I am sitting here looking at an obituary of guitarist Les Paul with the headline, "Les Paul, 'an architect of rock 'n' roll,' dead at 94." It comes with a photo of Les and Paul McCartney and a call-out from Terry Stewart of the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame saying that "Without Les Paul, we would not have rock 'n' roll as we know it."
Well, many people were "architects of rock 'n' roll," but Les Paul was not among them. Anyone who has ever listened to a Les Paul record - either the early ones where he copied Django Reinhardt, or the enjoyable kitsch he made with Mary Ford - knows that his music has nothing to do with rock 'n' roll other than it includes an electric guitar.
This is yet another example of how we want to legitimize musicians in other genres by saying how important they were to rock 'n' roll - as I mentioned in the Edgard Varèse post below. Les Paul is an extreme example, because in his case, it isn't even true. It was something that came up because many rock guitarists used a Gibson Les Paul model, and Les, Les' publicists, or Gibson promoted the connection.
3 months ago
9 comments:
I heartily agree with your distaste for those who have to refer to "rock" music as a way to make it okay to like other genres. However, I disagree in part with the assertion that Les Paul had nothing to do with rock and roll.
For sure, he never played rock. But the mere fact that so many rock artists play Les Paul guitars draws a direct line between Les Paul and his influence on RAHK music. Put it down to unintended consequences.
His influence is found further in modern recording which takes for granted the multilayering techniques that Les Paul was the first to use commercially.
So you're right - it is inaccurate to highlight his influence on rock and roll when the truth his, his influence can be heard on nearly every record made in the last fifty years. Much as I love Paul McCartney, they didn't need to show that photo of Les Paul sitting next to McCartney in order to highlight his importance to music.
Bill,
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. My only responses would be to point out that I believe Leo Fender had issued a solid body guitar before Gibson asked Les Paul to endorse its model (which I don't believe Les invented). Also, overdubbing certainly existed before Les used it, if not tape overdubbing. I think (and of course many if not people disagree) that Les Paul's supposed influence on music is more a triumph of publicity than ingenuity.
Buster,
Les Paul is a very tragic figure from my perspective--the gifted guitar technician turned technocrat. For better or worse, he augurs the tragic triumph of the current era of guitar-based music and the even more tragic severance with the full human orchestra. I can see how moog players and guys with 64-track studios would see him as the great harbinger of the all-electronic studio and the consequent triumph of synthesized and sampled sound which adds up to a world of musical semblance rather than substance. And for this reason, he is a Kierkegaardian figure because he engenders tragedy without in any way realizing it. In the end, his own profound gifts as a musician are dwarfed by his equally profound gifts as an inventor. His karma is entrapment of himself in a history of gimmickry. Right now, that entrapment disguises itself as enshrinement and explains why rock and roll musicians see him as a father of their world. He is its father, but for reasons having nothing to do with music or art--just gadgetry, novelty, tinkering and the narcissism of technique as an end in itself. Ironically, in later years he was just a guitarist and musician--a superbly gifted one. But he was swallowed long ago by his legacy as an engineer. All the tributes trap him in his past with relevance only to the triumph of a world I pray he never intended. I suggest you post his recordings with Bing Crosby and Dick Haymes and praise what they heard in him. There was much to praise.
David,
I respect your opinions, and well know what you mean about him being more interested in technique and gimmicks than music. If you add a propensity toward publicity, you do end up in the rock world, I think. I am familiar with his work with Haymes and Crosby, and I will have to listen again because all I have ever picked up was a guy from Wisconsin who wanted to sound like a gypsy from Belgium. Since I am almost alone in my views, I surely am missing something important, and I recognize that I do have a lot of musical blind spots (Verdi, Callas, Liszt, Elvis and many others).
David,
Couldn't the same logic be used to argue that Bach's Well Tempered Clavier was nothing more than techno-gimmickry of no artistic value?
Rock has made a lot of money for a lot of people. Therefore, it's terribly important.
Profitable equals great in the language of mass media. At the same time, no one dare call rock commercial--that word is reserved for the pre-rock vocalists and bands who made less and sold fewer records. (Paging George Orwell.)
Country-guitar-wise, Chet Atkins had much more impact on rock 'n' roll (the rockabilly portion thereof) than Paul, but I don't remember the media carrying on in similar fashion when he died. I do remember Atkins being blamed for giving more mass appeal to country, and never mind that it was his JOB (as a producer) to do so. Anyway, I've always felt that pop music reporting should be outlawed.
Bill,
When Salieri complained about Mozart making use of too many notes, he was, I suppose, complaining about the Van Halen and Bon Jovi virtuosi of his time. But, of course, Mozart didn't write too many notes--and the virtuosity is part of an ecstasy of inspiration. Just listen to Glen Gould play those notes in his recordings of the sonatas.
I often hear Bach accused of writing tedious, mechanical blind alley virtuoso pieces. But that has to do with the players and not the music. Anyone who has heard Samuel Feinberg's and Richter's recordings of the Well-Tempered Klavier knows it leads only to the deepest recesses of the soul--and that the temptation to play it as a means to demonstrate one's technique or as a demonstration of the composer's technique is a trap that abuses one's talent and insults the music.
Les Paul's technique and solos invite no profound choices for players or listeners. He skates rather than sings on his strings. No one, I note, has transcribed his solos for students of the guitar to study the way they might study the solos of Django, Charlie Christian, Tal Farlow or, for that matter, Chet Atkins. Les Paul was too good for his own good. Bach, on the other hand, knew and served the Good and his music is never far from the awe and wonder that inspired it. Just listen to the most inspired players of it.
Sometimes Bach is a test of the men and women who perform him. That so many fail that test is not the composer's fault.
Hi David,
I think it's a mistake to take the movie Amadeus as being in any way historically accurate. ;)
Your point about Bach is pretty much my point. The Well Tempered Clavier was simply written as an exercise in composing music in every key because that was the first time it was possible to do so. But the fact that it started as a technical exercise does not mean that there is no meaning and profundity to be found in the music. I guess the same could go for Van Halen. I can respect his technique but the music doesn't move me. However, if others find passion and profundity in it (as many obviously do) then far be it from me to tell them they're wrong.
Les Paul's technique may not have been dazzlingly original but that doesn't make him shamelessly derivative. However, his technique was original in its time because his early overdubbing methods meant he had to get the take perfect first time, every time, otherwise the whole recording would be ruined. That was never an issue for Django. It could be argued that it's technique over substance, but that doesn't make it any less of a skill.
I agree with Buster that Les Paul was a master self-promoter and I see nothing wrong with that. His greatest influence was in opening people's minds and ears to what was possible. As with Bach, it's not the innovator's fault if people do dull things with it.
Anyway, I've written my views about his influence on my 'blog - feel free to give it a click if you're so inclined.
Thanks for the discussion. :)
Thanks all for the very stimulating discussion. I learned a lot!
Post a Comment