jon herington
Overlander
and the gear he uses? My searches have come up short and I can't seem to
remember the brand of amps he used at The Gorge.
Thanks
Steve_2000
I was on 'the Bare Midriff' side:) in Concord, but I could see
at least one of his amps, probably his main one.
It's a 'Guytron' half stack, an expensive handmade 'boutique'
amp that's known for it's unique design. It uses a small EL-84
tube driven class 'A' power amp-think classic 'Vox' sound-as
it's (easily and sweetly overdriven) preamp in the big 50/100w
head. The grindy 'class A influenced' sound is classic and very
cool for certain things. Drew Zingg used an ultimate full-on
class A amp-a 'Matchless'-during his time as their "Larry C/etc
parts" lead player.
Part of Jon's tone recipe is his use of a Gibson 335 on some
songs. That was Larry Carlton's signature guitar sound for his
work on the original recordings. Jon also gets very nice tones
from his significantly modified 3 pick-up 'tele'...some on songs
that the 335 would have seemed to have been the natural choice
for. Still fine though.
Walter appeared to have his usual (again, 'boutique'/high
quality) Bogner Ecstasy half stack as his main amp. Walter has
always been a clean toned player, generally (live) using the big
natural sound of a 'stratocaster' with the neck pick-up engaged-
although he uses a fine handcrafted Sadowsky custom guitar (sp)
as his main 'strat-like' stage instrument. Diane has put
together a nice page with pix of WB and these great instruments.
You can currently link to it from her NG posts.
Walter's tones range from fairly clean to only slightly edgy,
notably live on 'Cuz Dupree' he goes to the bridge pickup for
some grindy squonk-also possibly for 'parts' on other
tunes..'DTMA' etc.
Imo, WB would sound the way he does through many simple, full
toned, quality amplifiers. Having a wide tonal palette of
various overdrive and distorted flavors is not his thing. He's
totally about unique phrasing, note choice, musicality etc.
Walter has a very distinct voice on the instrument-the way
someone like BB King does, couple of notes or lines and you know
who's playing. Mark of a unique player/talent and totally
sublime to these ears.
In a recent email discussion, someone commented that with Larry
C's 70's work with SD, you got great *perfect for the song*
overdriven rock tones AND excellent 'note
choice/taste/musicality with blazing technique'...in one
package. That's a Nice package.
It's all subjective. I very much enjoyed the top notch guitar
work by both Walter and Jon the other night. They compliment
each other very well stylistically, it's all extremely tasty and
ultimately very musical playing.
Should also mention that each player had a large rack full of
processors, power conditioners, power amps etc. Current thinking
among many pro guitarists is to keep things as simple as
possible, especially in a very musical (non-effects or sonic
gimmicks) band like Steely Dan. I figure these equip racks were
necessary for their basic PA interfacing and stage monitoring.
imo
Steve
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Ian Stewart Cairns
I wonder if you could be more specific as to what it is about Walter's
playing you enjoy. I mean I hear people ramble on about his phrasing and so
on. But quantifiably speaking (insofar as these things are quantifiable),
what is it about his "phrasing" that appeals? Granted, his playing on Bad
Sneakers is spectacular (or, more accurately, spectacularly edited together
by Roger Nichols) and his Dave Gilmour-approved outro on FM is rather tasty
as is his noteworthy solo on Junkie Girl, but on the new album all he offers
us is ponderous pentatonic noodling. He just keeps on and on and on in every
song (excluding the best cut on the album - Negative Girl, where mercifully
he doesn't appear). He reminds me of a drunk at a party who keeps spewing
out the same joke over and over but doesn't realise that whilst we might
have enjoyed it the first time, it isn't funny anymore. We are bored stiff
of having to listen and want him to go away.
Live he is a joke. You can tell he doesn't know what the chords are (not
that he has the technique to finger them even if he did). His lush and
expensive-sounding tone is expressionless but that has less to do with his
real-dear-gear than with his inherent lack of musicality. I mean we all know
who the real talent was/is behind Steely Dan don't we? Take away Becker and
would anyone notice? I mean honestly?
Sorry if this offends, but in the opinion of this reviewer, Becker is a
minor-league talent. I am however, happy to hear any opinions to the
contrary.
Best,
Ian Stewart Cairns
P.S.(Not that I wish Walter any ill-will or anything, but would it be so
terrible if he were to break his arms on tour? It could even spur a new
fanzine; "Metal Arms" anyone?) ;-)
Marc Ziegenhagen
Stewart Cairns" <ian_stewa...@virgin.net> wrote:
>Live he is a joke. You can tell he doesn't know what the chords are (not
>that he has the technique to finger them even if he did). His lush and
>expensive-sounding tone is expressionless but that has less to do with his
>real-dear-gear than with his inherent lack of musicality. I mean we all know
>who the real talent was/is behind Steely Dan don't we? Take away Becker and
>would anyone notice? I mean honestly?
>
>Sorry if this offends, but in the opinion of this reviewer, Becker is a
>minor-league talent. I am however, happy to hear any opinions to the
>contrary.
>
>Best,
>Ian Stewart Cairns
>
>P.S.(Not that I wish Walter any ill-will or anything, but would it be so
>terrible if he were to break his arms on tour? It could even spur a new
>fanzine; "Metal Arms" anyone?) ;-)
Jesus that's horrible! I've got a great sense of humor, so I'll pretend
that was funny....but that was HORRIBLE!
To me, he plays every note from the heart. That's just how it strikes
me. There's obviously no accounting for taste, and opinions are like
assholes, but "a joke"? I certainly would like to hear what you could do
with those tunes in a live situation.
Rock on,
MZ
--
Email: substitute "dude" for "nospam".
Marc Ziegenhagen
Stewart Cairns" <ian_stewa...@virgin.net> wrote:
>Oh come on Marc, of course it was a joke. That's why I included the smiley.
<removing digital foot from digital mouth>
Steve_2000
going on for months for the very reason they it's all
subjective, and everyone is generally *right* or generally
*wrong* in subjective discussions-depending on who's writing and
who's reading.
I accidentally went against form (self-imposed) in mentioning my
opinions of his-to my ears-sublime bop style soloing on the
equipment post. It's totally, imo and just 'slipped out-or into
that post.' I still had a great Steely vibe going from having
just seen them live.
IMOHO, I really enjoy Walter's playing. To me it's a signature
style and sound...I think I mentioned one or two other non-flash
or technique players, like BB King who are instantly
recognizable and make many listeners feel good with their solos.
Some of these same guys get blasted by musicians or fans of
technique.
I personally like Walter's note choice and phrasing, playing
through the changes in his unique way etc. I think what he does
contrasts nicely with the "Larry C" (or as Frank Zappa used to
call them 'stunt guitar') players they include in the tour bands
to cover those parts.
Whether you like Walter live or on 2VN is subjective. I've
mentioned it before here (or possibly in emails), we can discuss
it to death (which I eventually chose to avoid, till my post-
concert 'slip' last week:) But in the end, the guys will do what
they do and you like whatever you like about it or you don't.
I enjoy Walter's playing for what it is and isn't.
My opinion:)
Steve_2000
I just read all of the..er..very provocative first post on this
thread, which also addresses Walter's overall contribution to SD
etc etc.
I'm assuming that is all covered by the 'later' smiley face
disclaimer as well, as I don't do flame-war stuff.
I thought parts of the guitar-style comments deserved a straight
up answer, since I'd gone and posted some opinion in that other
post.
Walter Becker is an absolutely essential part of Steely Dan in
all areas.
Happy to continue discussing it in email if you wish. Fireproof
environment and all that..
Steve 2k
tim r
Ian Stewart Cairns <ian_stewa...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:oz215.7403$fu1.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> Great post Steve!
>
> I wonder if you could be more specific as to what it is about Walter's
> playing you enjoy. I mean I hear people ramble on about his phrasing and
so
> on. But quantifiably speaking (insofar as these things are quantifiable),
> what is it about his "phrasing" that appeals? Granted, his playing on Bad
> Sneakers is spectacular (or, more accurately, spectacularly edited
together
> by Roger Nichols) and his Dave Gilmour-approved outro on FM is rather
tasty
> as is his noteworthy solo on Junkie Girl, but on the new album all he
offers
> us is ponderous pentatonic noodling. He just keeps on and on and on in
every
> song (excluding the best cut on the album - Negative Girl, where
mercifully
> he doesn't appear). He reminds me of a drunk at a party who keeps spewing
> out the same joke over and over but doesn't realise that whilst we might
> have enjoyed it the first time, it isn't funny anymore. We are bored stiff
> of having to listen and want him to go away.
>
> that he has the technique to finger them even if he did). His lush and
> expensive-sounding tone is expressionless but that has less to do with his
> real-dear-gear than with his inherent lack of musicality. I mean we all
know
> who the real talent was/is behind Steely Dan don't we? Take away Becker
and
> would anyone notice? I mean honestly?
>
> Sorry if this offends, but in the opinion of this reviewer, Becker is a
> minor-league talent. I am however, happy to hear any opinions to the
> contrary.
>
> Best,
> Ian Stewart Cairns
>
> P.S.(Not that I wish Walter any ill-will or anything, but would it be so
> terrible if he were to break his arms on tour? It could even spur a new
> fanzine; "Metal Arms" anyone?) ;-)
>
hiya Ian.
Walt is cool....what would steely dan be without em'.....?
they trade off each other, neither is perfect, maybe Walt is'nt as
visible as Don, but so what?
Not many guys can say they have stuck together for more than
30 years, and still obviously enjoy doin' what they do......
....enough to make another ace album.
they must be doin' something right, broken arms or whatever!
(btw ! 1 broken arm is fuckin' painful!)
catch ya later, ya (#:-}
tim r
Ian Stewart Cairns
Walter's broken leg during the making of Gaucho (which meant that he
couldn't play too much guitar on that album - the very splendid Steve Kahn
doing the honours).
Becker just isn't as talented a composer as Fagen. In the same way that
George Harrison wasn't as talented a songwriter as Lennon or Mcartney. Like
Harrison, he has his moments, just not as many. It isn't his fault and I
certainly don't hold it against him - hey, Fagen is one of the greatest
composers of modern pop music. Becker is an acid lyricist and pretty damn
good bassist. He just lacks Fagen's genius. No shame in that.
My favourite "Steely Dan"album is almost certainly "The Nightfly" What part
did Walter Becker play in that?
tim r <timre...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nwe15.4264$1y5.4...@news3.cableinet.net...
Mal
Mal
ti bon ange
>I always find it amusing when people trot out opinion as fact.
Well-said, Mal.
Ian, you do seem to be claiming some kind of inside knowledge
about the writing and composing process Walter and Donald use.
According to everything I've read (since 1974), you are entirely
incorrect.
Don and Walt's relationship appears to be greatly symbiotic.
It's alchemic. The two together become one productively creative
mind, yet each of them has his own strength. Until I heard
11TOW, I wondered what Walter's contribution was, also. Once I
got that CD, everything Steely Dan had done as a group fell into
place neatly. Walter's strengths lie in production and lyrics,
but he does much more than that. Donald's strengths lie in music
and arrangement, but he also does much more than that.
Even way back when, Denny Dias described them (essentially) as
being "two bodies sharing one brain." He said it differently
than that on the Aja documentary, but that was what he was going
for. And he knew them from the beginning.
Also, if you have a high opinion of Donald, you have to trust
his judgment when recalling how he and Walter got together at
Bard:
According to Fagan: "I walked into a room once, and he (Becker)
was playing this red Epiphone guitar, playing the blues. I said
to myself, 'I gotta talk to this guy.'" Becker
elaborated: "There was only one band on campus and that was
Donald's group. He had three guitarists and none of them was any
good. They would all strum the same chords in different time. So
I generously offered my services as lead guitarist." (From
the "Catalyst" liner notes, assembled by our own Dave Moore.)
As to the Nightfly, that is certainly Donald's own vision and
genius and has Donald's feel. It's one of the best albums of the
20th century, in my opinion. But even though it's Steely-
recognizable, it is Donald's own genius and inspiration. He said
more with that release--his magnum opus, without a doubt--than
he has ever said in Steely Dan. Nightfly was truly Donald's
Great American Novel, and he chose the players and arrangements
and came up with something unique. It doesn't demonstrate that
Donald is more talented than Walter. It simply demonstrates that
Donald had a burning vision, the same type that drives all great
artists. That doesn't mean that Walter doesn't have the same
vision, or won't do or hasn't done something as great as
Nightfly, singularly or cumulatively.
Anyway, you seem genuinely bugged by Walter's guitar stylings,
which may be limiting your ability to see Walter as a whole. You
don't like his tone or his choice of guitars, and you are
certainly entitled to your opinion on that. I feel the same way
about Jon Herington--he leaves me cold. Walter's style appeals
to something deep inside me because it's part of my ancient
past, subconscious preferences undoubtedly formed back in the
1950s and 1960s when I was a kid. He's the bastard child of Wes
Montgomery and B.B. King.
But to say he doesn't know his neck is just ridiculous. Do you
play guitar? I do, and there's no way you can make that
statement and be taken seriously. Walter is one with his
instrument; watching his fingering, compared to other
guitarists, is simply amazing. It's not unlike watching any
great Classical guitarist (and he often appears not to be using
a pick) or perhaps Django Reinhardt.
I'm not saying that Walter is up there in the guitar firmament.
I do find him to have a limited range--sorta like Donald's
limited vocal range. But what he does, the notes he hits and how
he hits them, is usually perfect for the music. His guitar solo
on What a Shame about Me, along with Donald's bare voice and the
lyrical imagery, make for a perfectly Steely marriage.
As far as joking about broken limbs, etc., I didn't find that
funny.
I have a great deal of respect for the people on this newsgroup,
including those several who gag on Walter's guitar-playing. But
if you start trying to build some kind of factual case against
Walter as a guitarist when all you have are your gut feelings,
you will fail. Mal was right-on. You've trotted out your opinon
as fact. Get real.
love and kisses
diane
A Shrine to Walter Becker:
http://hometown.aol.com/jackofdays/wb-sdwsky.htm
"Lonely as America, a throatpierced sound in the night." Jack Kerouac
JCaparula
DF where he responds to the notion that The Nightfly was as good
as anything SD ever did, sans WB. He iterated that he and Becker
had been honing the SD sound for ten years, and that it could
never have sounded the way it did without him. I personally
think WB's a better bassist than guitarist, but I'm more
interested in his artistic contributions rather than holding him
up to some kind of technical measuring stick. SD will always be
that perfect union of Becker-&-Fagan (one word) . . .don't try
to break it down. -JMC (too bad I'm married, Diane!)
ti bon ange
>-JMC (too bad I'm married, Diane!)
