Kind of like Jimi Hendrix vs B.B.King. Alex is flashy but Cotton has a ton of Soul. Both are great, they just approach it from different ends of the same cord. ---------- Hohner Big River in Low F,G,A,Bb and D Hohner Special 20 in Bb Suzuki HarpMaster in C Suzuki FolkMaster in D,E and F
I'd also throw in, if you can find it, his LP he used to have out on the Buddah label in the 70's called "100% Cotton." Also his set on the Vanguard compilation "Chicago/The blues/Today," which was done in the mid 60's.
On that video, Cotton's playing straight thru the PA, and the Verve material and the Vanguard stuff is with him playing thru an amp. ---------- Sincerely, Barbeque Bob Maglinte Boston, MA http://www.barbequebob.com CD available at http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/bbmaglinte
Do you know the amp on the Verve stuff? Just curious - not chasing it.
That "Best of" Verve compilation was put together by a fricking genius. Best commercial compilation ever, followed closely by the 2CD Rhino collection of Ray Charles which, frankly, sounds like "Every hit a hit".
Can't say I do and I doubt if Cotton could ever tell you because he was typical of the old guys, and they frankly didn't give a crap what they played thru as long as they got their sound across.
I've got all the tunes plus more on the three vinyl LP's they were originally issued on.
His cover of the Bobby Blue Bland classic "Turn On Your Lovelight," IMO, totally smokes the original and Mike Bloomfield did a phenomenol job producing that LP. ---------- Sincerely, Barbeque Bob Maglinte Boston, MA http://www.barbequebob.com CD available at http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/bbmaglinte
I think you're right, and it has long been a point I have made when guys say, "See, Cotton uses a stick mic and any old PA." Yep, and he uses a Vox and a JT30 on a video I own and he STILL sounds like Cotton, so you can't really diss any set-up...
But the thing about the Verve sessions is the band was stellar. It was like the Greek gods sent him superhuman warriors to form a mighty legion to smite the shitty blues wannabees that had proliferated in the 60s.
I get chills when I listen to Gianquinto's intro to "Jelly Jelly" or "Goin' Back to St.Louis."
Those bands he had on those definitely are flat out killer bands. Each of those has Luther Tucker on guitar (one of THE best for backing harp ever), Alberto Gianquinto on keys, Bobby Anderson on bass. The first one has Sam Lay on drums and the others have Francis Clay and none of those guys are slouches.
@EV630 --- Your very first paragraphs says it all in a nutshell, which is what I keep telling harp players all the time, often to no avail, especially the gear heads and I often have to crack up laughing at them when too many of them think it's really gonna be improving anything about their playing, and the sad truth is that no amount of gear ever will hide bad tone and chops, EVER. ---------- Sincerely, Barbeque Bob Maglinte Boston, MA http://www.barbequebob.com CD available at http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/bbmaglinte
100% Cotton is a great record and arguably the best of the records he made on the Buddha label. --PS. paclin sounds like any other rank amature.-------- MP hibachi cook for the yakuza doctor of semiotics superhero emeritus
Last Edited by on Oct 06, 2010 12:49 PM
This isn't a very fair comparison at all. Your putting a blues god up against someone who has been playing a couple of years and isn't even on a stage. MP refers to him as a "rank amature", but a lot of us couldn't play any of that and we've been at it a lot longer.
To me, and I've tried to point this out a number of times, anytime any of the "young guns" come up we hold them to an impossible standard. It is like Tony Romo. He has the goods on paper, the hype is there, but he hasn't done anything yet...to judge him as good or bad on the continnum of greats isn't really fair...yet.
There is more to the general context too. What was the song before this for each player? What was their approach there? What about after? What did the crowd want to hear!?!?!?!
Frankly, I would expect an amazing performance from Cotton. From Alec, I would expect to hear the growth of a young player over the course of a night, if that makes sense. My approach would be different on both stages, that's for sure. It sounds like Alex is in a tough room crowdwise and why not push yourself and take some risks?
I love what Cotton is doing, but is he or the recording not in tune???
