Quote
Keefan
Page has said in an interview that since he didn't read music, most of his session work was playing rhythm, except for the occassional song on which he got to improvise a lead - but those were few when compared to the rhythym parts.

Page said that sometimes when he would work with another session guitarist who could read music (I can't remember who exactly, but maybe Vic Flick), that they'd go over the song with him before recording. (I read this info in a guitar mag interview with Page probably about 10 - 15 years ago).

I love the Yardbirds! From what I've read, Page played guitar along wiht Beck on a lot of the '66 tour, and they were the loudest and heaviest band around at the time.

They had great chops but the Stones had far better songs (don't get me wrong, I love a lot of the Yardbirds' tunes). 'Roger the Engineer' was the biggest guitar freak-out album in rock until Hendrix came along, and it still sounds great, and several songs on 'Little Games' sound like they could have been on Led Zeppelin's first album.


The Yardbirds LIVE AT THE BBC is one of my favorite cds, Jeff Beck's playing in particular is incredible throughout - great stuff. He was on fire.


P.S. The Yardbirds reunion cd 'Birddland' from 2003 is suprisingly good, I highly recommend it.

Quote
bustedtrousers

As far as his session work goes, I thought the line was that he was good at what he did, but what he was called on to do was usually pretty basic, and nowhere near the level of what guys like the Wrecking Crew in L.A did. Page was a good rhythm player, and could handle blues-based leads, which were prevalent in mid-60's London pop/rock, but he couldn't read music, and the London session guys in general didn't handle the variety of stuff like guys in L.A. and Nashville had to.

The guys in L.A. would do some simple 3-chord, throwaway pop song, then a jazz session, then a session with someone like Sinatra, and then a T.V. or film score, all in the same day. And the Nashville guys were in a league all their own, too.

I've always been under the impression that the London guys just didn't do that kind of variety, and therefore didn't need to be as skilled, and this is partly why Page was so successful. Most of what he was called on to do wasn't that complex.

In other words, being the top guy in London wasn't the same as being the top guy in L.A. or Nashville. This is in no way a knock on London. I just think they were two different worlds at that time, and I don't think Page would have cut it in places like L.A. or Nashville. He wasn't a Tommy Tedesco, or a Chet Atkins, by any means.

Anyone have any more solid insight on this?

Quote
DandelionPowderman
You might have a point there, Doxa. Or the answer could be even more simple: If you don't have the ability to write really good songs, you'll have to find another thing to compensate with.

The Stones had one of the best frontmen around, if not the best already. Then the songwriting really took off. There was no need for flashy guitar playing or other virtuosity.

Quote
Doxa
Could it be that The Stones never really took part to the "fastest gun under the sun" competition because they were quite early contacted with real american musicians and their scenes, so they didn't have any illusions of their "superior" technical abilities (see the Keith quote above)?

Quote
lsbz

Quote
Doxa
Could it be that The Stones never really took part to the "fastest gun under the sun" competition because they were quite early contacted with real american musicians and their scenes, so they didn't have any illusions of their "superior" technical abilities (see the Keith quote above)?

I have to strongly object to this; the Stones guitarists were technically as good as any guitarist of their time; they just were rhythm guitarists and did not get noticed much that way. It's a predjudice that you hear way too often, probably by people who have not been in decent bands themselves; playing rhythm guitair well can take all kinds of techniques. An obvious example is Pete Townshend, who is a very noticable rhythm guitarist, but Keith Richards is very good as well.
In a band, a good rhythm gutarist is mandatory, but you can well do without a solo guitarist.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
lsbz

Quote
Doxa
Could it be that The Stones never really took part to the "fastest gun under the sun" competition because they were quite early contacted with real american musicians and their scenes, so they didn't have any illusions of their "superior" technical abilities (see the Keith quote above)?

I have to strongly object to this; the Stones guitarists were technically as good as any guitarist of their time; they just were rhythm guitarists and did not get noticed much that way. It's a predjudice that you hear way too often, probably by people who have not been in decent bands themselves; playing rhythm guitair well can take all kinds of techniques. An obvious example is Pete Townshend, who is a very noticable rhythm guitarist, but Keith Richards is very good as well.
In a band, a good rhythm gutarist is mandatory, but you can well do without a solo guitarist.