Yes, but I typoed "Fagan" instead of "Fagen," and
used "principal" where I meant "principle" (although it could be
seen as a pun). So I guess we both know <sob> you're better off
without me.
love and kisses <sigh>
diane
A Shrine to Walter Becker:
http://hometown.aol.com/jackofdays/wb-sdwsky.htm
"Lonely as America, a throatpierced sound in the night." Jack Kerouac
Ron Stephens
> Mal wrote:
>
> >I always find it amusing when people trot out opinion as fact.
>
> Well-said, Mal.
>
> Ian, you do seem to be claiming some kind of inside knowledge
> about the writing and composing process Walter and Donald use.
Trot. What a perfect charcterization. Well-said indeed.
It wasn't until I heard "11 Tracks Of Whack" that I fully recognized and
appreciated Walter's contribution. Without that baseline, it was easy to
assume Donald deserved most of the credit for the writing, arranging and
producing. But that was (and is) a mistake. As with his bass playing,
Becker (especially his cynicism) is essential to the collective "Dan".
Walter does seem to base most of his 2vN guitar work around the
pentatonic position/scale (not true on 11 ToW). However, it is his knack
for working in the "in between notes" that makes his playing interesting
and, in a sense, even more challenging. Even while "limiting" himself to
basic techinques (no stunt guitar here) with the right hand, and Chuck
Berry with the left, he still finds his way outside guitar 101 with a
wonderfully creative - and genuinely jazzy - flair. That, IMHO, is the
beauty of his playing. Simple in it's elegance, and complex in it's
harmonic structure, yet not too simple or too complex.
And his tone? You knock the tone and you lose all credibility.
Pastor Ron
==========
Not all Christians are assholes.
Ron Stephens
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> Jon wrote:
>
> >Direct me to one truly noteworthy solo, notwithstanding Bad Sneakers, FM and
> >perhaps Snowbound.
>
>
> Uhhh, Josie?
Black Friday?
ti bon ange
Thanks especially for specifying the cynicism. Absolutely.
love and kisses (chaste, of course)
diane
A Shrine to Walter Becker:
http://hometown.aol.com/jackofdays/wb-sdwsky.htm
"Lonely as America, a throatpierced sound in the night." Jack Kerouac
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Jon Stone
there is little else stated on the NG that ISN'T opinion or conjecture, and
that's how it should be, wouldn't agree? Even the weather on the day of a
particular concert is debatable. But your statement:
"...the notes he hits and how he hits them, is usually perfect for the music..."
is stated with journalistic certitude. Let's face it, like it or not, we're all
writing op-ed pieces here. I happen to believe that Walter's facility on the
guitar is limited and made to appear even moreso because of the pantheon of
brilliant players who preceded him on the albums in the 70s--admittedly tough
acts to follow, all.
I suppose we could all preface our posts with a disclaimer stating "...the
following is the opinion of the author solely, and not to be construed as fact.
Any similarity between this statement and an actual fact is purely
coincidental..."
But being the culturally-sophisticated, musically-savvy lot we fancy ourselves
to be, I'd rather debate the relative merits of our opinions in a lively,
intelligent, open forum, free from opprobrium, than slap down someone because he
or she doesn't agree with me on a particular topic--be it guitar chops or
whatever.
ti bon ange wrote:
> Mal wrote:
>
> >I always find it amusing when people trot out opinion as fact.
>
> Well-said, Mal.
>
> Ian, you do seem to be claiming some kind of inside knowledge
> about the writing and composing process Walter and Donald use.
> diane
>
> A Shrine to Walter Becker:
> http://hometown.aol.com/jackofdays/wb-sdwsky.htm
> "Lonely as America, a throatpierced sound in the night." Jack Kerouac
Moody Bastard
<steve_200...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote:
> I enjoy Walter's playing for what it is and isn't.
Extremely well-put and I couldn't agree more.
--
-- Moods
"subversive brilliance one moment and lazy puerility the next."
Replace "squonk" with "mac" for e-mail porpoises. (Them buggers is fast, ain't
they?)
Greg Abrams
"Ian Stewart Cairns" <ian_stewa...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:oz215.7403$fu1.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> minor-league talent. I am however, happy to hear any opinions to the
> contrary.
OK.... you're wrong.
Greg
Ian Stewart Cairns
ti bon ange <membabe...@aol.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:23f84193...@usw-ex0103-024.remarq.com...
> Mal wrote:
>
> Ian, you do seem to be claiming some kind of inside knowledge
> about the writing and composing process Walter and Donald use.
> According to everything I've read (since 1974), you are entirely
> incorrect.
Oh really, please do tell. :-)
>
> Don and Walt's relationship appears to be greatly symbiotic.
Well, fair enough. So they stuck together for mutual benefit. In what way
does this contradict my assertion that Donald is a greater musical talent
than Walter?
> It's alchemic. The two together become one productively creative
> mind, yet each of them has his own strength. Until I heard
> 11TOW, I wondered what Walter's contribution was, also. Once I
> got that CD, everything Steely Dan had done as a group fell into
> place neatly. Walter's strengths lie in production and lyrics,
> but he does much more than that. Donald's strengths lie in music
> and arrangement, but he also does much more than that.
In case I didn't make it too clear. it the music I am interested in talking
about here. I already acknowledged Walter's contributions to the lyrics. I
think he has a real handle on what it takes to be a top producer too. Of
course, Donald's strengths also lie in production and lyrics (see The
Nightfly).
>
> Even way back when, Denny Dias described them (essentially) as
> being "two bodies sharing one brain."
"The Making of Aja" was just a delight wasn't it?
>
> Also, if you have a high opinion of Donald, you have to trust
> his judgment when recalling how he and Walter got together at
> Bard:
For whatever reasons, Donald gets defensive when the topic comes up. Perhaps
he is protecting his buddy. Perhaps he is obeying the orders of his
therapist . I dunno. If you have such a high opinion of Walter why don't you
agree with him when he says his playing is an embarrassment to him.
>
> According to Fagan: "I walked into a room once, and he (Becker)
> was playing this red Epiphone guitar, playing the blues. I said
> to myself, 'I gotta talk to this guy.'" Becker
> elaborated: "There was only one band on campus and that was
> Donald's group. He had three guitarists and none of them was any
> good. They would all strum the same chords in different time. So
> I generously offered my services as lead guitarist." (From
> the "Catalyst" liner notes, assembled by our own Dave Moore.)
I confess that Donald's preference for Walter's guitar playing baffles me.
Still, see above.
>
> As to the Nightfly, that is certainly Donald's own vision and
> genius and has Donald's feel. It's one of the best albums of the
> 20th century, in my opinion. But even though it's Steely-
> recognizable, it is Donald's own genius and inspiration. He said
> more with that release--his magnum opus, without a doubt--than
> he has ever said in Steely Dan. Nightfly was truly Donald's
> Great American Novel, and he chose the players and arrangements
> and came up with something unique.
It is the work of a pop music genius. So where is Becker's equivalent?
>It doesn't demonstrate that Donald is more talented than Walter.
To me it does. In the field of music composition it manifestly does! I don't
deny that Becker has talent, he just cannot reach the peaks that Donald can.
It simply demonstrates that
> Donald had a burning vision, the same type that drives all great
> artists. That doesn't mean that Walter doesn't have the same
> vision, or won't do or hasn't done something as great as
> Nightfly, singularly or cumulatively.
More like "can't do". Walter can have all the desire and vision he wants; he
just doesn't have whatever it is that Donald has. In our culture we tend to
label inexplicable talent as genius. I don't think it is too much of a
stretch to describe Fagen as a genius. Becker is not. Or if he is, where is
his "Nightfly"?
>
> Anyway, you seem genuinely bugged by Walter's guitar stylings,
> which may be limiting your ability to see Walter as a whole.
???????
> You don't like his tone or his choice of guitars, and you are
> certainly entitled to your opinion on that.
How gracious of you. I did not say that I didn't like his guitars. Indeed I
have met Sadowsky and played some of his instruments - I thought they were
pretty good. (Although guitar geeks may be interested to know that the talk
amongst my luthier friends is that his company only ASSEMBLES guitars from
parts from out-sourced parts).
I do "kind of" like Walt's tone (I prefer a cleanish lead sound myself) and
it certainly cuts though. His tone is highly polished, 3-dimensional,
expensive-sounding but still somehow flat and dull. And boring. Go figure.
>I feel the same way
> about Jon Herington--he leaves me cold.
Here we agree. Don't care for Herington's tone or lead playing at all (I
like his rhythm playing). Bring back the wonderful Drew Zingg (but ask him
to cut out a few of the hyperspeed mixolydian arpeggiations while you're at
it). His first solo on Green Earrings on AIA is close to perfection. (BTW,
if you listen to that song again you'll here more inane widdling in the
second verse by Walter.)
Walter's style appeals
> to something deep inside me because it's part of my ancient
> past, subconscious preferences undoubtedly formed back in the
> 1950s and 1960s when I was a kid. He's the bastard child of Wes
> Montgomery and B.B. King.
Yuck. How come he got to be white? :-)
>
> But to say he doesn't know his neck is just ridiculous. Do you
> play guitar?
Yes.
> I do, and there's no way you can make that
> statement and be taken seriously.
Oh really?
> Walter is one with his
> instrument;
Sorry, have to break off for a laugh at this point.
> watching his fingering, compared to other
> guitarists, is simply amazing. It's not unlike watching any
> great Classical guitarist (and he often appears not to be using
> a pick) or perhaps Django Reinhardt.
Django played 100 times as well with his two active fingers than Walter does
with his five. Classical guitarists are familiar with the concept of chordal
playing, Walter doesn't appear to be. His technique is that of a mediocre
pub-rocker. This is an empirical claim and can be tested and verified.
Are you in love with Walt or something?
With regard to the actual content of his playing. His fingers almost
permanently hover around the 3 or 4 pentatonic (or Blues, including the
diminshed 5th) shapes he knows - usually between positions 5 and 9 - with
the occasional Claptonesque excursion to the 12th fret and beyond.
>
> I'm not saying that Walter is up there in the guitar firmament.
As a geetar player, Walter has his moments (as I have repeatedly emphsised).
I really like his playing in "Hey Nineteen" for example (although Hugh
McCracken's playing is even better). In fact almost all of his playing on
70's Dan material is good. It moves me, I react to it. To be fair, his
playing on the new record moves me as well -- out of the room in which it is
playing, tout de suite.
It might be fairer to say that Walter has simply lost it.
But then the new record itself is decidedly inferior to most '70s Dan.
> I do find him to have a limited range--sorta like Donald's
> limited vocal range.
I don't mind limited range so much. I am irritated by his insistent
noodling, harmonically-challenged solos. His playing is the aural equivalent
of doodling whilst talking on the phone.
> But what he does, the notes he hits and how
> he hits them, is usually perfect for the music.
In what way?
> His guitar solo
> on What a Shame about Me, along with Donald's bare voice and the
> lyrical imagery, make for a perfectly Steely marriage.
Which solo? I mean he noodles over the entire song.
>
>
> I have a great deal of respect for the people on this newsgroup,
How nice for you.
> including those several who gag on Walter's guitar-playing. But
> if you start trying to build some kind of factual case against
> Walter as a guitarist when all you have are your gut feelings,
> you will fail. Mal was right-on. You've trotted out your opinon
> as fact. Get real.
You are so right. I humbly apologise. I wish I were you.
Ian
Ian Stewart Cairns
rub off on Donald. However it strikes me as being at least as valid to claim
that Donald's parents should be given co-credit for "The Nightfly" since
they passed on their genes to him.
Ian
JCaparula <jcapNO...@chorus.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:20028068...@usw-ex0101-008.remarq.com...
> Absolutely brilliantly put, Diane. I read a brief interview with
> DF where he responds to the notion that The Nightfly was as good
> as anything SD ever did, sans WB. He iterated that he and Becker
> had been honing the SD sound for ten years, and that it could
> never have sounded the way it did without him. I personally
> think WB's a better bassist than guitarist, but I'm more
> interested in his artistic contributions rather than holding him
> up to some kind of technical measuring stick. SD will always be
> that perfect union of Becker-&-Fagan (one word) . . .don't try
> to break it down. -JMC (too bad I'm married, Diane!)
ti bon ange
>there is little else stated on the NG that ISN'T opinion or
>conjecture, and that's how it should be, wouldn't agree?
Absolutely. And my post, as well as Ian's, were statement of
opinion. The difference I (and others) saw was that Ian stated
his opinion as fact (see his original post and the two that
follow).
>But your statement:
>
>"...the notes he hits and how he hits them, is usually perfect
>for the music..."
Jon, please put it back in context, as I said it:
>I'm not saying that Walter is up there in the guitar firmament.
>I do find him to have a limited range--sorta like Donald's
>limited vocal range. But what he does, the notes he hits and
>how he hits them, is usually perfect for the music. His guitar
>solo on What a Shame about Me, along with Donald's bare voice
>and the lyrical imagery, make for a perfectly Steely marriage.
My tone is not "factual." You need the entire paragraph, because
the words all relate to the same opinion. I have asserted,
averred and rhapsodized--none of which would've made it across
my editor's desk as "journalistic certitude" back in the old
days.
>Let's face it, like it or not, we're all
>writing op-ed pieces here.
I'm already well-aware of that, Jon, and always have been.
>I'd rather debate the relative merits of our opinions in a
>lively, intelligent, open forum, free from opprobrium, than
>slap down someone because he or she doesn't agree with me on a
>particular topic--be it guitar chops or whatever.
The only person who'd done any slapping-down here is Ian. He
doesn't seem to like anything, especially Walter, and it seems
rather personal. And yet he makes it sound like FACT, leading
people to believe that he has a special knowledge of the subject.