@mike, yeah, i'm tough on paclin because he can do better. instead he is playing nonsense stuff to impress. i didn't listen to the cotton, just to the paclin. i wouldn't compare the two. i'm comparing paclin to paclin. ---------- MP hibachi cook for the yakuza doctor of semiotics superhero emeritus
Actually I think it's a fair comparison according to this description of him on the Seydel website, which is where I found him.
From the seydel website:
Alexander Paclin vvv (Übersetzung folgt!) Russia's secret harp weapon!
It took Alex only two years to master the harmonica playing, and now his music is a true work of art. Combining the best of modern players' styles and techniques, Alex has developed a unique sound and style - very fluid, musical, and deep in tone.
When Jason Ricci heard Alex play, he wrote: "WOW ! Your playing is smooth, logical, intelligent, cohesive and elegant and if I humbly helped to inspire such greatness I thank you sir."
The consistency and coherence of his sound are amazing. Overblows sound like any other notes - not distracting, but smooth and musical, coupled by deep vibrato. Sometimes one may wonder - is it humanly possible to produce such huge sounds from this tiny little instrument?
Watch Alex play, and see for yourself. Young and daring, Alex Paclin is already a harp superstar - and he will surely be one of the most influential harp players in the future.
Since Alex is a master of the harmonica, a superstar, and his music is a true work of art I think the comparison is valid!
MAL,So because a company that is trying to sell harps decides to over-hype one of their endorsees, it somehow makes your comparison valid? Do you really think Alex wrote that himself?
This type of hype is a pretty standard promotional tool. I frequently find some player I've never heard of and when I go to their website they have a bio that reads pretty similar. Typically they talk about how about how such and such a person is considered to be one of the greatest harp player in their state/region/etc. (along with a bunch of other hyped-up claims).
This hype (which is often written by an agent) is common, and I don't think it makes comparing a blues legend to someone who's been playing a couple years, anymore valid.
+1 to what Ryan is saying. This trend has been really perpetuated with the increase of internet stars. I see a number of relatively high profile harp players being endorsed and hyped not because they are touring musicians or virtuosos, but because they are popular on YouTube for their lessons and web cam performances and can sell instruments. In fact, if I were trying to make a name for myself, that would be the area I would first try to exploit as there is more "fame" to be had online then gigging all the time. Also, it is possible (but not the norm) to be able to make it on YouTube without being a very complete or advanced player. You just need a niche and a niche audience.
This isn't specific to Alec, as he obviously gigs. I am also not judging that as good/bad, fair/unfair. But it is relevant because, to some extent, what we hear from him is censored in a way. Like most of us who are on YouTube because we chose to be - and not because we have people begging to tape our shows - one can choose to share only the top performances, which may involve more being on the cutting room floor. This may actually be a beneficial approach to all harp players as it gives us brief doses of one's playing rather than forcing a player to hold our attention for a whole set, etc.
I think, also, the more people have written about Romo, the more it proves my point. Tony, as a youthful amateur-athelete, was surely a huge standout, although maybe not as known nationally as others. I think this parallels Alec to an extent. However, Romo, who is now a good pro, isn't even the best at his position nor has he been able to achieve the typical benchmarks associated with greatness (yet...the potential is there, but it hasn't happened). However, he is hyped to be one of the elite year after year to the point of expectations maybe being a little unfair.
Romo has a level of fame that is based somewhat on hype and somewhat on actual accomplishment - but mostly for "potential". There are other qbs who have historically not been as good technically, but have accomplished more on the field (Trent Dilfer has a Super Bowl ring). I could go on, but I won't. ---------- Mike VHT Special 6 Amp for Harp Blog
Mike - I think you're plan is flawed. I know of another Seydel endorsed that is a YouTube-made star. Eventually, the person will be pressed into playing with a band. When the person blew through here, they performed with a number of people. The performances tended to be stiff and didn't fit in with the groove of the tune. The harp playing was excellent, but the whole tune was lacking. The experience on a bandstand just wasn't there.
If the goal is to be a solo performer, that might be a great way to go as there don't seem to be many gigs for a solo artist in public performance.