That is wrong as Richards either won, or got recognition as one of the best (top 5 and/or 10) lead guitar players in Britain in awards on several occations during the early/mid 60s.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
He may be now, but he certainly was a solo guitarist.

He played all the solos (except slide solos) until he discovered open G-tuning, hence he functioned as the band's solo guitarist for seven years. If you don't think he was good enough doesn't rock that fact.

And he got noticed indeed, already on the Stones' debut album. From the first solo on Route 66, through the great licks on Little By Little as well as on the swinging Walkin' The Dog.

When I listen to one of the Stones' best albums, Let It Bleed, I'm not thinking
"this guy is obviously more of a rhythm guitarist"...

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Rhythm guitarist is not a suitable label on Keith, nor is the term solo guitarist, imo.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Yeah, but in Start Me Up, he's playing the main melody, like he does so often - hence his role is much more advanced than that of a rhythm guitarist.

Quote
lsbz

Quote
Doxa
Could it be that The Stones never really took part to the "fastest gun under the sun" competition because they were quite early contacted with real american musicians and their scenes, so they didn't have any illusions of their "superior" technical abilities (see the Keith quote above)?

I have to strongly object to this; the Stones guitarists were technically as good as any guitarist of their time; they just were rhythm guitarists and did not get noticed much that way. It's a predjudice that you hear way too often, probably by people who have not been in decent bands themselves; playing rhythm guitair well can take all kinds of techniques. An obvious example is Pete Townshend, who is a very noticable rhythm guitarist, but Keith Richards is very good as well.
In a band, a good rhythm gutarist is mandatory, but you can well do without a solo guitarist.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
lsbz

Quote
Doxa
Could it be that The Stones never really took part to the "fastest gun under the sun" competition because they were quite early contacted with real american musicians and their scenes, so they didn't have any illusions of their "superior" technical abilities (see the Keith quote above)?

I have to strongly object to this; the Stones guitarists were technically as good as any guitarist of their time; they just were rhythm guitarists and did not get noticed much that way. It's a predjudice that you hear way too often, probably by people who have not been in decent bands themselves; playing rhythm guitair well can take all kinds of techniques. An obvious example is Pete Townshend, who is a very noticable rhythm guitarist, but Keith Richards is very good as well.
In a band, a good rhythm gutarist is mandatory, but you can well do without a solo guitarist.

I think you should have no reason to object very strongly. You seem to take my point wrongly.

Quote
Doxa
Anyway, I don't think any of the 'core' Stones members were technically excellent players...

Quote
Amsterdamned

Quote
Tumblin_Dice_07

Quote
Amsterdamned


If someone doesn't hear the delta blues here, well I'am sorry.





1967!

I listened to that first track for two minutes and I didn't hear any hint of Delta blues.....it was a 10 minute track however so maybe I didn't listen long enough? Or maybe our definitions of "delta blues" aren't the same?

You listened long enough, but to the wrong item imo:
Delta blues is not only about scales, but feeling and timing are even more important.It's bigger than that so to speak..

Quote
rocker1

Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
Big Al

Quote
bustedtrousers
As far as his session work goes, I thought the line was that he was good at what he did, but what he was called on to do was usually pretty basic, and nowhere near the level of what guys like the Wrecking Crew in L.A did. Page was a good rhythm player, and could handle blues-based leads, which were prevalent in mid-60's London pop/rock, but he couldn't read music, and the London session guys in general didn't handle the variety of stuff like guys in L.A. and Nashville had to.

The guys in L.A. would do some simple 3-chord, throwaway pop song, then a jazz session, then a session with someone like Sinatra, and then a T.V. or film score, all in the same day. And the Nashville guys were in a league all their own, too.

I've always been under the impression that the London guys just didn't do that kind of variety, and therefore didn't need to be as skilled, and this is partly why Page was so successful. Most of what he was called on to do wasn't that complex.