I've never had any quibble with you, Jon, whether or not you
love or hate Walter's guitar playing. Seems to me I've mostly
respected your postings. I cannot relate one bit to disliking
Walter's playing. And I do believe anyone who doesn't recognize
his genius would have to have been living on an ice floe
somewhere near Antarctica for the last 30 years. His genius is
so obvious--even if you don't see it in his guitar playing--that
one would have to make an effort to miss it.
When I'm stating fact, I frame it as such. All else is my
opinion, and it's no more important or effective than yours or
Ian's. We're on a level playing field here. I stopped
complaining about what irked me on 2vN because it was an
exercise in futility. Very few people agreed with me, so
continued protestations on my part were pointless. I still
thought I was "right," though. As you mentioned earlier, I
thought it was one of those "Emperor's New Clothes" stories.
Regarding Ian, he's the one who sarcastically puts everyone in
their place. It's as if he came on board with a challenge,
seeing who would bite, so he could slap everyone down who
disagreed with his own infallible arguments. And he did so under
the guise of welcoming opposing points of view.
I know you don't like Walter's guitar playing. I know Ian
doesn't like Walter's guitar playing. I personally can't
understand why, but there are many things I can't wrap my brain
around--virtually all more important than trying to understand
this.
Ian came here, threw out his opinon (trotted out as fact), and a
lively argument ensued. I daresay if you come to a Steely Dan
group and state "quantifiably" that one half of the essence of
Steely Dan is a fraud, you're gonna hear from a few people whose
minds are boggled by your demonstration of density.
Perhaps it would have been better if I'd simply replied, "Who
dropped you on your head when you were a baby, Ian?" rather than
stating my opinion thoughtfully.
What it boils down to--and it seems always to boil down to this--
is an inability to grasp another's point of view. And that goes
both ways here.
love and kisses
diane
A Shrine to Walter Becker:
http://hometown.aol.com/jackofdays/wb-sdwsky.htm
"Lonely as America, a throatpierced sound in the night." Jack Kerouac
Jon Stone
and let it go at that. I know that I welcome dissenting opinions, even
relish them, because they simply serve to bolster my already
strongly-held convictions. And I don't mind if they're couched in sarcasm
or conveyed with grit either. (If I can take what my children dish out, I
can withstand anything!) I think people just naturally want others to see
things their way, and may sometimes use less-than-genteel modes of
communicating their preferences because we are trying our mightiest to
persuade.
I think Ian's analysis was trenchant and not just because I happen to
agree with the underlying thesis. I don't think his statements were
tantamount to proclaiming anyone a "fraud." I think we're merely saying
that while we acknowledge that his contribution to the pop music lexicon
is inestimable, in the realm of guitar virtuosity, Walter has not lived
up to the promise of SD's 70s releases.
Anyway, this dead horse has been beaten almost beyond recognition, so I
resolve to move on to the next topic, whatever that may turn out to be.
Jon
>
Mal
<jon....@fmr.com> wrote:
>>I don't think his statements were
>tantamount to proclaiming anyone a "fraud." I think we're
merely saying
>that while we acknowledge that his contribution to the pop
music lexicon
>is inestimable, in the realm of guitar virtuosity, Walter has
not lived
>up to the promise of SD's 70s releases.
>
>
Walter's recent efforts on Guitar. But let me re-quote Ian.
"Live he is a joke. You can tell he doesn't know what the chords
are (not that he has the technique to finger them even if he
did). His lush and expensive-sounding tone is expressionless but
that has less to do with his real-dear-gear than with his
inherent lack of musicality. I mean we all know who the real
talent was/is behind Steely Dan don't we? Take away Becker and
would anyone notice? I mean honestly?"
As far as I'm concerned this is troll type stuff and it doesn't
match up to your interpretation above. That sounds more like
abuse than crtisism and given Ian's screen persona I'm sure he's
really happy with the response he got.
Mal
ti bon ange
that constitute a tidal wave of personal attacks against this
man, with almost no substance. That's hard for me to embrace--
not just the message, but the style of delivery--even though we
had a few points of agreement along the way.
I know you are NEVER going to agree with me. That's fine. Nor
will Jon, and there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of point in
discussing something that obviously CANNOT be quantified. "Who's
the greatest guitar player in the world" has been one of the
most boring questions floating around in the collective
consciousness for the last 30 or 40 years. Whether or not Walter
can play the guitar and/or is a useless appendage to Donald
Fagen is fast becoming another boring question.
No one among us is competent to evaluate Steely Dan, Walter and
Donald. They've not provided us with data to use from their
personal or business lives necessary to do such a definitive,
fact-based thing. What we all have are opinions, many (if we're
lucky) based on emotion felt when we heard their music.
I don't get excited about any thread that tries to pick the Dan
apart--you know, their past drug use, failed marriages, legends
and myths and the like. And equally, it's impossible for me to
get excited about a thread that claims Walter is not a good
guitar player while shredding him up, then asking for opposing
points of view.
Look, Ian, you gave as good as you got, near as I can tell. Your
opinion remains unchanged, as does mine. I don't have any
problem being a member of this newsgroup with you and hope you
don't with me.
I don't even need to have the last wor
eric...@webtv.net
Becker's playing....it's all opinion. (by the way, I feel his bass
playing has become devoid of any feeling butthat's my opinion)
What is important is he brings attitude and style that makes DF and WB
together----Steely Dan.
Without Becker, we'd have mostly science fiction and romantic
lyrics. I feel that Two Against Nature is a FAR better album than
Kamakiriad(don't know if I spelt it right ....I hardly listen to it)
so.....there you go(I do like The Nightfly and therefore am able to
spell it.)
I admit, the average supermarket goer wouldn't know the difference but
most fans would....unless the fans don't understand English
http://community.webtv.net/ericfrog/ERICFROG
Jon Stone
confrontational, even hostile. Just puts me that much more on my mettle to
separate the wheat from the chaff.
Jon
Mal
win.server.ntlworld.com>, "Ian Stewart Cairns"
<ian_stewa...@virgin.net> wrote:
>Sorry,
>
>Is this a fact or an opinion?
>
>Ian
>
"Live he is a joke. You can tell he doesn't know what the chords
are (not that he has the technique to finger them even if he
did). His lush and expensive-sounding tone is expressionless but
that has less to do with his real-dear-gear than with his
inherent lack of musicality. I mean we all know who the real
talent was/is behind Steely Dan don't we? Take away Becker and
would anyone notice? I mean honestly?"
Is that opinion or abuse. You are trolling a little don't you
think Ian. You certainly got the argument you were looking for.
Mal
Mal
remarq. I've just repeated myself, Oh well.
Mal
ti bon ange
l&k
d
Mal
I'm not really worried about Walter's technique. I like
listening to his playing. Whether what he does is difficult or
not is irrelevant to me. When I quipped about opinion and fact I
was thinking more about your denigration of WB's contribution as
an artist to the band. You really don't have any foundation for
that other than that you like Nightfly. So do I, but are you
saying that because that record is great you reckon everything
great in the whole canon was created by DF. I don't see a lot to
back that up (or to refute it). As far as I can tell very little
is known about who contributed what.
Mal
Ian Stewart Cairns
Is this a fact or an opinion?
Ian
Mal <malcolm.morr...@btinternet.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:10606030...@usw-ex0102-015.remarq.com...
> I always find it amusing when people trot out opinion as fact.
>
> Mal
Ian Stewart Cairns
>is an inability to grasp another's point of view. And that goes
>both ways here.
Only difference is when it comes to Walter's (lack of) technique I am right
and you are wrong. This is easy to demonstrate.I could set him some
relatively simple chord or stretching excersises and I bet you $1,000000
dollars he wouldn't
I thought you were all about love and kisses Diane - still you manage to do
a fair bit of hating. You lose the argument and resort to personal abuse.
<Sigh>
Perhaps you only love those who agree with you?
Ian
Ian Stewart Cairns
>statement and be taken seriously. Walter is one with his
>instrument.
You'll have to help me here Diane. Is this fact or opinion?
Ian
Ian Stewart Cairns
Please enlighten us all with your critique of Walt's guitar technique.. I
have set forth my opinion and backed it up with arguments. I actively asked
for others. I actually wrote."Sorry if this offends, but in the opinion of
this reviewer, Becker is a minor-league talent. I am however, happy to hear
any opinions to the contrary."
As with most people on the losing side of an argument you have resorted to
pathetic ad hominem attacks.
So do you have anything to offer to the debate other than empty platitudes?
Let me guess.
Ian
Mal <malcolm.morr...@btinternet.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:10fec8b2...@usw-ex0106-047.remarq.com...
> In article <3947C3C5...@fmr.com>, Jon Stone
> <jon....@fmr.com> wrote:
> >>I don't think his statements were
> >tantamount to proclaiming anyone a "fraud." I think we're
> merely saying
> >that while we acknowledge that his contribution to the pop
> music lexicon
> >is inestimable, in the realm of guitar virtuosity, Walter has
> not lived
> >up to the promise of SD's 70s releases.
> >
> >
> Jon, I respect your opinion even though I have really liked
> Walter's recent efforts on Guitar. But let me re-quote Ian.
>
> "Live he is a joke. You can tell he doesn't know what the chords
> are (not that he has the technique to finger them even if he
> did). His lush and expensive-sounding tone is expressionless but
> that has less to do with his real-dear-gear than with his
> inherent lack of musicality. I mean we all know who the real
> talent was/is behind Steely Dan don't we? Take away Becker and
> would anyone notice? I mean honestly?"
>
> As far as I'm concerned this is troll type stuff and it doesn't
> match up to your interpretation above. That sounds more like
> abuse than crtisism and given Ian's screen persona I'm sure he's
> really happy with the response he got.
>
> Mal
>
>
>
>
AA.Com
<ian_stewa...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>As with most people on the losing side of an argument you have resorted to
>pathetic ad hominem attacks.
>
So what did you win?
Doc
Ian Stewart Cairns
to put the record straight regarding the making Sadowsky guitars and basses.
Roger got in touch with me and I quote his message in full.
Best,
Ian
............................................................................
..........................................................
I guess it is my turn to join this discussion:
1) Several people have posted and commented that Sadowsky uses Warmoth
parts. I would like to address this for what I hope will be the last time. I
did use some Warmoth parts during the 80's and have ordered an occasional
neck from them for some of our repair customers during the years. However,
Sadowsky has not used any Warmoth necks or bodies on their basses for at
least the last 10 years.
2) Regarding subcontractors....Many instrument companies use subcontractors.
It is very difficult to balance quality and maintain costs. If we were
making every body by "hand" (which no one really does), costs would be
absurdly high and consistancy would be very low. The average cost of a CNC
machine (a computerized carving machine), with software, is about
$125,000.00. Because that is beyond the means of most of us "smaller" guys,
there are companies that own these machines who make parts for the "rest of
us". Sadowsky, Lakland, Lull, Turner and lots more of us use various
subcontractors. I know this takes some of the "romanticism" out of the
process for you, but that is the way it is.
Regarding our electronics---when you go through hundreds of circuits a year,
you don't hand wire each one by hand. You design the circuit, make the
prototype, and then you outsource it to a shop than just makes circuit
boards!
I had to make an important decision about 20 years ago. I could set up shop
where I could do all the woodworking by myself. This would have meant
locating where there are very few professional players. Instead, I chose to
locate in the middle of Manhattan, where the top players could easily get to
my shop. As long as I had good subcontractors I could depend on, I felt it
more important to have the one-on-one and the indespensible feedback from
the top players. This was also motivated by the fact that I still do a lot
of repair and restoration work. I have never regretted this decision. It is
hard to make a "working musician's" instrument if you don't have many
working musicians to interact with.
I build a Fender style instrument because that is what my clientele demands
of me. 20 years ago, it was almost impossible to walk into a studio in NYC
with anything other than a Fender. In fact the Union directory had two bass
listings: Upright Bass and Fender Bass! All electric basses were referred to
as Fender bass. There was a great deal of pressure on the bassists to only
bring a Fender to a session.
If I had a couple of million dollars, I could set up my own manufacturing
facility outside of the city, but I can only be in one place at one time so
it works just as well to use the subcontractors.
Keep the following in mind: We purchase all of our wood directly. We hand
build all of the "prototypes" that get sent to the subcontractor. We own all
of the fixturing and programming. We continuously monitor the quality of our
parts to be sure they are worthy of the Sadowsky name.
The bodies come into our shop unsanded. We do all of the finish sanding and
hand fit every neck pocket to get a perfect fit to out necks. Many of our
bodies get additional routing and shaping done in our shop.
The necks come in unsanded. We true each fingerboard one at a time, finish
sand the necks, fret the necks, dress the frets, and spray the necks. On
custom orders, we hand shape the neck too.
Our assembly process is impeccable with regard to the quality of our
components and workmanship.
So I hope you can see that we definetly are a "hands-on" shop. I could not
have achieved the reputation I have if I were simply buying a neck and body
and "screwing them together". I think anyone who has had the opportunity to
play a Sadowsky can appreciate the quality of the instrument. That doesn't
mean they are for everyone---instrument choice is very subjective. What is
nice is that all of us....Sadowsky, Lakland, Mike Tobias, Spector, Fodera,
etc....all have lots of players that think we make the best instrument in
the world! It's kind of perfect that way---don't you think? You don't have
to disparage the other builders just because you prefer someone else's
instruments.
Lastly, many people speculate on this forum about issues related to Sadowsky
without ever bothering to email me directly with their question. I am here
and I am happy to answer all of your emails individually.
Hope this clears things up for some of you.
Sincerely,
Roger Sadowsky
John Duffy
playing should be welcomed in the spirit of open discourse on this
forum. You are more technically knowledgeable than me, but I love his
playing. Personally, I would prefer a different sound to the Sadowsky,
if he's decided to stick with a signature sound.
People here have mentioned BB King, I for one cannot stand anything
I've ever heard by him, I have to change channels when I hear him. It
totally puzzles me what anyone sees in *his* "noodling". Some "kings
cloths" reverence no-one questions as far as I can tell. But I wouldn't
be so impolite as to offend genuine fans on a BB King message board.
