All the time I was playing the flute, the lines, the solos, the riffs, the construction, were based on my guitar skills. I did not play the flute to exploit its natural faculties, but I used it as a surrogate guitar.
The first thing you realise very quickly when you decide to do an acoustic version of an electric song is your solo either becomes either very truncated, very different, or non-existent, because even if you play a clean solo, it's different with the Kryptonite... with the acoustic.
I notice guys playing the piano playing a part up here and a part down there, and I wandered why couldn't I do that on the guitar?
Melodies can be good depending on the context. You can have a simple melody, and if the harmony behind it is interesting, it can make a very simple melody really different. You can also have a complex melody. The more complex it is, the harder it is to sing, and then sometimes it can sound contrived. You could write a melody that would be fine on a saxophone but if you give it to a singer, it can sound raunchy.
Eliminating the piano means that I've always worked closer with the bass than most players.
I didn't have bands that I was playing with growing up, so I learned to try to adapt and play these songs that were guitar songs on the piano, and sing them.
You can make a saxophone into an electric organ; you can do everything with it.
I'm always trying to emulate guitar. Especially when I'm playing the trombone, that's what I think about. Like, I listen to guitar players every day: Warren Haynes, Lenny Kravitz, Prince, different people. And I'm always trying to find out a way how I can get my trombone to sound like that.
Some composers end up writing for the guitar as they would write piano music or, more often, harp music. It isn't the same.
I worked out the keyboard parts on the progressive rock classic 'The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway' and somehow managed to play it all on acoustic guitar.