In other words, being the top guy in London wasn't the same as being the top guy in L.A. or Nashville. This is in no way a knock on London. I just think they were two different worlds at that time, and I don't think Page would have cut it in places like L.A. or Nashville. He wasn't a Tommy Tedesco, or a Chet Atkins, by any means.

Anyone have any more solid insight on this?

What utter rubbish. So, you’re basically dismissing the entire London music scene as second-rate in compared to the scene in LA? You are very much alone on this one, I think.

NO ASS-HOLE, I AM NOT DISMISSING THE ENTIRE LONDON MUSIC SCENE AS SECOND RATE. DID YOU READ MY POST, DIDN'T YOU SEE MY COMMENT ON HOW I WAS NOT KNOCKING LONDON? JIMINY F_UCKING CHRISTMAS, DOES ANYONE ON HERE PAY ATTENTION AND HAVE READING COMPREHENSION SKILLS?

I knew some prick would take what I said the wrong way. I purposely put in the part about not knocking London and saying that they were two different worlds at that time. My impression is that the L.A. guys did everything, while London guys like Jimmy primarily did pop and rock and roll sessions, which were for the most part, fairly basic, when it comes to session work. To be a top session player, you have to be able to play ANYTHING at ANYTIME. From simple pop, like Herman's Hermits, to complex jazz, to film and music scores.

To my knowledge, Jimmy didn't do that. I seem to recall reading somewhere, maybe from Page himself, that what he did was pretty basic, mostly rhythm backing tracks. My impression of London compared to L.A. is that things were more specialized in London, than they were in L.A. As a result, in London, simple pop stuff was handled by one set of guys, jazz by another, BBC and film by another, and so on, with little crossover. Whereas in L.A., the "top" guys did it all. They were very schooled, all around players that could do anything and everything.

I don't think Jimmy, and Big Jim Sullivan, were on that level. I did not say that EVERYONE in London was like that. If you're too retarded to get that, I'm sorry.

I also asked for more SOLID INSIGHT on this, as I am not positive if my IMPRESSION is correct. I was hoping to get some genuine, knowledgeable feedback from some of the members here, especially the British ones, who would know.

I WASN'T looking for some limey prick like you to jump my shit because they are too ignorant to read something without taking it as an insult to their country.

I understand what you're saying. There's a technical proficiency abundant in the Nashville session players that is staggering, and it's been that way for ages. Your point about being able to adapt and play many different styles, flawlessy, with brilliant precise execution, and learn it more/less instantly, is something that is an entirely different skillset from blowing away rock audiences with passionate power chords, or somewhat shaky acoustic fingerpicking that a Chet Atkins was probably playing when he was, oh, 8 years old.

Jimmy Page is a rock guitar god, and rightly recognized as such. But I think he would've had a hard time getting hired as a session player in Nashville. Perhaps I'm very wrong and there's more to his 1965-era resume than I Can't Explain and other similar rock/blues sessions.

And this is certainly not a knock on London. I'm sure that city was/is filled with players possessing technical proficiency and talent by the bucketloads. Perhaps Vic Flick should jump in here and give us a thought on this? (He's a Londoner who probably would've fit in very well as a Nashville session player.)

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I think Jimmy Page could have played very much everything that has come out of Nashville during the years. I suspect he'd do fine back in 1965 as well.

Quote
His Majesty
There is live footage of them with page on bass and of course there is the incomplete 2 tracks from Glasgow 1966 featuring page and beck on guitar.

There's photos from other gigs, just hard to track down.

I doubt they blew the stones off stage because the stones generated so much energy and excitement and there interesting musical highlights too like lady Jane etc.

Quote
Big Al
Oh, and take a listen to this track: IMO, one of Page's very finest session appearances

Quote
His Majesty
Yah need to be careful who you credit the guitar parts to as there were usually other players involved like .big .jim Sullivan etc, also Page didn't playon all of the tracks contained on these session cd's.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
rocker1

Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
Big Al

Quote
bustedtrousers
As far as his session work goes, I thought the line was that he was good at what he did, but what he was called on to do was usually pretty basic, and nowhere near the level of what guys like the Wrecking Crew in L.A did. Page was a good rhythm player, and could handle blues-based leads, which were prevalent in mid-60's London pop/rock, but he couldn't read music, and the London session guys in general didn't handle the variety of stuff like guys in L.A. and Nashville had to.

