-
It sounds as if you have an interesting approach to music with "dreaming" it. I taught myself to read music on the guitar using classical guitar books and also taught myself theory. The one problem with theory is knowing where to stop. To me, basic diatonic theory, such as knowing how to build the major scale, how to build chords, the harmonized major scale, and then applying that to the fretboard is good enough. Beyond that, what sounds good is good. There are a number of noted players who I find difficult to listen to. It is all a matter of taste, but identifying what we like and don't like can help us define what our own goals are. For example, as good as Martin Taylor is, he is just too busy for me. I don't really want to play like that. My favorite Joe Pass playing is his last two albums done on solo nylon string guitar. The reason is that hee isn't flying around the fretboard, but instead staying closer to the melody. I see a definite trend in what I do and don't care to listen to and why. My personal inspiration is from a couple of cocktail piano players - Jim Haskins, who has probably 19 or 20 CDs of solo piano and Simon Schott, who as 4 CDs and a book on playing by ear. These guys are not too flamboyant, preferring instead to quietly present the melody with nice harmony.
Originally Posted by targuit
As for your chordal playing, if I understand correctly, you know your chord forms so well that you don't need to think about them. That is what happens as you develop your own chordal vocabulary. Joe Pass said on one of his videos that every jazz player has his favorite grips to use over and over in various ways. Conti's chord melody arrangements are intended to be a starting point for your own exploration and experimentation. The idea is that eventually, as you absorb the patterns of the language, you will be creating your own chord melody "arrangements" spontaneously. Joe Pass said to "learn melodies" once when I asked him how to approach chord melodies. If you know the melody (i.e. can pick it out by ear fluently on the fretboard where ever you need to) and have a very well ingrained chordal vocabulary, then you should be able to "play any tune you can hum", as Sudnow said in his piano course. This makes sense to me because far too many plaers who have achieved this seem to say the same things. To me, this seems both a doable and a worthwhile goal.
So, just to be clear about Conti's chord melody materials, he is about never having to play the song the same way twice, and making on the spot decisions about how you will play it while you are playing it. Memorizing any arrangements is really just a step along the way to get the chords and their patterns into your hands and ears. Of course, if a person wants to memorize the arrangements and stay at that level, there is nothing wrong with that. On his chord meldy DVDs, he says that when playing for paying customers, you typically want to "lean hard on the melody" so the listener always knows where you are in the tune. Additionallly, he says that in those situations, he does his improv not with flying around the fretboard playing stuff that has nothing to do with the melody, but instead he improvises with the underlying harmony. He says heloves to play fast single note lines in front of a tight fast rhythm section, but there is a time and place for that, and a professional understands that and plays accordingly.
Tony
-
05-15-2013 07:39 PM
-
O, man, Jake Reichbart has done several solo arrangements of Steely Dan (and Donald Fagen solo) tunes. Here's his take on "Deacon Blues." Originally Posted by tbeltrans
-
Yeah, I forgot about Jake. He has developed an interesting style and can handle both the standards and lots of pop tunes quite well. I like his covers of Chicago tunes in particular. Thanks for bringing him up here. Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
Tony
-
yeah, he is fine player, not an easy piece...
-
My copy of "The Formula" arrived and I'm working on references 1 and 2. Still refining the version of "Danny Boy" from "Assembly Line." (I know Conti has come up with richer arrangements of this---I've caught them in vids posted by other students---but this one is challenging enough for me right now.)
-
Mark:If you REALLY understand reference 1, then you will have no trobule understanding the remainderof the book. So spend the time on that one, going through all the variations and making sure you see what Conti is doing. Hint: listen to the basslines in each example. I am not saying that the remainder of the book isn;t important or that the other references are merely repeats of the frist one, but rather that the concept put forth in the first reference is used over and over again, applied in very ingenious ways in the remainder of the examples. So once you get the thought process, you have it and can then really get what is going on in the other references.
