John McLaughlin or Larry Coryell?

[sinequanon]

I know this is a childish question (sort of like The Beatles or The Rolling Stones). But I have to ask: which guitarist do you prefer -- John or Larry?

I grew up on a steady diet of listening to John McLaughlin. Discovered him in my early youth when I bought Mahavishnu Orchestra "Birds of Fire", and fell in love with that music and his guitar playing.

At that time, the only other guitarist who could rival McLaughlin was Coryell (with the possible second runner John Abercrombie). But due to the weaker songwriting chops compared to McLaughlin, Larry failed to establish himself as the guitar god in the 1970s.

But listening to all those old recordings today, it is becoming more and more apparent what an incredible monster of a guitarist Larry was. Technically, he is no doubt a peer to McLaughlin, but Larry seemed to be pushing the envelope harder than John. Larry's playing is more experimental, more innovative, edgier and raunchier. Plus, he sounds more rooted in the blues.

My favourite McLaughlin album is "Extrapolation". No wonder Miles Davis went with John's approach to guitar upon hearing that incredible LP. But at the same time, it is quite surprising that Miles would ignore Larry, who at that time was blazing the trail with his proto punk/jazz guitar stylings.

So to cut the long story short, today I admire McLaughlin for his compositional skills, but prefer Coryell for his sheer passion and almost anarchic approach to guitar playing.

[jameslovestal]

I do listen to Coryell more because I just find his albums to me more "edgier and raunchier" and sometimes I want that (since I tend to listen to 50's players like Tal, Jimmy and Barney, or the 60s guys like Wes and Grant).

I have seen Coryell often from the early days back in the 70s to right up to a few years back. He clearly grew as a guitar player. My local circle of amateur jazz guitarist often say that we sound like 'early Larry', but sadly we still do! (the main reason being we were all rock guitar players before moving on to jazz).

I saw Coryell with Jimmy Smith, in what was to be one of Smith's last gigs. Smith had to be helped to sit at the organ and only played a few songs but it was magic. I talked to Larry during the break and he said he was so happy he was called to sit in with one of the greats of jazz.

Of course I admire McLaughlin but his recording don't move me as much. Some of that has to do with his sound. Often it just blends in to much with the other musicians creating that 'wall of sound' effect.

[jbernstein91]

[Cunamara]

With this set of choices I prefer McLaughlin; for some reason I have just never been able to connect to Coryell's playing. I don't know why. But neither of them are in my top ten favorite guitarists. I tend to prefer guitarists with a swinging feel. I don't actually think of either McLaughlin or Coryell as "jazz" guitarists as such- they plowed their own furrows without a lot of regard for labels, sometimes touching on jazz and often something else (not unlike Holdsworth in that regard). Gotta respect that.

[jameslovestal]

While Coryell had a rock\blues feel to his early playing, most of the songs on his albums were jazz standards played with jazz musicians, in a traditional manner.

E.g. I recommend Together with Emily Remier, Shining Hour, Monk, Trane, Miles and Me, Equipoise and Toku Do as just a few of his jazz albums most for Concord records (the label for many fine jazz guitarist).

Now his solo acoustic guitar albums can't really be categorized. E.g. his playing isn't like Joe Pass and his solo albums and of course he did do many fusion albums.

[neatomic]

coryell was first...already in nyc when mclaughlin was still in uk... coryell was using fuzz n wah with super 400 while mclaughlin was still using acoustic w dearmond soundhole pup..

bigger difference was- coryell was a party.....mclaughlin was spiritual...different moves

spaces (which was considered an early fusion classic) with coryell & mclaughlin.... was coryells deal... via his label - vanguard records

here's good info

Larry Coryell and Miles Davis

two greats...

abercrombie was later...sonny sharrock was around tho...and coryell dug gabor szabo

cheers

[sinequanon]

While Coryell had a rock\blues feel to his early playing, most of the songs on his albums were jazz standards played with jazz musicians, in a traditional manner.

E.g. I recommend Together with Emily Remier, Shining Hour, Monk, Trane, Miles and Me, Equipoise and Toku Do as just a few of his jazz albums most for Concord records (the label for many fine jazz guitarist).