This is all just *my* opinion of course. As a fan of both Walter and
Donald, I find your public crucifixion of one of my heroes, who is a
part of the whole that is Steely Dan, utterly offensive. Are you really
saying Walter has been some freeloader living off Donald's talent?????
Perhaps your criticism is misplaced, maybe Walter should get himself a
guitar that isn't thrown together in a sweat shop by a bunch of boarder
jumpers, and peddled by a phoney craftsman through some Manhattan
"facade".
Legal Disclaimer: I know nothing about the quality of any guitars, I was
just being controversial in the spirit of some previous posts.
--
John Duffy
Wilhelm Parker
As a 25 year player of the guitar and bass, an avid follower of the
band, and (I think) a pretty decent judge of talent, let me add my
opinion.
Walter is an excellent guitarist, although he lacks (like 99% of the
players of the instrument) spectacular soloing skills, his work is
tasteful. In fact I'd say he's way up among the greats in his ability
to NOT get in the way of the music. He tends to solo "within the box,"
or within the most limited portion of the minor or major scale of the
song. In this way he's not the equal of Carlton, etc. But then so
what. Not many others are, either.
My feeling always is, don't let the musicians get in the way of the
song, and despite the superlative sidemen used over the years, most
Danmusic can be faithfully re-imagined by whatever current sidemen
they're using. (That's tough, too.)
So if Lawson isn't quite Gadd, and if Becker ain't quite Carlton
(although Herrington sometimes is), so be it...
Becker IS a tremendous bass player. I don't know if anyone here would
question that...his sense of what to play is impeccable...at least in
my opinion.
Cheers,
WP
ti bon ange
> Perhaps your criticism is misplaced, maybe Walter should get
>himself a guitar that isn't thrown together in a sweat shop by
>a bunch of boarder jumpers, and peddled by a phoney craftsman
>through some Manhattan "facade".
>
>Legal Disclaimer: I know nothing about the quality of any
>guitars, I was just being controversial in the spirit of some
>previous posts.
John, I desperately hope Roger gets your dry sense of humor, if
he's actually reading along here. He seems like a splendid guy
to me and his credentials say it all
(http://sadowsky.com/interview.html).
If I wasn't impressed by Walter's endorsement of his creations,
there would still be Will Lee's. He's played with everyone
except God, and loves his Sadowskys.
When I hit NYC again later this year, Roger's shop is on my list
of Most Fascinating Places To Visit In NYC. And I'll surely
report back to everyone here.
Obviously he's a class act, choosing to reply, as he did,
directly to Ian in a confident, rational and honest manner. Go
Roger!
love and kisses
diane
A Shrine to Walter Becker:
http://hometown.aol.com/jackofdays/wb-sdwsky.htm
"Lonely as America, a throatpierced sound in the night." Jack Kerouac
tim r
ti bon ange <membabe...@aol.com.invalid> wrote in message
tim r gasped....
check out Rogers web site, I did, and was prompted to write to him
on 5/18/00 7:40 PM, tim r at timre...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
nice site, mr Sadowsky!
get on cable!
(I try not to miss mr Abrams)
would love to see you make these instruments.
nice job,
tim r
Thanks for your kind words.
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Best regards,
Roger Sadowsky
--
Sadowsky Guitars Ltd.
1600 Broadway #1000 (48-49 St.)
New York, NY 10019
Tel: 212 586-3960
Fax: 212 765-5231
Hours: Tue-Fri, 9-5 PM
http://www.sadowsky.com
blunt & to the point......sweatshop? naw.....
tim r
>
John Duffy
John Duffy
Catch yer later as they say .........round here.........:-)
John
John Duffy
<wt...@yahoo.com> writes
Have you heard him play the violin though, bloody embarrassing.....
--
John Duffy
Ian Stewart Cairns
> People here have mentioned BB King, I for one cannot stand anything
> I've ever heard by him, I have to change channels when I hear him. It
> totally puzzles me what anyone sees in *his* "noodling". Some "kings
> cloths" reverence no-one questions as far as I can tell.
What? you mean you get bored with B.B. hitting that 3rd octave tonic note
again and again and again and again. :-). I agree BB King's playing is
stale. It hasn't advanced or evolved much from what he was doing forty years
ago. It was fresh and exciting to audiences in the sixties, but it isn't any
more. Still, at least BB did it first - and best. In my estimation, his
vibrato remains unparalled; I can't quite yet figure out how he does it.
> But I wouldn't
> be so impolite as to offend genuine fans on a BB King message board.
So, in your eyes, a discussion board amounts to no more than a forum to fawn
over false idols does it? :-) This seems unhealthy to me.
You may not like it John, but the world needs its iconoclasts. Spirited
debate is healthy. Dissenting opinion is healthy. It is perhaps also a
necessary part of being fully human. If you don't believe me, try living in
China for a few years.
Here are 3 reasons why listening to dissenting opinion is good.
(1) If a person suppresses a view it could well turn out that the view she
is suppressing turns out to be true. To merely assume the opposite without
questioning it is to assume infallibility.
(2) Even if a suppressed view is false it can still contain a kernel of
truth. The fact is that widely held opinions seldom tell the whole story
(indeed, the flat-earth society still exists). A fuller and more complete
truth can emerge by paying attention to what is perceived as a largely false
opinion.
(3) If what is perceived as an established truth is never criticised or
challenged it ossifies in to a prejudice rather than a rationally held
belief (see Copernicus versus the Catholic Church).
I claim no originality for these arguments (they are based on arguments that
appear in John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty", published in the same year as
Darwin's "Origin of Species")
Now whenever any discussion on aesthetic matters takes place things very
quickly get complicated. Emotions get aroused. Are there any absolute
standards in the arts or is it all just a matter of opinion? Of cultural
relativism? If I claim the Spice Girls make better music than Steely Dan
ever did is this justified?* If I claim that Walter Becker is a third-rate
guitarist, is this ever justified? I maintain the answer to both questions
is yes - BUT, I need to back up my arguments with deductive and/or inductive
logic (which of course has its own problems -- see "The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn). In other words I must provide
premises which lead to what I regard as both a valid and sound conclusion.
It is then up to others to challenge this conclusion. If the conclusion you
arrive at is that there are no objective standards in art - fine. Can we at
least discuss that rationally?
It is all very well to claim that any discussion of matters of aesthetics
boils down to nothing but a clash of emotionally-informed opinions (and who
knows, this may ultimately prove to be true - see 2 above), but if that's
the case, are any emotional responses more valid than others? Are the Spice
Girls's aesthetic sensibilities as refined as Ravel's was? Does Mozart have
less to say than The Clash? Were the Osmonds geniuses? Where do we draw the
line? Is there a line to be drawn? Or is it all just a matter of opinion
which should never ever be challenged in case someone gets upset?
I say my postings to this thread question all of these questions and more.
You may disagree, but I think this is a good thing. If you do disagree, it
isn't enough just to say you disagree, you have to give reasons supporting
your conclusion. Unfortunately few, if any of the posters in the debate have
been thus far unable to offer any cohesive arguments which convince me I am
wrong. Still at least I am prepared to admit I may be wrong. At the start of
the thread I openly invited dissenting opinions. This, I wrongly assumed,
implied intelligent, well-thought out opinions. All Diane did was trot out
an emotive defence of her hero (which is fine, and I wholly agree with those
who would claim that emotional reactions to music shouldn't be ignored, but
her post didn't contribute or engage much with the debate), whilst others
have spent what, geez, all of 6 seconds thinking out their tautologous and
trivial responses. I hate to have to admit it, but the most intelligent
responses to my (admittedly controversial) arguments have thus far come from
Jon Stone ( a supporter of my conclusions, at least in part). Maybe
iconoclasts are simply clearer thinkers than followers of orthodoxy?
Here is the key. Instead of the mindless ad hominem attacks, how about
engaging in rational discussion. Some folks seem to think that shouting loud
enough will make all the dissenting voices disappear. Sorry to disappoint
you. If you think it is a dull subject or feel you have nothing to offer to
the discussion - stay out of it. No one's life is at stake here - it is
just a debate.
So once again, the conclusions I have drawn from my sensory, anecdotal and
intellectual exposure to Steely Dan are (1) Donald Fagen contributed more to
the music of Steely Dan than Walter Becker did and (2) Walter Becker is a
mediocre guitar player (who occasionally rose above this mediocrity in the
70's with some inspired playing). Discuss.
Ian
* No I don't prefer the Spice Girls to Steely Dan. But what if I did? What
if I loved the music of the Spice Girls? What if I defended them in the same
way "ti bon ange" defends Walter Becker? Could you rationally defend the
position that the music of Steely Dan is in some mysterious way "better"
than that of the Spice Girls?
Nick Burke
<Aeq25.3762$n32....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "Ian
Stewart Cairns" <ian_stewa...@virgin.net> wrote:
> > People here have mentioned BB King, I for one
> cannot stand anything
> > I've ever heard by him, I have to change channels
> when I hear him. It
> > totally puzzles me what anyone sees in *his*
> "noodling". Some "kings
> > cloths" reverence no-one questions as far as I can
> tell.
> What? you mean you get bored with B.B. hitting that
> 3rd octave tonic note
> again and again and again and again. :-). I agree BB
> King's playing is
> stale. It hasn't advanced or evolved much from what he
> was doing forty years
> ago. It was fresh and exciting to audiences in the
> sixties, but it isn't any
> more. Still, at least BB did it first - and best. In
> my estimation, his
> vibrato remains unparalled; I can't quite yet figure
> out how he does it.
He moves the string about with his fingers.
nick
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
DrJ
Ian Stewart Cairns wrote:
>
> What? you mean you get bored with B.B. hitting that 3rd octave tonic note
> again and again and again and again. :-). I agree BB King's playing is
> stale. It hasn't advanced or evolved much from what he was doing forty years
> ago. It was fresh and exciting to audiences in the sixties, but it isn't any
> more. Still, at least BB did it first - and best. In my estimation, his
> vibrato remains unparalled; I can't quite yet figure out how he does it.
Ian- i couldn't resist a quick BB King primer [first, i must agree with
your sentiments wholeheartedly. in fact, i saw him by default (he was on
the bill) at the Fillmore East, circa 1970. i'm *glad* i saw him
though- out of homage/respect more so than anything in the realm of
excitement and/or freshness. He inspired generations of players who
picked up the raw elements and performed alchemy which has left him far
behind. This takes nothing away from BB. However, even then, seeing him
perform was analogous to visiting a museum. i say that with due respect
and without a shred of condescension. true.]
okay. now for the vibrato:
put your index finger down three ocataves above the tonic. [nyuks]
get comfy, don't faff around.
pull your thumb off the neck and extend it approx. 180 degrees opposite
your pinky finger [this little piggie said hi to Lucille?] which you
extended perpendicular to your index finger.
so, you have essentially defined a straight line with your extended
thumb and pinky which is bisected by your index finger pointed down to
the fretboard. Now. Pretend there is a bummbly bee [not the usual
source of fret buzz] phfaffing about and you're not affraid of ge4tting
stung but it is mildly distracting [you'd rather let your notes do the
stinging]. the bee is holding steady about two frets above your tonic.
try to shooo it with your middle finger without letting your index
finger up off the axe [the show must go on]. shoo it faster and faster
until your fingers are blurry. Say hello to the nice vibrato! It will
seem awkward at first until the gestalt of it clicks... kind of a Zen
thing- you must be the bee.
i heard that.
>
> > But I wouldn't
> > be so impolite as to offend genuine fans on a BB King message board.
sod off, the lot of 'em.
sorry, cheap shot.
>
> So, in your eyes, a discussion board amounts to no more than a forum to fawn
> over false idols does it? :-) This seems unhealthy to me.
>
> You may not like it John, but the world needs its iconoclasts. Spirited
> debate is healthy. Dissenting opinion is healthy. It is perhaps also a
> necessary part of being fully human. If you don't believe me, try living in
> China for a few years.
God bless your fingers, sir. I would add: healthy is a dynamic
interaction btween iconoblasts and iconoclasts (and the freedom to do
both simultaneously if you can manage, hopefully, without hurting
anyone's feelings].
>
> Here are 3 reasons why listening to dissenting opinion is good.
>
> (1) If a person suppresses a view it could well turn out that the view she
> is suppressing turns out to be true. To merely assume the opposite without
> questioning it is to assume infallibility.
>
> (2) Even if a suppressed view is false it can still contain a kernel of
> truth. The fact is that widely held opinions seldom tell the whole story
> (indeed, the flat-earth society still exists). A fuller and more complete
> truth can emerge by paying attention to what is perceived as a largely false
> opinion.
>
> (3) If what is perceived as an established truth is never criticised or
> challenged it ossifies in to a prejudice rather than a rationally held
> belief (see Copernicus versus the Catholic Church).
>
> I claim no originality for these arguments (they are based on arguments that
> appear in John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty", published in the same year as
> Darwin's "Origin of Species")
ya. and remember Schopenauer:
all truth passes through 3 stages-
1. it is ridiculed
2. it is violently opposed
3. it is accepted as being self-evident
exclamation marks optional!!!!!!!!!
>
> Now whenever any discussion on aesthetic matters takes place things very
> quickly get complicated. Emotions get aroused. Are there any absolute
> standards in the arts or is it all just a matter of opinion? Of cultural
> relativism? If I claim the Spice Girls make better music than Steely Dan
> ever did is this justified?* If I claim that Walter Becker is a third-rate
> guitarist, is this ever justified? I maintain the answer to both questions
> is yes - BUT, I need to back up my arguments with deductive and/or inductive
> logic (which of course has its own problems -- see "The Structure of
> Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn).
Ian, you're making my day... one of my favorite books. Most do not know
the derivation of the notion of a "paradigm" [not 20 cents], and, with
respect to the stages of truth, patterns in science history which
reflect the 'establishment' having to be taken away kicking and
screaming...evolution vs. revolution.
aside: the little internal joke is that "normal science" is arguably an
*abnormal process* of egocentric aggrandizement by which today's
revelation becomes tomorrow's constipation [...my words, not his. eep.]
John Barth's Floating Opera contains a beautiful extension of these
ideas: nothing is of inherent value/reasons for anything are ultimately,
therefore irrational.
