| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Atomic_Rooster 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1210
|
 Posted: April 24 2007 at 09:38 |
|
Ok, its official, the first two-handed tapper in rock was Harry DeArmond, the pickup innovator, who used the same style as Van Halen 7-10 years earlier, well before Hackett's 1970-71 use of it.
DeArmond actually retired before most people had even heard of the technique in 1975.
|
|
I am but a servant of the mighty Fripp, the sound of whose loins shall forever be upon the tongues of his followers.
|
 |
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: April 24 2007 at 13:44 |
 Atomic_Rooster wrote:
Ok, its official, the first two-handed tapper in rock was Harry DeArmond, the pickup innovator, who used the same style as Van Halen 7-10 years earlier, well before Hackett's 1970-71 use of it.
DeArmond actually retired before most people had even heard of the technique in 1975.
|
Atomic, Harry DeArmond was a guitar manufacturer that worked with Jazz musicians not with Rock, he's not credited as a performer of Rock anywhere I could find.
Emmett Chappman mentions him but clearly specifies he never strictly tapped because he used a different hand position in which is impossible to tap properly, but Chappman adnmits he got the idea from him.
Just to finish, Harry DeArmond was born in 1906, he hardly ever was a rocker or even a proffesional musician, not even Allmusic has an entry for him, remember, he was already in his 40's when rock was being born in the late 50's
Iván
|
|
|
|
Atomic_Rooster
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1210
|
Posted: April 24 2007 at 21:33 |
Atomic_Rooster wrote:
Guitar Player Magazine (in an article written in 1970) that Randy Resnick of Pure Food and Drug Act (with John Mayall) used tapping techniques in concert and recordings as early as 1969, though he may not have originated the use in rock. Check it out if you doubt me.
But it doesn't really matter if Hackett innovated the technique for rock or not, he was very influential in its use as it is today (for better or worse), as he served to popularize a more aggressive implementation of such techniques in a rock atmosphere.
|
I just mentioned Harry to see if anyone was really trying to be accurate or if you were just basing this on hearsay, but I do believe Randy predates Steve for the record, and he was playing rock (their most famous song was a psychedelic jam of Eleanor Rigby with Randy two-hand tapping against a violin cadenza!). And from what I've heard (and seen pictures of) Randy played in the "parallel" popular style that Van Halen etc use (though the style that Harry used wasn't "incorrect", but held horizontal, which actually doesn't make much of a difference if your decently accustomed to tapping, it just makes it easier to play both haves of a double-neck at the same time if you want)
|
|
I am but a servant of the mighty Fripp, the sound of whose loins shall forever be upon the tongues of his followers.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: April 24 2007 at 23:14 |
Yes Atomic I agree about Randy Resnick, but he developed the style while performing Blues act, that is also credited, the fact he also played Rock sometimes has no relation if he implemented a style for another genre
I mentioned him in one of my first posts already.
At the end apparently many artists developed the style during a short period of time and seem unrelated one with the other, and at the end it's not so important..
Iván
|
|
|
|
Atomic_Rooster
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1210
|
Posted: April 24 2007 at 23:17 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
at the end it's not so important..
|
exactly
Edited by Atomic_Rooster - April 24 2007 at 23:18
|
|
I am but a servant of the mighty Fripp, the sound of whose loins shall forever be upon the tongues of his followers.
|
|
purplepiper
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 23 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 280
|
Posted: July 03 2007 at 19:11 |
|
yeah, there is something strange about his style. I never thought he was that good personally (oops..did I say that?) whatever he is, good or not, he fits genesis perfectly and I like his work!
|
|
for those about to prog, we salute you.
|
|
Norm Cash
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 01 2005
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 280
|
Posted: July 04 2007 at 03:38 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
He has enough skils to show out, but Genesis required that sound Hackett created, BTW: His playing in Seconds Out is barely listenable, they took the volume very low for "unknown" reasons. |
I've only just noticed this thread, and thought I'd pick up on the above statement from Ivan.
Seconds Out is, and always has been, one of my all-time favourite albums. I've been through 2 vinyl copies of it, and 2 CD copies. Steve Hackett is also undoubtedly my favourite guitarist, and therefore I've always been slightly annoyed by the way his work on this album so often falls so far into the background due to the mix.