Now his solo acoustic guitar albums can't really be categorized. E.g. his playing isn't like Joe Pass and his solo albums and of course he did do many fusion albums.

Both Coryell and McLaughlin had their weird phase when they were flirting with 'soft jazz'. I think it started happening in the latter half of 1980s and then spilled into the 1990s (that happened probably because of the increased pressure from the record labels execs). Coryell managed to bounce back with his "Spaces Revisited" in 1997, but McLaughlin had a long and painful stretch of 'snooze fest' docile synth guitar sound, from which he barely recovered.

Luckily, his most recent rebound with Mahavishnu Orchestra revisited has him playing regular electric guitar, proving that he is indeed in a very fine form. Despite being well into his seventies, McLaughlin is still on fire. Amazing!

[sgosnell]

I can't listen to either. I've tried, and I cannot like either of them.

[sunnysideup]

I think Larry was the first international fusion/jazz-rock player I saw live. My 17 year-old self was deeply impressed, and I copped a few of his licks as well as I could.

But then what happened to him? They say d&d.

Whereas John got more and more focused on exploring the music.

John just kept on and keeps on growing.

[sinequanon]

coryell was first...already in nyc when mclaughlin was still in uk... coryell was using fuzz n wah with super 400 while mclaughlin was still using acoustic w dearmond soundhole pup..

bigger difference was- coryell was a party.....mclaughlin was spiritual...different moves

spaces (which was considered an early fusion classic) with coryell & mclaughlin.... was coryells deal... via his label - vanguard records

here's good info

Larry Coryell and Miles Davis

two greats...

abercrombie was later...sonny sharrock was around tho...and coryell dug gabor szabo

cheers

You are right -- Coryell was more of a party animal vibe, while McLaughlin was all about self discipline.

But Coryell was more than that -- he had many interesting aspects to his music. One of my favourite things in his music is the variety and richness of sonic textures he was able to squeeze out of the steel string acoustic guitars. No one to my knowledge comes close to that level of interesting and intriguing acoustic guitar textures. I often ask myself when listening to Larry's acoustic numbers: "how's he doing that?" Not only is the chord voicing weird and unorthodox, the actual sonic palette is hugely original and innovative.

McLaughlin had never explored those aspects of acoustic guitars (despite having modded his Shakti guitar to include scalloped fretboard and sympathetic strings). Also, McLaughlin never bothered to explore artificial harmonics to the extent Larry had. We could safely say that Coryell was one of the greatest masters of playing artificial harmonics on the guitar. Such innovation, such grace and speed.

[Jazzstdnt]

Both Coryell and McLaughlin had their weird phase when they were flirting with 'soft jazz'. I think it started happening in the latter half of 1980s and then spilled into the 1990s (that happened probably because of the increased pressure from the record labels execs). Coryell managed to bounce back with his "Spaces Revisited" in 1997, but McLaughlin had a long and painful stretch of 'snooze fest' docile synth guitar sound, from which he barely recovered.

Luckily, his most recent rebound with Mahavishnu Orchestra revisited has him playing regular electric guitar, proving that he is indeed in a very fine form. Despite being well into his seventies, McLaughlin is still on fire. Amazing!

yeah but John was past that 80's stuff in the 90's (by definition and otherwise). and yeah he is still on fire, saw him recently.

[Jazzstdnt]

I love em both.

Coryell had a lot of variety in his playing, as noted above. Saw him only twice. Had a brief and nice chat. I loved Tricyles - Downbeat gave it 4 stars and opined that he was "at the top of his game". But despite his incredible range he was also limited, as every player is to one degree or another. We all have our cliches.

McLaughlin towers over everyone.

[neatomic]

coryell...in 71..in hendrix nyc studio electric ladyland....coverin a gabor szabo tune...

jazz with modern rock production edge...ahead of its time

even miles teo macero was old school

cheers

[Toddep]

I’m a fan of both. I was reintroduced to Larry’s playing when Tricycles came out and had to get all his recordings after that, where I was a McLaughlin for a long time. I was fortunate to have met Larry and jam with him briefly. Larry was recorded In so many different genres and I am still inspired by it all. He is missed..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[sinequanon]

yeah but John was past that 80's stuff in the 90's (by definition and otherwise). and yeah he is still on fire, saw him recently.

