvious example is fuzz pedals; pedals like the Tone Bender and the Fuzz Face are nasty and obnoxious by nature, and they can often be more useful when mellowed out in combination with another kind of pedal. I typically combine a fuzz with an overdrive such as a Tube Screamer. I like the abrasive kind of in-your-face fuzz sound you hear on garage punk records like the Count Five's "Psychotic Reaction," but I don't usually need that kind of extreme sound in my own music. Blended with a Tube Screamer, a fuzz can become much less harsh. You can end up with a pretty warm sound if you experiment along these lines. Because overdrives are generally trying to mimic the sound of a cranked tube amp, I figure running a Screamer with a Fuzz Face is just approximating what Jimi Hendrix or Jeff Beck would have been doing when they stepped on a fuzz pedal.

Because the shootouts generally show you what a pedal sounds like by itself, it's not a complete picture of what a pedal can do for you. Where some pedals sound better, or at least different with another pedal in the chain, there are also some pedals that sound best alone. Compression, for example, tends to wipe out much of what I like about other pedals. Once I started combining pedals in various ways, and getting great sounds by mixing and matching, a pedal that doesn't "play well with others" started looking less useful to me. Maybe the things I'm talking about here are too complex for a three minute youtube clip to convey, but I am going to try to get into some of these issues myself when I eventually buy a webcam. Don't look for this soon, but it is something I'm planning to do.

The last issue is one that matters a lot to me; others may be less concerned. Most, if not all, of the youtube pedal demos involve guitarists playing in styles pretty different from mine. In some cases it seems to me the player is not using the pedal to its best advantage. Not to say that the playing is bad-- (although some of it arguably is) but rather that these players seem to be asking the pedal to work with their style, rather than the other way around. (This, incidentally, is part of the reason for a lot of bad reviews on harmonycentral.com.) Pedals are musical instruments, and you need to learn how to work with them to get the best sound out of them. Of course, this is very subjective and my idea of "best sound" might not be yours. (For example, in general I prefer to avoid chords when I'm playing through a cranked-up fuzz. A fuzz pedal demo that consists mostly of a guy playing really ratty-sounding chords is not such a good indicator for me of what the pedal can do.) I tend to start by looking at what someone like Beck or Hendrix was doing. I figure that Jeff Beck in the late sixties was spending a lot of time at home, playing through a Tone Bender and trying different pick attacks, muting techniques, volume knob adjustments, etc. He was also probably trying different kinds of musical lines, to see how different notes and rhythms worked with the sound of the pedal. Beck's playing style changed and grew to accommodate the strengths and weaknesses of a fuzz pedal; thus, I can learn a lot from his example. In the end, I don't want to just play a bunch of Yardbirds licks on my own records, but if I investigate the kind of muting Beck used, for example, I can get a better tone myself. From there I can go in any musical direction I want. Most of the youtube fuzz demos are guys playing generic hard rock/metal licks that don't (to me) suit the fuzz sound very well. I'll mention one specific thing here-- Beck made rests a big part of his style. I think this was to give the listener's ear a break, in part. In the Yardbirds and in his early post-Yardbirds career, Beck often relied on the device of playing an intense short idea, then cutting off the sound abruptly. This is a very dramatic effect; it allows the listener a chance to absorb the often gnarly sounds he's just heard. By contrast, modern guitarists often avoid rests almost entirely. When they run out of things to play, they either play the same idea again and again ad nauseam, or hold a note with sledgehammer vibrato. This is the kind of playing I hear on the rare occasions I wander into a place like Guitar Center. Too often, I hear the same thing on youtube clips, and on commercially released modern rock records.

(MORE)

Thursday, February 19, 2009

JOHN CIPOLLINA


I've been listening to Quicksilver Messenger Service, the 60's San Francisco band that has been mostly forgotten. I think their second-tier status is due to this-- all the bands from that scene that broke through commercially had quality material (at least enough quality to have a few hits) or a singer that really stood out. Even the Grateful Dead, not known for their writing, had enough decent material to shore up the intermittently interesting noodling. Quicksilver's virtues are more abstract-- accounting for their neglect. The hippie bands of that era often featured long improv interludes in their work, especially live. Quicksilver, unlike most of those groups, did something pretty interesting with this approach. On the surface, their sound is pretty boilerplate Frisco-- a bland, folkie-type vocal sound on top of a competent (but not earthshaking) rhythm section, and twin lead guitars. The twin guitars are the attraction for me-- especially the mostly ignored John Cipollina.



Years ago, when I was working with local legend Kim Kane, he told me my guitar playing reminded him of Cipollina, and it took me til now to actually listen to Quicksilver. Now that I've heard a bunch of their stuff, I realize that his observation was perceptive, and also high praise. Check out the numerous live recordings on wolfgang's vault.
This one is from the period when they were collecting live recordings for the "Happy Trails" album, and has few of the debits mentioned below.
concerts.wolfgangsvault.com/dt/quicksilver-messenger-service-concert/604-5673.html

In general, if you can listen past the pretty white vocals, and often lame songs, you'll find a lot of great Cipollina. (A warning-- there are a lot of badly dated elements in their sound-- the embarrassing white r&b singing, pseudo-profound hippie-dippy writing, etc.) I think what Kim Kane heard in my playing twenty years ago, bad and limited as it was, was a combination of fuzztone and melody. Cipollina is an appealing mixture of those two elements; he's mostly known for his aggressive whammy bar vibrato technique, but I love the organic blend of melody and trashiness. Cipollina uses short ideas, avoiding both indulgent virtuosity and aimless noodling. He also goes back and forth between trash and twang, an important distinction when you're talking about the virtues of blues guitar. These days most blues-influenced and blues-rock players tend to go for a heavily overdriven "singing" kind of tone. I love that, but at its extreme that kind of approach can erase some of the individuality of a player-- the more gain you use, the less your picking attack can control your sound. Cipollina loved playing with a dark fuzz sound at the brink of feedback-- he'd let the feedback swell briefly, then he'd pull it back and play something more melodic. It was a subtly brilliant style, and I'm now trying to figure out what I can steal from him. (Incidentally, much of what's cool about his playing is probably the result of him listening to a lot of Bo Diddley. The Quicksilver album "Happy Trails" has a whole bunch of live extended jamming over Bo Diddley grooves, and the rich variety of Cipollina's guitar tones and ideas is indebted to Diddley's example. On some live material, Cipollina will combine guitar/amp effects to yield some pretty ripe sounds, and it's fair to say that in this he was following in Diddley's footsteps. Known mostly for his rhythms, Diddley was arguably the first real tone colorist among rock and roll guitarists. Well before Hendrix and Jeff Beck, Diddley was building and blending his own electronic effects, and his tone was often thick enough that he could play guitar unaccompanied and still sound like a whole rock band.)

(MORE)

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

PEDAL MODIFICATIONS (MODS)


Here's a guest editorial (from colleague Scott McKnight) on the subject of modified pedals, or "modded" pedals for those of you who get tired of saying (or typing) long words like "modification".

I've written a bit about this topic, and everything I know is based on my experience having my pedals modified by "Analog Mike" Pieri at analogman.com. I have nothing but positive things to say about Mike's quality work; I think the sound coming out of my amp is better than it ever was before I started using buying stuff from analogman.

However-- the work of Mike Pieri (and other established online guys like Robert Keeley)
is not cheap. I do think Mike's work is worth the money, for two main reasons. You know you'll get quality, and the pedals will have good resale value. (A side note-- I suspect, based on the endless reading I've done on the analogman site, that there are some very specific modifications that he can make that would be slightly better, or at least different, from what you could get from any other individual. This is because he has a lot of time invested in R&D, and has some personal approaches on some pedals. I do not claim to be able to tell the difference with stuff like this, by the way. I admit to taking much of what Mike Pieri says on faith. If you boil down my take on it, it comes to this-- I know that there are guys out there, Arch Alcantara being one of them, that can do quality work on your pedals, and you will be happy with this work, and you will save some money. Whether Arch, or anyone else, can literally offer you every single thing Analog Mike can, I don't know but I doubt it.) Nevertheless, most people who play guitar know that "worth the money" and "affordable" are often two different things. For this reason, I'm passing along the thoughts of my colleague Scott McKnight. If analogman and Keeley are out of your price range, you may want to talk to someone like Arch Alcantara, who has done some excellent modification work on pedals in the D.C. area. (Incidentally, analogman pedal mod work for me did not involve long wait times; the turnaround was pretty quick, even with the shipping time included.)

"I think there are two basic aspects/benefits to modded pedals. The first is a fairly objective improvement achieved when cheap parts are replaced with better ones. The sound is more hi-fi, you tend to get more ability to control the sound with how you play. This is due largely to decreased compression and wider frequency range. I think modded pedals sound more clear and less artificial. People tend to think that modded Boss/Ibanez/etc. pedals sound and feel more like going straight into an amp. The second aspect/benefit is more subjective. Modders may change the pedal to emphasize certain frequencies or otherwise change aspects of the sound. An example is getting rid of the classic mid-range hump in the Tubescreamer pedals. Another would be changing a pedal from symmetrical to asymmetrical clipping or vice versa. With these, one person's idea of an improvement may not be another's.

Guys like Keeley and Analogman deserve props for realizing that pedals can be modified fairly easily to obtain significant improvement in sound. These guys were the explorers that lead the way. That said, there are a lot of people who can mod pedals based on the knowledge that's available out there on the 'net, and their own experimenting. There are people who can modify pedals much less expensively than the famous guys. Advantages of using the famous guys is that you can be sure they know what they're doing, and (I assume) resale values hold up pretty well. Disadvantages include higher costs, shipping charges and long wait times. Assuming a local modder doesn't damage the pedal, I don't see any real downside in finding someone locally to do it, or doing it yourself if you're pretty handy.

I have a friend and bandmate by the name of Arch Alcantara who got into modding pedals. He's done several for me. These pedals include three overdrives, a distortion, a tremolo and a wah-wah pedal. His prices have been very reasonable and I've been very happy with the mods he's done. I've loaned some of these to several friends and every time they rave about them and want one of their own. Arch can be reached at arch@electricheadguitar.com.

-Scott McKnight

(MORE)

Monday, February 2, 2009

PETER GREEN AND DANNY KIRWAN

I've had less spare time than usual for posting lately, so fortunately my man in the field, Charlie McCardell, forwarded me this clip of the early Fleetwood Mac.

This group, one of the best white blues bands ever, always gets overshadowed or overlooked for various reasons. This undeserved obscurity sometimes leads to partisan bickering amongst fans, as people feel the need to say that the underrated Peter Green is better than Clapton, or that the twin guitar team of Green and Danny Kirwan is better than the Allman Brothers, etc. I'm not sure any of these guys are "better" than each other; they've all done excellent work when they were in their prime. Let's just say that Green has all the technique of the early Clapton, with an intense and personal emotional sound. Kirwan might have been better known if he'd been in a different band.


A personal note about my own playing-- years ago, Paul DeBlois (my boss at the time) told me that anyone who wanted to learn about stringbending should study Kirwan's playing on Fleetwood Mac's "Jigsaw Puzzle Blues." I took his advice, and I now pass the same advice along to anyone reading this!

I'd like to add that, listening to this track for the first time in years, I was shocked (but pleasantly!) to hear how much I stole from Danny Kirwan. Here he is playing Django-esque ideas, but with string-bending and a semi-dirty tone. Upon reflection, I realize that this description could apply to a fair amount of my own playing. The main difference when I play is, I'm not as good at it as he was. So, while Kirwan is essentially an also-ran guitarist, this is merely due to his being overshadowed by the stunning Green. Kirwan's virtues include charm, understatement, and wit, none of which are elements most rock fans are looking for in a guitar hero. If I have any of these attributes in my own playing, I thank Danny Kirwan. (I thank Paul Deblois also, for telling me about this recording years ago.)


(MORE)