Beatles Epiphone Casinos

[Dennis G]

"Style" indeed! His Slide work' date=' later, was brilliant! So melodic, and as always, tasty!

And, quite often, in standard tuning!

CB[/quote']

His son Dhani was quoted in a recent article (Guitar Player???) that a lot of people didn't realize just how good of a slide player ol' George was.

[cookieman15061]

As to George's "Lead work' date='"....I loved it! The economy, and tastefulness. It was never

"too much" or over the top, but always right, for the song! No one can doubt Paul's

bass or guitar playing ability. After all, he was a guitar player, first! And, played bass,

more like a "lead guitar," in phrasing, and his runs. But, I've always loved George's leads.

Even enjoyed John's "primitive leads" (his words), as well. They were all "just right," for

that "group" as a whole. Paul always was the more accomplished "musician," and multi-

instrumentalist. But, I can't imagine they would have done as well, as a group, without

any one of them. They were, a "Perfect (musical) Storm!" At least, in my opinion.

 

CB[/quote']

 

Yep.

[pohatu771]

I know knocking on Paul is the "cool" thing to do, but he openly admits that other people know more about that band he was in than he does.

 

My entire post was pulled from Beatles Gear - it's a great book. I didn't know until I finished it that Andy Babiuk lives here in Rochester and works/worked at House of Guitars.

[Lord Summerisle]

I know knocking on Paul is the "cool" thing to do' date=' but he openly admits that other people know more about that band he was in than he does. [/quote']

 

And I somehow both pity and envy him for that fact!

 

...I'd love to be in a position where music magazines were noting:

 

"At this point in [Month] [Day] 199_ Lord Summerisle was seen to set aside the Yamaha Pacifica he'd been using up until that time, and took the stage with a Japanese Fender Jaguar in Candy-Apple Red (with matching headstock). He used this guitar up until [Month] [Day] 200_ when, (according to popular rumor), his ex-girlfriend seized it in lieu of rent, and (spitefully, the b*tch), gave it to her brother."

 

...like I said, I'd love to be in a position where musicologists were paying that much attention to my guitars. But I sure as hell wouldn't want to have to fill in the blanks for them...

[Lord Summerisle]

"Style" indeed! His Slide work' date=' later, was brilliant! So melodic, and as always, tasty!

CB[/quote']

 

Of the two great guitarists in the two great British bands of the 1960s, I think Brian Jones was by far the better slide player.

 

...but (from what I've read) George Harrison was by far the nicer human being...

[byrds1965]

Of all the Beatles Harrison was the most gear minded of the group.

 

John and Paul pretty much stuck with the same things.

 

I would guess Paul wanted an electric and bought one not having owned one since Hamburg.

 

As to Vox not being well known. Vox was the Fender of the UK at the time and the Beatles wanted them because the Shadows had them. The AC30 was built for them. The Vox line that follows for the Beatles.

 

On guitar Harrison was the most accomplished of the group. Paul can pretty much play anything but not guitar on the same level as Harrison. Not taking anything away from Paul's leads but Harrison knew the guitar and could play a solo fit to any style you throw at him. That takes knowledge.

 

If you know any of Harrison's songs, the changes, keys, and voicings he used shows his deep knowledge of the guitar. Though he would never call himself a proper guitarist.

 

The Hamburg recordings are pretty rough but Harrison 1962 could hang with the best then, but changing to a studio band he became a "bit" player and that is very hard and very few can make the transition from thowing out one line after another to playing parts that fit and can't be taken from the whole without a huge loss.

 

Jerry: the song "rubber band" quote in mind is from the 1963 "One After 909" session. Harrison, Paul and Ringo all had a bad day that day and Lennon let them all have it if you have the bootlegs. No one excepting Lennon seemed to be able to play the song that day.

[Parabar]

While we're on the topic, it's worth noting that the Beatles used their Gibson J-160's quite a lot in the studio. Both John and George had them, and though they are built like acoustic guitars, they had built-in pickups at the neck that gave a warm, rich electric hollow body tone. The feedback on "I Feel Fine" came from John's J-160. Both John's Rickenbacker 325 and George's Gretsch Country Gent and Tennesseean were hollow bodied guitars too (though without f-holes), so hollow body tone was already a well-established part of the Beatles' sound by the time Paul bought his Casino.

[Red 333]

 

My entire post was pulled from Beatles Gear - it's a great book. I didn't know until I finished it that Andy Babiuk lives here in Rochester and works/worked at House of Guitars.

 

Since you mentioned it, "Beatles' Gear" is being offered as a free bonus when you buy an Inspired by 1964 Texan from Musician's Friend. Thought I'd mention it to anyone who hasn't seen the latest catalog.

 

Red 333

[taxman]

Come on, folks, let's get real here. George a great lead player?????