In other words I must provide
> premises which lead to what I regard as both a valid and sound conclusion.
sure! the "laws" of logic work within the jurisdiction of your argument
[and only serve justice as premises effectively *support* the associated
conclusion. period]
> It is then up to others to challenge this conclusion.
well, yes and no.
Walter has two Sadowskys. Sadowskies. He has two guitars.
All men have two guitars.
_________________________
Walter is a man.
You can't challenge that conclusion; it is logically supported by the
premises. However....
If the conclusion you
> arrive at is that there are no objective standards in art - fine. Can we at
> least discuss that rationally?
nyuks... the argument i am making is: that's a contradiction of terms!
> It is all very well to claim that any discussion of matters of aesthetics
> boils down to nothing but a clash of emotionally-informed opinions (and who
> knows, this may ultimately prove to be true - see 2 above), but if that's
> the case, are any emotional responses more valid than others?
friendly semantic ammendment: emotionally filtered, selectively
subjective... "opinion", by definition falls short of knowledge; it is a
personal "judgement". i think, therefore [in my opinion] i am!
okay, so i'm saying that "emotionally-informed opinion" is redundant!
Are the Spice
> Girls's aesthetic sensibilities as refined as Ravel's was?
Big chuckle. I love how your mind connects... might Bolero be dismissed
as sexual inuendo in the same sentence as condescension to the Spice
Girls?
Does Mozart have
> less to say than The Clash?
you could easily argue that the Clash have more to say [but are
certainly limited in the means they possess to say it?! Can you imagine
Wolfie sitting down in front of a Synthesizer? How about a Synclavier
with Frank Zappa next to him on the bench. Wait. <heavy sigh> I think I
just described heaven. <tingles> ]
Were the Osmonds geniuses?
Marketing geniuses... indubitably!
Where do we draw the
> line?
i like to draw figure eights [i also like to take pot shots at
rhetorical questions... solely for entertainment purposes]
Is there a line to be drawn? Or is it all just a matter of opinion
> which should never ever be challenged in case someone gets upset?
>
> I say my postings to this thread question all of these questions and more.
> You may disagree, but I think this is a good thing. If you do disagree, it
> isn't enough just to say you disagree, you have to give reasons supporting
> your conclusion. Unfortunately few, if any of the posters in the debate have
> been thus far unable to offer any cohesive arguments which convince me I am
> wrong. Still at least I am prepared to admit I may be wrong. At the start of
> the thread I openly invited dissenting opinions. This, I wrongly assumed,
> implied intelligent, well-thought out opinions. All Diane did was trot out
> an emotive defence of her hero (which is fine, and I wholly agree with those
> who would claim that emotional reactions to music shouldn't be ignored, but
> her post didn't contribute or engage much with the debate), whilst others
> have spent what, geez, all of 6 seconds thinking out their tautologous and
> trivial responses.
there it is.
like a serpent swallowing its tail, logical discussions about logical
discussions with subjective evidence *are* tautologies and logically
illegal- throw them out of court... balif?
but, we should joyously empower ourselves to have at them anyway.
it can be good clean fun.
I appreciate your mention of Kuhn and encourage anyone remotely
interested in thinking about thinking [something i forget to remind
myself not to forget to remember to do] to give it a whack.
I hate to have to admit it, but the most intelligent
> responses to my (admittedly controversial) arguments have thus far come from
> Jon Stone ( a supporter of my conclusions, at least in part). Maybe
> iconoclasts are simply clearer thinkers than followers of orthodoxy?
unless the iconoclast just gets off on looking for trouble.
you can come up with reasons to tear any thing down if you're devoted to
the process [and maybe even deriving an almost masochistic pleasure from
all that hacking and ripping, ripping and hacking... steamy].
i have seen examples of this... the internet lends itself quite nicely
for the purpose.
>
> Here is the key. Instead of the mindless ad hominem attacks, how about
> engaging in rational discussion. Some folks seem to think that shouting loud
> enough will make all the dissenting voices disappear. Sorry to disappoint
> you. If you think it is a dull subject or feel you have nothing to offer to
> the discussion - stay out of it. No one's life is at stake here - it is
> just a debate.
splendid advice to which i add: but/and have some fun.
in fact, once you accept and embrace that there is no rationality you
can go ahead and take being rational quite seriously [in a sort of
philosophical "calculus" of dynamic reason]. i'm totally serious.
grab a hold as tightly as you can and gracefully let it go...
so, i agree from the perspective of 'state your premises, please' to
support your conclusions where possible... but i have no problem with
people who just feel like yelling and waving their arms- which simply
leaves nothing to discuss. you say tomato and i say tomato. wait.
that doesn't read so nice as it sounds.
>
> So once again, the conclusions I have drawn from my sensory, anecdotal and
> intellectual exposure to Steely Dan are (1) Donald Fagen contributed more to
> the music of Steely Dan than Walter Becker did and (2) Walter Becker is a
> mediocre guitar player (who occasionally rose above this mediocrity in the
> 70's with some inspired playing). Discuss.
cool. see my next post.
Wilhelm Parker
<ian_stewa...@virgin.net> wrote:
>> People here have mentioned BB King, I for one cannot stand anything
>> I've ever heard by him,
Stunned...I'm sitting down, in fact.
>So, in your eyes, a discussion board amounts to no more than a forum to fawn
>over false idols does it? :-) This seems unhealthy to me.
This is a good point, and one I find myself making quite often in
newsgroups. I don't feel that "fan" and sycophant are synonomous, but
I find it difficult to have ANY kind of a challenging conversation in
most groups without getting flooded with "fuck you"s, and the
occasional email virus bomb...thanks dumptruck55.
I'd like to think we could discuss the elements of our own fandom
without insulting or being insulted. Perhaps it depends on how much
we're invested in our own opinion. If we're inflexible, perhaps it's
best to put on the cans and really dig yourself.
I really don't mind the give and take, even on my favorite artists
(Dylan, Zevon, etc.). BUT, say one bad thing about the glorious and
wonderful Maddy Ciccone, and I might just turn the channel forever...
Cheers,
WP
DrJ
>
>
> So once again, the conclusions I have drawn from my sensory, anecdotal and
> intellectual exposure to Steely Dan are (1) Donald Fagen contributed more to
> the music of Steely Dan than Walter Becker did and (2) Walter Becker is a
> mediocre guitar player (who occasionally rose above this mediocrity in the
> 70's with some inspired playing). Discuss.
>
> Ian
sensory, anectdotal and intellectual- a marvelous breakdown for
discussion.
Anecdotal: i'm from NYC and rubbed elbows w/some asipiring young
musicians before chosing to forgo music as a profession and yadda yadda
yadda... including one very fine guitarist who crossed paths with this
band called Randall's Island. The inside NY joke is that there is indeed
a Randall's Island [in the East River, which is really part of an
estuary but it looks like a river from Manhattan Island] where my High
School used to bus us in order to run around in gym shorts. So, my
friend got to know Elliot Randall. Now, in those days, no one knew who
played what solo because the guys weren't tawking so very much. I was
convinced that ER had played the solo to Black Friday and was as
surprised as my friend Danny who said to E:
"so... is that you on The Friday?" E sez: "nope. that was Walter".
What???????
We didn't know W could play guitar, let alone like that. That solo
contains some very hip elements [one of which is humor!] and is
brilliantly executed [last cigarette?]. Where is that Walter?
I admit to owning some unauthorized recordings... a few copyright
challenged non-releases... a few 'rescued from the dumpster with rubber
gloves and a flashlight held by teeth to augment the light of the
silvery moon..."
Okay, so I have these bootlegs.
They are demo tracks that, as i interpret them, where 'songs written but
under pre-recording construction for the purposes of fleshing out parts
suitable for the actual factual hard line or teaching to others intended
to be subsequently immortalized'. So I hear W playing solos to songs
that he didn't play solos on when all the red lights came on and the
good tape was rolling. He's awful. Of course, in my head i'm tracking
the notes burned into my synapses by repeated listening to the likes of
Brother Denny, Skunk, ER, Derringer, et al.
yikes.
farbeit from me to shut up but i'll have to pick up from there asap.
gotta tcb.
D
Andy Lewis
wreck and then deciding to join in, I can't help adding a couple
thoughts of my own to the continuing "Walter Becker [rocks / sux]" debate.
First, on the meat of the matter, for the most part I agree that WB is a
pretty mediocre guitar player. I saw the dan last week, and was pretty
underwhelmed by all his soloing (though it was better than his singing).
On the other hand, when I first heard "Cousin Dupree" on the radio, I
really liked the solo, w/o knowing who it was. I think we'd all agree this
is not a great song, and the solo isn't anything special either, but to my
ears it sounded good (and still does).
Now, on to the weighty philosophical matters that Ian has raised:
(*Warning*: long and potentially boring discourse follows)
I think it's a little pretentious to refer to yourself as an
iconoclast and trot out Mill and Kuhn. The belief that Becker is not a
great guitar player may be unpopular among some here, but it is hardly
revolutionary, even in a Steely Dan discussion group. Also, you claim that
your opinions are better supported by facts and logic than Diane's, but
really all you've said are things like "If I gave him some hard stuff to
play he couldn't do it," [paraphrased] which is not so much fact as
an unsubstantiated claim on your part. And (see below), this kind of
argument doesn't tell us much about how great an artist someone is anyway.
The broader question of how (or rather, whether) we can logically or
objectively make judgements about art (in particular, music) is something
that I've thought about a fair amount, and debated drunkenly in my college
days. A friend of mine, in those drunken debates, used to insist that none
of us had any right to put our own tastes above others; all we had was the
weight of popular opinion. This is obviously problematic (i.e. absurd)
since it would put Britney Spears above the Dan, and Kenny G above John
Coltrane, the very thought of which makes me want to vomit.
We could also simply try to measure technical ability, which is objective
and scientific, but also misses the real point. For one thing, it misses
things like songwriting and arranging (the places where Fagen's genius lie)
and improvisation (the heart of jazz). There are plenty of people
with chops to spare, who nonetheless play godawful music. Many guitarists
might be able to play a Jerry Garcia or Neil Young solo note for note
(sometimes there IS only one note in Neil's solos), but most of them would
never come up with something that good on their own. Also, there is no
linear ordering on technical abilities: there are surely things that Pat
Metheny could play that Pat Martino could not, and vice-versa.
One last approach we could take would be to only count the opinions of
other musicians ("I'm a guitarist, so *I* can say who's good and who isn't").
I see this all the time over in the jazz newsgroup, and Ian and Diane have
both resorted to it in this argument. In math, we call this "Proof by
Intimidation." But besides the fact that it excludes perfectly intelligent
people with excellent taste like me from the debate, it also won't work
because musicians, as far as I can tell, are just as likely to disagree
about this stuff, and also just as likely to be blind to really innovative
developments as anyone else. Charlie Parker and Ornetter Coleman were both
derided by the established jazz musicians early in their careers, but now
even the conservatives like Wynton Marsalis acknowledge their genius. When
Bob Dylan went electric, he was attacked by the folkies like Pete Seeger
who had previously fawned over him. Finally, anyone who claims that their
art can only be appreciated by other artists is probably doomed to
irrelevancy anyway.
So what are we left with? Well, it doesn't make sense to try to give up
rational debate altogether, but as the good (if sometimes a bit incoherent)
Dr J suggested, we are left with an objective debate that will probably
always rely on somewhat subjective premises. For my part, I'll just add
that since the only thing you two seem to agree on is that you don't like
Jon Herington, the logical conclusion is that you are both tone deaf. :-)
(Probably no one read this far anyway...)
andy
AA.Com
<ian_stewa...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> whilst others
>have spent what, geez, all of 6 seconds thinking out their tautologous and
>trivial responses.
That's more than it's worth, too.
Doc
Andy Lewis
>> I think it's a little pretentious to refer to yourself as an
>> iconoclast and trot out Mill and Kuhn.
Actually, I did say why. Because the statements you are making simply
aren't that groundbreaking or new. Having an opinion about someone's guitar
playing really doesn't need elaborate philosophical justification.
(Though I do realize that others attacked you for those opinions)
>> We could also simply try to measure technical ability, which is objective
>> and scientific, but also misses the real point.
>Fully agreed. But nonetheless it is one measuring rod and thus shouldn't
>necessarily be discounted.
True.
>> There are plenty of people
>> with chops to spare, who nonetheless play godawful music
>I know, see any Larry Carlton or Lee Ritenour solo album.
Unfortunately, I have. (sorry Steve)
>>One last approach we could take would be to only count the opinions of
>>other musicians ("I'm a guitarist, so *I* can say who's good and who
>isn't").
>>I see this all the time over in the jazz newsgroup, and Ian and Diane have
>>both resorted to it in this argument. In math, we call this "Proof by
>>Intimidation."
>
>I fear your inferiority complex is playing up again Andy. ;-) This was not
>my motivation and it is arrogant of you to assume otherwise. Unless you are
>a mind reader. In any case, I think you ought to make yourself familiar with
>the psychoanalytical/psychobabble terms "projection" and
>"counter-transference"?
Yawn. I know these terms and like most psychobabble they are 99.44% BS.
I fail to see how they would apply in any case. But I like how you say I'm
arrogant, and have an inferiority complex. Damn, I'm really fucked up.
>Look, I simply responded to Diane's assertion that Becker is a technically
>proficient player. What is intimidating about that? If I happen to be more
>knowledgeable about the guitar than you, don't cry about it. Learn for
>yourself - it's not exactly rocket-science. Methinks in this case,
>intimidation is in the eye of the beholder.
I didn't mean to suggest that either of you were actually trying to
intimidate anyone. And you surely are more knowledgeable about guitar than
I am and I wasn't "crying." (What was that you said about projection?)
The point is, I have no particular desire to learn more about it. I think I
listen to enough music to be able to judge who can play and who can't.
>> we are left with an objective debate that will probably
>> always rely on somewhat subjective premises.
>This strikes me as a simple tautology. All "objective" debate is based on
>subjective premises. All knowledge is human knowledge.
All true statements are tautologies, Mr. Logic.
