How fast is fast enough?

**billkath** · 02-26-2010, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by peterk1

My teacher brings most exercises up to
o 8ths at 160 , 16ths at 80
o triplets at 120

I'd agree-8ths at 160 is a realistic goal for most aspiring guitarists.

**fep** · 02-26-2010, 08:45 PM

Reg,

I listened to #2, 3 & 7. I really liked. Great playing, and arrangement. Thanks for posting

**Reg** · 02-26-2010, 10:49 PM

Originally Posted by fep

Reg,

I listened to #2, 3 & 7. I really liked. Great playing, and arrangement. Thanks for posting

Thanks fep...#1 and 5 are from a demo from this cool combo. We all read exceptionally well, don't rehearse play only one or two gigs a month, lot of fun we get to use our ears a lot. Thanks again Reg

**randalljazz** · 02-27-2010, 06:45 AM

Originally Posted by Reg

Thanks fep...#1 and 5 are from a demo from this cool combo. We all read exceptionally well, don't rehearse play only one or two gigs a month, lot of fun we get to use our ears a lot. Thanks again Reg

fine ensemble playing in #1 & #5, for sure. BB is nice too...good solo on #3 (Eb blues?). would like to have heard blue bossa in better sound. the other ensemble is quite good also. interesting solo on 'punjab'; nice arrangement on 'DC farewell' (are you in the DC area?).

thanks for taking the time to share your work.

**MarkRhodes** · 02-27-2010, 12:29 PM

I agree that music matters more than speed but I am surprised---and pleased--- by the number of posts here that focus on *melody,* as that isn't the primary focus of scale / arp-style study and playing. (That's *harmonic* playing, and not necessarily melodic. Coltrane running 1-2-3-5 patterns in "Giant Steps" sounds impressive but it's not much of a melody. Not that I'm complaining about his playing on that track.

I associate *melodic* playing with swing more than bop---Charlie Christian swung like mad and played melodically, though he rarely played arpeggios. I love his playing. Though he knew what to do at fast tempos and that may be the *real* issue here (-for me, anyway), being able to hang at brisk tempos because of lot of things sound good fast. I don't feel I must play 16th notes at 220+. What I really need to get past is the *fear* that siezes me when my turn to solo is coming up and the tempo is furious. "Wtf am I gonna do now????"

**Reg** · 02-27-2010, 04:37 PM

Hey thanks a lot Randall...I don't remember what the Big Band chart was, that wasn't my chart, only saw it when we played the gig. There all just one take things... I'll try and download some hipper jazz tunes, or start recording more at different gigs. I'm in Calif. most of the time. Thanks again Reg

**bruceshannon** · 02-28-2010, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by markerhodes

I'm working on lines and choruses for the rhythm changes and wonder, "Hey, when is enough enough?" If I were in a band, I would know if I could handle things at the the needed tempo, but I'm a songwriter (-aka "loner asshole") who works alone. That's great for my playing in one sense--I have to play lines that make sense when there's no rhythm section behind me; it keeps me melodic--but in another, I may be spending too much time on things I have down well enough and not learning enough new materil.

Any thoughts?

Rhythm changes is a good one to spend lots of time with... gives you a good handle on 1-6-2-5 and variations as well as dominants round the cycle. Important to practice the changes in every key though.

**MarkRhodes** · 03-05-2010, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by Reg

Being able to burn doesn't mean your a good player, but not being able to burn doesn't mean your a good player either, technique is just a tool to help you get out what you hear.

I agree with this. Also, I think the question of speed helps one appreciate problems with one's technique. I mean, if you *can't* play fast, well, why is that? If there's a technical problem, that needs to be ironed out EVEN IF YOU NEVER PLAY FAST SOLOS. I think the key is *being able to* when it sounds appropriate to you. After all, being able to play fast but deciding not to is far removed from being unable to play fast and them claiming fast playing aint' s**t.

**Reg** · 03-05-2010, 08:20 PM

Hey markerhodes...where did that come from...it's cool... Yea, I agree with your points...technique, yea very important. I play gigs all the time, it's always cool when everyone in band can cover... even vocalist gigs. Reg

**C.A.JO.** · 03-21-2010, 06:23 AM

16th notes at 200 bpm.

16th note triplets at 140 bpm.

