Guitar Player - September 1985 / by Jim Ferguson
Innovator, technical avatar, eternal seeker-all of
these terms apply to the extraordinary John Mc
Laughlin. But what best describes the 43-year old
Englander is the less romantic label musician. While
many guitarists seem trapped in a harmonically
bleak, penatonic prison, Mc Laughlin's depth
enables him to freely explore the musical landscape,
visiting points to have ranged from Mahavishnu ti
Indian based Shakti to acoustic fusion with Paco De
Lucia and Al Di Meola. Few musicians, let alone
guitarists, boast a resume rich with so many artistic
triumphs.
Throughout his career, John has continued to
expand his creative boundaries. In 1983, he
reconstituted the Mahavishnu Orchestra, taking up
the land mark Synclavier synthesizer guitar. After
recording Mahavishnu and touring extensively, he
turned his attention to the classically oriented score
for his Concerto for Guitar and Orchestra.
Like many true artists, Mc Laughlin has failed to
receive full credit in recent years. While a smattering
of vitality exists, the contemporary jazz market
seems to prefer the familiar to the creative. "In
terms of commercial success," John explains, "all
artists are suffering. If you're not a rock or pop star,
your music doesn't get propogated, but that doesn't
mean I'm not excited about the future." Guitarists in
particular too often let Mc Laughlin's advanced
technique and vast musical vocabulary obscure his
work's intelligence, passion, and wit. But in spite of
being sometimes mispercieved and relitively
unrewarded, , he has continued to evolve
artistically. While he Is known for his early,
recelentless intensity, his later work is more mature
with unprecedented subtlety.
Mc Laughlin defies categorization. Rooted in jazz,
he was influenced by Django Reinhardt, Tal Farlow,
and Jim Hall, trumpeter Miles Davis, and
saxophonist John Coltrane. At the same time, he
was fascinated with classical composers from
Beethoven to Bartok. Later, he became interested in
eastern philosophies and music, studyiny rythmic
theory and instrumental technique with several
Indian masters. These factors, intermingled with
elements of rock and blues, helped shape his
resilient approach to improvisation and composition,
leading him to record with musicians as diverse as
Jimi Hendrix, Miles Davis, bassist Jac Bruce, and
Indian violin virtuoso L. Shankar.
In 1981 John was a member of an acoustic trio with
Al Di Meola and Paco de Lucia, shortly after they
recorded their influential live album Friday Night in
San Francisco. That same year, he shifted emphesis
and recorded Belo Horizonte, which featured his
acoustic guitar supported by a synthesizer-based
ensemble. In 1983, he picked up the electric guitar
for Music Spoken Here; he then turned 180 degrees
and again jioned Al Di Meola and Paco de Lucia for
the studio effort Passion, Grace and Fire.
Unique custom instruments have often been
necessary for John to realize his musical concepts.
Through the years, he has played a number of
guitars, including a Gibson Les Paul Custom, Gibson
ES-335 with a scalloped fingerboard, a Rex Bogue
hand made 6/12 string, a Roland G-303 guitar used
with a New England Digital guitar Synclavier system
synthesizer for a controller, a series of
drone-string-equipped guitars built by Gibson
Associate Abe Wechter, featuring scalloped finger
boards to facilitata microtonal bends, and a electric
acoustic nylon string guitar made by Abe Wechter in
combonation with the NED guitar synthesizer
controller.
To showcase the Synclavier, in 1983 John formed a
new group, which recorded Mahavishnu in early
1984. With keyboardist Mitch Forman, saxman Bill
Evans, bassist Jonas Hellborg, and drummer Billy
Cobham, the album features tight, multi textural
underpinning and blowing solos on eight Mc
Laughlin compositions. Outstanding guitar
performances include bluesy burning improvisation
in "Nightriders" and the fluid, uptempo choruses on
"East Side West Side". More recently, he appeared
on Miles Davis' latest album, You're Under Arrest.
Mc Laughlin is currently concentrating on putting
the finishing touches on his score for Concerto For
Guitar and Orchestra. In the 1970's Mc Laughlin's
progressive work was frequently referred to as
ahead of it's time.
Q: You have a reputation as a great technician. Can
the intellectual and technical aspects of music get in
the way of speaking from the heart?
John: Not when the artist is wholly integrated in
himself, which is something we're all working for.
I'm alive, I have intellect, a heart, and a physical
side, and I want to integrate all three to be whole.
In the process of evolution you may emphasize on
more than the other, but that is perfectly normal
because you have to live life in order to integrate
yourself. It's a lifelong work because it presupposes
evolution as a human being.
Q: You are also known for exploring different
musical areas. Does that result from curiousity and
the urge to experiment, or is it due to frustration
and restlessness?
