Menu
--- In , "mctippens" <mctippens@e...>
wrote:
>
> Looking at the big picture, The Shadows were a great band, quite
> influntial in their part of the world though at a rudimentary
level,
> yet they didn't cause any kind of a stir in the U.S. The big names
> that sight the Shadows as an influence shook the U.S. BUT those
big
> names had bigger influences than the Shadows. Much more often, in
> interviews of the day the chief influence mentioned was the blues.
> And even if some said the Shadows were an influence, the style
they
> played owed much more to other influences.
First of all, the same could be said of the Ventures. Second of
all, there were several guys whose playing was very much shaped by
Hank, though of course other influences also were important.
Gilmour once said that his style was a result of being Hank one
night, and Clapton another. Slowly the two sides merged into his
own style. Knopfler has a style that was, at least initally,
clearly influenced by Hank (Hank was one of the first to use that in-
between pickup setting in England, the first time on record back
in '64 - though he used it with a Burns Marvin model, which is very
similar sounding to a Strat anyway).
I think it's almost impossible to find a serious guitarist who was
ever influenced by only one thing, so why should that apply here? I
think all of those guys that Hank got started thought of themselves
as continuing the progression that they saw in r&r - towards more
blues influence and heavier sounds. I'm sure they saw the early
Shadows as part of that (and dismissed them when the Shads failed to
keep up). But the fact is that the Shads were a MAJOR influence for
most of those guys, if obviously not THE major influence. That
should not detract from understanding the Shadows impact on the
later Brit rock scene, which I think any of those guys would tell
you was huge.
Ivan