With the recent remastering and rerelease of the early Collins-era material, I was sort of hoping that somewhere along the line Seconds Out might receive the same treatment, and that at least some of Steve's guitarwork might be brought slightly more to the fore.
Probably won't happen, but I can dream can't I?
Hmmmm.....on that thought. in this day and age of digital wizardry, I wonder if we'll ever see a music format which allows us - the listener - to regulate the volume of individual tracks within a recording? Wouldn't it be great to be listening to a piece and think "Hey...that guitar part sounded pretty cool...I wonder what he did there?", and be able to go back and crank up the volume a bit on the guitar track only?
|
"We did it....you and me! Put him right under the table!"
|
|
verslibre
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 01 2004
Location: CA
Status: Offline
Points: 18576
|
Posted: July 06 2007 at 02:15 |
Norm Cash wrote:
[QUOTE=Ivan_Melgar_M]
Hmmmm.....on that thought. in this day and age of digital wizardry, I wonder if we'll ever see a music format which allows us - the listener - to regulate the volume of individual tracks within a recording? Wouldn't it be great to be listening to a piece and think "Hey...that guitar part sounded pretty cool...I wonder what he did there?", and be able to go back and crank up the volume a bit on the guitar track only? |
There are myriad albums I wish I could "spice up" the keyboard and bass tracks on!
|
|
|
|
clarke2001
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 14 2006
Location: Croatia
Status: Offline
Points: 4160
|
Posted: July 06 2007 at 11:00 |
verslibre wrote:
Norm Cash wrote:
[QUOTE=Ivan_Melgar_M]
Hmmmm.....on that thought. in this day and age of digital wizardry, I wonder if we'll ever see a music format which allows us - the listener - to regulate the volume of individual tracks within a recording? Wouldn't it be great to be listening to a piece and think "Hey...that guitar part sounded pretty cool...I wonder what he did there?", and be able to go back and crank up the volume a bit on the guitar track only? |
There are myriad albums I wish I could "spice up" the keyboard and bass tracks on!
|
Hm...we are way off topic here, but this is an interesting thought. I don't think that's necessary to introduce a new multi-tracked media - I guess in a few years time sound editing tools will became so powerful that they will be able to separate instrument from the joint overdubbed audio track. If I can do it in my mind, then it's certainly possible to create a complex algorithm too.
|
|
|
|
fuxi
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 08 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2476
|
Posted: July 08 2007 at 05:43 |
purplepiper wrote:
yeah, there is something strange about his style. |
I remember someone saying, earlier on in this thread, that Hackett often sounds like a synth, and Ivan agreeing that it was typical of his Hackett's style. I have to agree that this sometimes bothers me too. I just bought the 4-CD "Live Archive", and some of the music is really exciting, but sometimes the guitar sounds so... well... 'plastic' or 'synthetic'; I don't have a better word for it.
Personally, I couldn't care less if Hackett invented tapping or not. He may be less of a virtuoso than certain fusion players, but why should this matter? All musicians have their limitations. Some people have tried to use this thread for bashing Genesis - a completely useless exercise. I certainly admire Hackett for the things he does best.
When I was eighteen, I was in an amateur symphonic rock band led by a guitarist and an organist, both of whom were classically trained. (Don't laugh. I was the lead vocalist.) These guys could certainly play a decent solo or two, but the problem was their playing was usually perfunctory, i.e. young as they were, they didn't dare to put a lot of passion in their playing. If you listen to Hackett's lead guitar solos on GENESIS LIVE, SELLING ENGLAND or THE LAMB, there's lots and lots of passion. He always carries me away. How can you like prog, and not admire an artist like that?
About Hackett's solo albums I've got mixed feelings (apart from LIVE ARCHIVE, I must have heard five or six of them), but one thing's for sure: he's very adventurous, he keeps trying out new things. And he's capable of writing the most ravishing melodies (be it for flute, lead guitar, or the human voice), which he often accompanies by the most delicate acoustic playing.
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Is Steve Hackett's guitar work... Weird?
