- "About '86, I got really into the Les Paul and rediscovered Peter Green. I tried to play less chordally, a little more solo-notey. But the solo on 'Paint A Vulgar Picture' was done on a Strat. I was really pleased that the first solo as such on a Smiths record was one you could sing."
- "The change was the key to that song, the relationship between the riff in one, and then the same riff against the new key. There's a section in D, then F# is the step and it's into B. A is the step back into D. My favourite key changes are sad, and that one is."
- Johnny Marr
Here are the scans from the Strangeways PVG book(thanks to MorrisseyScans for these tabs):
Here's Daniel Earwicker, making it all look easy as usual:
Posts
3 comments:
Can anyone spot my mistake in the Les Paul solo part?
There's a beautiful symmetry to it if played correctly, and I messed it up.
Hard to spot any difference at all!! After a painstaking side by side comparison, I would have to guess either the note beginning the phrase at 0:58 that is double/triple picked, the hammer on around 1:00, and the ending note at 1:01 that is hit twice.
In the original it seems to be just a single picked note beginning the phrase, and doesn't seem to be hammered-on afterwards. Also it seems to end on one sustained note, just hit once.
Is any of this what you were talking about?
Edit:
Before i posted this I think I spotted what you're talking about! At 0:39 you play two notes that Marr doesn't play. His solo has a longer pause there, setting up the tension before the next run. In the recording it's at 2:50, he holds the note about a full second.
I left my previous guesses for your amusement.
Yep, your edit is what I was talking about. The solo seems to go through various stages that mirror each other in an incredibly subtle way that I just love.
At 0:39 it should just hold that one note, so that it matches rhythmically with the one note held at 0:44.
Then in the second half, the corresponding points are at 0:56 and 1:01, but they're actually the opposite way round melodically. 1:01 is like an enhancement of 0:39, just as 0:56 is to 0:44.
The problem is, I end the 0:39 one in the way that the 1:01 part is meant to end (and does in my attempt).
I'm probably overthinking it...
Post a Comment