-
Hang on, you don't need to sight-read this stuff! Well, I mean you do, but no one records the first attempt.
Originally Posted by Kojo27
I think we're all practising it up before recording, no? Your sightreading skills will always be notches below your practised-reading skills.
Leavitt doesn't even talk about sightreading till part II, then it's all single-line.
So, for sightreading, accuracy is not as important as keeping a steady beat.
All this difficult stuff, there's some time where I forget rhythm and just try to get my fingers round the notes.
I'm not sure why you need to focus on sightreading just now, honest.
-
05-07-2012 04:19 AM
-
Originally Posted by ten left thumbs
Hang on, you don't need to sight-read this stuff! Well, I mean you do, but no one records the first attempt. I think we're all practising it up before recording, no? Your sightreading skills will always be notches below your practised-reading skills.
Leavitt doesn't even talk about sightreading till part II, then it's all single-line.
So, for sightreading, accuracy is not as important as keeping a steady beat.
All this difficult stuff, there's some time where I forget rhythm and just try to get my fingers round the notes.
I'm not sure why you need to focus on sightreading just now, honest.
In the current thread (or next to current) I asked about how everybody was approaching these things, esp. the duets, and from the responses, I assumed that most of you weren't memorizing, which is what I end up doing - not on purpose, but just from so many attempts! And it's a bit discouraging to know that I'm spending SOOOO much more time on this stuff than the rest of you, especially those who are sight-reading it. Like Fep:
Granted, Fep has done a BIG lot more reading than I have; he said he sight-read The Real Books 1 & 2 last year! Wow - that's a lot of reading.I haven't tried to memorize anything.
If I can change "error-free" to " well enough" then:
Page 53, I can sight read that. I did read through this weeks lessons a couple of times during the week. That was a lot less than normal as I got myself spread a bit thin during the week.
Page 54, I can read that too, but not without mistakes.
Duet in D, I recorded each part in one take.
Dynamic Duet. When I recorded that, I read through it once and then started recording. The 1st guitar I did in one take. The 2nd guitar... I lost count. That may have been 10 takes? I was having problems with the last 5 measures.
I don't expect to complete this stuff as fast as he does, or as fast as any of the sight-readers do (to the extent that they sight-read, I mean.) But now I realize, all too clearly, how much time I could save if I had learned to do this years ago. Honest, after doing the work on "Pretty Pickin'" - I had no time left for anything else, all week! And I think of how exasperated I became, just trying to get a good recording of part ONE of that piece - I couldn't stand it any more. And I fear that the next duet might be the same way. Maybe I'll have to slow down, chill out, let it be lousy. But I'm not used to playing lousy music. Shoot. I'll figure it out. I know I can't continue posting half-duets! Haha.
Thanks for the friendship, Laura - you're super.
kj
__________________Last edited by Kojo27; 05-07-2012 at 05:57 AM.
-
I learned some time ago not to compare myself to anyone on this forum, especially not fep.
Bear in mind, I come at all these things from my very Brito-classical-piano background. Sightreading for me means what I was tested on in 8 ABRSM exams. Doesn't mean that's how everyone sees it.
For piano, sightreading becomes so important because we tend to get handed a piece of paper and asked to accompany for an instrument/choir/ballet class/Sunday school (btw, I'm rubbish at this, and avoid such situations at all costs). I'm not sure the same really applies to guitar. Probably the analogy would be chords from a lead sheet.
-
Scales, nice tone, well done. I just have to hear this much to know you are musical. Originally Posted by Kojo27
Rhythm, solid tempo and groove. I'd like to hear a bit more of the chord before you choke it off on beats 2 & 4 (all measures).
Thanks for posting.
-
+1 to that. Originally Posted by ten left thumbs
I learned some time ago not to compare myself to anyone on this forum, especially not fep.
Bear in mind, I come at all these things from my very Brito-classical-piano background. Sightreading for me means what I was tested on in 8 ABRSM exams. Doesn't mean that's how everyone sees it.
For piano, sightreading becomes so important because we tend to get handed a piece of paper and asked to accompany for an instrument/choir/ballet class/Sunday school (btw, I'm rubbish at this, and avoid such situations at all costs). I'm not sure the same really applies to guitar. Probably the analogy would be chords from a lead sheet.
I'm flattered that I was mentioned. But it's true, this is not a competition.
I think we all hit plateaus or even head downhill sometimes and it can seem like a struggle. I like to think if I'm struggling then I'm learning. Then, once in a while something happens that makes us feel that we've made progress and it feels real good.
The cliche is true, perhaps that's why it's a cliche. Enjoy the journey. I don't think we ever actually "arrive" so the journey is all we've got. I can enjoy just hearing the sound of a single note. I find things I like in everyone's playing.
