The Rush frontman talks about his bass-collecting odyssey—the perils of instrument hunting, the book it inspired, his favorite axes and their sounds, and the people who made and played them.
Last year, after four decades of touring and recording, prog-rock giants Rush came to a halt following Neil Peart’s retirement from drumming. While the trio remain close friends, and bassist and frontman Geddy Lee and guitarist Alex Lifeson haven’t ruled out the prospect of further collaboration, each of Rush’s members are currently living life as a solo act.
Lee is a voracious collector of everything from wines to baseball ephemera, and over the past decade has increasingly turned that interest toward vintage bass guitars. The virtuoso says he initially set out with the modest intention of chasing down nice examples of the instruments wielded by his musical heroes: a ’62 Fender Jazz bass like John Paul Jones used in Led Zeppelin, a Gibson EB-3 like Jack Bruce’s in Cream, and so on. However, Lee is afflicted with the curse of the completest, and his curiosity grew with the purchase of each old instrument. Questions about the evolution of particular models and the spaces they occupied in the relatively short history of the electric bass led Lee deeper down the rabbit hole.
Eventually, Lee, who had previously only purchased basses as tools to create music, amassed a collection of over 250 vintage examples. Next came the idea to document his incredible collection and passion for the instrument in a book. Thus, Geddy Lee’s Big Beautiful Book of Bass was published in December 2018.The volume features world-class photos and notes about the basses in Lee’s collection, interviews with some of the celebrated players that shaped his musical world—including John Paul Jones and the Rolling Stones’ Bill Wyman, and showcases Lee’s transition from collector to archeologist of the bass.
Premier Guitar spoke with Lee over the phone as he relaxed at home in Toronto with his beloved Norwich Terriers. The conversation covered Lee’s passion for collecting and his new book, some of the rare instruments he’s now the custodian of, the challenges of Rush’s music, and what the future may hold for him as a player.
The collection of basses you’ve put together is pretty astounding.
It was no small task, and it was sort of a crash course for me. Considering that I’ve been playing for over 42 years, I probably should’ve known half of this stuff, but collecting vintage wasn’t really my thing. The whole vintage thing came to me over the last, maybe, 10 years. Prior to that, I was only looking at my instruments as tools to get me the sounds and playability that I needed to have onstage and in the studio.
When I was a kid, I collected stamps, and then when I got turned on to music, I had a big vinyl collection and I was pretty fanatical about that. Over the years, I got into first edition books, baseball stuff, and then there’s the wine“issue,” but the bass collecting and this book really felt like the first time that I was paying something back to the instrument that’s given me my entire life. It was a project that not only edified me in terms of what the world of instruments was like between 1950 and 1980, but it also was kind of a full circle for me as the first good instrument I ever bought was a 1968 Fender.
Was there a particular bass that catalyzed your transition from player to collector?
Yeah. The first instrument I bought as a collector was a ’53 Fender P bass, and I wanted that because it’s my birth year. Collectors seem to look for stuff from their birth year as a kind of ego thing. I guess everyone wants to celebrate their own entry into the world, right? So that’s where it started for me and that was a very important piece because, in researching that piece, I learned how early 1953 really was for the electric bass, having only been invented as a commercially available thing in ’51. That bass really got me thinking about that period, and, as a collector, it’s access to a window into history that really gets me motivated. Through that, I started learning about Leo [Fender] and I started being very interested in the changes that happened in the first 10 years of the P bass, because from ’51 to ’61 that instrument went through a lot of changes as Leo tweaked and looked for the ideal version of the Precision bass. Those early iterations and the modifications he made are interesting not only in learning about that instrument, but also learning about what made Leo Fender tick. Suffice to say Leo’s a fairly interesting character in the history of vintage instruments. That was one aspect that really got me turned on, and then I started casting my gaze to other instruments.
TIDBIT: For Geddy Lee’s Big Beautiful Bass Book, he interviewed bassists like Bill Wyman and John Paul Jones who could talk with authority about buying basses during certain periods.
Ever since I started using my ’72 Fender Jazz bass as my main stage instrument in the early ’90s, I’ve been obsessed with finding a backup for it that matched it tonally. I had a really hard time finding one that sounded the same, and have always wondered why certain instruments have a particular tone and why it’s so difficult to find others that sound the same. That lead me on my Jazz bass hunt, and I had heard so many things about the pre-CBS era of Fender, I really wanted to understand what had happened from 1960 and 1972 to make my main Jazz bass what it is, and how many changes had that model gone through during those years. Was it the same thing the P bass had gone through in its first 10 years, with these really dramatic changes to the design? And it was those questions that really led me down the rabbit hole.
I love how wholly you’ve thrown yourself into the archeology of bass—especially when it comes to mavericks like Leo Fender.
These are products of humans, right? So when a bass hits my hands, I want to know the context. Who made it? Why did they make it? Where did it come from? Where did the idea for it come from? What stage of development in the guitarmaker’s mind was this instrument? Does it represent the ultimate product for him, or was it something that he made along the way to getting there? Those are burning questions for me, and they happen no matter what kind of man-made object I turn my gaze on … whether it’s wine or watches or whatever! All of these things are just entry points, but it’s about learning more about the world and celebrating the incredible achievements of human beings!
Was the book something you had in mind as you got deeper into collecting, or just a by-product of it?