 

George may have become a fine lead player, but his work with The Beatles (especially the early days) is at times laughably lame. For the most part a lead to George meant just mimic the vocal line from the verse. And just listen to his "lead" in "Dizzy Miss Lizzy" - probably the worst moment in lead guitarist history. There is absolutely nothing there. I swear a kid who has been playing guitar for five days can do that, hell, can probably do better.

 

Yes, the "Till There Was You" lead is very fine, but there are far more head-scratching George leads than good ones. He was a weak lead player. I sometimes imagine how much better these already great songs would have been if a real talent on lead guitar had a go at them.

 

George's strong suit became his songwriting. "Taxman" has as much bite as anything John ever could do; "Something" is more beautiful than anything Paul could ever do. And the lp "All Things Must Pass" is about as great as any album could ever be.

[cookieman15061]

Come on' date=' folks, let's get real here. George a great lead player?????

 

George may have become a fine lead player, but his work with The Beatles (especially the early days) is at times laughably lame. For the most part a lead to George meant just mimic the vocal line from the verse. And just listen to his "lead" in "Dizzy Miss Lizzy" - probably the worst moment in lead guitarist history. There is absolutely nothing there. I swear a kid who has been playing guitar for five days can do that, hell, can probably do better.

 

Yes, the "Till There Was You" lead is very fine, but there are far more head-scratching George leads than good ones. He was a weak lead player. I sometimes imagine how much better these already great songs would have been if a real talent on lead guitar had a go at them.

[/quote']

 

Just your opinion and ya know everybodys got one but I couldn't agree less.

[charlie brown]

George's leads, were fitting of the songs, of the times! He was early influenced,

by Buddy Holly, Carl Perkins, Chet Atkins, among others. "Dizzy Miss Lizzy," was

a "cover!" If you listen to any other songs of the period, they were ALL pretty simple

("lame," was it?), by TODAY'S standards. Don't forget the era, and time frame, when

making comparisons. 20 year old George, as a guitarist, was not like a 20 year old,

"Rock God guitarist" now....with internet access, a myriad of on-line, and CD "how to play"

instructional videos, etc. We were lucky to find sheet music that was "correct" to the song,

and NOT transposed for so other instrument, mostly piano. He was a damned good player,

for the time, and his age...and just got better, and better, as they went along. I'm not saying

he was the "Best," or "greatest" living Guitar God (I think Clapton had that moniker attached to

him, just a bit later), but...he did beautiful, and very tasty leads...simple or otherwise! The other

thing is..."simple" doesn't always translate to bad! Sometimes, as anyone who has tried to play

a Beatles song, Exactly, can tell you...simple can be damned difficult to copy..exactly. And there

was always a lot more going on, in his fills, besides, that so many people either completely miss,

or ignore..that absolutely MAKE the song! Let's not forget his extensive use of jazz "naughty"

chords, in the Beatles, and his own personal work! No one, in Rock, was doing that, before they

did it...certainly not to that extent, anyway. George knew guitar!!

 

As to George's slide work? Unique! Better or worse, than someone else, isn't the point! His was quite

original, in style...and very beautiful, too. Not just well executed "blues" slide...but much more melodic.

That doesn't take anything away from any other amazing slide, or even "lead" guitar players.

Obviously, some of us here, enjoyed his work, much more, than some other people. And...That's Fine!

 

Peace...

CB

[mamm7215]

Good reply. I defy ANY modern solo or group guitarist these days (or the last 20 or so years) to make a musical statement like George's Something guitar work...

[bluesman345]

George's leads' date=' were fitting of the songs, of the times! He was early influenced,

by Buddy Holly, Carl Perkins, Chet Atkins, among others. "Dizzy Miss Lizzy," was

a "cover!" If you listen to any other songs of the period, they were ALL pretty simple

("lame," was it?), by TODAY'S standards. Don't forget the era, and time frame, when

making comparisons. 20 year old George, as a guitarist, was not like a 20 year old,

"Rock God guitarist" now....with internet access, a myriad of on-line, and CD "how to play"

instructional videos, etc. We were lucky to find sheet music that was "correct" to the song,

and NOT transposed for so other instrument, mostly piano. He was a damned good player,

for the time, and his age...and just got better, and better, as they went along.[/quote']

 

AMEN TO THAT, CB!!! Come to think of it, MOST of the music from the '50's and '60's was pretty basic, almost "primitive" compared to exponential advancements in music today. I honestly believe that any teenager who picks up a guitar and practices seriously for 6 months will probably play circles around me. And I have been playing (not WELL, but playing) for coming on 43 years.

 

In George's case, his playing was tasteful and complemented the "whole" of the sound - he was not one to "showboat". To me, much guitar playing in the music of the last few years has just been a colossal ego trip - even the way most of these guys hold the guitar is obviously "phallic", just like their personalities.

 

I'm just saying...

[taxman]

If you listen to any other songs of the period, they were ALL pretty simple by TODAY'S standards.

