One guitar, or three?


Many fans of Rock music guitar playing consider the players who were the only guitarist in their band "the best": Jimi Hendrix (in The Experience), Eric Clapton (in Cream), Jeff Beck (post-Yardbirds), Jimmy Page, Billy Gibbons (ZZ Top), Eddie Van Halen, Stevie Ray Vaughan, the clown in Black Sabbath, etc. etc.

I on the other hand have a love of not the classic 2-guitar line-up (The Beatles, Stones, Rockpile, etc.)---good as that can be---, but of 3-guitar bands: Buffalo Springfield, Moby Grape, Fleetwood Mac in their Peter Green/Danny Kirwin/Jeremy Spencer period, and The Flamin’ Groovies in the Shake Some Action album era.

Three guitars is even more musical than two, and far more so than one. All kinds of little song parts are possible with three musical instruments, and Springfield and The Grape really exploited the possibilities. One guitar is so, well, 1-dimensional. Sure, on recordings the single guitarist in a band can recorded multiple parts, but "lead" guitarists rarely think in "song part" terms, but instead in "guitar chops" terms. Know what I mean?

I bought the first two albums by both Cream and Hendrix when they were released, and saw both live twice in 1967 and ’68. But the music of both got old pretty quickly, I losing interest after those albums. You may disagree. ;-)

Now, one guitar is fine if you have other musical instruments (bass and drums can be played musically, but they aren’t "chordal" instruments), such as piano and/or organ. Two of Rock ’n’ Roll’s most musical ensembles had both piano and organ, and only one guitar: The Band and Procol Harum. Those bands also had great songs. Coincidence?

If anyone has other 3-guitar bands/groups to recommend, I’m all ears.

128x128bdp24

@bdp24 

OK. . . but the sound of horns is not restricted to "squawking". There are folk singers whose off-key singing can be plenty dissonant. If you are asserting that Jazz is inherently dissonant or hectic, I can't agree, unless you're talking about Free Jazz, which is indeed, too "squawky" , "hectic" and dissonant for my taste. We all like what we like and I'd never suggest to anyone that their taste is "wrong". At the same time, your characterization of Jazz does seem inaccurate to me, based upon what I've heard over some 40 years of listening to it.

 

 

 

 

@stuartk: My original statement reads: "Most Jazz doesn’t speak to me". That was of course a generalization. Jazz music tends to not give me what I’m looking for musically, not as much as do other genres.

I listen for for and respond to first form: great chord progressions. melodies, harmonies, etc. The Jazz I don’t relate to is focused on other musical elements, predominantly the improvisational skills of the musicians. Yes, Bluegrass does too, but that is in addition to the other things I crave musically. Plus, as I said, Bluegrass instruments are more pleasing to me in terms of timbre than is most Jazz. Plus there are those vocal harmonies! A lot of Jazz lacks vocals; in a lot of my favorite music the instruments' primary contribution to the music is that of support for the vocals. Three is a lot of Jazz for which that is not the case.

Now, there is Jazz I like, names you would expect: Count Basie (man did his band swing!), Ellington, Mose Allison, Ray Charles, early Big Joe Turner, Cab Calloway. Composers including Irving Berlin, Bernstein, Gershwin, etc.

Early in The Stones career, Mick Jagger sang "It’s the singer, not the song". I very much disagree. Dylan once responded to a reporter’s demand that he define himself by facetiously characterizing himself as "A song and dance man". I’m not interested in dance, but am a song fanatic. Too much of Jazz treats the musical form as a mere excuse for the playing of instruments. Again, a broad generalization. The Jazz of which that is not true I like; that which is I don’t. I hope I succeeded in being more clear this time ;-) .

@bdp24

When it comes to Bluegrass I am definitely of two minds.I don't listen to Bluegrass very much when I crank up the stereo but I do actually play a lot of it.

It tends to be the genre my fingers automatically gravitate to when I pick up my admittedly Bluegrass-centric musical instruments -- fiddle, banjo and steel-string acoustic guitar. It is fun as heck to go to Bluegrass jams. By the same token, however, more often than not Bluegrass players tend to be cold technicians who value flash & cliche over heart & finesse. There's a sameness to the chosen tempo(s) and touch that drives me crazy.

I might mention, too, that the folks who play what is Bluegrass' precursor, Old Time, genuinely hate what is designated Bluegrass. It's kind of funny to hang out & play alongside both crowds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@bdp24 

"Now, there is Jazz I like, names you would expect: Count Basie (man did his band swing!), Ellington, Mose Allison, Ray Charles, early Big Joe Turner, Cab Calloway. Composers including Irving Berlin, Bernstein, Gershwin, etc."

I apologize for my carelessness in making false assumptions. 

No excuse, but I suspect I was feeling a bit triggered and "protective" of a genre that seems to have very few fans. In other words, I somehow misread your words as a broad attack on the genre as a whole.  

"I listen for for and respond to first form: great chord progressions. melodies, harmonies, etc."

This is true for me, as well. I enjoy improvisation but please (!) give me a nicely crafted melody as a jumping off point, and some actual chord changes, not just a hip riff or a two-chord vamp, repeated ad nauseum. Jazz seems to be heading increasingly away from melody and chord changes, unfortunately. 

"Plus, as I said, Bluegrass instruments are more pleasing to me in terms of timbre than is most Jazz". 

A matter of personal taste, and therefore, inarguable.

"Jazz music tends to not give me what I’m looking for musically, not as much as do other genres."

It only makes sense for each of us to "follow our bliss" when it comes to aesthetic experiences. 

I enjoy your contributions, even if I occasionally have a strange way of showing it ;o)