I would bet that this person has helped sell a number of Seydel harmonicas through their exposure on YouTube,
Please reread my post as I specifically mentioned that if the goal was "fame". I also stated that there could be limitations to the approach - exactly what you just repeated.
The skill set of being a great performer with a band vs. being able to showcase specific talents on the instrument in a controlled enviroment can be two totally different things.
"I see a number of relatively high profile harp players being endorsed and hyped not because they are touring musicians or virtuosos, but because they are popular on YouTube for their lessons and web cam performances and can sell instruments. In fact, if I were trying to make a name for myself, that would be the area I would first try to exploit as there is more "fame" to be had online then gigging all the time. Also, it is possible (but not the norm) to be able to make it on YouTube without being a very complete or advanced player. You just need a niche and a niche audience."
Again, if the goal were to be to make a name for yourself in the harmonica world, this route would have numerous benefits over trying to become a top-tier live performance artist on harmonica by just gigging. Some of which includes overhead, finding a band, booking gigs, and so forth. I am not slamming that approach or saying that you can only be one or the other. Jason Ricci has done both. Adam Gussow has done both.
However, the vast majority of the serious players recognized on harmonica are recognized for their contributions to YouTube (and are not full-time musicians making a livable wage gigging or online). Many of those artists specialize in exposing themselves via solo performances over live performances with bands.
I have seen numerous harmonica stars referenced on this forum over and over that don't really gig. Some of which have been named in another thread as performers one would pay good money to see. They focus on making webcam videos for YouTube. If they do gig with a band, that isn't what they usually choose to share.
Look through the first few pages. Besides novelty skits (the beatbox clip, Harmonica Hero, Darth Vader Plays the Blues, etc.) the majority of the most popular videos are essentially solo harp performances...many of which are recorded sitting in a chair on a webcam-like devise.
***And just to be perfectly clear, I am not saying there is anything wrong with focusing on solo performances for YouTube or that doing so means you are a lesser player in any regard.
Youtube is the new Radio and/or the new MTV. Anyone who is interested in getting noticed should be utilizing that media platform. The fact that anyone can post is good and bad. You don't have to deal with record labels or mainstream media to distribute content, but you also get armatures posting for fun. People make a living on Youtbe. It is the new media so embrace it or get left behind.
I agree with Diggs and harpninja, more or less. YouTube has created a very curious situation with reference to harmonica players. I feel very fortunate that I came up in NYC between 1984 and the late 1990s. I participated actively in a live blues scene--both street blues up in Harlem and the downtown scene (Dan Lynch, Abilene, Chicago Blues, Mondo Cane, Manny's Car Wash, Terra Blues, etc.). I played at dozens and dozens, probably several hundred, jam sessions; I played lots of live gigs with different players (Satan and Adam, Brian Kramer, Irving Louis Lattin, Harry Holt) and sat in with many players. And I got to see pretty much every touring pro, electric and acoustic, since at some point, almost everybody came through NYC.
When it comes to blues, there is absolutely no replacement, finally, for paying your dues in live performance, and for seeing the best players in the world live--up close and personal. YouTube can't replace any of that. It can supplement it. It can fool you into thinking that you've adequately compensated for the lack of the live scene and personal contact with working blues musicians. But ultimately ANY harp player who wants to become a fully-qualified professional needs to play the gigs, see and meet the players, and put in the time.
I tell Brandon this all the time. He needs to start finding gigs in Memphis--a steady gig, ideally. Jay Gaunt is working hard to find sit in opportunities, and that's good, and he's definitely making a point of getting out and seeing good players play live. The next step is to form a band or a duo and actually put in the hard time building up repertoire with a particular set of players. Christelle tells me she's lying low, to some extent, and putting in woodshed time. That's good. I don't know what Alex Paclin is doing, but it sounds as though he's slowly accumulating the gig-time that he'll need into order to live up to the hype that some adults are unwisely dumping on his shoulders. Of all the younger players here, Zack is, as far as I can tell, the one who is most closely approximating the process I'm talking about. He's actually leading his own band, right? More power to him. That's the road to long-term success.
The gigs are the ripening process, and although the process can be accelerated somewhat, it can't be sidestepped without leaving a hole in the player's performance capabilities. Lots of experience at live performance--working with one's own band, taking responsibility for the gig, not just stepping onstage to play a song or two--is the road that ALL the current touring pros traveled. ALL of them.
And, Adam, yes. My group plays around 2-3 gigs a month and sometimes I'll be doing stuff for other guys. I am also now working as a fill-in drummer occasionally (that would be the instrument I will use to apply to colleges). I'm trying to become a well rounded musician before I become any superstar, but also get out there just the same and here the best players around. Thanks for the mention, that's quite an honor!
Adam is really right because just playing in your basement or living room doesn't do a whole lot and getting REAL bandstand experience teaches you things you can NEVER learn in any other way. Are you going to risk getting SEVERLY humbled in the process?? Absolutely, but if you just sulk and go away back in your "cave," guess what, you won't learn a goddamned thing, and you just have to get off one's but, get out of the house and play.
There are going to be hard lessons but that's part of the deal.
Leading a band, especially in a pro situation is going to take WORK, and besides learning musically, you will also be needing to learn the business side of music.
Being a living room musician is nice if you just want to stay in a cave for the rest of your life, but that's all you get and not much else beyond that.
Learning how to be both a leader AND a sideman is something you will NEVER learn about at all unless you get your butt out there and gig for real.
Jams may be OK for a few tunes, but it is clearly NOT the same as playing on REAL gig doing anywhere from one complete set of at least a hour to 90 minutes or back in the day when I started out in the 70's, there were clubs where they wanted you to play 4 sets. Just playing 1-5 tunes on an open jam doesn't teach you a whole lot and with the majority of open jams, the level of musicianship is gonna be FAR lower than what's on a real paid gig. ---------- Sincerely, Barbeque Bob Maglinte Boston, MA http://www.barbequebob.com CD available at http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/bbmaglinte
Back in the 70's that was common. The thing was usually 40 minutes on, 20 minutes off, but there were a few gigs where it was 65 minutes on, 15 minutes off. ---------- Sincerely, Barbeque Bob Maglinte Boston, MA http://www.barbequebob.com CD available at http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/bbmaglinte
i used to do 6 set gigs when i was in a country band- we all did. we even took a spinet piano in the back of a pick-up truck to every gig. builds stamina and you need tons of material. mostly, 4 sets were the norm. you have to love music to play gigs like that. ---------- MP hibachi cook for the yakuza doctor of semiotics superhero emeritus
Yeah Bob, we've done 1.5hr, then 1hr, then 30/45min approximately. It can be fun but sometimes it gets very tiring especially as a frontman. I'd rather do a gig that length on the drums personally.
@MP --- Carrying around that piano is no fun!! I just hope the piano player knew how to retune it because all that moving around will knock a piano out of tune in a heartbeat.
@Zach --- For longer sets, you do have to learn to pace everything carefully, including entire set dynamics, and not just with the solos. One thing I've learned as a front person over the years in order to do long sets is keep the alcohol intake to a minimum or avoid it at all costs, keep some water with lemon (absolutely ZERO sweeteners/sugar in it at all) and avoid eating or drinking ANY dairy products at all for a minimum of 2-3 hours prior to the first set so that you don't build up a layer of mucus in your vocal chords, and the last two bits of advice was given to me by a vocal coach and it'shelped me out a lot.
IT also gets tough in realyly smoky rooms and thank goodness the State of Massachusetts outlawed smoking in clubs and so I don't have to be breathing in that disgusting crap or have my harps and my clothes reek of that smell. ---------- Sincerely, Barbeque Bob Maglinte Boston, MA http://www.barbequebob.com CD available at http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/bbmaglinte
One band I played in we carried a leslie cabinet and big old hammond B2. Why he got a B2 and not a B3 is beyond me. Same size no pecussion.
The principle in Big River (Huck) always blew my mind. 90% of the time on stage for 3 1/2 hour show. We did eight shows some times nine between tueday and sunday.
In the old days you could get 3 and 4 days at the same club so you didn't have to do the set up everynight. A lot of gigs were between 9pm and 2am. Now they're one night 3 or 4 sets. I like to have a light snack between the second and third set with a cup of tea. This always picks me up.