But perhaps I didn't make myself clear here, being all shagged out at the
end of a long post. My point was that, even though my own opinions on the
subject are closer to yours than to Diane's, it doesn't seem to me that you
are more rational or a "clearer thinker" (talk about arrogant!).
andy
Lotion Charlie
Friday, then followed that up with Bad Sneakers and Daddy Don't
Live in the NYC No More...not to mention FM, Josie, and Home at
Last.
On the new one, I dig the work on Shame and West of Hollysood
quite a bit and hold up with his best stuff. It understand the
purpose of the reptitive solo on Bas. Abbie is to drive one batty
- indeed, it's successful. The solo on the throwaway Cousin
Dupree is interesting, but reminds me of the Balck Friday solo,
slowed down 25 years later. I have to admit that I that I too
wanted to hear more of the Snowbound-like solos which move
somewhere. There's a bit more treading water here. Having said
that, the guitar on tvN is more of an accent than stalwart with
the album depending more heavily on sax, keys, horns and
integration of instruments (this is where tvN is superior to the
70s albums - they are more linear). I have loved it from day
one. As with my first listen, Almost Gothic, Negative Girl, and
West of Hollywood are among the best Dan opus' (opi??). I, for
one, though think the album may have suffered slightly from Gary
Katz' lack of input and balance, but that's my
take.................
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Ian Stewart Cairns
I eagerly await the publication of your upcoming "Deconstructing BB:
Semiotic nihilism and post structuralist pentatonicism in the work of BB
King - for Dummies". :-)
Ian
John Duffy
>
>andy
>
Wise words Andy, wise words. What was that bit about people not wearing
enough hats again?
--
John Duffy
Ian Stewart Cairns
I agree with almost all of what you said with one or two exceptions.
> I think it's a little pretentious to refer to yourself as an
> iconoclast and trot out Mill and Kuhn.
You don't say why. Care to elaborate?
> We could also simply try to measure technical ability, which is objective
> and scientific, but also misses the real point.
Fully agreed. But nonetheless it is one measuring rod and thus shouldn't
necessarily be discounted.
> There are plenty of people
> with chops to spare, who nonetheless play godawful music
I know, see any Larry Carlton or Lee Ritenour solo album.
>One last approach we could take would be to only count the opinions of
>other musicians ("I'm a guitarist, so *I* can say who's good and who
isn't").
>I see this all the time over in the jazz newsgroup, and Ian and Diane have
>both resorted to it in this argument. In math, we call this "Proof by
>Intimidation."
I fear your inferiority complex is playing up again Andy. ;-) This was not
my motivation and it is arrogant of you to assume otherwise. Unless you are
a mind reader. In any case, I think you ought to make yourself familiar with
the psychoanalytical/psychobabble terms "projection" and
"counter-transference"?
Look, I simply responded to Diane's assertion that Becker is a technically
proficient player. What is intimidating about that? If I happen to be more
knowledgeable about the guitar than you, don't cry about it. Learn for
yourself - it's not exactly rocket-science. Methinks in this case,
intimidation is in the eye of the beholder.
? Well, it doesn't make sense to try to give up
> rational debate altogether
Why not?
> but as the good (if sometimes a bit incoherent) Dr J suggested
I think the deludin is still wearing off. :-)
> we are left with an objective debate that will probably
> always rely on somewhat subjective premises.
This strikes me as a simple tautology. All "objective" debate is based on
subjective premises. All knowledge is human knowledge.
>For my part, I'll just add
> that since the only thing you two seem to agree on is that you don't like
> Jon Herington, the logical conclusion is that you are both tone deaf. :-)
Oh Andy, I'm sure you have your good points too. :-)
Moody Bastard
Stewart Cairns <ian_stewa...@virgin.net> wrote:
> Here is the key. Instead of the mindless ad hominem attacks, how about
> engaging in rational discussion. Some folks seem to think that shouting loud
> enough will make all the dissenting voices disappear. Sorry to disappoint
> you. If you think it is a dull subject or feel you have nothing to offer to
> the discussion - stay out of it. No one's life is at stake here - it is
> just a debate.
Becker rulz!!!! Dissenters can suck it!!!!
--
-- Moods
<assume irony is everpresent>
John Duffy
>So, in your eyes, a discussion board amounts to no more than a forum to fawn
>over false idols does it? :-) This seems unhealthy to me.
No, it just annoys me that you are pulling apart Walter Becker's
contribution to Steely Dan, mainly because he doesn't match up to other
guitarists in your estimation, or pander to your tastes right now.
>You may not like it John, but the world needs its iconoclasts.
Are they acoustic or electric? :-)
>Here are 3 reasons why listening to dissenting opinion is good.
(1) Dejanews needs more dissenting opinions to keep ratings up... "too
much back-slappin' on Usenet".
(2) A bloke called Ian told you to listen.
(3) Beats listening to that "joke" playing the guitar.
:-)
--
John Duffy
ti bon ange
>Despite the fact that it feels sort of like stopping to watch a
>car wreck and then deciding to join in, I can't help adding a
>couple thoughts of my own to the continuing "Walter Becker
>[rocks / sux]" debate.
It's my contention, now that this thread has reached this point,
that the discussion was *never* intended to be about Walter
Becker, really. This is just a game Ian is playing with us. Go
read his first post, then read the rhetoric (sans hot licks) at
the beginning of this thread. Ian is a puppeteer getting off on
seeing how many directions he can have people scurrying off in.
>1) ("I'm a guitarist, so *I* can say who's good and who
>isn't"). I see this all the time over in the jazz newsgroup,
>and Ian and Diane have both resorted to it in this argument.
>2) First, on the meat of the matter, for the most part I agree
>that WB is a pretty mediocre guitar player.
It's entirely my fault that you thought I was engaging in some
kind of dueling git-fiddles with Ian. I didn't expand on my
guitar expertise.
The term "mediocre" is reserved for talents like mine, not
Walter Becker's, or anyone else who actually has an audience.
I've played since 1966, and I still don't amount to shit.
Because of this, I do watch other guitarists carefully to see if
I can learn anything, and am impressed when they manage to do
something that never occurred to me, or that I've never been
able to accomplish.
I also do not have a formal education in music, although I was
raised in a huge, lively musical family and music is a part of
the lives of all my siblings, aunts, uncles and cousins. So I
don't believe the more one knows about guitar-playing or music,
the better qualified one is to judge. Music is just as emotional
as it is technical, and many a technical heart fails to feel
that emotion.
We can't have a rational discussion about Walter Becker's guitar
playing--or anyone else's either--unless we first reach a
consensus about what is good and what is bad and set up criteria
that these musicians must meet in order to qualify for either
end of the spectrum.
In the absence of such criteria (which, by the way, could never
be established), all we are left with are opinions.
I reiterate: Ian came aboard and just wham! boom! bam! slammed
Walter in the most insulting and personal manner. He didn't say
one thing to begin a "rational" discussion about Walter, because
that was not his aim. He wanted to come here and stir up the
natives and have some fun with us. As soon as he had enough
people riled, he essentially revised everything he said. But
it's all still there in black and white: a bitter invective,
writtten in a hostile voice, saying nothing of quality about
guitar playing, whether that be Walter's or anyone else's.
Ian will never have an album of his music go gold or platinum.
Ian lacks the talent of Donald and Walter, separately and
collectively. Ian's magnum opus is the sum total of his postings
here (how sad). Ian is nobody in the guitar firmament. The
intensity of his opinions and harping about someone else serve
to divert the attention away from how little Ian has to offer.
To sum up, talking to Ian--trying to have a "rational"
discussion--is not only a waste of time, it's a classic tarbaby
setup.
love and kisses
diane
A Shrine to Walter Becker:
http://hometown.aol.com/jackofdays/wb-sdwsky.htm
"Lonely as America, a throatpierced sound in the night." Jack Kerouac
ti bon ange
I wonder if you could be more specific as to what it is about
Walter's playing you enjoy. I mean I hear people ramble on about
his phrasing and so on. But quantifiably speaking (insofar as
these things are quantifiable), what is it about his "phrasing"
that appeals? Granted, his playing on Bad Sneakers is
spectacular (or, more accurately, spectacularly edited together
by Roger Nichols) and his Dave Gilmour-approved outro on FM is
rather tasty as is his noteworthy solo on Junkie Girl, but on
the new album all he offers us is ponderous pentatonic noodling.
He just keeps on and on and on in every song (excluding the best
cut on the album - Negative Girl, where mercifully he doesn't
appear). He reminds me of a drunk at a party who keeps spewing
out the same joke over and over but doesn't realise that whilst
we might have enjoyed it the first time, it isn't funny anymore.
We are bored stiff of having to listen and want him to go away.
Live he is a joke. You can tell he doesn't know what the chords
are (not that he has the technique to finger them even if he
did). His lush and expensive-sounding tone is expressionless but
that has less to do with his real-dear-gear than with his
inherent lack of musicality. I mean we all know who the real
talent was/is behind Steely Dan don't we? Take away Becker and
would anyone notice? I mean honestly?
Sorry if this offends, but in the opinion of this reviewer,
Becker is a minor-league talent. I am however, happy to hear any
opinions to the contrary.
Best,
Ian Stewart Cairns
P.S.(Not that I wish Walter any ill-will or anything, but would
it be so terrible if he were to break his arms on tour? It could
even spur a new fanzine; "Metal Arms" anyone?) ;-)
does this sound rational to anyone? It sure as hell doesn't to
me.
Ian Stewart Cairns
> subject are closer to yours than to Diane's, it doesn't seem to me that
you
> are more rational or a "clearer thinker" (talk about arrogant!).
You are confusing the issues here Andy. When I (not entirely seriously)
claimed that the "dissenters" were "clearer thinkers" I was referring to the
overal quality of the debate thus far; NOT whether my opinions are the right
ones.
As to the "iconoclast" term. I admit I was using it in the vernacular sense.
If it lets you sleep better at night, substitute the term "trouble-maker"
for "iconoclast".
Ian
Ian Stewart Cairns
> that the discussion was *never* intended to be about Walter
> Becker
More mystic Diane. Can you give me tonight's lottery numbers?
> I reiterate: Ian came aboard and just wham! boom! bam! slammed
> Walter in the most insulting and personal manner.
> Ian will never have an album of his music go gold or platinum.
> Ian lacks the talent of Donald and Walter, separately and
> collectively. Ian's magnum opus is the sum total of his postings
> here (how sad). Ian is nobody in the guitar firmament. The
> intensity of his opinions and harping about someone else serve
> to divert the attention away from how little Ian has to offer.
Feel better now Diane?
I was trained as a physicist and philosopher. I have no interest in becoming
a rock star - although I have played on many sessions (orchestral and pop)
in my time as guitarist and/or piano player (I am probably on hundreds of
obscure and mostly crap records). I am not as good a songwriter as Donald
Fagen. I am a better guitar player than Walter Becker.
Love and Kisses,
Ian
Mal
knowledge to critique a piece of music, sometimes lose their
enjoyment of the piece because of this. It's been evident for
example that some drummers on this Newsgroup felt that 2VN was
spoiled by the drumming on it.
I find it interesting that Ian thinks that 'Negative Girl' is
the best track on the new album. With my untutored ear I would
agree it has the best playing on it but I think the actual song
doesn't compare with much of the rest of the record. In fact the
melody annoyingly reminds of an English football chant (He's
here, He's there, he's every fucking where, players name,
players name).
For me Steely Dan is about great songs first and great playing
second (but a very important second). Therefore, in my opinion,
any discussion about what makes them a great band should be
focused on composition and the creative process in the studio
rather than on a 'he can play, no he can't' sort of argument. I
don't believe there is enough data out there to have an informed
rational debate on the subject. When I start thinking about who
makes/made the larger contribution I find myself relying on
intuition and on what is probably apocryphal information. The
evidence of the solo albums tends to make me believe that we
*would* notice if WB wasn't around. But that's just my opinion
again really and that's the point. If Ian thinks what he says
about WB's lack of creative talent is the truth, or has a germ
of the truth, he should really expose us to the facts that
support that argument.
Mal
ps for the purposes of the game today the players name should be
Paul Scholes
Ian Stewart Cairns
Mal <malcolm.morr...@btinternet.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:049ce068...@usw-ex0105-037.remarq.com...
> I wonder whether musicians, who can apply their technical
> knowledge to critique a piece of music, sometimes lose their
> enjoyment of the piece because of this. It's been evident for
> example that some drummers on this Newsgroup felt that 2VN was
> spoiled by the drumming on it.
This is a VERY good point. This also goes for audiophiles. And art critics
(perhaps excluding postmodernists for whom, as Cole Porter reminds us,
anything goes). I suppose it keeps them off the street. Although I would
expect musicians, audiophes, art critics etc. to counter by saying that they
are simply more discriminating. I find the whole debate fascinating.
>
> I find it interesting that Ian thinks that 'Negative Girl' is
> the best track on the new album. With my untutored ear I would
> agree it has the best playing on it but I think the actual song
> doesn't compare with much of the rest of the record. In fact the
> melody annoyingly reminds of an English football chant (He's
> here, He's there, he's every fucking where, players name,
> players name).
Brilliant Malcolm!. Absolutely Brilliant!!!
I just went over to the piano. I sang the melody to "He's here, He's there,
he's every fucking where Pauly Scholes, Pauly Scholes" with the Negative
Girl chords underneath. Works pretty well! :-)
Good luck against Germany tonight. (not that you'll need it - Lothar
Mattheus is playing).
"He's not here, he's not there - where the fuck is he? Lothar Mattheus,
Lothar Mattheus" ;-)
Are you nervous yet? :-)
Ian
Professor
> it be so terrible if he were to break his arms on tour? It could
> even spur a new fanzine; "Metal Arms" anyone?) ;-)
>
>
> does this sound rational to anyone? It sure as hell doesn't to
> me.
>
> love and kisses
> diane
The lesson to be learned here is to not feed the trolls. Once this thread
dies Ian will hopefully go back to listening to his beloved Spice Girls and
admiring himself in the mirror.
Robert
John Duffy
>> melody annoyingly reminds of an English football chant (He's
>> here, He's there, he's every fucking where, players name,
>> players name).
>
>Brilliant Malcolm!. Absolutely Brilliant!!!
Yeah I'll second that, hilarious, nice one Mal. Trouble is I'll never be
able to listen to that song properly again now!