The guys in L.A. would do some simple 3-chord, throwaway pop song, then a jazz session, then a session with someone like Sinatra, and then a T.V. or film score, all in the same day. And the Nashville guys were in a league all their own, too.

I've always been under the impression that the London guys just didn't do that kind of variety, and therefore didn't need to be as skilled, and this is partly why Page was so successful. Most of what he was called on to do wasn't that complex.

In other words, being the top guy in London wasn't the same as being the top guy in L.A. or Nashville. This is in no way a knock on London. I just think they were two different worlds at that time, and I don't think Page would have cut it in places like L.A. or Nashville. He wasn't a Tommy Tedesco, or a Chet Atkins, by any means.

Anyone have any more solid insight on this?

What utter rubbish. So, you’re basically dismissing the entire London music scene as second-rate in compared to the scene in LA? You are very much alone on this one, I think.

NO ASS-HOLE, I AM NOT DISMISSING THE ENTIRE LONDON MUSIC SCENE AS SECOND RATE. DID YOU READ MY POST, DIDN'T YOU SEE MY COMMENT ON HOW I WAS NOT KNOCKING LONDON? JIMINY F_UCKING CHRISTMAS, DOES ANYONE ON HERE PAY ATTENTION AND HAVE READING COMPREHENSION SKILLS?

I knew some prick would take what I said the wrong way. I purposely put in the part about not knocking London and saying that they were two different worlds at that time. My impression is that the L.A. guys did everything, while London guys like Jimmy primarily did pop and rock and roll sessions, which were for the most part, fairly basic, when it comes to session work. To be a top session player, you have to be able to play ANYTHING at ANYTIME. From simple pop, like Herman's Hermits, to complex jazz, to film and music scores.

To my knowledge, Jimmy didn't do that. I seem to recall reading somewhere, maybe from Page himself, that what he did was pretty basic, mostly rhythm backing tracks. My impression of London compared to L.A. is that things were more specialized in London, than they were in L.A. As a result, in London, simple pop stuff was handled by one set of guys, jazz by another, BBC and film by another, and so on, with little crossover. Whereas in L.A., the "top" guys did it all. They were very schooled, all around players that could do anything and everything.

I don't think Jimmy, and Big Jim Sullivan, were on that level. I did not say that EVERYONE in London was like that. If you're too retarded to get that, I'm sorry.

I also asked for more SOLID INSIGHT on this, as I am not positive if my IMPRESSION is correct. I was hoping to get some genuine, knowledgeable feedback from some of the members here, especially the British ones, who would know.

I WASN'T looking for some limey prick like you to jump my shit because they are too ignorant to read something without taking it as an insult to their country.

I understand what you're saying. There's a technical proficiency abundant in the Nashville session players that is staggering, and it's been that way for ages. Your point about being able to adapt and play many different styles, flawlessy, with brilliant precise execution, and learn it more/less instantly, is something that is an entirely different skillset from blowing away rock audiences with passionate power chords, or somewhat shaky acoustic fingerpicking that a Chet Atkins was probably playing when he was, oh, 8 years old.

Jimmy Page is a rock guitar god, and rightly recognized as such. But I think he would've had a hard time getting hired as a session player in Nashville. Perhaps I'm very wrong and there's more to his 1965-era resume than I Can't Explain and other similar rock/blues sessions.

And this is certainly not a knock on London. I'm sure that city was/is filled with players possessing technical proficiency and talent by the bucketloads. Perhaps Vic Flick should jump in here and give us a thought on this? (He's a Londoner who probably would've fit in very well as a Nashville session player.)

I think Jimmy Page could have played very much everything that has come out of Nashville during the years. I suspect he'd do fine back in 1965 as well.