McLaughlin's use of Photon synth in the '90s was for some of us an unwelcome veiling of his formidable tone. I'd much prefer if he recorded "Que Alegria" without the annoying synth overlaying his nylon string playing. Then with Free Spirits and Remember Shakti, his guitar tone was always for some reason smeared with some digital processing, which muffled his trademark picking attack. Same was with his Fourth Dimension band (I saw them live on tour in Seattle in 2011 -- same annoying digi-processed tone. Why oh why?)

It is only recently that he finally decided to ditch his Macbook and to plug directly into the real, fire-breathing tube amps again. It felt like eating organic food again after decades of eating crappy processed GMO mock food. Thank goodness for him returning to his organic roots -- now he sounds again like the McLaughlin we all knew and admired

[guido5]

In the moment I preferred McLaughlin, but a few years ago I heard Coryell play with Joey DeFrancesco and liked his playing more than anything else I had heard from him.

[TH]

I used to see them both. A lot. Larry's band with Alphonse Mouson, the Eleventh House was his corner of fusion when it was still young, and a contemporary of the Mahavishnu orchestra of McLaughlin. Both were really exciting bands live and both of those guys had the fusion world in their hands.
Yeah I was young then too and I used to wonder "Who do I like more? Which is the better band? Who's the better guitarist?" and back then you know, they were both cocky and kind of arrogant brash and brazen guys who loved the world of rock and brought it to the improvisational post Coltrane world.
At that time, the Eleventh House had tunes that were catchier, easier for me to relate to and understand, but honestly, I always felt at that point they were always watching Cobham, Jan Hammer, Rick Laird and Jerry Goodman with John and doing their version of the ground that was being broken by them.

I'll tell you one thing though, Larry's band was more fun to listen to live. I have NEVER gone to a Mahavishnu Orchestra concert, inside or outside (THey'd open the summer concert series at Wollman rink NY each year and they'd always do it for free!) where I could hear anything but a distorted mess. They were WAY too loud. ALWAYS.

McLaughlin aged better, continued to grow and didn't succumb to the destructive forces of unchecked ego and substance abuse. I had a number of encounters with both of them in later years, and John always left me with a feeling of joy. Larry was profoundly sad. Maybe it was bad timing in his life but I do wish he'd continued to find and share the creative energy I'd heard in him back in the 70's.

Having known their body of work and seen them live, felt the experience of knowing them as living musicians, there's no contest. They both made more than one person's life contribution to the musical world we know now. Can't say I like either of them more. It's a walk in the forest; maple or oak? Both their presence was essential to me, and an equal part of what was an amazing growing story.

David

[sunnysideup]

[jaco]

I studied with Larry privately at his place for about four years. Larry overcame his demons many years ago and was a devout Buddhist. I played his memorial here in Orlando at his Buddhist worship center where he was adored by all. He was an amazing teacher who became a friend. Our lessons could stretch up to four hours. I have recordings of some lessons where he was simply beyond. Not just shredding. His knowledge of harmony and music was incredible. As well as stories of recording with Miles, hanging with Monk, Hendrix...on and on. He would probably dismiss being compared with John. They were friends and compatriots in a very exciting time for jazz and the birth of jazz fusion. BTW, Al Dimeola calls Larry the "Godfather of Fusion."

[Stringswinger]

I heard both in the 70's when I first got into jazz. Larry's playing was more blues oriented and as I was, at that time a blues oriented rock player, Larry's playing reached me in a way that John's playing did not. In 2007, I got to play 2 concerts with Larry and spent the better part of 4 days hanging out with him. He was a genius, make no mistake about it. Larry and I were both in awe of Wes Montgomery and Joe Pass and shared stories of how those two guitarists affected us deeply and changed our lives.