Tony
-
I just finished a short practice session and played the first example in Reference 3, after which I blurted out, "I can't believe I just did that!" Originally Posted by tbeltrans
You're right about understanding the first one. I don't believe by any means that I am done with it. My daily life now consists of playing Conti stuff---Precision Technique, Jazz Lines, "Danny Boy" from Assembly Line, and now the beginning of Formula. It's like an immersion course! I do what I can, day by day, week by week, and I'm seeing the results. Long way to go but I'm on the right road and feel great about that!
-
I think we are on track. What did the "jazz greats" do before there were jazz schools and all these books and learning materials? They played tunes! Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
TonyLast edited by tbeltrans; 05-17-2013 at 09:02 PM.
-
I think there is a lot to that. A whole lot. However, I am aware that Carol Kaye claims that one should NOT learn standards one at a time and further, that this is NOT how the great players of the '50s era did it. She claims they developed their ears through learning the 'chordal scale', the cycle, and how to stack triads, and knowing this, they could play along 'on the fly' to songs they did NOT know beforehand, whether they were new tunes or standards they had not heard. It was, as I understand, less a matter of knowing all the tunes than knowing how all tunes work. Originally Posted by tbeltrans
I don't think Carol Kaye and Robert Conti would be at odds about much. They both value the ability to play the same lines in different contexts---this is not a matter of knowing tunes but of knowing how lines work. (I don't know if players with ears that good ever found learning tunes problematic!)
-
This post is not aimed at anybody, but it did come out as a somewhat rant. I apologize in advance for that, but feel that the views it contains are worth stating. Theory is a real slippery slope, and I just want to keep clear about focusing on the music, with the theory being supportive of that, rather than the other way around. Here is my personal experience along with someof what players/teachers I admire have said: Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
The way Conti explains the process on his DVDs, as well as Joe Pass said (I think he talked about it on Evening With Joe Pass as well as in interviews), and David Sudnow talked about it in his course, really came down to "learn everything in the context of the song". Conti says that "the action is on the fretboard", and reiterates that frequently on his DVDs. He says learning theory is fine, but do it in the context of what you are already playing. All these people say that. None are opposed to learning theory, but as a vehicle for better understanding what you are playing, rather than as an end in itself.
On my web site, I have a 2 part series on the theory one might want to know to fully understand The Formula. It is really very simple:
1. There are only 12 notes, and that is called the chromatic scale. Everything in Western music comes out of that scale.
2. The major scale is a grouping of 7 notes taken from the chromatic scale according to a template of intervals (w, w, h, w, w, w, h). Start on ANY note of the chromatic scale, apply that template usiing one each of the 7 letters (A - G), applying # or b as needed, to build all 12 maor scales.
3. Think of other scale types as alterations of the major scale, either changing the distance between notes and/or dropping notes (petatonic, for example).
4. Chords are sets of 3 or more notes, typically stacked 3rds. There are templates of intervals for spelling the various chord types, though Joe Pass, Robert Conti, Daid Sudnow, etc. think in terms of there being 3 primary families of chords: maj, min, dom., with augmented and diminished being derivations.
The harmonized major scale comes out of those concepts. Those concepts form the foundation of diatonic theory. Whatever we want to play involving the typical repertoire for chord melody, the above applies to. Whatever theory one needs to know beyond that, do in the context of the song (i.e. need to know basis as in having a specific question or interest and finding an answer rather than memorizing the whole dictionary because we may need it someday) because it is all too easy to go off on a tangent that might do little more than derail your daily momentum of learning and playing tunes.
Anyway, I believe these people that I quoted here because my own experience has borne that out. I played in a trio back in the late 70s. For almost two years, we played constantly on the road in Holdiay Inns and supper clubs. We played standards and similar that fit with sax/keyboard, guitar/footpedal bass, drums/vocals (i.e. we each did two things). I wasn't a great player, but I could read charts, keep time, and do what I was told. I left the band when I decided that was not how I wanted to spend my life. I decided that when I settled down, I would become a "real" player and take lessons and learn the theory and all that stuff. Funny thing is I can talk theory all day (a sophisticated form of mental masturbation and really nothing more), but I stopped playing music for a long time. I can honestly say that musically, I got lost. I really didn't start finding my way back until I encountered Sudnow's piano methd and then Conti, where the focus is on learning tunes and then learning what you need to understand what you are doing.