John: It's not due to frustration and restlessness. I
get that from myself because my greatest
competitor is my own inability and incapicity. It's
from my love of music. If I hear something great, I
want to know more about it. When I hear a great
musician, I can feel his life and his elegance and his
eloquance inside the music, and that makes me
want to know more about him. Whether it comes
from east, west, north, or south, music is my
language. When I first heard some of the great
Indian musicians, I had enormous desire to know
them better. To be able to play with them is a
satisfaction you can not imagine, although I don't
really play their way. I'm able to communicate with
them because I know the rules governing their
approach.
Q: Is communication generally improving between
musicians of diverse backgrounds and cultures?
John: The barriers amongst instrumental musicians
don't exist like they did in the past, which is
wonderful. We all need enriching, and if we are to
make any kind ofprogress, we need inspiration. This
is especially true in the exchange that's happening
between jazz and classical players. There is a great
deal of mutual respect, and both genres are looking
for new blood. It's terrific that musicians such as
trumpeter Wynton Marsalis, who plays both styles,
is very much appreciated by classical and jazz
audiences. Pianists Chic Corea and Keith Jarrett are
very involved with classical music. On the classical
side you have musicians like violinist Gidon Kremer
who has recorded with Keith. Gidon has asked me
to write a piece for him, cellist Yo Yo Ma has also
expressed interest. Of course, if it werent for the
encouragement of Ernest Fleishman, who is the
executive director of the Los Angeles Philharmonic, I
don't think I would have taken on a project of such
gigantic proportions as my concerto.
Q: How did you and Michael Gibbs come to
collaborate on your concerto?
John: I asked Michael because orchestration is an
art that I don't pretend to be a master of. He is very
gifted in that area, and the textural tableau from an
orchestrial point of view is so important. The
challenge that I've had in writing the piece has been
in establishing dramatic development and in
evolving a structure that doesn't use a small group.
Although I'm taking the privilage of not being a
"classical musician," I feel I have to observe classical
music rules. My appetite is most surely whetted
now, and I think I'm going to write another
orchestral piece soon.
Q: Technically, is your concerto very challenging?
How large a role does improvisation play?
John: Improvisation is included because that's very
important to me, but it's featured to a lesser degree.
For that reason, I would be delighted if classical
players would attempt it; the repertoire for classical
guitar and orchestra is very small. There are
sections of the concerto that are difficult for me, but
difficulty is hard to access in terms of another
player's technique. If a fingerstyle player does
eventually attempt it, he'll have to be very flexible
and open to adaptation. There are thing you can do
with a pick that are difficult to play with the fingers.
Being a jazz musician, you develop the ability to
modify your technique. But in many respects,
fingerstyle technique is superior to pick technique.
Q: What instrumen will you use?
John: Abraham Wechter, who has made four guitars
for me over the years, is building a nylon stringed
instrument with a large body to bring out a rich
bass midrange. I've asked him to concentrate on the
upper register in order to have a special brillance.
It'll have a cutaway, which I believe will be adopted
by classical players because it facilitates things that
are impossible otherwise. Another unclassical aspect
is that I'll be using a mike.
Q: Will your Wechter have a scalloped fingerboard?
John: No. That doesn't work with nylon strings
because you have to pull too far to bend them; the
density of nylon and steel is very different. With
steel, you can do so much with so little.
Q: Can you envision using the synthesizer guitar in a
symphonic context?
John: Yes, but I can only do one thing at a time.
Right now, I am too involved with the concerto to
think much about anything else. The Synclavier has
a great deal of potential, but the next project I have
in mind for it will be with my latest group, which I
can see going on for a long time.
Q: On your last album-Mahavishnu-the
synclavierseemed to change the way you phrase.
Did you feel that yourself?
John: Your impression is very close to home. The
Synclavier allows me to play in a way that is very
difficult to do on a guitar. Conventional electric and
acouustic guitars dont lend them to the horn-like
flow that's very dear to me. Guitarists-pianists, too
for that matter play in a different way than do horn
players. The work of Miles Davis, John Coltrane,
Sonny Rollins, and Clifford Brown made an
incredible mark on me, and I had to try to adapt my
technique in order to accomodate the parameters
they use in their improvisation. I suffered because it
was so difficult. I still suffer(laughs). When I began
to experiment with the synthesizer guitar at the end
of 1975, I realized the potential was tremendous.
The problem was the technology was elephantine.
The Synclavier helps break down the barriers that
obstruct a guitarist from playing at his optimum. I
owe alot to the digital guitar.
Q: Players are continually adding strings and using
alternat tunings to expand the guitar's possibilities.