Larry came first in the evolution of fusion. John had more discipline and also did not suffer from the same drug and alcohol abuse as did Larry. As a result, John did better, career wise. But for me, Larry will be the biggest guitar hero. That said, I will always be awed by John's playing as well. Better? That word is not applicable in this comparison. Different is the appropriate word in this context.

[sinequanon]

That's an interesting clip, thanks for sharing. I personally think McLaughlin had played many much more impressive solos than the one in the above clip, still it showcases nicely the essence of his improvisational style.

[sunnysideup]

That's an interesting clip, thanks for sharing. I personally think McLaughlin had played many much more impressive solos than the one in the above clip, still it showcases nicely the essence of his improvisational style.

:-) I was really just trying to show that there might be more harmony between John and Larry than there is between opinions about Larry and John on this forum.

I think there are also clips from this concert that feature Larry, and let's not forget Paco de Lucia.

The Spanish influence on John is profound and well documented. When Miles connected the jazz tradition with the Spanish tradition on Sketches of Spain, John went nuts.

[cosmic gumbo]

I preferred Larry, got exposed to him early. He was deep in the east coast scene, that must have been like a hurricane in the mid 60s...Coltrane, modern/progressive jazz, Hendrix...he was in the thick of it, heady times for guitar. Not bad for a Texas boy. Starting out as a member of Chico Hamilton's band (as was Jim Hall, Gabor Szabo) then on to Gary Burton as one of his impressive guitar alumni. Not a bad launching pad.

I personally find his body of work to be a bit more vast, eclectic, adventurous and raw than John's, but there were many parallels between the two, as guys pushing the boundaries of guitar and music. Preferring Larry doesn't cast any shadow on John. These were deeply thinking, intellectual musicians who helped pave the modern way.

Both have a reverence for Wes and Coltrane. That's what I'm talking about.

LC in 1967...breaking ground with Gary Burton before the electric fusion...

[sunnysideup]

Not bad for a Texas boy.
Both have a reverence for Wes and Coltrane. That's what I'm talking about.

I love your posts cosmicgumbo. And agree Larry's not bad for a Texas boy. I guess most US guys don't know that Texas is the US equivalent of Yorkshire - and both John and Allan Holdsworth are Yorkshire boys.

But we're talking about music - ART - rather than geography.

There are so many ways to talk about this for older guys like us CG.

Here's one way - when I was young I could copy some of LC, JM no way, AH - forget about it (even according to JM).

I owe John a big favour (and the punks). They both gave me good reasons to give up being pro (for different reasons). And I earnt a lot more money: I mean a lot more money than John and Johnny Rotten. Maybe sad but true.

Now, when I see artists as diverse as John McLaughlin and Jimmy Bruno saying the same thing as each other about the demise of jazz (in different ways) I really wonder if the young guys aspiring to be pro know which way the wind is blowing, has blown, and will blow in the future - especially the future.

And for all you "teacher" guys (sorry, I mean "persons", but as a group you're usually macho in a middle class sort of way, and male in biology) haunting this forum for business, some more intelligently than others, some more expert than others, some more altruistically than others, some more opportunistically than others, and some more incompetently than others: you all know (well some of you may be too inexperienced to know) that if jazz was alive today you'd be too busy to be here.

[sinequanon]

:-) I was really just trying to show that there might be more harmony between John and Larry than there is between opinions about Larry and John on this forum.

I think there are also clips from this concert that feature Larry, and let's not forget Paco de Lucia.

The Spanish influence on John is profound and well documented. When Miles connected the jazz tradition with the Spanish tradition on Sketches of Spain, John went nuts.

True. I remember when in my early youth I met John McLaughlin when he was touring with the original guitar trio. I had seen them in February 1979 with Larry, but this time they had just replaced Larry with Al Dimeola. I remarked to John how Al seems to fit better with the high octane 'day at the races' approach to guitar playing that him and Paco were touting at that time. John disagreed, and told me that he prefers Larry because (and I'm quoting): "Larry has certain tenderness in his playing that is precious and unique."

So John had a lot of love for Larry's playing, evidently.