I have never been opposed to learning theory, but I am saddened by the number of people I have seen (including myself) get really sidetracked from the music by theory. As with everything in life, there is use and abuse. Abuse of credit by both businesses and customers brought the housing market down, where it could have been a thriving and good thing for everybody. I could have had a lot more years of enjoying playing, had I not gotten lost in all the theory I thought I needed to learn, when in reality, a little goes a long way. Guys like Conti and Sudnow get shot down as charlatans because they focus on playing, rather than studying theory by those who approach the whole thing as some rigorous form of higher math rather than music. I have been in (and left) forums where as soon as Conti's name comes up, both the person who brought up the name and Conti get blasted. It is really odd because Conti is out there playing and making music, rather than hanging out in forums talking about doing it. I am so grateful that doesn't happen here. I figure that a guy who plays like Conti AND consistently gigs in upscale establishments knows what he is talking about. Conti has said that he is recreating the experience he had learning to play music. When you listen to Joe Pass talking about how he learned, his story closely matches what Conti talks about, and he certainly could play.
I often think it is probably far easier to give a student a bunch of formulas in the form of scales and theory and send him or her off to figure out for themselves how to make music with it. There are certainly more teachers doing that than teaching music making from the start. That is like the college professor who teaches from the standard university selected book than from his or her own real life experiences. That teacher can just assign pages to read in the book and give the same lecture on those pages year after year, with the same tests. The teacher who teaches from real life, makes the class come alive and draws from his or her own educational experiences, and gives a somewhat different course every year, updating it with new information gleaned from a personal involvement with the subject matter. Those who have been through college will recognize some of both traits in their professors.
Anyway, I am probably rambling, so take it for what it is worth. A post here is free, so I guess that says something.
TonyLast edited by tbeltrans; 05-18-2013 at 10:23 AM.
-
I always like reading Carol's stuff because she's great at cutting through the mythology and the bs of the "soundbyte knowledge" generation...and what she's saying is not really opposed to Conti (who does love a good soundbyte: no scales, no modes, no money down!) but rather she's giving you the AND...
Folks love the soundbyte wisdom... "the greats learned by listening and transcribing!" But people never mention that many, if not most of these greats also had a reference. They understood basic musical concepts that helped them organize and navigate...it's not the kind of stuff folks need college for, but it gets glossed over in favor of the "wise sounding" one sentence answer.Last edited by mr. beaumont; 05-18-2013 at 10:56 AM.
-
Well, it wasn't a rant at all. Some people find Carol Kaye prickly---I'm one of them and I like her and have worked with some of her material. I think you mistook what I wrote to suggest that Carol has a theory-first approach. No, she doesn't. She's well known for criticizing the practicing of "note scales" (as she calls them.) She thinks the idea of 'this scale over that chord' is all wrong. Originally Posted by tbeltrans
As for Joe Pass, she published his first book of guitar instruction. (The most recent edition of "Joe Pass Guitar Style" with a CD contains her playing of several examples that weren't played on the original cassette.) She says what she teaches is in the same bag with what Joe played. (Joe talks a lot more about scales than Carol Kaye does.)
Carol's approach is develop your ear (-she insists that scale practice harms the ears of beginners) through the 'chordal scale', the cycle, then learn some patterns and your "b 5s" (-she won't use the word 'tritone' other than to say she never uses it and never heard anyone use it in the '50s.) Conti takes the same approach in "The Formula"---and when he says he thinks of a "ii-V-I" as just "One" that is the same way Carol does it. (She calls the chordal scale a 'slide rule' and says that for purposes of improv, ALL major chords can be treated as a I, all minor chords as a ii, and all dominants as a V. Like Conti, she is keeping things incredibly basic.) She also stresses the 'three frets up' principle that Conti also uses. (He actually talks more theory than she does but I think Conti is more organized than Carol; she may be the greater player but I think he's the better teacher, and a great player too.)
She focuses on the music at a more fundamental level than individual tunes, which was how she was able--in the studio for decades--to improvise parts for tunes she had never heard before.
