A parallel to ponder....

[albert_smith]

I was listening to a radio station out of Orlando, Florida today, and they had Carlos Santana on the phone to plug some upcoming concerts in the area. The folks from the Orlando radio show were giving him a series of questions about many topics, and one of the radio personalities, a fledging guitarist, asked Santana what guitar, amp and effects he used.

 

<p>

 

Santana, sighed and said that all of the guitarist that he had the pleasure of working with over the years, including Hendrix, always hated this question. He told the on-air personality that it would have been more of a compliment if instead of asking what guitar or effect that was used to play a certain note, that he should ask, "What were you thinking or feeling when you played that note?"

 

<p>

 

I was listening to this in my car, and I immediately thought of some of the current threads here, like whether or not HCB used Zeiss or Leitz lenses, or which generation of lens blows which other generation out of the water. I thought there was a parallel there. It is a different art, but still an art where some people think the success comes from the moniker on the gear. Was McCurry thinking, "Wow, look at her face!" or "Sure glad I have my Nikon with 105mm f/2.5." It's not what was used, but what was thought or felt.

 

<p>

 

HCB could have used a Pentax K-1000 and a 50mm lens from that company and been effective, and Santana could grab any Amateur guitar off of the rack from any shop and make it talk. Conversely, a "collector" that brags about having the latest and greatest, or having the same lens that so and so used, doesn't guaranty anything successful will be captured on film.

 

<p>

 

"What were you thinking or feeling when you played that note?" Santana's comment was interesting to me, and I thought I'd share.

[pcg]

Here, here! Nice reflection...

[preston_merchant]

A great comparison, Al. You're right, of course, about HCB being

able to do his thing with any ol' camera. He THOUGHT he was using a

basic, no-frills little hand tool with as much sex appeal as a

screwdriver. Little did he know!

[Rob F.]

It's good to be reminded, once in a while, of what's important.

Eisenstadt said that once he wanted a new camera bag, but he didn't

buy it, because he didn't see how it could improve his photography.

 

<p>

 

If a picture I take is going to be any good, I will usually feel some

sense of excitement and urgency to take it. The ones I take because

I think it's time to look for something to shoot, come out humdrum.

[dave_yoder2]

Yes, I've heard the sighs in the audience before too when a poor

fledgling photographer doesn't know better than to ask that question at

a slideshow or something...

 

<p>

 

However, you can't tell me Carlos never sat around with Hendrix, or

whoever, and never talked about the guitars and amps they like. Of

course they did. What he said on the radio seems to be a common

sentiment in the middle and upper levels of photgoraphy too.

 

<p>

 

I think it's at least silly, and at worst intellectual elitism.

Equipment preferences are important to some people--so what? I hate

using EOS (had it forced on me for a few years and is responsible for

swaying me toward buying my own R gear). EOS took the fun out of

photography for me, for reasons I won't bore you with. I take better

pictures with other gear. It makes a difference to some people--I would

bet especially when talking about the difference between SLRs and Leica

Ms. Where's the harm in talking about it? And so where are all the

photographers using Pentax K1000 cameras--they're cheap as hell and if

they were realistic I think plenty of pros would be quite happy to save

the money and spend it on a project.

 

<p>

 

Just my �.02.

[marke_gilbert]

Well said Al,

Especially when Im fully expecting to see a "M3 is the greatest,

smoothest, most mystical, experience Ive ever had" to be posted soon.

Best,

[eliot]

Thanks for sharing Al. But several posts seem to suggest that

because someone famous (HCB or Santana) doesn't care too much about

his equipment that I or others should feel the same way. I am a

collector (and user) so I care about equipment. Others who post also

care and some don't. To each his own. For those that don't care,

they don't have to respond to threads dealing particularly with

equipment. What I don't like is for others to tell me hoiw I should

feel about this issue (by example or otherwise).

[squareframe]

ok, I've got to tell this story (I have before) because it really is

related to your Leica discussions. I used to own a guitar amplifier

company and Carlos Santana was a client. He was given the latest

model with channel switching, distortion controls, footswitch control

of effects, the whole enchilada. that amplifier now sits in my studio

because Carlos didn't want it. he and his guru felt that his music

was suffering because of the complications of technology. Carlos went

back to the very first amplifier that had little else other than a

volume control. this was the purity he felt he needed to sustain his

spiritual and creative happiness. by the way, Carlos is a gentleman,

courteous and polite, giving, and a fine human being. not that the

parallels between Carlos and Leica fit perfectly, but you can read

between the lines for your own pursuits.