How close does the Synclavier come to being the
perfect instrument?
John: It's a revolution. Although it requires you to
modify your technique a cretain amount, its a
instrument that allows you to enter the world of
creative synthesis, which can not be avoided. Of
course, there are peole who will never get involved
with it. Fine, but for guitarists who are looking for
new ways to create sound, it's tremendous. It's very
exciting to be able to apply that musically. I've tried
the other synthesizer guitars, and they're toys in
comparison to the synclavier.
Q: Do you feel the digital guitar will ever replace
more conventional instruments?
John: For me, no. I fell in love with the acoustic
guitar when I was 11, and for the rest of my life it
will be my first love. But I feel that guitarists'
involvement with synthesizers will be like what has
hapened to keyboard: First there was acoustic
piano, then the Rhodes crept in, and finnally there
was synthesizers. It's no a question of whether I
have to have to kake a choice. You can have your
feet in both worlds, although I forsee in the
not-too-distant-future a real-time instrument. By that
I mean a synthesizer so sophisticated that it
responds exactly like an acoustic guitar.
Q: Specifically, how does the digital guitar change
your technique and approach to phrasing?
John: Part of it depends on the timbre (tone color)
you're using. When you get involved in the creation
of timbres with the synthesizer, you're creating a
new world of sound. That's uncharted territory and
something you can spend a lot of time doing.
However, once you've got a particular timbre, it's
characteristics will directly influence you as soon as
you start to play. It's as if you're suddenly playing a
different instrument. For example, if a timbre has a
long sustain, you are able to articulate phrases that
are impossible on a conventional guitar, so you must
change your concept. If you have a give number of
timbres, you have to approach them individually.
Many timbres are impossible to play in a guitar type
of way, and you almost have to approach them
individually. Many timbres are impossible to play in
a guitar type of way, and you almost have to caress
the strings in order to coax the sound out.
Q: Can you describe how timbres are developed on
the Synclavier?
John: It's through what they call additive synthesis.
You start at the screen of the computer terminal
with sine waves, which are added togather to make
up the harmonic spectrum of a sound. Then you
have what they call frequency modulation-FM
synthesis-which allows you to create complex
timbres by modulating one set of oscilliators with
another. With additive, you use a volume envelope to
control loudness of each harmonic over time. It's
very pure and very simple. Once you've added these
tones from the tone generator, then you can start to
work with attack, initial decay, amplitude, and the
decay of the volume and harmonic or pitch
envelope. This sounds terribly technical, but it's
fairly easy to do once you're there with the
equiptment. You can also take the factory sounds
that come with the Synclavier and examine them on
the screen and see what they're composed of.
Q: One of the main criticisims of synthesizer guitars
is that they don't track accurately or quite fast
enough for most guitarists' taste.
John: Perhaps players are asking too much and
aren't willing to modify their technique. The nature
of translating a guitar envelope-the characteristics of
a sound-into digital information is very complex and
sensitive. You have to be very percise because you're
directing information, and if you miss something, the
computer has a confused input and will act
accordingly. Once you get used to the Synclavier,
the tracking is phenominal-even with bends and
dynamic nuances-but if you don't tell it what to do
correctly, it'll fight you. As far as speed of tracking is
concerned, if you comapre it to the responsiveness
of an acoustic guitar, whick involves nanoseconds,
then in some ways there's a very very slight delay.
But I've played quickly with the digital guitar, and if
I'm playing right, it's there. Of course guys at New
Englan Digital are perfectionists and always see
room for improvement.
Q: Did you have your Roland guitar modified in any
way?
John: No, I like to have guitars in my own way, but
New England Digital preferred that I used the
Roland stock so they could garantee it's
performance, although that was some time ago. One
of the main characteristics of of synthesizers in
general is that they hate overtones and vibrations,
which computers can additional but garbled
information. For instance, the purpose of the crazy
handle that joins the body and peghead on the
Roland G-707 is to reduce certain resonances. Since
then I've talked to luthier Mike Pedulla, who has
cracked some of the problems concerning overtones
in the synthesizer body and in tracking. I'd like for
him to build a instrument for me.
Q: Is the onboard control pannel of your Roland
guitar easy to use?
John: It's a very intelligent setup. Other systems use
a series of footpedals, but I like the freedom that
the onboard pannel allows. Of course, you can get
used to just about anything. I don't see how the
Synclavier system could be foot-activated beacuse
there are 16 buttons, each of with has two
functions. At some point, I would like to have the
control pannel in the guitar it's self, with the buttons
to the body and the pannel raise at 45 degrees, so
you could see at a glance what kind of patch you're
using.
Q: Onstage, what do you use for amplification?