-
It's funny but Carol isn't a fan of transcribing. She said she did some when she started out---Charlie Christian solos, I believe--but didn't find it useful and she doesn't ask students to do it. I've corresponded with her quite a bit---and she's bit my head off more than once--and as helpful as she is in some respects, she can be maddening in others. I love the way she simplifies things and gives a beginner a handle on how chords move, but she's SUCH an inventive player---has any bass player come up with more instantly identifiable lines in cool tunes?---I think she assumes every one else who knows the 'chordal scale' and 'b 5 subs' should be able to play record dates and not only 'hang' but shine! Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
I find Conti's material to be more organized. And although he says 'no scales, no modes'---and he means it---he knows his way around all the standard changes and can show anyone with a bit of patience how to play real jazz without falling into the trap of 'what scale should I play over this chord?' (One of Carol's refrains is: "Never play 'this scale over that chord'--play the chord!" But what she means by that involves knowing all the diatonic and b 5 subs, and also how diminished and augmented lines work. It's, as you say, 'basic musical concepts.'
One analogy I find useful---as I write for something-liike-a-living---is with all the books on screenwriting written by people who have never sold a screenplay! (Or maybe they sold one, for a crappy movie that makes you wonder what idiot is greenlgihting scripts nowadays.) 'Back in the day' classic screenplays were written by pros who never took a writing course but they really did know how to tell a story well. It ain't rocket science but that don't mean it ain't work!
And yes, "cutting through the hype and the bs" is a blessing to us all, both in learning more about doing what we love AND realizing how many of the people who made the records that caused us to fall in love with jazz went about playing. I've been listening to Oscar Peterson this morning and one thing I notice is that he plays a lot of dazzling lines and chord flourishes that could fit in a multitude of tunes. You don't get to that by thinking 'which scale goes over the chord for this measure'! ;o)
-
Interesting discussion. I like Joe Pass' approach to theory and learning songs. I don't have any of his videos, though I've played through his CDs and albums for decades. And when I have seen fragments of his 'teaching' videos, the dictum that comes through to me is "play and learn as many songs as you can". Because in playing the songs, you learn the theory, which is really the explanation of why what you play sounds good! Hopefully, anyway.
I also dislike the issue of scales over chords. There are 12 tones in the Western music scale. Some of them sound good in a particular key over a chord progression and some of them don't. Play the ones that sound good to your ear. Voila! It is in the learning and playing of sophisticated songs like the Great American Songbook jazz standards that technique and theory become intuitive, which is the whole goal in my mind. I do think learning a certain amount of theory is desirable in becoming a good musician and guitarist, but no one comes to see music theory as performance. If it sounds good, it must be ok.
When I hear Joe Pass discussing the music, it's clear that he knew theory, but I would venture that he didn't worry about tritone substitutions or modes or anything of the sort. He played what he heard and what he wanted to hear.
There is a great version on YTube of Joe playing "When You Wish Upon A Star" in D that is just lovely. That song has those beautiful diminished chords in the progression and m7b5ths that just sound so great. I doubt Joe spent much time analyzing his playing. It's making the music that counts. Now I do some transcriptions of standards for my personal library, but usually it's in a block chord shorthand on one staff to remind me of the voicings (and especially the lyrics), since I improvise the performance generally. Sometimes like today with "All of Me", I expand the transcription to a more full bodied note-for-note one, but that's an exception. I do think,however, that one way to turbo charge your knowledge base is to work with notation software like Sibelius. I use the legacy G7 (cost $60 on sale when I purchased it some seven or eight years ago). Not only is this type of software a blessing for those who transcribe or write original music and a ton of fun for rehearsing and developing tunes, but it's a great tool for learning theory as well. Putting theory into practice, that is.
-
I'm not huge on transcribing either, at least the writing down part. I think the listening is more important...hearing and playing.
But I'm also not one to reccommend learning someone else's arrangements. I'm coming at this from practicality--I don't teach students with ten hours a day to practice, nor do I have that time to practice myself. So I practice and tend to advocate practicing stuff that has a direct application.