I've put a lot of time in on sight reading. I did sight reading this morning before anything else, at about 6:00 am. I need to do at least a little bit almost every day or my skills will quickly diminish.
I like to have a little rule about the first time I pick up the guitar on any given day. I like to start with sight reading. It's kind of like doing the chores before moving on to anything else. Some deferred gratification, both short term and long term. Next, ear training. Next, repertoire. Even if I can only spend 10 minutes on each, I get these done first thing.
Piano reading... Those piano players sure can read so well, at least most of them. I think one of the reasons is the way they were taught. From the piano equivalent of books like MM1 with the guidance of a teacher.
Many guitarists, myself included, spent a lot of time learning from a buddy. My older sisters boyfriend would teach me chord grips and we'd strum away on tunes. It was all memory, no paper involved. I think that's not unusual. We can become pretty developed without learning to read (Wes Montgomery for example, although he was a musical genius so his methods perhaps won't work for everyone).
-
Thanks, Frank. I play a bit of the chunk-chunk Freddie-style rhythm, and normally I give 2 & 4 a big dose of chord, but with open strings I was having trouble (I don't use open strings for shell voicings). Listening back, I see what you mean - I turned 2 & 4 into drum beats. Not good. Actually, some Gypsy rhythm styles purposely play no chord--just a percussive thump--on the even beats, but I don't like that for swing and jazz. Originally Posted by fep
Right. I was trying to whine about how much time I'm taking in getting just *part* of a duet to sound mediocre...and I was trying to assess the possibility that the difference between how much time I spend at this, and how much time some of the rest spend, is sight-reading vs. just "reading." Or memorizing, in my case. Therefore, to show that Fep isn't memorizing, I quoted his response to my question, where he said he was sight-reading, more or less. Originally Posted by ten left thumbs
I learned some time ago not to compare myself to anyone on this forum, especially not fep.
I did a bad job of explaining this before! Sheesh.
I understand that it's a matter of time invested -- practice at reading -- and I'll get there. It's hell in the meantime, though, trying to do a thread a week, so I might have to work at it each day, and stop before it begins to be no fun - you know? If it takes 3 weeks to get a duet, it takes 3 weeks, but they'll be relaxed, fun weeks.
For whatever reason, though, right now I'm pushing myself to the point that I'm burning out, and that isn't fun.
So, to make a new strategy. To slow down, as you suggested, probably is the new strategy! Play it painfully slow (something I used to do a lot of) - and take it how it comes. If that doesn't work, go back to something easier. (See, I pay attention.)
Thanks again, Laura.
Thanks, Frank. You're quite an inspiration to me now. Your work ethic (or whatever you call it) and *especially* your attitude toward playing guitar. I play almost solely for the sake of becoming better... or of "becoming," period. Sort of a zen thing : ) You're the first person I've met who seems to share that, and it's so nice to know there's "another out there somewhere." All totaled, I've played guitar about fourteen years (began at nearly 19; quit at 30; began again 3 years ago), so you're proof to me that this attitude, this "approach," is a good thing and isn't "nuts" or silly, etc. (Most don't get it.) I'm assuming that you've played longer than fourteen years. Originally Posted by fep
Johnny Carson asked Doc Severenson (trumpet player) what he'd do if he discovered he had only one day to live. Doc said, in absolute sincerity, "Practice!"
kj
-
I'm spending more time trying to record these things than I am in playing them.
I finally got an overdub to work - sort of. I *think* the two parts are basically in sync. The record level was very low for some reason. It had been doing fine.
Anyway: the timing won't win any awards. The click track (metronome in ear) is still throwing me a bit. Near the end I think I just leave out about four or five notes - jeez. But I'm tired, so here it is!
https://www.box.com/s/1103d15585cfaa750e56Last edited by Kojo27; 05-15-2012 at 04:58 PM.
-
pg 39
rhythm accomp.
-
"Pretty Pickin'" - page 40/41 MM 16/26/27 and 28...(and I think in some other pieces, too)
a question please:
why the notes with double stems? I know that double stems usually mean that two voices (parts) join and play in unison but that's not the case here, so....
-
It's showing that part 1 holds that dotted quarter note throughout the bar,while also playing the eighth notes...there's a note printed in brackets in my book on pg 40:
(All notes under under the curved line must be kept ringing.)
The downward stem is a visual clue to help us read the music easier...similarly pg 33 (picking étude no 2) has upward and downward stems...helps us read the music as two voices
-
I see what you mean, clamps, but it still doesn't explain why some single notes (page 41, first line, 3rd m. and last line, 2nd m and also the first note of 3rd m.) have two stems. These are single notes, not two lines converging....