John: A Roland Jazz Chorus. I don't want to have
too much volume on stage; the less the better. At
hte same tim, I don't want to have the rythm section
walk on eggshells, because when the spirit gets the,
they gotta testify. It's very reliable and it has some
nice features, such as distortion control. I use my
Gibson Les Paul and Roland amp in conjunction
with a Scholtz Rockman, which is a great invention.
Q: How mant different timbres are in Mahavishnu?
John: About 30, some of them are hard to
distinguish because they're mixed up with other
sounds to create textures to create textures and to
set up particular kinds of moods. In concert, I use
about 25.
Q: Which cuts demonstrate the digital guitar's
capabilities?
John: "Nostalgia" has a melancholy aspect that
works well with the particular fluts patch I used.
The cong has has a classical Indian raga influence,
where harmony is suggested by a drone. That
timbre enabled me to play in a slow, melancholy
manner, which can be difficult to invoke without
being surgery. On "Clarendon Hills" there's a direct
guitar in unison with the Synclavier. You can't really
hear the direct guitar but you can feel it. And "East
Side West Side" has a funky kind of Wurlitzer organ
sound on the opening.
Q: How did you avoid conflicts between the guitar
and the keyboard?
John: The minute a synthesizer guitarist starts
playing with a sytnthesizer keyboardist, you become
aware. Mitch Forman has done so much work on his
timbres that they're his and nobody else's, so there's
actually quite a bit of contrast.
Q: Why did you use the particular timbres on
Mahavishnu?
John: Part of the problem was that I went in the
about six weeks after I got the digital guitar-when I
record again later this year, you'll see a number of
developments as far as sound is concerned. I went
with timbres that I could identify with and fealt
comfortable with. Many players will think that the
factory sounds are great and use just those because
people are indolent-we all are. But I think it's very
important to create the timbres yourself. The
tendancy to want to work less is just human nature.
Q: How can you suggest you're indolent, in light of
your busy schedule and your dedication to the
guitar?
John: It's all relative. Although jazz musicians
practice as much as classical ones, when I think
about the discipline of come people, I'm very
indolent in comparrison. But if you love something
enough, you automatically concentrate on it. That's
the best kind of discipline you could ever have.
However, in developing certain areas-technique, for
example-it helps to know how to work. I would like
to make a contribution to helping young musicians.
Knowing how to work and how to attack the
problem at hand in both a technical sence and in a
personal sence is in a area that could use a little
overhaul. Sometimes, if you get the right clue, you
can unravel a great mystery. Many of my feelings
about teaching and others have grown out of my
relationship with a young friend I've been coaching,
Yan Maresz, who is 18 and is currently attending
the Berklee College of Music in Boston.
Q: What have you been helping him with?
John: Primarily, I was fairly concerned with his
theoretical background, which was very weak. He
was a very good rock and roll player, but he was
dissatisfied and wanted to make progress, so we
started on jazz harmony and it's application to the
guitar. We also talked about classical harmony,
although we stopped around the impressionist
period with Ravel, Debussy, Scriabin, and Satie. We
haven't gotten to Stravinsky or Bartok.
Q: How did you approach jazz harmony theory?
John: I began with chord structure, which is
essential information for any occidental
musician-oriental musicians don't approach music
from a harmonic perspective. We took standardsAnd
looked for ways to extend the basic chords, using
the rules governing chord extentions and related
scales. In effect, we broke everything into its scalar
componenet and reassembled it using a more scalar
approach, which gives you a more linear view rather
than a vertical one. And we thoroughly covered
triads, which are such powerful units, especially
when you begin to superimpose them in
improvisation.
Q: Can you reccomend some books about chords
and scales?
John: Vincent Perfichetti's 20th Century Harmony:
Creative Aspests and Practice is a very important
book. And I also recomend Nicholas Slonimsky's
Thesauaus of Scales and Melodic Patterns. These
two will take you a long way.
Q: What do you work on to improve your technique?
John: It varies. The other day, I invented an
interesting right-hand exercise that is extremely
difficult. I took a highly convoluted melodic line-it
can be any series of notes, really-with strange
intervals and string changes. I practiced playing it
at various tempos and rythms. That kind of thing
does wonders for your articulation, speed and
phrasing-the usual, boaring stuff that's very
important.
Q: What are the critical aspects of right hand
technique?
John: It depends on on your style. There are so
many styles that work; it's so individual. For
example, Allan Holdsworth, who has such an
original style and plays very fast, relies primarily on
his left hand. I articulate everything, picking almost
all of the notes, which calls for strong discipline on
the part of the right hand and necessitates a lot of
fluidity in the wrist. It takes a lot to work to develop
speed while staying relaxed.