-
Interesting that you mention Carol Kaye because I found these pictures of Conti with her on his site. Apparently, he knows her. I figured that they must have crossed paths at least a few times, and sure enough... Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
Jazz Guitar Instruction by a verifiable professional - Robert Conti - No Modes No Scales® Jazz Guitar
Jazz Guitar Instruction by a verifiable professional - Robert Conti - No Modes No Scales® Jazz Guitar
Jazz Guitar Instruction by a verifiable professional - Robert Conti - No Modes No Scales® Jazz Guitar
Here Conti is performing with her at what looks to be the NAMM show (about 3 minutes in)...
Watching this video, it is obvious that Conti plays quite a range of music and gigs in some decent places. Here is another of him playing the Jacksonville jazz festival, 1986:
Tony
-
When I played in the trio back in the 70s, I learned the tunes we had to do as a band. There were some that I learned directly off the recording, mostly our more recent (at that time) pop tunes and then I would write down the chords and melody, making a lead sheet. For the standards and tunes of that era, our band leader had one of the original Real Books and he would write out copies of the lead sheet for the tune for the rest of us. We would just figure out how we would play it as a band, considering our respective skill levels and instrumentation. It was a completely different thing from sitting in one's bedroom and learning by yourself and/or going to a teacher. We would typically try lots of tunes to find those relatively few that worked for us (i.e. try 30 tunes and pick half of them that clicked in our setting). I did my own learning during the day, the Mickey Baker book was a primary tool, along with recordings of players I liked, and then I would just keep on trying to apply those chords to what we were doing. I saw results rather quickly because I had to and because I was doing it all the time.
I really think that my experience in the band is quite different from sitting home alone and learning tunes to make some video for YouTube. It is really different when your income depends on you learning the tunes. Nobody cares how you get there as long as you show up prepared. What I was doing was really not all that difficult, and there were probably hundreds, if not thousands of guys just like me playing that supper club circuit, so I am not claiming anything special or even unique. Basically, you backed the singer and the sax player and took the occasional solo. I was simply an AF of M sideman. But there seemed to be a lot of stuff that we just learned because we were just doing it, rather than thinking or talking about it. There were always other bands and you all stayed at the same hotels until you got to the point that the hotel you played at would put you up as part of the gig. Musicians would sit around and swap licks, show each other various scales, chords, etc - but always in the context of something we all were playing. Everybody seemed to learn stuff off recordings because there really wasn't a lot of sheet music around that was truly useful, except maybe the Real Book. If anybody wrote anything down (i.e. "transcribing", it was only a lead sheet - nothing difficult).
In some ways, I wish I had stayed the course because I certainly was only just beginning to learn what I wanted to know about playing, but I left and I think my life is overall the better for that decision. But I recognized in Conti's teaching much of the kind of stuff that musicians did for each other in the hotel rooms between gigs - showing each other stuff that was useful on the gig. To say that Conti is just a "sound byte" is ridiculous at best and definitely non-professional in any case. His materials take effort and lots of it. Some here may not agree with where he puts that effort, but those who have been in the situation I described above will readily recognize his approach.
Tony
-
I strongly disagree with dismissing Conti as "soundbyte" wisdom, but agree that "the greats" had their foundation to build on. However, it does seem to me that people tend to idolize these guys as having almost mystical qualities. We weren't there, and what we get today is most likely a distorted view of what they knew and how they came to know it. Conti makes clear in his materials that his approach is not for the beginning guitarist, but he does tell you what sorts of things you need to know as prerequisites. You do need to be able to get around on the fretboard and there is a certain basic level of understanding of diatonic harmony one needs to have. I listed that in an earlier post. We never (I hope) stop learnig, but learnining new information that is directly applicable to what we are actually playing is, at least in my opinion, preferable to studying theory separately from the music and then trying to fit that into some semblance of music making. That is what Conti is talking about rather than trivializing what "the greats" may or may not have known. Joe Pass said the same things, and I did post on a conversation I had with him on one occasion about playing chord melody. He took a dim view of the emphasis these days on theory, to say the least. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
However, with all that said, different people have different learning styles. I know a local working jazz guitarist who plays wonderful chord melody (though he says he isn't happy with his own results), a graduate of Berklee from the 70s, who is into all manner of theory and musical systems. He just loves exploring that stuff and it certainly has not adversely hampered his playing. But he is already accomplished. For those who have made life choices that preclude total involvement in music, making wise choices as to how we spend our time is of the utmost importance and there are many here, and as attested to in the numerous videos on Conti's site and YouTube who have benefitted from what Conti offers. His approach takes time and effort. He does not offer short cuts, but instead a different path in which making music IS the learning process. Is it the only way? No. But it works for quite a number of people willing to put in the time. His approach is definitely not just a soundbyte.