 

Come to think of it, MOST of the music from the '50's and '60's was pretty basic, almost "primitive" compared to exponential advancements in music today.

Simple? Primitive? Come on, please put on "Rock Around The Clock" and listen to that lead. Fifty years later that lead still is hard to top. And how can you talk of music from that era being simple and mention Chet Atkins in the same paragraph? Time period has nothing to do with this discussion. There were some fine players laying down some fine leads back then. Scotty Moore would agree with that. Music was simple back then??? No, George's approach to a lead was simple.

 

Hey, not really a problem, the strength of The Beatles songs covered up for his simple playing. And, as I said, George became a great player. His was just on the job training....with about a billion people listening and watching. Tough situation for someone so young.

 

Look, no disrespect to others' opinions, but I have really never come across those who say that George's early Beatle days was stellar lead playing.

[charlie brown]

Ok...you don't care for George's early playing. We get it. I/We will just have to agree, to disagree.

And..."Chet Atkins" was only referenced as one of George's heros, influences. Not to be meant

as an example of 'simplisit playing!" There have always been great players, in every era. A lot

of them, we'll never know about, simply because they never got "famous."

"Stellar Lead Playing" (to me), has always been about what fits the song, first and foremost.

It's never been about what's more complicated, speedy, full of notes, etc.

And...when you think of how much a perfectionist, Paul has always been...I seriously doubt,

he, or even John, would have put up with such an incompetent, in that area. They certainly

had plenty of good/great guitarist, even in the Hamburg days, to replace him with, if he was

so "lame!" But, you're correct, in the fact that he grew...as they all did, as players and song

writers.

 

CB

[Red 333]

Looking back from today's viwepoint, it's easy to think of early lead playing as simple, but you have to look at from the perspective of those early players themselves, and look forward.

 

Early leads were played on the guitar, while later ones were played on the amplifier to some some extent. That's a big difference.

 

Early lead players knew that their solos were going to be heard nakedly, through relatively clean amps, and had to cut through the mix (so they were more stacatto), so their arrangements reflected that fact. Later, as amps evolved, guitarists could utilize distortion, more volume, other benefits that changed and shaped their tone, and that changed the way leads were imagined and played.

 

You can follow that evolution right through The Beatle's music.

 

Red 333

[charlie brown]

And, even their choices, in guitars, from early on, to the later years.

 

CB

[taxman]

Excellent post, Red 333. That's a good way of looking at it. The growing advancements in sound actually allowed players to imagine different approaches to that solo break of theirs.

[Red 333]

And' date=' even their choices, in guitars, from early on, to the later years.

 

CB[/quote']

 

Exactly.

[Red 333]

That's a good way of looking at it. The growing advancements in sound actually allowed players to imagine different approaches to that solo break of theirs.

 

Same as it ever was. Like how Baroque music is written for the limitations of the harpiscord and valveless trumpet, while Romantic period music takes advantage of the technolgical advances in the piano, a growing valve-enabled brass instrument family, even the design of the concert halls.

 

Red 333

[Lord Summerisle]

...hmmm...

 

Not wishing to "stir things up" here (because I am actually a huge admirer of George Harrison and his work)...

 

...but I listened to a couple of things back to back today, and found it quite illustrative.

 

If you listen to this recording you can certainly hear the young George Harrison:

 

 

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9FacSNRBHk[/YOUTUBE]

 

 

...but it sort of pales in comparison with another young British guitarist of that time, who was only 18 months older than Harrison, and who somehow played far more authoritatively (and proficiently) in that style:

 

 

 

[YOUTUBE]

[/YOUTUBE]

 

 

 

...this isn't knocking George Harrison. I think it just took him a while to find his "voice" as a lead guitarist. I like to think that first emerged with the added 6th chord that ends She Loves You...

[cookieman15061]

I know I always got much better in a year and a half.

[charlie brown]

Lennon always stated, that The Beatles best (early) stuff, was never recorded! Maybe, that goes for George's

(early) best, too?! ;>)

 

Even so, I've always liked what he did...BUT, maybe it's because I grew up, with it...and, my progression, in style

was along the same lines? Even if not, at the same level of quality? LOL

 

CB

[leicester35]

...hmmm...

 

Not wishing to "stir things up" here (because I am actually a huge admirer of George Harrison and his work)...

 

...but I listened to a couple of things back to back today' date=' and found it quite illustrative.

 

If you listen to this recording you can certainly hear the young George Harrison:

 

...but it sort of pales in comparison with another young British guitarist of that time, who was only 18 months older than Harrison, and who somehow played far more authoritatively (and proficiently) in that style:

 

[/quote']

 

 

So let me get this right. You are comparing (unfavourably) the guy who was the lead guitarist in the Beatles, who went on to write and record "While my guitar gently weeps," "Something," and who subsequently released "All things must pass" with..............eeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrr............the bloke who made a 50 year career out of playing "Apache" and lounge versions of "Cavatina" (neither of which he wrote).