This is 800 notes per minute. That should do it. With dedicated practice everyone with 10 fingers, and normal functions can do it. This requires dedication, and some effort. But speed will never be an issue again. The time can used for music.

**princeplanet** · 03-21-2010, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by C.A.JO.

16th notes at 200 bpm.

16th note triplets at 140 bpm.

This is 800 notes per minute. That should do it. With dedicated practice everyone with 10 fingers, and normal functions can do it. This requires dedication, and some effort. But speed will never be an issue again. The time can used for music.

Hey, that's fast! Like a lot of people, I can play scales and swept arps at that speed, but I can't play music, and I certainly can't improvise that quickly. I'd settle for 16ths at 150, that's more than enough speed for most of us, and I like my bop fast!

**fep** · 03-21-2010, 10:42 AM

I have a hard time developing speed. Maybe I'm too old.

Straight scales, I can do 16ths at 120bpm. Big deal, not very fast and who plays straight scales anyways.

But for jazz I think a better measure of speed is at what tempo can you play a Charlie Parker head. That's were the rubber meets the road.

I can play Blues for Alice at 170 bpm, but it's a struggle. At 160 bpm I'm comfortable...

But I think that's just not fast enough. You really do need to be fast for jazz if you want to include bebop in your repetoire.

**cosmic gumbo** · 03-21-2010, 01:45 PM

Yeah, we know how blazing fast Miles was. And Shorter, and Hall, and Green, and Henderson, and etc. Did you ever notice that people who talk fast and use a lot of words, don't necessarily say more?

**C.A.JO.** · 03-22-2010, 01:53 AM

Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo

Yeah, we know how blazing fast Miles was. And Shorter, and Hall, and Green, and Henderson, and etc. Did you ever notice that people who talk fast and use a lot of words, don't necessarily say more?

Yes, I've noticed. Some people don't say anything at all.

For me it's not about slow or fast.

It's about expression.

Why put restraints on your tools of expression? I really don't have any speed issues, because I've developed my technique to that point. I just play. If I want to express intensity, a fast passage can help me to it. Fast sequences can be used in very cool ways, if you know how to phrase well.

People always say that people who can play fast play TOO fast. No one ever accuses slow players to play TOO SLOW. I think you should be able to do what your self-expression requires. If it requires for you to be able to burn, then learn it. Otherwise don't bother.

This topic is about how fast is fast enough. My point: 800 npm, in all rhythms (from 8's to 16th note triplets) and techniques (picking, legato, scalar runs, arpeggios) should do it. The topic was not about how or when, to play fast, or why you have to be able to play fast.

**C.A.JO.** · 03-22-2010, 07:23 AM

In Andrew Green's Jazz Technique book the fastest exercises (he mention a speed limit) are:

8th notes at 280 bpm (these are the fastest 8th note exercises in the book).

16th notes at 180 bpm (these are the fastest 16 note exercises in the book).

He mentions that one need to practice all exercises with different rhythms, though.

But this means that Andrew Green implies a general speed of ones technique should be somewhere around 560-720 npm.

650-700 npm would be a decent goal to aim for.

(Npm refers to the total amount of notes per minute. I find this way of describing speed better, because here you take all rhythms into consideration at once. Meaning, that 650-700 npm implies that your 8th note speed is around 325-350 bpm, 16th note speed is around 160-175 bpm, and your 16th note triplet speed should be around 110-120 bpm).

**MarkRhodes** · 03-22-2010, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo

Yeah, we know how blazing fast Miles was. And Shorter, and Hall, and Green, and Henderson, and etc. Did you ever notice that people who talk fast and use a lot of words, don't necessarily say more?

Of course, we don't think of Miles being in the same league as Charlie Parker and John Coltrane *as players* do we? Miles wrote lots of great tunes. That was his strength. But then, Coltrane could play fast AND write good tunes! So could Parker. And Diz, for that matter.

There's no advantage to being *unable* to play fast.

**C.A.JO.** · 03-22-2010, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by markerhodes

There's no advantage to being *unable* to play fast.

Exactly!

**abracadabra** · 03-22-2010, 05:58 PM

There's no advantage to being unable to pay fast, but there is an opportunity cost of spending hours building up your chops. You could have used that time differently.