Think of learning to speak another language, say, Spanish (for us English-speaking folks). There are lots of books, DVDs, CDs, classes, etc. for learning to speak Spanish. Some materials are more successful than others. Some methods take you through what amounts to memorizing a dictionary of Spanish words, while others immerse you in conversation, hearing the language spoken and then imitating as we learned English as kids. That approach seems to generate more "successes" than does the dictionary approach of memorizing nouns, verbs, sentence structure, etc. Through immersion, the student learns to speak and read/write in the language, and all the structure of the language becomes intuitive through the process of immersion. "No scales, no modes" refers to using an "immersion" process, rather than the "dictionary" approach. Neither approach is a short cut, but instead a different path to the same end. Most people would prefer the "immersion" approach, as it better matches our natural learning process.
In that context, learning some of Conti's arrangements makes sense. If you look at the Mel Bay books of Barry Galbraith's arrangements, they are a sort of "note for note" arrangement that you learn to play, like a classical or fingerstyle guitar piece. You may take away ideas from that process IF you already have a understanding of what he is doing. Otherwise, you are simply learning a cool chord melody arrangement. Nothing wrong with either, depending on what your intentions approaching the material are. The more you know ahead of time, the more you can glean from the arrangement. I am not criticizing the Galbraith arrangements at all. In fact, once you have gone through Conti's "The Formula", you will understand in a very practical way, how the Galbriath arrangements were arrived at, and I have recommended them for that reason. They complement the Conti chord melody series quite nicely.
If you look at one of Conti's chord melody arrangements, you begin to realize you are not really learning an arrangement note for note, but instead being presented with a starting point for your own experimentation, and he makes that quite clear. His "SourceCode" series is about how he approaches music, and his arrangements, whether the single line solos or chord melody, are the result, but presented as educational devices for your own experimentation. The Formula demonstrates exactly how he comes up with the harmony he presents in his Signature Arrangement series. The chord forms used in The Formula are the same ones learned in Assembly Line, and later used in his arrangements. In Assembly Line you get introduced to the process of playing chord melody, matching up forms to melody notes in a precise manner so you can't come away having no understanding of that process. In The Formula, you learn how to construct harmony, building on the process learned in Assembly Line so you never have to play the same tune the same way twice in a row. That is NOT learning somebody else's arrangement, but is instead, learning to arrange on the spot (i.e. improvise with harmony, leaving the melody intact). In the Signature Arrangement series, you can get a sense of how all this works in the context of real tunes. It is a step by step process that yields results.
Until a person has actually seen and worked with these materials, it is easy to criticize what that person THINKS the materials are about. Some criticize saying that Conti's approach is "paint by numbers". However, that is sort of what Assembly Line does, but in a very clever way, leading you to the next step, which I have yet to see anybody criticize. Even those who criticized Conti in other forums said quite consistently that The Formula was the most clear and practical presentation of working harmony they had yet seen (at least those who actually saw it first hand).
There are years of effort represented in Conti's approach. There are no soundbytes and no shortcuts. He teaches by immersion in music rather than by learning the dictionary. It is a very natural way we learn.
I sincerely hope this clarifies at least some of what Conti's materials are about so the cliches tossed around in forums that dismiss his work can be put to bed. The videos I posted links to previously should help show what Conti has accomplished. Look at the company he keeps in the video of him at the jazz festival, and then consider the accomplishments of his detractors. Who would we rather learn from?