The book was a by-product, and I didn’t intend to collect so many basses when I started. I originally set out to collect maybe a dozen basses that represented the models played by the guys that taught me everything through my listenings—my heroes. So I was after a Gibson EB-3 that represented Jack Bruce, a Hofner 500-1 Violin Bass that represented Paul McCartney, a ’62 Fender Jazz bass like John Paul Jones used on the early Led Zeppelin records. Those were what I set out to put together in a modest collection just to be able to have some fun with them, but when I get into collecting, I turn into sort of a completist. I get a few of these things and then get curious and have to answer the questions, like what was different on the model from the year before, and then the year after, and so it goes.
What I discovered over the course of building this collection is that there are stories connected to these instruments, and bits of minutia that maybe everyone doesn’t know. And there are people that I came into contact with through collecting that were fascinating to talk to and had rich stories to share. Those were the reasons I finally thought maybe I should put these things down in some sort of compendium so the stories are preserved and the joy of collecting is shared with other like-minded people.
When Lee began collecting basses, he set out to acquire about a dozen examples of those instruments preferred by his idols, with this Hofner 500-1, for example, representing Beatles-era Paul McCartney. Photo by Richard Sibbald
There are some pitfalls to avoid in collecting vintage guitars and basses. Especially now, as people have gotten really good at mimicking the details of old parts and replicating the way vintage finishes age—even studied under blacklight. How did you go about educating yourself as a buyer? Did you get burned along the way?
Yeah. I don’t think you’re an honest collector if you don’t experience a couple of burns in your excitement! In the old days, when you became a collector of anything, you had to travel to the guitar shows and the fairs, or stumble upon guys that were trying to sell their instruments in newspaper ads and such, and you really had to know at least a little bit of what you were talking about because you had to experience them in person. Now we live in a world that’s opened up in its entirety to sellers with the internet, so how do you know an instrument in Malaysia or somewhere is the real deal? A ton of communication has to ensue, a ton of photographic evidence has to be exchanged, but at the end of the day you have to have enough knowledge—or at least access to enough knowledge—to verify that what you’re after is the real thing.
So yeah, I’ve bought a couple of instruments that didn’t pass muster once we opened them up and got them under the blacklight, and I’ve bought some that fooled a lot of experts along the way.
Does an instrument’s story ever outweigh how original it is, when it comes to your enjoyment of it as a collector?
I have a 1963 Strat that required an unbelievable amount of detective work and is an example of something like that. It has a matching headstock, which is very rare, and the factory numbers and etchings under the pickguard are all there, but it turned out not to be so straightforward and the guitar is a whole story unto itself. That is really fun to discern for me, and the seriousness of that all comes down to what the sale price is at the end and if you’re buying something that someone is trying to deceive you into thinking is all original when in reality it’s original-ish. That said, another thing I avoided in the book is talking about the cost or value of these things. I really try to seperate that side from the simple celebration of these instruments.
The allure is learning, and there is so much to learn in this and the other things I get into collecting. This obsession with things that represent the ingenuity of man is endless and endlessly edifying.
I know you’ve also got some pretty remarkable guitars, including a ’59 Les Paul Standard.
I do! When Joe Bonamassa was in town a few weeks ago, he came over for dinner and we had a gathering of the Toronto guitar geeks at my house and had a great time. Joe brought it to his soundcheck the next day and gave it his thumbs up! I like guitars, too, but I don’t play them. I can play guitar and I use it from time to time as a writing tool, but I’m a bass player and sometimes I feel like having these amazing guitars is a bit of a waste in my hands, and they should be with players like Joe. But I do have a mad passion for certain guitars. I always said Alex, my partner in crime for all these years, sounds best with a 335 or a Les Paul in his hands. His white 355 is such a killer, great-sounding instrument!
Is there anything you’re still hunting?
A real pre-CBS surf green Fender Jazz or P bass. I’m still looking for a ’68 Fender Telecaster bass in the blue floral print. It’s remarkable how hard those are to find. The paisleys are out there and I have a couple of those, and I even have the blue floral Tele guitar, but I haven’t found the bass yet. I’m looking for a super early Rickenbacker 4001 from the early ’60s. I have three Ric 4000s from the early ’60s, and I have a ’64 4001, but I’m really looking for one of the first ones.
The interviews in the book are great and include some your heroes, like John Paul Jones. What was it like putting that part of the book together?
It was very difficult to have so few interviews. I could’ve easily talked to 30 guys, but there’s only so many pages and there’s only so much time. I really wanted to talk to players that represented the period I’m specifically talking about in the book, like Bill Wyman and John Paul Jones. These are guys that can talk about actually buying basses during that period.
John Paul is such a fantastic character and wonderful storyteller and generous man. We spoke about his early days and what he loved about the bass, and especially his ’62. And Bill Wyman in many respects invented the electric fretless bass by making it himself, and he’s a character that’s played so many different instruments—so he could speak to the reality of so many different instruments. I wanted to speak with people that connected with the book on a level beyond just being great players. It was really about the combination of being a profound player and having that collector’s mindset, or having the experience of having been a witness to the golden age and being able to describe it.
Among the rare basses in his armada are several Fender Telecaster models. He has a few paisley-finish examples but is still on the hunt for one in a blue floral print. Photo by Richard Sibbald
Jeff Tweedy is a collector that I really appreciate, as he just buys things he loves or finds weird, and he’s got just a marvelous collection. I had a really great time interviewing him for the book and spending some time with him and his gang at the Loft in Chicago. He’s really a fun collector, and I love guys that have a big heart, and he has the same attitude with keyboards and pedals and drums, and the Loft is just a super-cool place to hang out.
Do you have any thoughts on the way bass playing has changed since you started?
You just have to look on Instagram and you’ll see a million young players—female and male—that have astounding dexerty. A lot of them are playing 5- and 6-string instruments. There’s this whole proliferation of players going beyond the 4th string, and there’s a whole new school that’s going to take it to a very interesting place. A lot of them stylistically aren’t exactly my cup of tea, but I really appreciate the way they’re playing and the fact that there’s such a movement of female bass players, especially. I saw Jeff Beck this summer and Rhonda Smith is such a monster player, and I love seeing that shift in the culture to more women being represented.
After decades of playing Rickenbackers, inspired by his hero Chris Squire, Lee adopted the Fender Jazz bass as his instrument of choice. Here, he wields one of his favorite J basses at the Palace in Auburn Hills, Michigan, on June 14, 2015. Photo by Ken Settle
You were called in to play in stay of your hero, the late Chris Squire, when Yes was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. What was that like?
Chris Squire was a hugely influential bass player in my life. He’s the reason I started playing Rickenbackers, and it was a combination of Chris Squire and John Entwistle, with a little bit of Jack Casady thrown in, that really led me down the sonic path I chose. So when I was asked to play with Yes, it was an incredible experience. I was blown away to be asked, and when I heard the lineup for the set included Rick Wakeman, Jon Anderson, Steve Howe, and Alan White—as close as you could get to the most profound version of Yes, in my world—it was such a huge thrill. It was also a real challenge, because we did “Roundabout,” which is one of the greatest bass songs ever written. I practiced the shit out of that song before I met up with the guys in New York, and it was just a real thrill.
It was also bittersweet, because Chris Squire passing so early in his life left a huge, gaping hole in my world. Between Chris, Jack Bruce, Greg Lake, and John Wetton all being gone, we’ve lost a lot of amazing bass players in the last 10 years. It’s really sad, and playing with Yes was a reminder that Chris wasn’t there to enjoy that moment himself. I felt like I just wanted to do right by him and honor him and really play the song properly. It was a great experience meeting the guys at the Hall of Fame induction, and they were very kind to me and very respectful, and just being onstage and looking over and getting nods from Steve Howe was a very cool moment in my life.
I’ve heard that Chris Squire was in the running to produce a Rush album at one point, but when he showed up to a gig at Wembley, he was seated next to Trevor Horn, who was also being considered, and things got awkward between the two of them. What’s the reality of that story?
That’s not exactly how it went, but they did both come to see us play on the same night! We were due to interview Trevor to potentially be a producer, but I think Chris had come to the gig just to check us out. The sad thing is there were a few producer/engineers in the building that day, and I never got to talk to Chris, despite him being so close. By the time we had looked around and finished chatting with everyone, he wasn’t there. I actually never got to meet him face-to-face.
Do you know what you’re interested in doing next?
I’m afraid I don’t really have a plan at this stage. I don’t know where I’m headed musically. My attitude is that I’ve been part of an amazing collaboration with two guys that I have so much respect for and for so many years, and we were very purposeful in our time together. The book has been a very cool way for me to transition out of that scenario, and now I feel like I’m in a position to truly clear the deck and hit the reset button, and see what I have to say musically. I need to give myself time to experiment with that and see what comes out that I feel strong enough to be a worthy thing to do next. I have no idea where that’s going to take me.
When I mess around at home, I’m sort of all over the map. But that’s also usually how a Rush album starts. I don’t imagine that whatever I do next will be drastically different, but because I have more guitars now, I’m playing more guitar in the studio and getting ideas that way. Stylistically speaking, I never felt like I was missing anything in the context of Rush because anything goes in that group. When I jam, I jam all over the place, but whether or not I’m going to follow it any one specific direction in the future, I have no idea. I never had any musical frustrations in Rush. It was a totally fulfilling experience for me.
One of the hallmarks of Rush’s music is its technicality. Is there anything from the band’s catalog that you recall being particularly challenging?
There’s quite a few that were very much a pain in the ass to play! There are songs on Clockwork Angels that were very difficult. A song like “The Anarchist” doesn’t seem that complicated, but requires almost complete rhythmic independence between your voice and hands in order to play that bass part and sing that vocal part at once. A lot of the Hemispheres album was really hard to play live because my vocal parts were recorded in such a high key that it was really taxing—not my ideal key. Other songs, like “The Main Monkey Business” were really tough because every time you play that song, you play it sort of on a knife edge because there’s so many goofy changes. If you sleepwalk through that song, you’re going to be in big trouble. “One Little Victory” was also a really tough song to play. Not so much as a player, but as a band. Fitting into that song’s groove and coming out of the indulgent parts at the same time is tough. I like that about playing live, and I like being on that bit of a knife edge—the stuff that requires a panicked look between each other as we’re coming out of the harder passages. Songs like “Working Man” are fun to play, and there’s all kinds of improv going on but it’s a fairly straightforward song. The highly structured songs, like “Mission,” really keep you on your toes.
The instrumental stuff is always so precision-oriented that it really came down to being well-rehearsed, and Rush was a fanatical rehearsal band. Many people would consider Rush’s rehearsal schedule over-rehearsing, but we didn’t feel that way because we wanted to be able to relax into our parts, and in order to do that, you have to know those parts inside out.
Do you have a favorite recorded bass tone from Rush’s discography, and has that changed now that you’ve experienced so many world-class instruments?
That’s a really tough one. I think the bass sound on “Tom Sawyer” is pretty ideal, and “Red Barchetta” as well. There are so many records to go through, and I was always fucking around with my sound in one way or another. Every time I thought I was plateauing, I would change something about it … which can be good and bad. That’s one of the dangers of being a progressive musician: You move past something you maybe should stick around in a bit longer because you’re busy searching for that next thing, that improvement. So always, as a band, the three of us were looking to improve from the last piece of recorded work.
Among the many things I’ve learned through this process of collecting is an appreciation for instruments and sounds that don’t necessarily fit in my typical soundscape. I avoided those instruments for over 40 years, and on the last tour I brought some of them out with us. Gibson Thunderbirds, for example. I never wanted anything to do with a Gibson Thunderbird because I always felt like they were antithetical to my sound in Rush, but I found moments that I could play those instruments in the context of Rush and really make it work. That was really enlightening for me, and I hope to play around with more of those particular instruments.
How would you like Rush’s music to be seen and remembered by future generations?
Obviously Rush was, in many ways, an ongoing experiment, so there were moments where the experiment achieved a kind of synchronicity and there are some albums that end up being arrival points. Moving Pictures, Permanent Waves, and even Clockwork Angels to a large degree are those kinds of albums. Someone once said that every artist deserves to be judged by their best work, and I sort of agree with it and would ask that we’re remembered by our best work and really our spirit, and that we had a willingness to experiment publicly. When you experiment publicly, you have to be willing to fail publicly and I think that’s an important thing for young musicians to appreciate and understand, and I think it went hand-in-hand with the successes of our career.
Geddy Lee speaks with Tom Power, host of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s arts and culture show q, about his experiences hunting for, and playing, some of the instruments in his Big Beautiful Book of Bass.
Classic counterpoint techniques that work for surf.
Intermediate
Intermediate
• Learn some time-honored guidelines of classical composition.
• Apply revered rules to more modern styles.
• Create interesting and complex surf lines.The term counterpoint scares many people who think it is a carefully devised process that strips you of creative freedom. This is partly true, because some individuals have pushed the practice of counterpoint as strict rules at some point without explaining its purpose. I disagree with the view that music theory is a rule. Counterpoint, like serialism or any other principle of harmony, is simply a recipe for an expected result. These music theory recipes are not baking recipes where exact measurements must be made; music theory is more like cooking, which is more malleable and open to in-the-moment modifications.
Species Counterpoint
Why was counterpoint invented? Counterpoint has two primary goals: first, to ensure parts are singable, and second, to keep each “voice” independent. Let’s discuss the intervals aspect first. Some intervals are challenging to sing. Tritones, for instance, are not easy for even professional singers to hear and sing when sight reading. Even when time is spent with a piece, getting used to tritones takes a bit of digestion. (This is the main reason tritones were avoided for so long in music. Music was primarily vocal-based for quite some time, such as in 16th century Italian composer Giovanni Palestrina’s music. Carelessly placing tritones would make the music very difficult to sing.) With guitar, we don’t have to hear the notes before we play. We should, but it’s not required (and sometimes that’s what gets us in trouble). The species counterpoint recipe is designed to avoid certain dissonant intervals that are not approached by step. In other words, we don’t jump to or from a dissonance.
When music changed and new instruments became available, the recipes of species counterpoint changed, which makes sense as the limitations of hearing a note weren’t as much of an issue. As baroque composer and theorist Johann Joseph Fuchs proposed, the series counterpoint method is a recipe that places us in a particular time in history. By understanding and using the recipe of series counterpoint, we can connect with the rich musical tradition of the past.
Independence
During this same period, one of the main ingredients of music was that each “voice” (soprano, alto, tenor, bass) was to remain independent. You should be able to hear the journey of each voice on its own. The recipes for counterpoint ensure we maintain independence. Playing two 5ths in succession or two octaves in succession sounds unified and thus makes us lose independence. Using counterpoint, we can ensure that we don’t weave in and out of independent and unified sounds. In the era of early counterpoint, say the Palestrina era, composers didn’t think in terms of a predetermined chord progression. They thought about each line and made sure they merged in harmony. The music was written horizontally to ensure the lines didn’t crash or lose independence. This is considerably different from how we often make music in the rock genres of the 20th century. Bach started incorporating the thought of a “vertical” chord progression. Even before the 20th century, the recipes for counterpoint had evolved. But the evolution didn’t make the earlier recipes irrelevant; it added more options to our recipe book.
Voice Leading
Another critical thing about counterpoint is the movement from one note to another. This is similar to the earlier discussion about intervals that are hard to sing. Voice leading is a crucial aspect of counterpoint. It’s the art of connecting one note to another, whether in a single line or with chords. It ensures that our musical lines flow smoothly, guiding the listener’s ear through the composition. Writing a herky-jerky line that jumps all over the place makes it hard to sing. The art of voice leading is writing lines to feel and sound like they unfold and take us on a ride, but not a ride on a road ridden with potholes—think of a newly paved road on a highway. Counterpoint instills in us how to create even motion. So, when you want to create unrest and a feeling of a jerky experience, you’re applying intentionally.
Power of Suggestion
Counterpoint rules are not strict guidelines but rather flexible recipes or suggestions. Composers have always been free to write what they wanted (well, aside from political and religious oppression), using counterpoint to enhance their compositions, and many composers have experimented with expanding the counterpoint recipes. There are times when we need an expected result. This is when you can use tools to help you achieve that outcome. Although counterpoint was most popular in eras that have long since passed, it still holds significant value in our modern music industry. Its recipes, while evolving, continue to provide a solid foundation for contemporary music composition.
