Warren wrote:
I never said self-taught guitarists are incapable of being good band members, just that, in general, they're the least focused on what is good for the band. Like any generalisation, it can be disproved with some simple examples. Andy Summers was a self taught guitarist too, but The Police were not a power trio: they went a different route, adding plenty of space to their music.
Andy Summers was actually a pretty experienced player by the time he started playing with The Police.
I think that any of the top bands have necessarily worked out a system where each player has their space. But the average garage band is quite the opposite.
Sure, but most bands who get to the stage of playing the better clubs and attracting interest from record companies have come through the mill already. A lot of bands don't get very far - for various reasons - and that tends to separate the wheat from the chaff.
When you compare the average bedroom guitarist with musicians who cut their teeth playing in church bands, or school bands or jazz bands etc. it's very easy to see the difference between the two: the latter have learned to be sensitive to each instrument or voice (even if they don't realise it), whereas the former is primarily worried about scales, riffs, power chords and tone, and is not particularly aware of what the bass, drums and vocalists are doing. ? I was exactly the same until I learned, from other band members, that an extremely simple pattern of notes which sounds almost laughable on its own can sound wonderful in the right mix. And, on the contrary, how a billion notes per second can spoil an otherwise great arrangement.
I think that's nothing to do with a genre and everything to do with playing in a bedroom rather than trying to play live and/or with other people.
I just happen to really respect musicians who are obviously very technically capable, but who exercise great restraint in their playing for the good of the song. Obviously there are plenty of counter-examples (in the guitar world especially) where very technically capable players constantly show off outstanding technique, all while remaining very musical (Paul Gilbert is my current favourite). Or players like Clapton or Hendrix who had a wild and unbridled style of music which was actually built around their personal sound and technique.
But we talk about those players a lot, whereas there is also plenty to lean from players like Stuart Matthewman or Andy Latimer or Lindsey Buckingham or even Andy Summers.
Oh sure. Jerry Douglas makes a point about Russ Barenberg on one of the Transatlantic Sessions DVDs: "He's a very tasteful player. He knows when to play and when not to play."
My introduction to Larry Carlton was the guitar solo on "Kid Charlemagne". Then I heard some of his solo stuff with lots of fireworks on it. THEN Steely Dan released
Aja and there was Larry again but playing lots of fab rhythm guitar. I was entranced, and fascinated that the guy who could pump out those high-octane solos could also lay back and play rhythm if that's what the song needed (or what the producer wanted).
But there's a context to this as well. When you go to see Clapton you EXPECT, indeed WANT to hear lots of guitar solos. It's part of the deal, and the backing musos will be the guys who exercise discretion and play to make the boss look good.
I can applaud both modes of operation. I like Richard Thompson as a songwriter, but when I went to see him with his band I WANTED lots of guitar solos (and got them). OTOH I was impressed by the way that Martin Carthy (when I saw him) was all about the song and the story in the song and even though he's a great player he seemed disinterested, maybe even reluctant to put his chops on display. Only right at the end of the show, the very last encore, did he let the fireworks off on an instrumental piece.