Tony
-
Tony, thanks for posting that. I haven't asked Carol if she knows Robert but I'm not surprised the two have met---they have both been top flight players for decades. Originally Posted by tbeltrans
-
I think it is good to learn some arrangements in much the same way it is good to learn some great solos---so you can hear yourself playing the 'real stuff'. It's a step toward generating 'real stuff' of your own. Also, it's a way to sample different approaches and see what works for you. Originally Posted by tbeltrans
Conti mentions Oscar Peterson as an influence on his playing. Conti loved the way Oscar could generate lines of chords over what appeared to be, in standard lead sheets, a stock change. Conti figured out how to do that but more than that, he learned how to show lesser talents like me how to do some o' that!
-
QUICK NOTE:
I just started a new thread with Conti's video lesson of his chord melody of "Amazing Grace," complete with pdf.
FREE Robert Conti lesson: "Amazing Grace"
-
Good point. On his Formula DVDs (that come with the book), he talks about having figured out a lot of the chords and voicngs by ear, spendig lots of time on it because he was so singularly focused on learning to play that way on guitar. Rathe than performing any of what he had learned off the recordings, he developed his appraoch to chord melody from it. Of curse, he already had lots of playing and learning time under his belt before tackling tis material. As you said, he figured out how to pass on that knowledge to the rest of us. Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
I have long wondered about "talent". Bsed on what Conti says on is DVDs, he has the ability to become singularly focused and exhibits incredible amounts of sheer tenacity to accomplish his musical goals. At what point does "talent" take over? A friend of mine who has been involved in coaching baseball and at one point, had the opportunity to go into the minor leagues, talked about how there are players with natural talent and those who don't have that amount of natural ability, but can focus and have incredible tenacity. He said that it is that fcus and tenacity that makes the difference, with talent being a determinant of how far you can take it above a certain level, which is already quite high. Hr also said the same thign Buddhists say - the person for whom a thing comes naturally does not usually make for a good teacher because that person does not know the stpes s/he took to learn it. Conti clearly understands the effort involved and exactly what he did to learn it. He is the able too pass that on to us - no gimmick, just the how to, pure and simple. We have to provide the tenacity, just as he did.
I am not saying at alll that Robert isn't talented,but considering how much work he put into it, at what point does the "talent" come into play and what does that mean for the rest of us learning from his materials?
Tony
-
I just read a short article on Pat Metheny, In college he would get up in morning and practice until lunch then practice until dinner, then play or practice until he went to bed...every day, according to the article......You know, the guy is very talented, he's from a family of musicians but the effort I've read he puts into it seperates the boys from the men in a sense....Most of us could have followed the same course and never get to his level, thats where ( I think ) the talent comes into play....But you could still be a damn good player...
-
This makes sense to me. We all have the capacity to become decent players, given sufficient effort, working on the right material, but not everybody will be able to do what Conti did on those videos I posted with the caliber of people he did it with. If that doesn't hold our egos in check no matter how may YouTube videos we make, I don't know what will. Originally Posted by artcore
TonyLast edited by tbeltrans; 05-19-2013 at 08:35 PM.
-
I think some talent is innate---such as perfect pitch, or a phenomenal ear that is short of perfect pitch but allows some 'ear players' to play anything they hear (or recall anything they've heard). But I think a lot of what we call talent is the result of incredible amounts of focused practice for years. Charlie Parker said he practiced 8 hours a day during his teenage years. We are amazed at this and admire the drive to do that. But we don't (usually) ask ourselves this: "If he was so Talented, why did he have to practice so much?" But that's a good question and it points us, I think, in a useful direction. If we practice only two hours a day, the difference between us and Bird is not just talent but also thousands of hours of actually playing. (This is an important element of Conti's attention: play, play, play! Play the lines, over and over, don't sit back and ruminate about it, just keep playing, and when we do that, we do get better. Originally Posted by artcore
Reply With Quote
2 new & excellent Jazz Comping Truefire...
Yesterday, 10:22 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions