Re: who's the better guitarist,Paul or George?
- From: fattuchus@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 18 Aug 2006 04:17:50 -0700
Dale Houstman wrote:
fatt wrote:
I understand what you are saying, but wouldn't you agree that two
different people can interpret the same facts differently?
Let's say it is true that George took a lot of time and great effort to
work out a guitar solo in the studio in the early days. A person who
didn't like George might describe such efforts as "he was fumble
fingered; he couldn't get it right; he was slow; he struggled, etc."
Another person might say, "George worked tirelessly to get the perfect
solo ; he was very fussy and meticulous; he tried hard, going through
many different possibilities to get just the right sound for Paul
and/or John's song."
IMHO Emerick did not like George, hence his perspective. His positive
comments came at the end of the book . . . . but for much of the book
Geoff was critical.
Paul was known to be quite perfectionistic . . . . he could do a song
or part of a song over and over and over again, sometimes driving the
others nuts. During Sgt. Pepper Paul would work late into the night
with Geoff to perfect the bass parts. Yet Geoff has great praise for
McCartney.
It is a matter of perspective and interpretation.
Yup. It is obvious that George worked hard to perfect his sound: his
earliest sound (live and on record) is clearly a sort of "stitched
together" and often rather clumsy evocation of Scotty Moore. On film, I
was amused [and simultaneously charmed] by his solos, which often seemed
to be "broken" rather awkwardly into two or three parts which he had
difficulty making into an effective whole. This soon gives way to a much
smarter sense of what constitutes an organic riff, achieved mainly
through (it appears to me) a simplification of his approach, settling
for a fluid entirety rather than a "wowser" of a performance. Even
later, he finally achieved his signature glissando style, which has been
very influential. It isn't Hendrix, but he seems to have found a very
effective use of what is a limited technical prowess. This sound is
usually used in a lyrical fashion, but it can be more "brawny" as is
heard on Lennon's "How Do You Sleep?" All this didn't come from merely
stumbling through a career.
dmh
Dale, I agree with your post. I have not seen the films you reference.
However your comments illustrate the point I am trying to make. You
look at George's early work as one looks at a glass that is "half
full." IMHO Emerick looks at George's early work and sees the glass as
half empty.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: who's the better guitarist,Paul or George?
- From: Dale Houstman
- Re: who's the better guitarist,Paul or George?
- References:
- who's the better guitarist,Paul or George?
- From: mccartney's_girl
- Re: who's the better guitarist,Paul or George?
- From: iarwain
- Re: who's the better guitarist,Paul or George?
- From: Runnnerr
- Re: who's the better guitarist,Paul or George?
- From: jt10824
- Re: who's the better guitarist,Paul or George?
- From: fattuchus
- Re: who's the better guitarist,Paul or George?
- From: Dale Houstman
- who's the better guitarist,Paul or George?
- Prev by Date: Re: The Beatles and cigarette smoking
- Next by Date: Mark Levisohn
- Previous by thread: Re: who's the better guitarist,Paul or George?
- Next by thread: Re: who's the better guitarist,Paul or George?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading