
Intermediate
Intermediate
- Gain an understanding of what raga rock is and how it developed.
- Learn how to mix modes to create harmonic and melodic ambiguity.
- Experiment with uncommon fingerings and scale patterns.
In early 1965, while the Beatles were filming their second movie, Help!, George Harrison became fascinated by the sitar during a scene in which the Fab Four go to an Indian restaurant. Later, during the summer of that year, David Crosby (then of the Byrds) gave Harrison a Ravi Shankar album, thereby solidifying Harrison’s interest in Indian music, and providing us the English/American connection. Finally, in the fall of 1965, Harrison would record himself playing sitar on “Norwegian Wood,” more or less initiating the raga rock style.
Coincidently, also in the summer of 1965, the Yardbirds recorded “Heart Full of Soul,” which originally had a sitar player booked for the session. According to Jeff Beck, as he demonstrated the song’s hook for the sitarist, Beck himself realized that he could play the part better–exaggerating the vibrato and bends to mimic the sitar. More on that later.
One last detail before we proceed: One of the clichés of raga rock is to simply add traditional Indian instruments to a recording–sitar, tabla, tamboura, etc. You’ll hear this in countless songs recorded between 1965 and 1969. This lesson will have none of that. Instead, the examples here take Indian musical techniques and approaches and apply them to the guitar (and to a lesser degree the accompaniment). In my opinion, this is the best of raga rock–stylistic influence, not artless impersonation. There is also a certain naiveté in the finest of this music: While George Harrison went on to study Indian music seriously with Ravi Shankar, others were interested in creating a general atmosphere that could be gleaned from listening and experimentation. Most of the examples demonstrated here highlight those attributes.
A Raga Rock Timeline
One of the best places to start with Raga Rock is the relatively simple D major scale exercise found in Ex. 1, which comes directly from a video of George Harrison demonstrating the basics of sitar techniques, while Ravi Shankar watches.
What makes this example Indian-influenced is the fact that the scale is played entirely on one string, moving up and down the fingerboard (as opposed to over or across) and it keeps pedaling back to the open D string. The vibrato is also exaggerated throughout. It’s worth pointing out that Harrison clearly fumbles at the beginning of the exercise–even Beatles slip up!
Ex. 2 takes this scale-on-one-string idea one step further (as several of this lesson’s specimens will) by mixing modes while droning the D string throughout. Inspired by Paul McCartney’s solo on “Taxman”, this phrase uses both the major 7 (C#) and the b7 (C natural) in measure two, while emphasizing the b3 (F natural) in measure three and, conversely, the major 3 (F#) in measure four. This modal mixture is a hallmark of raga rock.
As mentioned in the introduction, another early example of Indian-influenced guitar phrasing is Jeff Beck’s playing on the Yardbird’s “Heart Full of Soul”. Thus, Ex. 3 imitates Beck imitating the sitar, with exaggerated bends and vibrato. Once again over a D drone, this time implying a D Mixolydian sound. Note: In order to keep the drone ringing, you’ll need to pull all the bends toward the floor and away from the D string, as opposed to a stereotypical blues bend.
Though the song was composed by David Crosby, it was Roger McGuinn who played the solo on the Byrds “Why,” using his ubiquitous 12-string Rickenbacker. Influenced by “Why,” Ex. 4 is another one-string solo that’s fun to play whether you own a 12-string or not, as it’s the phrasing and subtle mode mixing–major 7 (D#) in measure three but b7 (D natural) in measure seven that contribute to this lead’s raga sound
Inspired by a slightly more obscure sample of raga rock, Ex. 5, emulates the Dovers’ “The Third Eye” which displaces the idea of the droning open string from low to high. In this case, the high E string rings open throughout the solo. Unlike all the previous examples, this one is played over a two-note groove, rather than a one-note drone.
Similar to Ex. 5, Ex. 6drones a high open string, the open B. In this study, one can hear shades of the Rolling Stones’ “Paint It Black”, which, thanks to the Im to V accompaniment, also has an Eastern-European feel to it.
Ex. 7’s “proto-neo-classical-jam-band” sound copies the amazing Butterfield Blues Band’s “East-West” (composed by Mike Bloomfield and Nick Gravenites). This heavy groove driven solo emphasizes half-steps (a raga rock trademark), mixing both D Phrygian and D Double Harmonic Minor scales throughout.
Lastly, Ex. 8, based on the Kinks’ “Fancy,” plays with the unique idea of a pseudo-Drop D tuning. I write “pseudo” as the guitar’s low E tuning machine is being used to create the unstable “bends” from low D up to E, adding to the psychedelic sound. Furthermore, the melody is harmonized in 5ths, which, while not traditionally an Indian tonality, does evoke the Far East, which raga rockers are inclined to do, not confining themselves to one locale. Parts one and three of this example are once again played on a 12-string.
Raga Rock from the 1960s to Today
If you’re looking for more raga rock, there are plenty of examples that go beyond the scope of this lesson (more routinely containing the aforementioned use of traditional Indian instruments, which I avoided, or alternate tunings). Most notably from the 1960s are “Om” the Moody Blues, “Maker” the Hollies, “Smell of Incense” West Coast Art Experimental Band, and “Defecting Grey” the Pretty Things (which also contains a brief section of thrilling, extremely heavy [for 1968], noisy, pre-punk music). And the tradition continues to this day, with far too many contemporary (mostly underground) acts to list here. Needless to say, raga rock will surely continue as a genre, with plenty of techniques, melodies, and rhythms for future generations to mine.
An ’80s legend returns in a modern stompbox that lives up to the hype.
A well-designed recreation of one of the most classic tone tools of the ’80s. Sounds exactly like the tones you know from the original. Looks very cool.
If you don’t like ’80s sounds, this isn’t for you.
$229
MXR Rockman X100
Was Tom Scholz’s Rockman the high-water mark of guitar-tone convenience? The very fact that this headphone amp, intended primarily as a consumer-grade practice tool, ended up on some of the biggest rock records of the ’80s definitely makes a case. And much like Sony’s Walkman revolutionized the personal listening experience, it’s easy to argue the Rockman line of headphone amps did the same for guitarists.
MXR Rockman X100 Recreates Tom Scholz's Iconic Boston Guitar Sound | First Look
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.But just as decades of advances in listening technology make the Walkman now seem clunky and dated, modern guitar tech makes the Rockman look like old news. Multi-effects units, modelers, and portable interfaces all surpass the convenience of the Rockman in form factor as well as in sheer number of sonic options. But while there are any number of ways to dial up an ’80s-style guitar tone these days, nothing’s better than the real thing. The Rockman’s analog tones are still as legit as it gets. Though Dunlop continues to produce the Guitar Ace, Metal Ace, and Bass Ace headphone amps (for a cool $99 street), a pedal version with the functionality of the original would be the ultimate modern package for ’80s fetishists, right? Enter the MXR Rockman X100.
With Tones Like These, Who Needs Options
After the release of the original Rockman, Scholz continued to develop the product, spawning a whole line. But for its pedal resurrection, the MXR team set their sights on the Rockman X100, which used hard-clipping LED diodes for its two distorted settings. The new stompbox version recreates all four modes from the original: cln2 is the default setting, cln1 in the second position is EQ’d with a mid-boost, edge delivers moderate clipping, and dist is high-gain. All are switchable via a small LED-lit mode button, and a control input allows for external mode switching. Another button activates an analog chorus circuit using MN3007 bucket brigade chips, as in the original.
To drive home the ’80s aesthetic, MXR used sliders for volume and input gain controls. Volume determines output, while input gain is tied to compression. Higher input gain means more compression, which is tuned for slower release on the two clean modes, and a fast release on both dirty modes. The X100 works in both mono and stereo, but to change between them, you have to pop off the back to access an internal switch. Just make sure a TRS cable is used for stereo mode, or else the output will be muted while the pedal is bypassed.
The only things I noticed that are missing from the original’s simple set of features is the headphone output and the echo settings. I don’t know how many players would find value in the headphone jack, and considering that would add circuitry, it’s probably best for cost and space savings that it was excluded. As for the echo, you can argue that it’s canon, but I find it to be the least essential feature and don’t miss it, personally.
(Much) More Than a Feeling
Since I do not have an original Scholz X100 sitting on my desk, I’m using YouTube videos and records—Def Leppard’s Hysteria, Huey Lewis and the News’ Sports, and Joe Satriani’s Surfing with the Alien, for example—as my reference points. Those are high bars to clear, and the MXR gets there.
The default cln2 setting delivers instant gratification, with a full-bodied, sparkly tone, no matter what guitar I played through it. And though it provides loads of ’80s fun, it’s much more versatile than that, offering a great all-round clean tone that requires no additional processing. Though it might seem odd that cln2 is the default, switching to cln1’s thinner, more mid-focused sound makes the design decision clear. I can imagine situations where I’d need to cut through a mix and cln1 would be preferred, but I found myself sticking with the default mode for all my clean needs.
The distorted modes are differentiated mostly by how much gain they offer. Edge tones live just beyond the point of overdrive, and the input gain control adds a range of extra texture. The dist mode is full-on, pick-squeal-inducing high-gain saturation, with loads of everlasting sustain. These modes lean into the aesthetic much harder than the clean modes, making it a less versatile tool, but for ’80s rock excess, I can’t imagine a better option.
On a couple recording sessions, I plugged the X100 right into an interface and board to deliver spanky direct clean tones as well as tight, saturated distortion. In doing so, I discovered that direct recording is my preferred use for the X100. That’s not to say it doesn’t sound great through an amp—it does. But plugging into a front end of an amp yields less classic and authentic Rockman sounds, as the amplifier’s preamp colors the tone. Plugged through a few Fenders, I found that the treble needed taming, a problem I didn’t have when forgoing the amp. For live playing, I might explore plugging the X100 into the return input on an amp’s effects loop or right into a powered speaker to deliver an unadulterated Rockman sound more in line with the original.
The Verdict
MXR nailed it with the Rockman X100 pedal by focusing on the limited options of the original unit and getting them just right. For $229, you not only get a great ’80s rock tone, you get what is arguably the ’80s rock tone, with no other gear required, unless you want to add a little ’80s-vintage reverb too. As a performance tool, it’s probably best to think less like you’re using a pedal and more like you’re using the original in a different form, which is to say that plugging straight into an amp isn’t the only way to get the sound you want—and, in fact, it’s probably not even the best way. For recording, it’s a perfect tool. PG
Experience the pinnacle of Taylor playing comfort and tone with the Builder’s Edition 514ce, 514ce Kona Burst, and 524ce. These models feature solid Shamel ash back and sides, uniquely voiced V-Class bracing, Gotoh 510 tuners, ES2 electronics, and a Deluxe Hardshell Case.
The Builder’s Edition 514ce, 514ce Kona Burst and 524ce join our acclaimed Builder’s Edition Collection, giving you more ways to experience the pinnacle of Taylor playing comfort and tone.
Each model boasts a gloss-finish cutaway Grand Auditorium body with solid Shamel ash back and sides, an artfully applied Kona burst on the back, sides and neck, uniquely voiced V-Class interior bracing, Gotoh 510 antique chrome tuners, ES2 electronics, and a Deluxe Hardshell Case.
Refined, comfort-enhancing features include a beveled armrest and cutaway, chamfered body edges and a smoothly contoured Curve Wing bridge. Italian acrylic “Compass” inlays and a vibrant firestripe pickguard add tasteful aesthetic accents.
Responsibly sourced from cities in Southern California, Shamel ash is given a second life as a tonewood in our premium-class guitars. It yields a focused, fundamental-strong voice with midrange power and balance comparable to Honduran mahogany.
Models:
- Builder's Edition 514ce - $3,399 - Featuring a natural Sitka spruce top paired with solid Shamel ash back and sides, the Builder’s Edition 514ce delivers warmth, depth and musical versatility for any style or genre.
- Builder's Edition 514ce Kona Burst - $3,499 - Showcasing a vintage aesthetic flair, this solid Shamel ash/Sitka spruce model features a Tobacco Kona burst top.
- Builder's Edition 524ce - $3,499 - This model pairs solid Shamel ash back and sides with a mahogany top—also featuring a Tobacco Kona burst—that adds a bit of natural compression to help create incredible tonal balance across the frequency spectrum.
For more information, please visit taylorguitars.com.
AI, which generated this image in seconds, can obviously do amazing things. But can it actually replace human creativity?
Technology has always disrupted the music biz, but we’ve never seen anything like this.
AI has me deeply thinking: Is guitar (or any instrument) still valid? Are musicians still valid? I don’t think the answer is as obvious as I’d like it to be.
As a professional musician, I’ve spent the vast majority of my days immersed in the tones of tube amps, the resistance of steel strings under my fingers, and the endless pursuit of musical expression. Each day, I strive to tap into the Source, channel something new into the world (however small), and share it. Yet, lately, a new presence has entered the room—artificial intelligence. It is an interloper unlike any I’ve ever encountered. If you’re thinking that AI is something off in the “not-too-distant future,” you’re exponentially wrong. So, this month I’m going to ask that we sit and meditate on this technology, and hopefully gain some insight into how we are just beginning to use it.
AI: Friend or Foe?
In the last 12 months, I’ve heard quite a bit of AI-generated music. Algorithms can now “compose,” “perform” (with vocals of your choosing), and “produce” entire songs in minutes, with prompts as flippant as, “Write a song about__in the style of__.” AI never misses a note and can mimic the finer details of almost any genre with unnerving precision. For those who are merely curious about music, or those easily distracted by novelty, this might seem exciting … a shortcut to creating “professional” sounding music without years of practice. But for those of us who are deeply passionate about music, it raises some profound existential questions.
When you play an instrument, you engage in something deeply human. Each musician carries their life experiences into their playing. The pain of heartbreak, the joy of new beginnings, or the struggle to find a voice in an increasingly noisy and artificial online world dominated by algorithms. Sweat, tears, and callouses develop from your efforts and repetition. Your mistakes can lead to new creative vistas and shape the evolution of your style.
Emotions shape the music we create. While an algorithm can only infer and assign a “value” to the vast variety of our experience, it is ruthlessly proficient at analyzing and recording the entire corpus of human existence, and further, cataloging every known human behavioral action and response in mere fractions of a second.
Pardon the Disruption
Technology has always disrupted the music industry. The invention of musical notation provided unprecedented access to compositions. The advent of records allowed performances of music to be captured and shared. When radio brought music into every home, there was fear that no one would buy records. Television added visual spectacle, sparking fears that it would kill live performance. MIDI revolutionized music production but raised concerns about replacing human players. The internet, paired with the MP3 format, democratized music distribution, shattered traditional revenue models, and shifted power from labels to artists. Each of these innovations was met with resistance and uncertainty, but ultimately, they expanded the ways music could be created, shared, and experienced.
Every revolution in art and technology forces us to rediscover what is uniquely human about creativity. To me, though, this is different. AI isn’t a tool that requires a significant amount of human input in order to work. It’s already analyzed the minutia of all of humanity’s greatest creations—from the most esoteric to the ubiquitous, and it is wholly capable of creating entire works of art that are as commercially competitive as anything you’ve ever heard. This will force us to recalibrate our definition of art and push us to dig deeper into our personal truths.
“In an age where performed perfection is casually synthesized into existence, does our human expression still hold value? Especially if the average listener can’t tell the difference?”
Advantage: Humans
What if we don’t want to, though? In an age where performed perfection is casually synthesized into existence, does our human expression still hold value? Especially if the average listener can’t tell the difference?
Of course, the answer is still emphatically “Yes!” But caveat emptor. I believe that the value of the tool depends entirely on the way in which it is used—and this one in particular is a very, very powerful tool. We all need to read the manual and handle with care.
AI cannot replicate the experience of creating music in the moment. It cannot capture the energy of a living room jam session with friends or the adrenaline of playing a less-than-perfect set in front of a crowd who cheers because they feel your passion. It cannot replace the personal journey you take each time you push through frustration to master a riff that once seemed impossible. So, my fellow musicians, I say this: Your music is valid. Your guitar is valid. What you create with your hands and heart will always stand apart from what an algorithm can generate.
Our audience, on the other hand, is quite a different matter. And that’s the subject for next month’s Dojo. Until then, namaste.
Our columnist’s bass, built by Anders Mattisson.
Would your instrumental preconceptions hold up if you don a blindfold and take them for a test drive?
I used to think that stereotypes and preconceived notions about what is right and wrong when it comes to bass were things that other people dealt with—not me. I was past all that. Unfazed by opinion, immune to classification. Or so I thought, tucked away in my jazz-hermit-like existence.
That belief was shattered the day Ian Martin Allison handed me a Fender Coronado while I was blindfolded in his basement. (Don’t ask—it’s a long story and an even longer YouTube video if you have time to kill.) For years, I had been a single-cut, 5-string, high-C-string player. That was my world. So, you can imagine my shock when I connected almost instantly with something that felt like it was orbiting a different solar system.
Less than 5 minutes with the instrument, and it was all over. The bass stayed in Ian’s basement. (I did not.) I returned home to Los Angeles, but I couldn’t stop thinking about it. I kept playing my beloved semi-chambered single-cut 5-string, but I sent its builder, Anders Mattisson, a message about my recent discovery. I asked if there was any way we could create something with the essence of a Coronado while still suiting my playing and my music.
That’s when everything I thought I knew about bass—and the personal boundaries I had set for myself—came crashing down.
When we started talking about building a bass with a fully chambered body, much like the Coronado, I was adamant about two things: It needed to have active electronics, and I would never play a headless bass.
Fast-forward three months to the winterNAMM show in California. Anders arrived for dinner at my house, along with a group of incredible bass players, includingHenrik Linder. I was literally in a chef’s apron, trying to get course after course of food on the table, when Henrik said, “Hey, let’s bring the new bass in.”
He came down the stairs carrying something that looked suspiciously like a guitar case—not a bass case. I figured there had been some kind of mistake or maybe even a prank. When I finally got a break from the chaos in the kitchen, I sat down with the new bass for the first time. And, of course, it was both headless and passive.
I should mention that even though I had made my requests clear—no headless bass, active electronics—I had also told Anders that I trusted him completely. And I’m so glad I did. He disintegrated my assumptions about what a bass “has to” or “should” be, and in doing so, changed my life as a musician in an instant. The weight reduction from the fully chambered body made it essential for the instrument to be headless to maintain perfect balance. And the passive nature of the pickups gave me the most honest representation of my sound that I’ve ever heard in over 30 years of playing bass.
I’m 46 years old. It took me this long to let go of certain fundamental beliefs about my instrument and allow them to evolve naturally, without interference. Updating my understanding of what works for me as a bass player required perspective, whereas some of my most deeply held beliefs about the instrument were based on perception. I don’t want to disregard my experiences or instincts, but I do want to make sure I’m always open to the bigger picture—to other people’s insights and expertise.
Trusting my bass builder’s vision opened musical doors that would have otherwise stayed bolted shut for years to come. The more I improve my awareness of where the line between perception and perspective falls, the more I can apply it to all aspects of my world of bass.
Maybe this month, it’s playing an instrument I never would have previously considered. Next month, it might be incorporating MIDI into my pedalboard, or transcribing bass lines from spaghetti Westerns.
No matter what challenges or evolutions I take on in my music and bass playing, I want to remain open—open to change, open to new ideas, and open to being proven wrong. Because sometimes, the instrument you never thought you’d play ends up being the one that changes everything.