Food For Thought

[John Boulden]

Well, I did say I hoped I wasn't causing offence. None was meant.

I meant to say that, for me, most of the sound files I have listened to are awful because they don't sound anything like the original. I was at pains to point out that I am a purist and, right or wrong, I prefer to get as close as I can to the original recording sound. I am sorry if that upsets people.
My heroes are Phil Kelly, Colin Pryce-Jones and the French gentleman Gege. These people are, for me, abfab and their sound files are a delight.

I also said that I was average guitarist with an ambition to sound as much like the originals as possible. Don't see how I was being arrogant.

I thought the general tone of my posting was fairly upbeat and underlined the friendships one can make through clubs etc. Far from being a lonley plucker I do have many friends on and off this site. It's just that the sound files, in general, don't excite me.

Maybe my language was ill chosen. Who knows?

John Boulden

[noelford]

With respect, John, that may be your personal opinion but it's certainly not a definition of 'awful'

Some of us want to produce carbon copies and the rest of us like to be more innovative. To call the latter 'awful' is to take a rather blinkered view of what music is about.

[dave robinson]

So in effect, what John Boulden is suggesting is that Hank sounds aweful, why? Because he sounds NOTHING like the original either, or am I wrong?
That said I enjoy whatever Hank does and respect his choice to move on regarding his sound.

[Stranded Albatross]

It's a hard life being a perfectionist. However they should be generous and encourage those not as fortunate. I am happy to talk for hours about how I achieve my unique sound to those should they be interested. It is my own and totally unlike Hank's, but it is my achievement and I am proud to be different.

[John Boulden]

Noel, Point taken. I am admittedly on shaky ground. Apologies for any offence. Bad choice of words.

Dave, Wrong, I'm afraid. Like many purists, I'm not keen on the way Hank interprets the old hits nowadays. The clips that are available showing the Shads performing their old hits feature Hank with a different tone, different tremolo technique etc etc. Sometimes it's hard to believe that Hank of today is the same person who made those records of 1960-64. We all know that he has developed and evolved his sound over the years but sometimes I think he hasn't listened to those old records for years. When they play Apache or FBI now it sounds like someone else's version. Not good.

I am mad on the sound they got on the first two albums and that is my target. Obviously HBM sounds nothing like that now and hasn't for about 25 years. Guitar Player showcased his skills as a guitarist and I am still a big fan but its THAT SOUND in the early 60s that is so elusive and has been the subject of much debate on this site. It's because I am so single-minded about this that I got into trouble for my last post. Really am NOT trying to stir things up.
It's just that IN MY OPINION anything that doesn't try and get close to the original is below my radar.

Again, no offence meant...

John Boulden

[noelford]

Let's put aside accusations of arrogance, because although it comes across that way, I am sure it's not John's actual intention to give that impression given some of the other things he says in his post. However, it saddens me that someone might possess a high degree of technical skill and then use it only to produce what has been done before rather than to express his own voice.

It reminds me of the joke about the man (who in non PC times might have been an Irishman) granted two wishes by a leprechaun. His first wish was for an everlasting pint of Guinness. The wish was granted and he took his pint and drank from it, only to find the glass still full. He continued to drink and the glass remained full. When asked for his second wish, the man replied that he was enjoying the first one so much that he'd like exactly the same again!

The joke is quite funny but the reality is just sad. If you have a musical talent, use it to make your own statement, not to redundantly dupllcate .

All that, of course, is entirely my own opinion and I do not expect everyone else to feel exactly the same.

EDIT: I posted this at the same time as John posted his preceding one. I stand by what I said but I was not being sarcastic in my use of the expression 'my own opinion'. That was pure and unintented... er... duplication!

[Bluesnote]

Sorry John but tunnel vision and time warp come to mind here after reading your last few postings.
I've never heard of a musician yet (apart from yourself) that has'nt moved on from their original recordings of a tune that they first recorded decades before. It's called evolving. Talking of purists, you'd think that our guitar loving cousins "the classical players" would be purists too, not so. If you listen to Segovia then listen to Bream then listen to Williams etc, playing the same piece, all are very different from the original composers example. They dont want to be carbon copies of whatever piece they are playing. They want someone along the way to say: "Hey, I love your version of that piece, you play it so well in your own style too". I dont want to sound like HBM(not that I could anyway) and have every tiny detail of his example coming out of my amp. I'd only be imitating a tape recorder anyway.
I dont profess to be a special player, but what I do is copy Hanks version and then put me into it for better or for worse.
I dont think you are stirring it or meaning any harm by your comments, just maybe could have been worded a bit better I think.
And I mean no harm by this post either John.

I'll say one thing for you though, you've certainly made this thread evolve a bit
Hugh.

[dave robinson]

I'm confused, John Boulden said:

"Dave, Wrong, I'm afraid. Like many purists, I'm not keen on the way Hank interprets the old hits nowadays".

Wasn't that what I was saying he thought? Which clearly makes me right . . . . ?

[Paul Creasey]

Oh............bu**er!!
Not ANOTHER "That Sound" debate!
I think I'll withdraw from this thread, and let you Guitarists get on with it - thank goodness I'm only a Drummer!
Regards
Paul

[kipper]

Oh............bu**er!!
Not ANOTHER "That Sound" debate!
I think I'll withdraw from this thread, and let you Guitarists get on with it - thank goodness I'm only a Drummer!
Regards
Paul

yes but do you sound like mr bennett of 20 years or so ago peter