---------- Emile "Diggs" D'Amico a Legend In His Own Mind How you doin'
Bob, I have learned to pace myself, and I am under age so I do not drink (none of the band really does, and if so very little). I would not drink anyways. But, the sets get WAY easier because we have great songs, originals, and we have some seriously extended jams. It's all good. It sucks carrying sound equipment, etc, when we need it but hey! It's all worth it! At least for me, anyways!
I watched that Cotton video for the umpteenth time and I agree. It's probably unfair to compare James Cotton to anyone else. That band in the early 80's was probably the baddest group out there.
Joe L's got a real good point there: Cotton can't do what he does without that band, and it's just not fair to compare. That late 70s/early 80s Cotton band was *very influential* as they barnstormed the country and Cotton was probably one top 40 hit away from being a breakout star in the U.S. (I think they did manage to get "Boogie Thing" ["They even boogied at the Watergate!"] onto the radio in some areas, but it was probably too soon after "La Grange").
John Popper tells a great story in the Pocket Full of Soul documentary about finally going head to head with Cotton onstage. See that movie to hear how they fared at selling their respective forms of harmonica wizardry to that audience, but this thread brought that story to mind; and by happy synchronicity, yesterday I was looking at a video that's probably a much fairer comparison with the Cotton one in terms of production values and the artist's command of the audience's attention. Pretty sure it's been posted here more than once:
I thought the DNA linkage to Cotton's performance is obvious, including the role of the band. There's an ebullient verve to the singing that's very much in the spirit of Cotton. SB makes his fast runs sound vertiginously risky rather than safely, showily wanky and they're well set up by plenty of more conservative playing.
if the bio about MAL posted from Seydel WASNT written by Alex, it was writen by someone else who doesnt yet have full command of the english language...
Kyzer - I think the point is that there is no comparison. The Cotton video features some very solid playing with a band that is in tune to what he is doing. Those guys know how to back and complement a harp player. The guys in the band (Michael Coleman and probably Kennard Johnson) were paying attention. They like had played that tune a hundred times. They are always watching Cotton for visual clues.
The first video may be a band, but they aren't really playing together. They aren't really listening. They are just jamming and taking turns playing their respective instruments. No one is really paying attention to what the others are doing even when they are trading solos.
@ bob, yeah, no fun, but it set us apart from the other bands. also, i had studied charlie McCoy for ten years prior. we'd do his version of orange blossom special and a tune he wrote called the fastest harp in the south. the biggest problem was micing that damn piano.
eventually we settled on a rhodes 88(these are friggin' heavy too, but nothing compared to Diggs keyboardist humping the B2 and leslies. ---------- MP hibachi cook for the yakuza doctor of semiotics superhero emeritus
EV630 asked about Cotton's amps, during the mid 60's he was recorded with a 2 speaker Lectrolab amp, Gary Onofrio had one, the amp features on "Blues Masters", a Canadian TV program recorded in '65 with Muddy's band, available on DVD, presented by Colin James.
This sounds VERY similar to the Arhoolie Johnny Young sessions "Chicago Blues" that also featured Cotton, recorded in '65 (a must have for Cotton fans, well, and for fans of Chicago blues in general, for Johnny Young of course).
By Sept '67 Cotton (check out "Seems Like Yesterday" live album) appeared to be playing through the "house" sound system, whether that be a PA in the nowadays sense, or possibly a large fixed bias Fender (Fender were endorsing the Cotton band at this time & there's a a photo in Aspen Pittman's book of Cotton's mic & bass sharing the same amp - may have been the way he played, may have been set up for the shot, but even in the late 60's it was common for folks to use tube guitar/bass amps for vocals as well. Big, modern style PAs weren't well established back then).
Best of the Verve years is 3 sessions from '67 & '68, "Coach's Better Days" sounds like straight to desk...your guess is as good as mine for the rest of BOTVY...but I wouldn't be surprised if it was all straight to desk ("My Dog Can't Bark" with Muddy also sounds like a candidate for straight to desk)?