Obviously in an ideal world you'd be able to spend huge swathes of time on every facet of your playing, but in reality people have to balance their priorities. It may be that by focusing on speed a player fails to develop the area where his true talent lies.

**woyvel** · 03-22-2010, 11:12 PM

The question I have is 'who is your audience if you're playing at 320 bpm?'

Probably adult musicians that only leave their basements because: a) Mom calls them for supper, b) Yngwie, Holdsworth, McLaughlin or Martino are playing in town, or c) a new Star Wars flick is out and they have to camp out at the theater 3 days early.

I'm not saying that McLaughlin, Martino, and company aren't incredibly talented, technical and tasteful. The issue is they seem to be compelled to play at the speed limit of musical comprehension for musicians, and way above it for normal folks who aren't musicians. Much of what they do is relatively inaccessible.

How fast is fast enough? Ultimately, just your audience and you are the ones qualified to answer that question.

Originally Posted by abracadabra

There's no advantage to being unable to pay fast, but there is an opportunity cost of spending hours building up your chops. You could have used that time differently...It may be that by focusing on speed a player fails to develop the area where his true talent lies.

Amen.

**princeplanet** · 03-23-2010, 12:06 AM

Just wanted to add that if you're young and unsure and reading this out of curiosity, you are probably wondering how much time to put into practicing speed. But the answer (as always) is in you, if fast is how you feel it, how you hear it in your head, then that's what needs to come out. Mind you, that's a bummer if that's the case, cos it's a lot of hard, repetitive work for an uncertain reward..... good luck!

**amusiathread** · 03-23-2010, 03:12 AM

My personal take on speed is to acquire as much of it as possible in practice and to use it as little as possible in performance. It adds another dimension to the experience as a performer and takes great discipline. And I believe that tension of holding back adds to the music-in a good way (and you just might slip up here and there with something that really surprises the listeners!). Just my opinion though.

**MarkRhodes** · 03-23-2010, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by abracadabra

There's no advantage to being unable to pay fast, but there is an opportunity cost of spending hours building up your chops. You could have used that time differently.

That goes for all the skills a guitarist develops--comping, chord melody, composition, learning tunes. Conversely, what do you *gain* by being unable to play fast? If it is wicked comping skills, that could be seen as a fair trade-off, but then, if you *have* wicked comping skills but still can't play fast, then shouldn't you be working on *that*?

**cosmic gumbo** · 03-23-2010, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by markerhodes

Of course, we don't think of Miles being in the same league as Charlie Parker and John Coltrane *as players* do we?

I think many will agree that Miles said as much with his instrument, as either of these guys. Isn't that what it's about? Did Dizzy have more to say because he played faster than Miles? More notes doesn't mean more meaningful.

**MarkRhodes** · 03-23-2010, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo

I think many will agree that Miles said as much with his instrument, as either of these guys. Isn't that what it's about? Did Dizzy have more to say because he played faster than Miles? More notes doesn't mean more meaningful.

More notes doesn't mean more meaningful, but no serious critic I've yet read has had the temerity to suggest that Miles was in the same league *as a player* with Coltrane and Parker, or even Diz and Clifford Brown for that matter. *Many* critics through the years have complained about Miles' "cracked notes" and it is well known that he wasn't up to snuff on some early sessions and couldn't play with the rest of the band. This doesn't mean he is 'meaningless' but it goes a long way in showing that Miles is remembered for writing tunes, leading innovative bands, making great records, but *not* as a great-among-greats trumpet player, especially on fast tunes.

**bako** · 03-23-2010, 11:30 PM

Miles has a decent track record of playing songs with fast tempos with the Philly Joe Jones/Paul Chambers band and also with Tony Williams/Ron Carter. He managed to make meaning musical statements in these uptempo environments and play with complete relaxation and confidence. He was not known for playing continuous 16th note lines like Coltrane but that contrast made the band more interesting. He is better known for his human quality of sound and his expressive use of space.

A studio player/freelancer strives to produce every manner of expression on command as needed to suit each situation.
A creative jazz player is more engaged in finding and projecting their individual voice.
Both paths are honorable pursuits.

For the studio player/freelancer it is necessary to be able to play fast because it will come up and failure is a bad option for future work prospects.
For the creative jazz player, how important it is depends on the individual.

Sorry for the oversimplified archetypes, just a tool to make a point.