BTW Ian, congratulations, I think you may have something of a record on
this NG with the length of this thread, 58 messages and counting!
"Lets have a heated debate" Mrs Merton (UK-TV)
--
John Duffy
John Duffy
Stewart Cairns <ian_stewa...@virgin.net> writes
>
>Becker just isn't as talented a composer as Fagen. In the same way that
>George Harrison wasn't as talented a songwriter as Lennon or Mcartney. Like
>Harrison, he has his moments, just not as many. It isn't his fault and I
>certainly don't hold it against him - hey, Fagen is one of the greatest
>composers of modern pop music. Becker is an acid lyricist and pretty damn
>good bassist. He just lacks Fagen's genius. No shame in that.
>
I just thought I'd cut and paste one of Ian's earlier paragraphs in the
spirit of fairness, since his most inflammatory quotes are repeated a
few times.
Whilst the above makes good music journalism, I and many others here
don't accept you as being privy to the information that Walter was any
less of a contributor to the pre-2vN catalogue.
You are just not enamoured with his guitar playing and solo album, and
try to work backward from there to endorse your prejudice, albeit a well
qualified prejudice.
They produced (in both senses of the word) my seven favourite albums by
ANY artists of all time, together as a TEAM. Donald had the fortune to
have a fantastic voice.
But you argue it well Ian.
John
--
John Duffy
Lotion Charlie
stirred the pot with harsh criticisms of Walter's playing on a
professional level, or asking IS he at a professional level. The
metal-arms comment was clearly a joke - I thought it was funny.
Some have responded with counter-arguments; some have responded
by personally insulting Ian out of character with this venue.
While one may think his comments were over the top and may
strongly disagree, he has the right to speak his mind. My
argument for Walter are the following: A) He is of the John
McLaughlin minimalist school of jazz-blues, B) with solos as on
Junkie Girl, Snowbound, WoH, Black Friday, Bad Sneakers, etc. he
has certainly earned MY respect as a studio musician. He
demonstrates a diversity of tone, attitude, and attack. I think
it says something positive that without prior knowledge it would
be difficult to identify those solos as from the same guitarist.
I’ll admit he’s probably a better musician than technician, but
isn’t that what we want? C) His live playing shows a real
integration with the other musicians staying as Donald would say
"in the pocket." Excellent sense of rhythm. The syle with this
version of the Dan seems to be more of an R&B accent with
Herington doing the attack work. By the way, from what I’ve
heard JH gets better with every venue as he learns the band
better. Not surprising, the more they play together, the tighter
they are. You all in Europe ar
ti bon ange
of Walter's guitar playing? Ian has surely said his piece. Does
anyone else care to agree or disagree with him on the subject of
Walter's guitar skills?
If not, I don't see the point of this thread at all.
love and kisses
diane <-- listening to 11 Tracks of Whack
A Shrine to Walter Becker:
http://hometown.aol.com/jackofdays/wb-sdwsky.htm
"Lonely as America, a throatpierced sound in the night." Jack Kerouac
John Duffy
Behind the scenes we're getting organised. We have your address and
we're gonna spend 3 days poking you in the side of your ribs, just kind
of gently like, one person at a time doing the prodding, on hourly
shifts. The quiet chant ever present in the background "Walter is best,
Walter is best"
:-)
------------THE DISSENTER -----SCENE 73-----------------------------
CUT TO VIEW LOOKING DOWN ON SWEATY TROUBLED MAN IN BED:
MAN WAKES UP FROM TERRIFYING DREAM
Man: (shrieking) "ALT.MUSIC.STEALY-DAN"
>
--
John Duffy
John Duffy
<membabe...@aol.com.invalid> writes
>So, is there ever going to be an actual rational discussion here
>of Walter's guitar playing? Ian has surely said his piece. Does
>anyone else care to agree or disagree with him on the subject of
>Walter's guitar skills?
>
>If not, I don't see the point of this thread at all.
>
>love and kisses
>diane <-- listening to 11 Tracks of Whack
You sound mad (in the American sense of the word) Diane.
You OK?
--
John Duffy
John Duffy
<jo...@duffy.demon.co.uk> writes
--
John Duffy
ti bon ange
>You sound mad (in the American sense of the word) Diane.
>
>You OK?
Probably, I'm more accurately "mad" in the original sense of the
word.
But no, I'm not angry. I'm extremely bored with the circular
nature and lack of Real Steely substance in this thread. But
that's MY problem.
I've said all I can possibly say, so I'm not posting to it
again, and I think I'll block it, using RemarQ's little menu
item, "Ignore Thread," unless it gets real interesting real
quick.
love and kisses
diane
John Duffy
<membabe...@aol.com.invalid> writes
>I've said all I can possibly say, so I'm not posting to it
>again, and I think I'll block it, using RemarQ's little menu
>item, "Ignore Thread," unless it gets real interesting real
>quick.
We're working on it Diane, needs to be done :-) But don't abandon us!
>
>A Shrine to Walter Becker:
>http://hometown.aol.com/jackofdays/wb-sdwsky.htm
>"Lonely as America, a throatpierced sound in the night." Jack Kerouac
>Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
>Up to 100 minutes free!
>http://www.keen.com
>
--
John Duffy
Ian Stewart Cairns
Ian
tim r
ti bon ange <membabe...@aol.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:10665f9c...@usw-ex0102-014.remarq.com...
> it be so terrible if he were to break his arms on tour? It could
> even spur a new fanzine; "Metal Arms" anyone?) ;-)
>
>
> does this sound rational to anyone? It sure as hell doesn't to
> me.
>
> love and kisses
> diane
>
>
>
> http://hometown.aol.com/jackofdays/wb-sdwsky.htm
> "Lonely as America, a throatpierced sound in the night." Jack Kerouac
> Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
> Up to 100 minutes free!
> http://www.keen.com
>
individual who's arm, or worse, leg has been broken....serious.
it hurts....and even more.....
maybe even to the the guy who think's Walt is a shit guitar player
and he can play better? well , who's your Donald Fagen, ya cunt?
answer= no one , and I'm tired of your self indulgent, dumb down,
obviously superior attitude.....so get fucked' Ian Stuart Cairns.....
do you like the dan or what! if so, what tracks?
we love em'.....here in Sheffield anyway.....
simple really....
tim r
John Duffy
Stewart Cairns <ian_stewa...@virgin.net> writes
>ARRGH!!! :-)
>
Welcome to the real world!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--
John Duffy
Ian Stewart Cairns
> BTW Have we worn you down yet Ian :-)
Actually, you people are pussycats. I should introduce you to some of the
eugenicists, homophobes and neo-nazis I debate with on a regular basis. I
have received several REAL death threats from some of them.
There are truly some scary people out there. You guys don't scare me. Much
;-)
In fact, I think this debate is just starting to get good (some really
great, intelligent, insightful and funny posts today).
Ian
GullyWater
hear him play, after him not playing as much on AJA or GAUCHO. Of course I
love his basswork on the early records, but hearing his guitar work is a real
treat. I hope he plays more often.
eric
Tsevis
Your posts are consitently inspiring.
I want to add one note to this thread.
The guy (Ian?) who said "I'm a guitarist so I am qualified to judge Walter
Becker"....Jeez! I am a pianist (fair-to-middling) and I don't feel qualified
to judge ANYONE else's playing.
If I as a keyboard player set my sights on Monk, Bud Powell, Basie and (yes)
Ellington, I will forever come up short. No reason to stop trying.
In fact, I'd love this opportunity to point out the Steely Dan/Duke Ellington
connection (hint:"East St. Louis Toodle-Oo").
Steely Dan is not so much a band as a creative vision.
Ellington tried to keep a solid band together as long as he could, but
touring/salaries caused the same problem.
But when he made albums, he always brought in the best...Blanton/Webster, and
later Coltrane. Let's not forget Billy Strayhorn. (Check out "Monk Plays
Ellington")
Becker/Fagen are first and foremost songwriters. Harping on Becker's guitar
playing is silly, because it otherwise ignores his musical contributions.
Folks! Study the jazz that inspired these guys!
Seevots
Tsevis
I can't help but focus on his idiotic remark "I'm a better guitar player than
Walter Becker".
Sounds like every frustrated musician I've ever known.
I'm a pianist with Monk, Ellington et al in my repertoire.
I would NEVER have the temerity to make a remark as pathetic as Ian's.
Ian, make your latest CD available to us so we can "critique" it.
Seevots
Tsevis
You have been the most consistently intelligent, perecptive and witty
contributor to this newsgroup.
Don't leave!
Love, Seevots
Tsevis
a better guitar player than Walter Becker" he says). Jeez, what arrogance.
Bubber Miley had one "trick" up his sleeve and yet he stayed with Ellington
before his health gave out.
Count Basie had a minimalist piano style (Ellington, too) but who's to say
someone was "better" than him?
Quit listening to Steely Dan for what Becker "doesn't do" and check out what he
DOES do.
I know for hotshot bragadoccio guitarists like Ian, that may be hard to do, but
I just watched the DVD of Steely Dan's 2vN concert for the 3rd time.
And yes, watching Becker the first time, I was thinking, "Man, this is just not
very imaginative". Unlike some wannabe music critics, I don't always trust my
first opinions.
Second viewing=actually I think his playing is pretty cool.
Third viewing=agree with Donald Fagen (take THIS, Ian...quoted from Sweet's
biography), Becker is so interesting, has a style, and is in every way
indispensible to the total concept of Steely Dan.
If you really are a better guitar player than Walter Becker, spend more time
making music and less time on this newsgroup.
Seevots
Ian Stewart Cairns
>(take THIS, Ian...quoted from Sweet's
> biography), Becker is so interesting, has a style, and is in every way
> indispensible to the total concept of Steely Dan.
Take this from Guitar Player, Dec 94 page 73:
"When I moved to Hawaii, I couldn't live with myself any longer unless I
learned a few unanswered questions.(sic) I started practising so I wouldn't
be quite as embarrassed with my playing"
So, sweet Seevots, are you telling me Sweet is a better judge than Walter?
My view merely correlates with that of the great man himself.
Ian Stewart Cairns
> Ian is indeed an intelligent writer.
Thanks, I wish I could reciprocate.
> I can't help but focus on his idiotic remark "I'm a better guitar player
than
> Walter Becker".
> Sounds like every frustrated musician I've ever known.
> I'm a pianist with Monk, Ellington et al in my repertoire.
> I would NEVER have the temerity to make a remark as pathetic as Ian's.
Let's reverse engineer this silly argument shall we, just for fun
Premise (1) Claiming that player P is better than player Q is an idiotic
remark
Premise (2) Ian is an idiot for making such a remark.
(Suppressed premise 1) Seevots is exempt from premise 1.
Premise (2) Seevots is a piano player but does not consider himself as good
as Monk or Ellington
(Suppressed premise 2) Famous players are better than non-famous players.
Conclusion: Ian is pathtic for claiming that player P is better than player
Q.
What possible bearing does the quality of your piano playing have on the
quality of my guitar playing? Or anybody's guitar playing? Or kazoo playing
for that matter?
Perhaps you would like to attend my seminar course "Thinking for beginners"?
Tsevis
Your axe must be pretty sharp considering how much you've been grinding it.
Don't imagine yourself to be my intellectual superior, even if you are a better
writer.
I don't have to contradict you, since you do so yourself (referring to Becker
as "The great man" after trashing him mercislessly). Take some Deluded and
relax.
Your whole Socratean A, thus B, then C is the most ridiculously vacuous
argument I've ever read. You usually do better.
YOU are the one who claimed himself a "better guitarist than Becker", so don't
accuse me of being specious.
There's no good, better, best in music, but you are pursuing a thread which
indicates a very disturbing obsession.
Xanax, Prozac, whatever it takes. Get well soon.
Seevots
Ian Stewart Cairns
Ah, dear Seevots, you see, there's the rub. If music is all a matter of
opinion then why get so upset with my claim to be a better guitarist than
Walter? You surely see that this is a contradictory position to hold.
Irrespective of whether there are objective standards in music or not, you
surely owe it to yourself to debate it rationally without resorting to
personal attacks and generally behaving like a spoiled child.
>I don't have to contradict you, since you do so yourself (referring to
Becker
>as "The great man" after trashing him mercislessly).
<Sigh> It is called "irony". See any Steely Dan album.
>Don't imagine yourself to be my intellectual superior, even if you are a
better
>writer.
I don't. It seems you do though.
Ian
John Duffy
Stewart Cairns <ian_stewa...@virgin.net> writes
>In fact, I think this debate is just starting to get good (some really
>great, intelligent, insightful and funny posts today).
>
>Ian
your being serious. Ironic isn't it?
:-)
--
John Duffy
AA.Com
>
>Yawn. I know these terms and like most psychobabble they are 99.44% BS.
A Clean as real as Ivory, no less.
hehe I remember those commercials, too.
Doc
ti bon ange
> Jun 19, 04:59 AM
For that matter, what are YOU doing up at 5a.m.?
DrJ
>
> Despite the fact that it feels sort of like stopping to watch a car
> wreck and then deciding to join in, I can't help adding a couple
> thoughts of my own to the continuing "Walter Becker [rocks / sux]" debate.
<cue sounds of screeching tires>
>
> First, on the meat of the matter, for the most part I agree that WB is a
> pretty mediocre guitar player.
you left out "with moments of brilliance..." to which i would add:
a guitar player with a much longer agenda [and certainly a bigger
budget] than the average player who might be weedley-weedling away to
the wee hours of the morn' with aspirations of grandeur [and, more than
likely, at the expense of other parts of their lives... i quote FZ: "if
you're highly motivated to be a spectacular drummer or guitar player or
whatever, other parts of your life will suffer. People looking at you
living your life will go, 'He's weird,' not realizing you don't *give* a
fuck about those other parts of your life 'cause you're focused on
something else. The person might say, 'Why does he behave like that?'
And the answer is, he just doesn't care as much about that other
incidental shit as you do".
So, i submit a different line of logic and reasoning and incoherence
<smile>... walter is a brilliant guitar player who for reasons of his
own [which wouldn't stop my conjecture in the least] plays lots of
mediocre things by default because he decided to stop working so hard?
and, focuses on different things now that school's out.
something like that.
i don't mean that in a bad way. I love those moments of brilliance and
he brings along hired guns with chops and notches in their guitar straps
on the payroll to out-shine him according to the criterea of most [which
is a sneaky way of falling back on the logical weapon:
"define your terms!", what constitutes a great guitar player in the
first place?]. If we're gonna amuse ourselves and employ logic and
reasoning (knowing full well that, especially in a Kuhnian cognitive
map, we're not only falling off the edge of a flat world but may be
running nonsensical rings of pseuodreason around saturn. how dare we?
we likes it. Ian, correct me if i'm wrong, is far more interested in
stimulating intelligent conversation, knows all-too-well about
tautologically self-reflective effects of affect and is far more tongue
in cheek than he is arrogant or pompous. I'm enjoying his posts
immensely and having fun.
>
> Now, on to the weighty philosophical matters that Ian has raised:
> (*Warning*: long and potentially boring discourse follows)
ditto
> I think it's a little pretentious to refer to yourself as an
> iconoclast and trot out Mill and Kuhn. The belief that Becker is not a
> great guitar player may be unpopular among some here, but it is hardly
> revolutionary, even in a Steely Dan discussion group. Also, you claim that
> your opinions are better supported by facts and logic than Diane's, but
> really all you've said are things like "If I gave him some hard stuff to
> play he couldn't do it," [paraphrased] which is not so much fact as
> an unsubstantiated claim on your part. And (see below), this kind of
> argument doesn't tell us much about how great an artist someone is anyway.
I support Ian having his fun having at our icons and do not think it
pretentious to trot Kuhn or Mill around the track a few times. At first,
I felt that it was a misapplication- which may be what you're getting at
here... consider the flat earth in Kuhn's paradigm model-
whilst some sailor wanders lonely as a cloud along the beach gazing out
at the horizon and noticing that the mast is the first sign of a ship
approaching [rather than a whole but rilly teenie weenie ship that gets
bigger and bigger en masse the closer it sails at the sailor] and puts a
finger to his cranium and goes, "hmmmmm; my paradigm canot explain this
phenomenon." something is wrong with both maps [the cognitive and the
one nailed to the mast]. Some new bit of information has come along that
suggests one be torn up and the other re-thunk. Can anything be pointed
at as a mast on the horizon which might revolutionize collective wisdom
regarding is he or ain't Walter mediocre?
>
> The broader question of how (or rather, whether) we can logically or
> objectively make judgements about art (in particular, music) is something
> that I've thought about a fair amount, and debated drunkenly in my college
> days. A friend of mine, in those drunken debates, used to insist that none
> of us had any right to put our own tastes above others; all we had was the
> weight of popular opinion. This is obviously problematic (i.e. absurd)
> since it would put Britney Spears above the Dan, and Kenny G above John
> Coltrane, the very thought of which makes me want to vomit.
not if you were a 13 yr old female in spandex and glitter eye shadow.
Of course, your friend is correct but that is absolutely *no* reason to
refrain [or require a few pints of Guiness to loosen your lobes]. The
thrust of my last musing was precisely that. If no one had the right to
put his/her taste above others... no one would be able to finish a
sentence. ever. heavy. what would i do when work got slow?
why, i'd practice my guitar.
where was i?
The answer is calculus.
wait.
>
> We could also simply try to measure technical ability, which is objective
> and scientific, but also misses the real point. <snip> There are plenty of people
> with chops to spare, who nonetheless play godawful music. <snip> Also, there is no
> linear ordering on technical abilities: there are surely things that Pat
> Metheny could play that Pat Martino could not, and vice-versa. <snip>
>
> One last approach we could take would be to only count the opinions of
> other musicians ("I'm a guitarist, so *I* can say who's good and who isn't").
> I see this all the time over in the jazz newsgroup, and Ian and Diane have
> both resorted to it in this argument. In math, we call this "Proof by
> Intimidation." But besides the fact that it excludes perfectly intelligent
> people with excellent taste like me from the debate, it also won't work
> because musicians, as far as I can tell, are just as likely to disagree
> about this stuff, <snip>
yes yes yessssss. you can shoot all sorts of holes in Ian's "logic" and
refute anyone's "reasons/criterea for assessment". The man asks for
substantiation. This is not without merit. I began a post which was
essentially going to describe a paradigm constructed of a chant:
Black Friday/Black Friday/ Black Friday...
and then amusingly plop off the edge of that flat world.
it was to work up a big sweat to disagree with him and result in a
figure eight of 'logic' that arrived at the same conclusion he offers!
,<snip>
>
> So what are we left with? Well, it doesn't make sense to try to give up
> rational debate altogether, but as the good (if sometimes a bit incoherent)
> Dr J suggested, we are left with an objective debate that will probably
> always rely on somewhat subjective premises.
yes. thank you. some days are better than others.
The calculus i struggled to employ is a hyperbolic function which keeps
getting closer and closer to an axis [as you expend energy to extend
either end of the curve, either "side" of the argument] but cannot, by
definition, intersect one. Fine. We get it- it's close enough for Jazz!
So, talk. Ian knows [or do i creep out on a limb?] that nothing he posts
is likely to be so revolting as to effect a revolutionary storming of
anyone's Bastille. My Bastille is a little sore from hunching over my
guitar. Carpal tunnel to the dungeon? Off with his head. Let him eat
cake after that, eh? that was not a death threat. I cannot *disagree*
with any of his substantiation... but I do not *agree* with him. This
makes perfect sense to me [but, look who's talking]. If the thread
persists I'll try to post something more substantive.
For my part, I'll just add
> that since the only thing you two seem to agree on is that you don't like
> Jon Herington, the logical conclusion is that you are both tone deaf. :-)
> (Probably no one read this far anyway...)
>
> andy
they will not accept Herington's "role" any more than they can accept
Walter's role. Walter, i logically submit, has an agenda. Guitar God is
not on the list. He is a brilliant guitarist. I submit Surf and/or Die
as evidence. I submit Junky Girl as a premise. We all receive the same
sensory input... there are no masts on the horizon? hmmm. I think there
are. watch:
Black Friday/ Black Friday/ Black Friday...
Bad [insert your favorite extraordinary Becker solo here]
Drugs
Life/Death
Production
Writer's Block? [Donald visits a shrink here]
Love/Hate
Middle Age
Children/family
Changes in latitude
Changes in attitude [no parrotheads here?]
Sobriety
Fatherhood
Rickie Lee Jones [that's the way it's gonna be little darlin']
Surf and/or Die [bbbbut, bbbut... there's no SOLO???!!!! who the fuck
says a brilliant guitarist HAS TO PLAY 'EM???? sorry. i shouted at the
tip of a mast on the horizon. It is a 'solo' that Larry Carlton could
never have conceived. Walter's entire guitar part is a lesson in
negative space, note clusters which can imply several tonal centers but
define none exactly, and elevate [or shroud] paradigms of traditional
harmony like some dare-devil hang glider]
several bars before "i almost got there" in WOH
many bars of yawn, that's nice
["where's Black Friday" okay here if you must]
a nice shirt and tie
______________________ [the line = therefore in symbolic logic]
brilliant, original, accomplished, and hanging with an agenda for which
I have nothing but respect [and happiness for the moments...]
He is not, by any stretch of the paradigm, a mediocre guitarist.
I conclude that were he to choose to become a guitar god he might just
shock the shit out of us but i'm okay with it if he doesn;'t want to
work that hard. He is "about" different things and we are the ones that
must shift our paradigms to appreciate it in the greater context
lest we get too reductionist and trot out Kid C ad nauseum... but, did
Larry ever wear a T-I-E to a gig? Discuss. [i think it is as
significant as spelling L-U-V...]
Ian, you may invoke Kant's Critique of Pure Reason any time you like.
Hoist the mainsail, show us the cut of yer jib matey.
warmly incoherent
David
[got a B- in symbolic logic... it was an 8am class, i was young and the
world was my oyster. no regrets]
DrJ
>
> Dr J,
>
> I eagerly await the publication of your upcoming "Deconstructing BB:
> Semiotic nihilism and post structuralist pentatonicism in the work of BB
> King - for Dummies". :-)
>
> Ian
see?!!! there's nothing to get upset about this man here.
we're making big fun.
It's being proofed right now for logical positivism and factual
verification. The working title:
Postmodernist Mississippiism: The Sub-pentatonic subtext of
sonambulation avec vibrato
[a few notes short of a muddied blues scale]
keep shooing that bee, BB
David
AA.Com
<membabe...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
>Doc wrote:
>
>> Jun 19, 04:59 AM
>
>For that matter, what are YOU doing up at 5a.m.?
>
>love and kisses
>diane
>
>
ACK! I'm not invisible afterall!
I take back all the stupid shit I've been saying.
Well, most of it.
I go to work early, BTW.
And I hate the way I space my lines.
As if the pause is needed to add drama.
Perhaps it is......
(cue violins, slow fade to black, begin credits)
Produced, Written, and Directed by
Stanley "Doc" Kubrick
Placido
bedrockmusic:First bedrockmusic:Last
responded to... but my two cents are as follows (previously posted in another
thread)...
Dearest InANe -
Fagen + Becker = Steely Dan; subtract either person and you get "Band on the
Run" or "Plastic Ono Band", neither one being a "Revolver". Clearly picking a
favorite might satisfy some need for self validation, however, the strength of
2vsN, especially in the light of the solo releases, shows the sum is
substantially greater than the parts thereof. In other words, you probably would
never had noticed Donald's "genius" if not for Walt's "genius".
And since we all need a little self validation, I personally prefer "Plastic Ono
Band"... as much as I like "The Nightfly", it would have been the worst Steely
Dan album in their catalogue.
Anyway, Kenny Vance was the real "genius"...
tones
Ian Stewart Cairns wrote:
On another thread I claimed that Becker was the lesser composer of the two.
For me, The Nightfly is compelling evidence for this this. From a musical
perspective there isn't one song on the Nightfly that wouldn't grace ANY
Steely Dan album (well, stylistically speaking, maybe not "Walk Between
Raindrops"). I have also argued that Becker is an acid lyricist (and this is
one clear difference on the Nightfly - the lyrics are gentler). This is not
to say Becker contributed nothing to the music - its just that he lacks
Fagen's genius.
Fagen gave us "The Nightfly".
Meanwhile Becker offered us "11 Tracks of Whack".
Which album would you describe as a masterpiece?
Ian Stewart Cairns wrote:
> Great post Steve!
bedrockmusic:First bedrockmusic:Last
tones
Ian Stewart Cairns wrote:
Mal,Please enlighten us all with your critique of Walt's guitar technique.. I
have set forth my opinion and backed it up with arguments. I actively asked
for others. I actually wrote."Sorry if this offends, but in the opinion of
this reviewer, Becker is a minor-league talent. I am however, happy to hear
any opinions to the contrary."
As with most people on the losing side of an argument you have resorted to
pathetic ad hominem attacks.So do you have anything to offer to the debate other than empty platitudes?
Let me guess.
Ian
Mal <malcolm.morr...@btinternet.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:10fec8b2...@usw-ex0106-047.remarq.com...
> In article <3947C3C5...@fmr.com>, Jon Stone
> <jon....@fmr.com> wrote:
> >>I don't think his statements were
> >tantamount to proclaiming anyone a "fraud." I think we're
> merely saying
> >that while we acknowledge that his contribution to the pop
> music lexicon
> >is inestimable, in the realm of guitar virtuosity, Walter has
> not lived
> >up to the promise of SD's 70s releases.
> >
> >
> Jon, I respect your opinion even though I have really liked
> Walter's recent efforts on Guitar. But let me re-quote Ian.
>
> "Live he is a joke. You can tell he doesn't know what the chords
> are (not that he has the technique to finger them even if he
> did). His lush and expensive-sounding tone is expressionless but
> that has less to do with his real-dear-gear than with his
> inherent lack of musicality. I mean we all know who the real
> talent was/is behind Steely Dan don't we? Take away Becker and
> would anyone notice? I mean honestly?"
>
> As far as I'm concerned this is troll type stuff and it doesn't
> match up to your interpretation above. That sounds more like
> abuse than crtisism and given Ian's screen persona I'm sure he's
> really happy with the response he got.
>
> Mal
>
>
>
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network
*
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>
Tsevis
Instead of the Lennon/McCartney analogy, let's try this:
Ellington/Strayhorn.
Maybe not as apt or appiclable, but as far as I am concerned, the Steely Dan
Orchestra is the heir apparent as Duke's outfit. They have another 30 years
before they can rival's Duke's best, but let's give Becker his due.
It's not Steely Dan without him.
And for that matter, why do you think Fagen had Becker produce "Kamakiriad"?
as a "favor"?
Prof
St.Michael
Greg Abrams
> Ian Stewart Cairns wrote:
>
> On another thread I claimed that Becker was the lesser composer of the
two.
> For me, The Nightfly is compelling evidence for this this. From a
musical
> perspective there isn't one song on the Nightfly that wouldn't grace ANY
> Steely Dan album (well, stylistically speaking, maybe not "Walk Between
> Raindrops").
I disagree - I would suggest that "Ruby Baby", "Maxine", "The Goodbye Look",
and "Walk Between Raindrops" are all non-Steely songs - that's half of the
album... given the concept approach, the definite nostalgic feel, etc., it's
not too surprising.
I don't mean that as a criticism - I would have been surprised if Donald
alone did sound completely Steely - or would even want to. Most solo artists
attempt to walk that fine line; maintain some of their signature sound while
bringing new elements to the mix.
Greg
Steve_2000
Post:
----------
Post: Was it that sense of simpatico that made you both want to
start writing?
Fagen: We were both writing before we met. There were lots of
jazz harmonies and the lyrics were funny, so when we combined
our ideas it improved each of our songs. It was never hard to
write with Walter. When you think of us writing together, think
of us as a couple of comedy writers, not songwriters.
Post: So writing is fun?
Becker: When we write, we're basically trying to crack each
other up. Whether we are writing or just walking down the street
together, my goal is to make Donald do a spit take.
------------
For the whole interview, which expands a little more on this and
also touring, fans etc go to:
http://www.nypostonline.com/entertainment/7412.htm.
Thanks to the Dandom Digest for a couple of posts with the
interview address.
Steve
-----------------------------------------------------------