Broken Traditions
At some point, composers grew weary of the sounds they had heard for many years and started expanding. They stopped caring about losing the independence of voices and used parallel 5ths and octaves. Sometimes, they stopped caring about voice leading and wrote pointillistic music. Composers even started composing with noise (such as John Cage), or experimenting with electronic means of composition (Delia Derbyshire and Karlheinz Stockhausen). However, counterpoint still existed, and many of these composers, even though they strayed from some of the recipes, still deeply understood its structure, such as Arnold Schoenberg, who invented a system to avoid tonal harmony.
Lesson
I will give you more than just a dry recipe for species counterpoint in this lesson. Instead, I’ll focus on key elements that can be directly applied to your rock and pop compositions, making your music more dynamic and interesting. For each of these examples, I will live in the land of surf music, one of my favorite genres.
Imitation
In fugues, which are species counterpoint-based, we use something called imitation. Imagine we have two guitarists. Guitarist 1 plays a riff or melodic phrase, and then Guitarist 2 plays that same riff right after Guitarist 1 finishes. Guitar 2 is imitating Guitar 1. However, we can adjust the octave and pitches on which the imitation starts to add more variety to its performance.
For Ex. 1, I created a three-measure phrase for guitar 1 that I will imitate in measure two with Guitar 2. Guitar 2 is an exact copycat of Guitar 1, but they don’t play the part at the same time.
Ex. 2: For this example, I will drop the imitation for Guitar 2 an octave lower.
Ex. 3 is where the fun begins. As I mentioned earlier, we can start on different pitches for our imitation. If the theme (measures one through three) implies a key signature (we’re using the key of E minor for each of these examples to keep it simple), we can imply another key for the imitation but keep the same interval relationship and shape of the theme. We will outline the V chord (Bm) for measures four through six. The result is a conversation between two instruments that can move through a chord progression in a song or a couple of key centers for variety. We can use the same idea with guitar and bass or any other combination of instruments.
In counterpoint, we call the first riff or melodic phrase the “theme.” You may wonder what Guitar 1 is supposed to do while Guitar 2 (or in my recorded examples, bass) imitates the first riff. We have two options: One is to play free—you devise a harmony that works on top of the riff, but you don’t have to play this harmony on every imitation. It’s just an accompaniment that happens at that given time, as in Ex. 4a. Ex. 4b uses the same free accompaniment but moves bars four through six to B minor.
The second option is a countertheme. You can write a second riff that plays every time the imitation plays. The theme and countertheme are interconnected. They swap parts back and forth, as we see in Ex. 5a. Ex. 5b uses the same free accompaniment but moves bars four, five, and six to the key of B minor.
We already have a fruit-bearing tree. This technique prolongs material, using the same parts to lengthen and ornament the music you’re making. Johann Sebastian Bach was a master of this, and I highly recommend studying his music if you like imitation, canons, and fugues.
Consonance and Dissonance
Okay, now that you understand the basic concepts of imitation, theme, and countertheme, it’s time to start digging deeper into the concepts of harmony and voice leading. For counterpoint, we have two categories for interval organization. Consonant intervals are unisons, 3rds, 5ths, 6ths, and octaves. We also have dissonant intervals, such as 2nds, 4ths, and 7ths. Ex. 6 features consonant intervals, Ex. 7, dissonant.
In counterpoint, we only use dissonant intervals step by step. We never jump into them or leave them by leap. Jumping into dissonances can be off-putting. Yes, there are times when you want that sound, but there is a difference between knowing how to use dissonance and using dissonance that isn’t working. Ex. 8 is an example of jumping into dissonance. Many guitarists don’t know how to deal with dissonance when soloing, and songwriters sometimes can’t hear poorly approached dissonance when writing melodies. I know … it sure sounds like I’m talking about rules here! But really, it’s about using tools to achieve a desired result or fixing issues rather than strict regulations.
Strong Beats
In classical music, beat 1 is the strongest in the bar, followed by beat 3, the second strongest. Beats 2 and 4 are the strong beats in jazz. We will focus on beat 1 as the strong beat right now. It’s generally essential that beat 1 of each measure is consonant. The recipe states not to use dissonance on strong beats. There is more tolerance for dissonance on weak beats (2 and 4).
This means we must have an overview of our lines and how they meet at each bar on beat 1 (and beat 3). Beats 1 and 3 should be consonant using a unison, 3rd, 5th, 6th, or octave. Using species counterpoint allows us to tell a functional harmony story more clearly, making the story more apparent to the listener.
The Dreaded Parallel Perfect Intervals
If your head isn’t already spinning, get ready. Earlier, I mentioned that we want to maintain independence with each line in the counterpoint. We don’t want to hear them collapse into each other. Unisons, perfect 5ths, and octaves are perfect intervals. They are the most unified-sounding intervals, which means you lose the most independence when using them. Using two back-to-back octaves is a parallel motion of a perfect interval. This means the line’s independence is wholly lost, which we want to avoid in counterpoint. For this reason, we avoid placing parallel perfect 5ths and octaves successive to each other and adjacent strong beats. Check out Ex. 9 to hear parallel octaves and Ex. 10 for parallel 5ths. Bear in mind, of course, that some genres and periods completely disregard this, such as minimalism.
Shapes of Things
We have most of the basics laid out, except one more topic regarding the independence of lines. We want to maintain the independence of the line with interval choice rather than the direction of each line. When we think of musical lines, we want each line to have its own journey but not unfavorably crash into the other. To achieve this, we want each line to have a different shape and follow each other in parallel motion. We have options for variety.
1. Parallel motion: Each line moves in the same direction with perfect intervals (Ex. 11).
2. Similar motion: Each line moves in the same direction with constant intervals (Ex. 12).
3. Oblique motion: When one voice stays in the same position, the other voice moves (Ex. 13).
4. Contrary motion: When both lines move in opposite directions, offering the most independence (Ex. 14).
The idea is to have a variety of shapes to maintain independence of direction.
Final Thoughts
I know this is a lot to take in. Studying counterpoint is no small task. But I hope that this introductory lesson into the concepts of counterpoint illuminates its power as both a creative tool and a troubleshooting device for composing and building solos. Understanding counterpoint means only sometimes considering it in the composition process. You can write as you always do, but if something doesn’t sound right, it’s much easier and faster to diagnose and fix the problem. There are times when composing with counterpoint in mind can be a fantastic tool. It’s up to you to decide when to use the creative recipe.
See and hear Taylor’s Legacy Collection guitars played by his successor, Andy Powers.
Last year, Taylor Guitars capped its 50th Anniversary by introducing a new guitar collection celebrating the contributions of co-founders Bob Taylor and Kurt Listug to the guitar world. The Legacy Collection revives five of Bob Taylor’s classic acoustic models, curated by the legendary luthier and innovator himself. “To imagine that we’re doing guitars that harken to our past, our present and our future all at the same time,” Bob says, “I really like that.”
In developing the collection, Bob preserved the essence of his originals while integrating performance and playability upgrades introduced during his tenure as designer-in-chief. “It’s an up-to-date version of what those guitars would be,” Bob explains, “but with the same sound.”
Visually, these guitars feel classic—clean, understated and unmistakably Taylor. While Bob’s original aesthetic preferences are showcased in his Legacy models, the nod to the past runs deeper than trade dress.
From his earliest builds, Bob favored slim-profile necks because he found them easier to play. That preference set a design precedent that established Taylor’s reputation for smooth-playing, comfortable necks. Legacy models feature slim mahogany necks built with Taylor's patented New Technology (NT) design. “My first neck was a bolted-on neck but not an NT neck,” Bob says. “These are NT necks because it’s a better neck.” Introduced in 1999, the NT neck allowed for unprecedented micro-adjustability while offering a consistent, hand-friendly Taylor playing experience.
What makes this collection unique within the Taylor line is Bob’s use of his X-bracing architecture, favoring his time-tested internal voicing framework over more recent Taylor bracing innovations to evoke a distinctive tone profile. Since Andy Powers—Taylor’s current Chief Guitar Designer, President and CEO—debuted his patented V-Class bracing in 2018, V-Class has become a staple in Taylor’s premium-performance guitars. Still, Bob’s X-bracing pattern produces a richly textured sound with pleasing volume, balance and clarity that long defined the Taylor voice. All Legacy models feature LR Baggs VTC Element electronics, which Bob says “harkens back to those days.”
The team at Taylor thought the best way to demonstrate the sound of the Legacy guitars was to ask Andy Powers, Bob’s successor, to play them. A world-class luthier and musician, Andy has spent the past 14 years leading Taylor’s guitar innovation. In addition to V-Class bracing, his contributions include the Grand Pacific body style, the ultra-refined Builder’s Edition Collection, and most recently, the stunning Gold Label Collection.
Below you’ll find a series of videos that feature Powers playing each Legacy model along with information about the guitars.
Legacy 800 Series Models
First launched in 1975, the 800 Series was Taylor’s first official guitar series. Today, it remains home to some of the brand’s most acclaimed instruments, including the flagship 814ce, Builder’s Edition 814ce and new Gold Label 814e.
The Legacy 800 Series features the 810e Dreadnought and two Jumbos: the 6-string 815e and 12-string 855e. Each model serves up a refined version of the Dreadnought and Jumbo body shapes Bob inherited from Sam Radding—the original owner of the American Dream music shop where Bob and Kurt first met. “I was making my guitars in the molds that Sam had made at American Dream,” Bob recalls. “There was a Jumbo and a Dreadnought. That’s all we had.”
All three Legacy 800 Series guitars feature one of Bob’s favorite tonewood combos. Solid Indian rosewood back and sides are paired with a Sitka spruce top, yielding warm lows, clear trebles and a scooped midrange.
Aesthetic appointments include a three-ring abalone rosette, mother-of-pearl Large Diamond inlays, white binding around the body and fretboard, and Bob’s “straight-ear” peghead design. Both Jumbo models also showcase a mustache-style ebony bridge—a nod to Bob’s early Jumbo builds.
Legacy 810e
The 810 Dreadnought holds a special place in Bob Taylor’s heart. “My first 810, the one I made for myself, was a thrilling guitar for me to make,” he says. “It’s the one and only guitar I played. It didn’t matter how many guitars we made at Taylor, that’s the one I took out and played.” The Legacy 810e brings back that bold, room-filling Dreadnought voice along with the easy playability expected from a Taylor.
Taylor Guitars | Legacy 810e | Playthrough Demo
Legacy 855e
Taylor’s first 12-strings found an audience in 1970s Los Angeles. “I was making guitars that would find their way to McCabe’s in Santa Monica and Westwood Music,” Bob says, “and these guitars were easy to play. Twelve-strings were a popular sound in that music. It was a modern country/folk/rock music genre that was accepting our guitars because they were easy to play. They also liked the sound of them because our guitars were easier to record.” The Legacy 855e, with its resonant Jumbo body, slim neck and gorgeous octave sparkle, carries that tradition forward.
Taylor Guitars | Legacy 855e | Playthrough Demo
Legacy 815e
The Legacy 815e revives Taylor’s original Jumbo 6-string, delivering a big, lush sound with beautifully blooming overtones.
Legacy Grand Auditoriums
In the early 1990s, Bob Taylor heard a consistent refrain from dealers: “Not everybody wants a dreadnought guitar anymore.” Players were asking for something with comparable volume but different proportions—something more comfortable, yet still powerful. This feedback inspired Bob to design a new body style with more elegant curves, more accommodating proportions and a balanced tonal response. The result was the Grand Auditorium, which Taylor introduced in 1994 to celebrate its 20th anniversary.
Thanks to its musical versatility and easy playability, Bob’s Grand Auditorium attracted a wide variety of players. “We came into our own with our Grand Auditorium,” he says. “People were describing it as ‘all around.’ It’s a good strummer and good for fingerstyle, but it’s not totally geared toward strumming or totally geared toward fingerstyle.” Also referred to as the “Swiss-Army Knife” of guitars or the “Goldilocks” guitar, the GA quickly became a favorite among guitarists across playing styles, musical genres and different playing applications including recording and live performance. “That guitar made studio work successful,” Bob says. It gained a wider fanbase with the debut of the “ce” version, which introduced a Venetian cutaway and onboard electronics. “That became one of our hallmarks,” says Bob. “If you want to plug in your guitar, buy a Taylor.”
Today, the Grand Auditorium is Taylor’s best-selling body shape.
The Legacy Collection features two cedar-top Grand Auditoriums inspired by past favorites: the mahogany/cedar 514ce and rosewood/cedar 714ce. Both models incorporate Bob’s original X-bracing pattern for a tonal character reminiscent of their 1990s and 2000s counterparts. Shared aesthetic details include a green abalone three-ring rosette, ebony bridge pins with green abalone dots, a faux-tortoiseshell pickguard and Taylor gold tuning machines.
Taylor Guitars | Legacy 815e | Playthrough Demo
Legacy 514ce
The Legacy 514ce features solid mahogany back and sides paired with a Western Red cedar top, yielding a punchy midrange and dry, woody sonic personality that pairs beautifully with cedar’s soft-touch sensitivity and warmth. It’s a standout choice for fingerstyle players and light strummers who crave nuance and depth. Distinct visual details include faux-tortoise body and fretboard binding, black-and-white top trim, and mother-of-pearl small diamond fretboard inlays.
Taylor Guitars | Legacy 514ce | Playthrough Demo
Legacy 714ce
The Legacy 714ce also features a cedar top, this time matched with solid Indian rosewood back and sides. The result is a richly textured sound with deep lows, clear trebles and a warm, mellow response. Inspiring as it is, this specific wood pairing isn’t currently offered in any other standard Taylor model. Additional aesthetic details include green abalone dot fretboard inlays, black body and fretboard binding, and black-and-white “pinstripe” body purfling.
While the Legacy Collection spotlights Taylor’s past, newer models from the Gold Label, Builder’s Edition and Somos Collections show the company’s legacy is always evolving. Explore the Legacy Collection at taylorguitars.com or visit your local authorized Taylor dealer.
Taylor Guitars | Legacy 714ce | Playthrough Demo
The Oceans Abyss expands on Electro-Harmonix’s highly acclaimed reverb technology to deliver a truly immersive effects workstation. The pedal is centered around dual reverb engines that are independently programmable with full-stereo algorithms including Hall, Spring, Shimmer and more. Place these reverbs into a customizable signal path with additional FX blocks like Delay, Chorus, Tremolo, or Bit Crusher for a completely unique soundscape building experience.
Electro-Harmonix has paved the way for powerful, accessible reverbs since the release of the original Holy Grail and now we’ve pushed the envelope deeper with the fully-equipped Oceans Abyss. Featuring a customizable signal path with up to 8 effects blocks, the Oceans Abyss can be configured as individual reverb, modulation, EQ, delay, bit crusher, saturation or volume effects, or as countless combinations for incredibly creative effect shaping. From a simple Spring reverb to a lush stereo field featuring stereo hall and shimmer reverbs, chorus, delay, overdrive, and tremolo, you can go from surf to shoegaze instantly, without breaking a sweat.
Deep parameter editing is accessible via the high-visibility OLED display with multiple graphical views and easy-to-read designs. Expression/CV control over nearly every parameter gives artful control of your effects and dynamics. Fully-stereo I/O plus an FX Loop allows for use with any instrument, recording set up, or live rig. 128 programmable presets via onboard footswitching or MIDI ensure perfect recall in all performance situations. MIDI IN/OUT ports with MIDI IN support of PC, CC, and Tempo Clock expand the already immense talents of the Oceans Abyss. Connect with UBS-C to Windows or Mac for effects editing, preset management, and more with the free EHXport™ app (coming soon).
- Two Stereo Reverbs available at once, each fully pannable in the stereo field
- 10 reverb types to choose from: Room, Hall, Spring, Plate, Reverse, Dynamic, Auto-Infinite, Shimmer, Polyphonic, Resonant
- Additional FX blocks: Delay (Digital, Analog and Tape emulations), Tremolo, Chorus, Flanger, Phaser, Graphic EQ, Saturation, Bit Crusher, External FX Loop, Volume
- Create custom signal path routing with up to 8 effects blocks. Two blocks may be re-verb, the rest may be any of the additional FX blocks.
- Infinite reverb sustain with the press of a footswitch
- Stereo Audio I/O
- Stereo FX Loop routing on TRS Jacks
- Dual action footswitches allow for momentary or latching use
- Easily enable or disable tails
- 128 fully customizable presets
- All controls can be saved to presets
- Dive deep into global and preset settings to set up Oceans Abyss for your specific needs
- Illuminated slide pots and buttons
- High-visibility OLED graphical display
- Multiple graphical views: Signal Path, Performance, Settings, Physical, Explorer
- Easy-to-navigate menu system
- Ergonomic NavCoder knob allows rotary and directional navigation through menus
- EXPRESSION / CV input to control nearly any parameter in any FX block
- Footswitch input allows for adding up to three external footswitches, each assigna-ble to a number of functions
- MIDI In and Out. MIDI IN supports PC, CC (over nearly every available parameter), and Tempo Clock
- USB-C port to connect to Windows or Mac and interface with EHXport™ app (coming soon)
- 96kHz / 24-bit sample rate conversion
- Supplied with 9.6VDC / 500mA power supply
Our columnist’s silver-panel Fender Bandmaster.
How this longstanding, classic tube amp design evolved from its introduction in 1953.
I have a silver-panel Bandmaster Reverb that I don’t think I’ve talked about enough in this column. It’s one of the most versatile and flexible amps I own, so I use it for everything. It’s portable, has tube-driven reverb and tremolo, and has a full set of EQ knobs including the critical bright switch, which we discussed the importance of earlier this year (“How to ‘Trebleshoot’ a Vintage Fender Amp,” March 2025). The amp is not only pedal-friendly; the flexible 4-ohm output impedance will handle almost all speaker configurations and sound any way you’d like. Let’s take a deeper look at the Fender Bandmaster amp and walk through its development through the years.
The first Bandmaster was introduced in 1953 as a wide-panel tweed amp with Fender’s 5C7 circuit. This rare combo was loaded with a single 15" Jensen P15N and powered by dual 6L6GC tubes in push-pull configuration to produce a modest 25 watts. The 6L6GCs were cathode biased and along with the 5U4GB rectifier tube contributed to a forgiving sag, early breakup, and a midrange-y voice.
Fender made several changes when they launched that amp’s successor in 1955, the more widely known 5E7 narrow-panel Bandmaster, a well-proven amp that has come back as a reissue model. It was still a dual-channel amp—instrument and microphone—but the newer 5E7 model had a fixed bias and a negative feedback loop, providing a louder, firmer, and cleaner tone. Most importantly, the single 15" speaker was replaced by three 10" speakers, making it very similar to the narrow-panel tweed Bassman, the granddaddy of all Marshall amps. This Bandmaster had three speakers instead of the Bassman’s four, and it delivered 25–30 watts instead of 40. It offered early breakup with a midrange-y, big and full tone.
For those not acquainted with tweed amps, the volume and EQ knobs behave differently than on silver- and black-panel Fender amps. The volume pot can act like a distortion control, while the EQ knobs control the volume, and many players I’ve talked to have not really unlocked this secret. This works because, in these circuits, the volume pot sits right before the preamp tube, which allows it to push the tube into full distortion. Since the EQ pots are located right after and are capable of reducing the volume, you’re able to distort the preamp at low volume settings.
“Things became more standardized in 1964 with the arrival of the black-panel AB763 Bandmaster, an amp I have worked on a lot and appreciate for its robustness, simplicity, and versatility.”
In 1960, a short-lived and rare Bandmaster dressed in brown tolex and a black faceplate appeared with the 5G7 circuit. From here on, all Bandmasters had the modern top-mounted chassis. With this circuit, the Bandmaster started to both look and sound more like a black-panel amp. It kept the 3x10" speakers but got a diode rectifier and bigger transformers resulting in a 45-watt output. Tremolo was introduced for the first time, and both channels were now intended for guitar.
The following year, a blonde 6G7 Bandmaster followed as a smaller amp head paired with a 1x12 extension cabinet. It had the timeless early blonde looks with cream tolex, brown faceplate, oxblood grill cloth, large Fender logo, and white knobs. But halfway into the blonde era, towards 1964, things turned strange and rather confusing. There were suddenly two 12" speakers, black knobs, a wheat-colored grill cloth, a more slim black-panel-style Fender logo, a black faceplate, and all in various combinations close to the transition into ’64.
Things became more standardized in 1964 with the arrival of the black-panel AB763 Bandmaster, an amp I have worked on a lot and appreciate for its robustness, simplicity, and versatility. It offers a pure, clean, scooped black-panel tone that’s somewhere between a Vibrolux Reverb and Pro Reverb, which share the medium-sized 125A6A output transformer and dual 6L6GC tubes. With its medium/high power and flexible 4-ohm output impedance, it can drive all kinds of speaker cabinets—as long as you stay between 2 and 8 ohms, you are safe.
For a short time in 1967–68, there was a transitional Bandmaster with aluminum trim and black-panel innards before the all-new silver-panel Bandmaster Reverb replaced it in 1968. The small-head cabinet had grown in size and, unfortunately, weight to accommodate the reverb tank. The amp got a 5U4GB rectifier tube along with a few general silver-panel changes to the circuit. Several silver-panel models existed with minor differences until a 70-watt beast version came along in 1977 with master volume.
To my own 1968 Bandmaster Reverb, I have done a few adjustments. First, I made a custom baffle to hold two 8" speakers. I installed a pair of WGS G8C speakers that fit perfectly on the baffle board without colliding with the reverb tank or transformers. Sometimes, I use only one of the 8" speakers for bedroom volume levels. Second, I reversed the bias circuitry to standard AB763 specs, making it easier to adjust bias correctly on both power tubes. If you are into sparkling clean and funky Strat sounds, you would love this little 2x8" combo.