[jeff voorhees]

Its always been amusing that people seem to think that the equipment

makes the (fill in the blank). What is wrong with wanting to know

what someone uses? Granted, there is more to photography, music,

painting, etc. than what brand of gear one uses and I guess, hope

maybe, that people use whatever gear helps them achieve the results

they seek. Others of course, carry Leica or Fender because it is a

Leica or Fender.

 

<p>

 

A long time ago I was a medical photographer and we used Nikons and

Hasselblads. One day, I was taking pictures for one of the

neurosurgeons and he tried to grab my camera to see what it was. He

derided me for using Nikon. He said he "had Leicas" and asked if I

knew what they were. I wish I had had the confidence to ask him what

brand of scalpel he used.

[eliot]

Based on this discussion, I'm reminded of a commercial I have seen on

TV a number of times. It takes place in a men's locker room at a

gym. Michael Jordan is changing, and a bunch of other guys who are

standing around watching, see that he is wearing pinkish red

underwear. Fast forward to same scene, next day (or week). All of

these guys are now wearing pink underwear. Just thought I'd share.

[wilhelmn]

Who is/was Carlos Santana?

[kristian dowling]

I nice reflection and one we all forget at times. We're just some

good old Leica maniacs with expensive toys....and we love it!

[carlin]

I can tell you what Santana

was feeling...he was feeling

stoned! Don't get me wrong,

Lotus and Abraxas are

masterpieces, but let's be real

here ;-)

 

<p>

 

Of course there is a legitimate

gripe on his part, because I'm

sure a lot of fledgling guitar

students ask him about this and

it gets old. But any artist/

craftsman shouldn't feel bad

about wanting/discussing

quality tools...the fact is that

you can't count on a K1000 in the

field the way you can count on a

Leica. I think it's important to

strike a balance. Let's

remember most early

photographers had to be fairly

accomplished scientists/

technicians...and certainly a

little bit off, because who else

would expose themselves to

mercury vapor?

[john_elder1]

I am sure that Santana uses the guitar which he considers to be the

finest for HIS music. So, if a person can afford it, why shouldn't a

photographer use that camera which he or she believes to be the best.

Furthermore, why wouldn't an artist, muscian or photographer,

research what that best equipment is . A no brainer!

[kristian dowling]

Allen, either you have something against college kids or you are

a very unhappy person. Virtually every post you've replied too

recently has been with negative conotations. I am guessing you

are older than say, a college kid, so I would expect to see

maturity beyond such an age. Leaving useless negative

comments is distracting and doesn't do you any favours.

 

<p>

 

Can I recommend that you maybe think twice before posting

"yawns" and other comments not appreciated by a majority of

forum users. When you are positive, I have nothing against you,

but when you are negative, it is not fair to others on this forum

that have to put up with it. Maybe you're having a bad day. I don't

know, but I look forward to seeing some better posts comming

from you in the near future.

[jason_guyer1]

Obviously, the guitarists mentioned in this thread are great

musicians who would come up with amazing stuff no matter what they

played with, but the gear analogy doesn't totally hold up here in my

opinion. Maybe Santana isn't lusting after the latest, greatest

wizzbang guitar or amplifier, but he is most certainly using exactly

what he wants and is definitely interested in the "gear" aspect of

his profession. Lots of musicians choose older amplifiers because

they use vacuum tube technology to produce the sounds, as opposed to

the more current trend of solid-state. The resulting sounds out of

the tube amps have more warmth and depth than the respective SS

models. There are just as many gearhead musicians who get every bit

as fetishist and picky about vintage equipment as anyone on this

forum gets about Leicas. If Santana chose the older amp over the new

one, it was certainly because it sounded better, not just because it

was older. And even the specific gear is important. If you want a

guitar sound like Stevie Ray Vaughn, you need a Stratocaster.

Period. Same goes for Hendrix. Yes, much of their sound is in their

fingers, but the same licks played on a different guitar would have

a very different sound, simply because single coil pickups produce a

different aural quality than humbuckers, which, incidently are the

pickups used in Carlos Santana's Paul Reed Smith guitars. Both

guitarists would play amazing stuff whatever they used, but even

with music, the instrument is a part of the equation. Whether you

decide to play a Fender, a Gibson, or some funky old Tesco Del Rey

from a pawnshop. And make no mistake, Hendrix was VERY picky about

his guitar sound. There are numerous interviews with him, and his

engineers and producers which testify to this. The guy had a running

account with Manny's in NYC and would go in and buy whatever new

pedal or guitar they had in, just to see if it would add something

to his sound.

[philip_woodcock]

Having a Leica is going back to basics. I used to own all brand new

EOS kit with every known feature known to man but as I learn my craft

I used less and less of these until I realised I needed a camera with

a very good lens and a spot meter. This is why I bought an SL nine

years ago.

 

<p>

 

I only need my eyes to compose and use the education I've gained to

operate it and when I click the shutter I know I have the picture.

[Spearhead]

The difference with Carlos Santana (and every other musician I have

met) is that they don't think their particular choice of equipment

is <i>better</i>, just that it does what they want it to do. Bernie

Worrell, who has done everything from P-Funk to Talking Heads to the

Letterman band, plays some of the most awful keyboards around,

including stuff that's out of tune, but he seems to know how to make

them sound right. When buying equipment, or hearing someone do

something new, there is a lot of discussion, but otherwise...<p>

 

The other thing is that every musician I've met would rather talk

about their music than the equipment. I've sat around with some

great musicians from Weather Report to Thelonius Monk to Vernon Reid

(Living Color) to Pat Metheny (whose music I don't really like but

he is a great guitarist), and not once has the topic of equipment

come up.<p>

 

I think it's because the successful ones know that endless equipment

discussion leads to non-productivity.

[nicholas_wybolt]

Al,

 

<p>

 

I guess if the guitar / amp didn't really matter then a lot of

guitarists wouldn't switch from a Stratocaster to a Les Paul between

numbers. Instruments and amplifiers have unique sonic signatures or

characteristics that musicians select to convey specific moods or

tonal colors in a song. Some players won't blow through anything but

a tube amp and some photographers won't use anything but an all-

manual camera.

 

<p>

 

Since aspiring artists, such as musicians and photographers, learn

through imitation (e.g., an artist sitting with an easel attempting

to re-create a Monet painting hanging on the wall in a museum), it's

not unusual or abnormal or improper for newbies to ask. In the end,

the camera never climbs out of the bag to snap a photo and the guitar

never plugs in an plays "Little Wing" by itself.

 

<p>

 

The artist's instrument becomes the channel for expressing concept

and creativity. I think that a lot of artists do indeed get tired of

answering the "what kind of ... do you use?" and Santana makes a

good point in his response; that the creative process is what's

important.

 

<p>

 

A lot of folks do indeed place value / prestige on price tags and

labels. That's ok, too. However, I think that the tools of our

craft / art are important and do indeed warrant discussion. I envy

photographers who can produce a life's work with one camera and one

lens. I can't and I don't know how to do it. Maybe I'm just being

ambitously lazy.

 

<p>

 

Good discussion.

 

<p>

 

-Nick

[pat_dunsworth]

In responce to Williamn, go to www.santana.com/carlos Cheers, Pat.

[carlin]

Thanks Kristian! Should that

be allen1@BITTERnet.com? It

is a good discussion, and have a

sense of humor...Geez!

[gl5]

Check out this article;

 

<p>

 

 

<a

href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.01/eno_pr.html">http:

//www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.01/eno_pr.html</a>

[Spearhead]

It's an interesting article. But Eno has <i>output</i> to show that

it matters. Too many people who talk about cameras all day have no

<i>output.</i> That's the difference here.

[marc_williams]

I'm with you Jeff. Opps, I'm out of here. Got to get my gear

ready for a trip. Where instead of talking about taking

photographs, I'm going to actually take some. With my incoming

M7. But I'm taking the M6 I'm having sex with, just in case the

M7's new batteries fail. Oh yeh, I best take lenses in cases with

spots on them so I know which lens I'm using and have

something to meter. Hmmm, can't use the "Decisive Moment"

technique any more, or I might be accused of beating my wife

and being a Nazi. And for Gods' sake I better wear black so I'm

not mistaken for a woman, and to assure no one sees my

camera. Now where's that black tape...because if the general

public EVER saw this forum I'd most certainly want to tape over

the Leica badge.

[squareframe]

to better illuminate the point of my story, Carlos is *very*

selective regarding his equipment and is looking for a particular

sound. my point was, much like the latest M6 vs M7 debates, is that

the technology was getting in the way of his artistry. the amplifier

sounded fine, but the process and myriad options was not where he

wanted to go. whether or not that applies to the M7 transition, I

don't know or care, but it is something you should consider if it

doesn't resonate with your style.

 

<p>

 

postscript: my observations from working with many professional

musicians, is that the equipment really didn't matter much at all.

they seemed to be able to transcend the hardware, just as great

photography can come from anywhere.