-
Hmm. This is interesting - a good question. Leavitt did some slightly quirky things in these books, and sometimes it's anybody's guess as to why. Where's Reg when you need him? Originally Posted by TOMMO
Here are a few of these double-stemmed notes:
The first three are open strings and are allowed to continue ringing as the subsequent notes are sounded and come into the music being heard. But then the D note, first note of the second bar above, is NOT an open string and doesn't get to ring beyond its quarter note value. So....
I have no idea. HELP! I played the whole Duet, just above in this thread, but I didn't even notice the double stems! I'm with you, Tommo - lost! Reg! TLT! Fep!
kjLast edited by Kojo27; 07-31-2013 at 11:03 AM.
-
Glad I'm not the only one!
-
My opinion?
Don't get me started. He wrote it like that because (1) he wasn't very good at writing music (I mean the actual orthography, he was a brilliant composer) and (2) he didn't hire an editor who was any better.
In bar 16, I think he does view those crotchets (1/4's) as belonging to both tenor and bass voices (tenor and bass had separate lines in bar 15, but the same logic doesn't apply to bar 17. Why not?
Guitar has the most inconsistency in the number of voices playing at any one time. If you are a flute, you have one voice. If you are a SATB choir, you have 4 voices, though not all might sing all the time. If you are playing church hymns on piano, you probably have 3-5 notes at any time, and there isn't real consistency how to indicate when you go from 5 notes to 3 - you just have to use your common sense. Bach fugue on piano, all voices will have the correct number of beats in a bar - the rests will be written for each voice (otherwise, you couldn't play the thing).
On a guitar, you have one note one second and 6 the next. And if anyone in the guitaring world worked out a consistent way to notate this, Leavitt never knew about it.
So I wouldn't put too much thought into those double stems.
-
Thanks, TLT - I was only wondering if it's something that I had missed or didn't know yet. I was considering if it meant playing the same note on adjacent strings simultaneaously (open and fretted d, g and b), but when it came to the fretted d on the b-string I was sure that it wasn't.
-
Originally Posted by ten left thumbs
Ah... enlightenment comes to the guitar forum! Thank you, Ten Left Thumbs.... you've cleared it up for me, at least.
kj
-
Welcome.
Tommo, that's a sure sign you need to move on.
-
Thanks. Although I can't sight read a lot of the material in section 1 without any mistakes yet, I already started on section 2 (I make sure to review all previous material on a regular basis). That chord etude No.1 is very challenging and interesting and I think it will develop my reading skills a lot. Originally Posted by ten left thumbs
Welcome.
Tommo, that's a sure sign you need to move on.
-
The third last bar prepares the sight reader for the two voiced beats 2 and 3 of the second last bar. It's anyone's guess why there aren't quarter rests in the tenor voice... Originally Posted by Kojo27
Hmm. This is interesting - a good question. Leavitt did some slightly quirky things in these books, and sometimes it's anybody's guess as to why. Where's Reg when you need him?
Here are a few of these double-stemmed notes:
The first three are open strings and are allowed to continue ringing as the subsequent notes are sounded and come into the music being heard. But then the D note, first note of the second bar above, is NOT an open string and doesn't get to ring beyond its quarter note value. So....
I have no idea. HELP! I played the whole Duet, just above in this thread, but I didn't even notice the double stems! I'm with you, Tommo - lost! Reg! TLT! Fep!
kj
-
Well that would explain it.... Originally Posted by Clamps
-
p39 Rythm Accompaniment below. I think I forgot to record the scale exercise in my pre-recorded stuff. Getting at the end of my pre-recorded material anyways so it's gonna be recording time again soon!
-
p40 Pretty Pickin':
-
Haven't posted one of these in a while, took a couple months off but have been doing some pretty heavy practice lately. Here's a low-fi recording of Pretty Pickin: https://app.box.com/s/1ltgxwbqx5w6wd8b9s6n
Thoughts: I was trying a faster tempo than usual, I think the second part is a bit rushed (as well as, I'm not sure the song works this quickly anyway). I miss a few notes at the very end. Pretty happy with the dynamics overall.
-
Originally Posted by thetruewheel
Nice job! I love this piece, love almost all the duets from volume one. I played it at about the same tempo, so it sounds fine to me - ha! Not rushed, or if so I didn't hear it. I think as long as the timing is there, it can work at higher tempos. And yep, good dynamics, clean playing - keep it up. : )
KJ
Reply With Quote
4 Micro Lessons, all under a minute, no talking.
Today, 05:16 PM in Theory