Thinking while playing guitar

[mr. beaumont]

Double-0-post

[mr. beaumont]

Getting back to thinking... when your using a chart or sight reading. Complex harmony or complex chord patterns and changes may require more thinking simple because your not familiar with them.... or your skill level of playing may not be developed enough to be able to play them.

When your playing skill level is developed enough and you sight reading well. Complex changes become just another Blues... I'm not dishing Blues, I dig playing Blues, my point is there not complicated, you know most chord patterns and their variations, you are able to see and hear the relationships between the melody and changes and understand what they imply... not just what's notated.

You can either put the tune in your box, less thinking involved. Or put your playing into the box implied by the tune... usually involves more thinking and interpreting notational aspects.

Reg

Exactly...

some tunes are straightforward...the chords give you all the info you need.

Some tunes are not. And I don't ever take a chart for granted, either.

[targuit]

Jeff, there are always latency issues with the darn guitar synths and it's difficult to deal with. Of course, the Roland talking points never point that out. Guitar synths are usable to a point but it's hard to create precision parts. In truth I regret getting the synth GR-20 rather than the midi interface GI-20 to drive software synths and to use for note input in Sibelius. But latency is a constant problem and very hard to compensate for by rushing the beat - it's unnatural- without an editing program where you could nudge the timing of individual tracks. And you will never "fool" someone into thinking you are hearing a real sax or piano or clarinet. Bass is the worst of all in some ways. But you can approximate the instruments to a degree. These days I tend to use my Yamaha keyboard synth more - less latency and slightly more 'realistic' sound. Nothing replaces the real deal, however.

[Spirit59]

Jeff, there are always latency issues with the darn guitar synths and it's difficult to deal with. Of course, the Roland talking points never point that out. Guitar synths are usable to a point but it's hard to create precision parts. In truth I regret getting the synth GR-20 rather than the midi interface GI-20 to drive software synths and to use for note input in Sibelius. But latency is a constant problem and very hard to compensate for by rushing the beat - it's unnatural- without an editing program where you could nudge the timing of individual tracks. And you will never "fool" someone into thinking you are hearing a real sax or piano or clarinet. Bass is the worst of all in some ways. But you can approximate the instruments to a degree. These days I tend to use my Yamaha keyboard synth more - less latency and slightly more 'realistic' sound. Nothing replaces the real deal, however.

That's why I got rid of mine - the latency issues. I bought mine in the mid 90's, it was just the interface.

Bass is the worst because lower frequency waves are longer, which means that more time must elapse before a sample "snapshot" can be taken. I think a way to sort of get around that would be to play your bass lines an octave or 2 higher on the guitar, with either the patch already transposed down, or transpose the track down after the fact.

[GuyBoden]

Ok - stepping back in time. Here is a link (I hope) to my Soundclick page - Jay Dreams - yeah, hoakey I know, the play on "day dreams".

Jay Dreams

Jay

Thanks for posting your music.
Guy

[Kojo27]

Hey targuit.... Im only somewhat trying to put you on the spot.... But can you improvise, I apologize , but I don't remember seeing or hearing you solo over any jazz tunes. Do you have any vids or sound samples of any non rehearsed examples.

Again I apologize if I'm way off base, but you have very strong opinions about the subject and I believe one needs to back up opinions when they present them as factual.

Hey Reg,

I guess I'm only somewhat trying to put you on the spot, too : ) -- your question to targuit invites some questions that, I think, needed asking and settling a long time ago. First, let me assure you (and others here) that I'm raising these questions with the all the respect in the world to you -- as a person, and certainly as a guitar player... I dig your playing BIG TIME and always listen when I see one of your videos.

Questions are:

1. Why does someone need to be able to improvise, at all, in order to have the right to ponder and form his own opinions about improvisation, and post them here? Why? Who came up with that?

2. Assuming that a person does need to "back up opinions" (huh?) -- how good does he have to be, before he can have opinions and post them? You say, "...very strong opinions about the subject...[of improv]..." so are you saying that "strong opinions" should be reserved for people who improvise? In other words, can someone who doesn't yet improvise, or maybe never wants to, but who has a so-so, wishy-washy opinion about it -- can he go ahead? Doesn't make much sense, aye?

3. If a person of strong opinion (or perhaps of great insight?) really does need to be "good" - who determines how good that is? For example, I can improvise, but I'm not in the same WORLD with Julian Lage, and I'm no good at playing complex changes, because I've never worked at it - but jazz isn't the sole province of improvisation! But the process is the same whether there is one key or five. Since the creative process is the same thing regardless of genre, surely I could talk about that - no?

Another example: Mozart was a great improviser, and something tells me he had no jazz vocabulary at all. See what I mean? He didn't play jazz, but he knew about improvisation. I'm NOT trying to be a smartass here - I merely want you, and especially the few others here who seem to want to be "one of the chosen few" -- want to protect their place at the top, maybe, as they see it - to think about some of these little rules that hang in the air here.

Perhaps some feel threatened when a very articulate person, a fine writer, such as targuit, can express his opinions about improvisation, and other aspects of extemporaneous music (not just jazz!) better than they can. Just a thought - not saying this applies to you, Reg, but I think it might apply to some here. Might. There's certainly something about it they don't like. This, I suspect, is at the crux of the thing. WHY can't a good writer express his insights, feelings, opinions, about this matter of creating music unrehearsed?


4. When you say people need to "back up" their opinions -- what does this mean? They have to audition for a certain few people here, or have to have a YouTube channel and pass someone's proficiency test... or what? Who judges? Do you see what I'm getting at? In whose opinion? Back up HOW? But more important, WHY? This is a *forum* -- and unless I'm sorely mistaken, that sort of means that it's implied that the content of these posts are the poster's "opinion." Unless some info is presented "as fact."

Besides, targuit used lots of words in the post before yours, words and terms such as: "I guess I agree...." and "I think..." and "...perhaps..." Continual qualifications. BTW, I thoroughly enjoyed targuit's post.


I'd love to hear your thoughts in response.

All the best,

Kojo/Loren

[ColinO]

Hey Reg,

I guess I'm only somewhat trying to put you on the spot, too : ) -- your question to targuit invites some questions that, I think, needed asking and settling a long time ago. First, let me assure you (and others here) that I'm raising these questions with the all the respect in the world to you -- as a person, and certainly as a guitar player... I dig your playing BIG TIME and always listen when I see one of your videos.

Questions are:

1. Why does someone need to be able to improvise, at all, in order to have the right to ponder and form his own opinions about improvisation, and post them here? Why? Who came up with that? Julian Lage says he studies sometimes with people who haven't even been playing that long - because he can see that people can have a very interesting way of looking at things, going about things - doesn't matter where they are on the road; it's what and how they're doing on the road. Insight comes very early to some, and never to others. Sometimes.

2. Assuming that a person does need to "back up opinions" (huh?) -- how good does he have to be, before he can have opinions? How good before he can state them publically? You say, "...very strong opinions about the subject...[of improv]..." so is that (strong) the thing that should be reserved for people who improvise? In other words, can someone who doesn't yet improvise, or maybe never wants to, but who has a so-so, wishy-washy opinion about it -- can he go ahead? Doesn't make much sense, aye?

3. If a person of strong opinion (or perhaps of great insight?) really does need to be "good" - who determines how good that is? I can improvise, but I'm not in the same WORLD with Julian Lage, and I'm no good at playing complex changes, because I've never worked at it - but jazz isn't the sole province of improvisation! But the process is the same whether there is one key or five. The creative process, I mean. Same thing. Mozart was a great improviser, and something tells me he had no jazz vocabulary at all. See what I mean? I'm NOT trying to be a smartass here - I merely want you, and especially the few others here who seem to want to be "one of the chosen few" -- want to protect their place at the top, maybe, as they see it.

Perhaps some feel threatened when a very articulate person, a fine writer, such as targuit, can express his opinions about improvisation, and other aspects of extemporaneous music (not just jazz!) better than they can. Just a thought - not saying this applies to you, Reg, but I think it might apply to some here. Might. There's certainly something about it they don't like. This, I suspect, is at the crux of the thing. WHY can't a good writer express his insights, feelings, opinions, about this matter of creating music unrehearsed?


4. When you say people need to "back up" their opinions -- what does this mean? They have to audition for a certain few people here, or have to have a YouTube channel and pass someone's proficiency test... or what? Who judges? Do you see what I'm getting at? In whose opinion? Back up HOW? But more important, WHY? This is a *forum* -- and unless I'm sorely mistaken, that sort of means that it's implied that the content of these posts are the poster's "opinion." Unless some info is presented "as fact."

Besides, targuit used lots of words in the post before yours, words and terms such as: "I guess I agree...." and "I think..." and "...perhaps..." Continual qualifications. BTW, I thoroughly enjoyed targuit's post.


I'd love to hear your thoughts in response.

All the best,

Kojo/Loren

1. In order to tell someone how something is done, it only makes sense that you actually know how it is done. Is it really necessary to actually say that? If I think that playing a C dorian scale over a Gmin9 chord will sound good and have never actually done that and made it sound good, do you not see that my opinion on the subject is worthless?

2. You seem to be suggesting that someone can have an opinion about something and need not prove it for others to accept its validity. That is clearly absurd. Are you seriously suggesting that someone who knows nothing about improvisation should be taken seriously when he provides his opinion about improvisation?

3. Mozart would have been an awesome jazz improviser. In fact, maybe he was. What you are saying seems to be that - anyone can know how to improvise even if they don't know how to improvise.

4. You don't have to do a proficiency test. But if you say you know how to improvise and are trying to show others how to improvise, shouldn't you know how to improvise?

Just to make things clear, I like targuit's posts too and I am not speaking for Reg, but unless your theory is true and can be applied in practice, surely it is reasonable to question its correctness.

[henryrobinett]

I haven't seen reg post here in a month or so. I'll tackle this a little since I too have asked people to back it up.

Music is a funny field. All kinds of experts like to come out of the closet, especially over internet forums and talk all kinds of stuff. Self appointed experts. And its fine. Anyone is welcome to their opinions. BUT when they start criticizing others and talking as if they really do know it all; when they start tearing DOWN players, good or bad players, I start feeling bad. I get a sick feeling in my stomach. You see, I don't think anyone should be ripped apart. No one. Especially if they're trying and learning.

So when I see someone is talking shit, about my playing or someone else's, I will ask if they have posted any music. I'd like to hear it. Now it does come off as a challenge and mostly I guess it is. But sometimes I just want to hear what this person, this self appointed expert, is all about. Because It's ALL ABOUT THE MUSIC. I figure proof is in the pudding. Have the guts of your convictions. Or you can also say, "you know I'm not really a player, but I know what I like, . . . here's some stuff I've done." Thats great! I know where the person is coming from. And I will NEVER tear it down. But sometimes people just want to be assholes. It also gives context to where they are coming from.

Music is something where you leave everything out there. You put it out there, feelings, dreams, mistakes, pride. You leave it there. And if you're going to come at me and tell me how it sucks or it's not this or that, I want to know that YOU have the courage; that you know what I did and what it took to do it. Do you have the courage to put it all out there? If so, great. If not, quit talking shit. Sit back and appreciate the efforts of others. And if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. That's not hard. I try to practice that. It seems to work.

But junior musicians, sometimes those learning and coming up the ropes, or very often those not coming up the ropes at all, want everyone to know HOW MUCH THEY KNOW. And if they can't play they want you to know they're experts. That they have informed opinions. And so, to do that they will sometimes tear someone else down - famous or one of the forumites. This is bogus as far as I'm concerned. We need music appreciators, not music haters.

[henryrobinett]

BTW -I'm not stepping into the reg vs targuit's debate. I'm not involved in asking him to prove he can play. I didn't even read that. I'm just responding generally to your (Loren's) post.

[Jonzo]

The problem with the "only people who play great should speak" theory is that experts disagree. If the fact that someone is an expert musician makes him or her "right", you end up with contradictory right answers. In the end, an argument has to stand on its own merit.

There is nothing wrong with using expertise, or lack thereof, in weighing someone's argument. But it shouldn't be the whole criteria. Some of the best information I have applied to learning music came from fields unrelated to music.

[henryrobinett]

Well just to be clear I never said - if you were referring to anything I wrote - only people who play great have the right to speak. But if you're going to put the playing of other people down, criticize, or rip someones playing apart, then you should have the decency to display your own playing. I think tearing the playing of others down is rude. So put yourself on the line. That's all I'm saying.

[henryrobinett]

And there are going to be contradictory answers regardless of the opinions of all great players. Everyone is different. If you're looking for uniform opinions, you need to go somewhere else to find them.

[ColinO]

No one has said that people who are not experts should not speak. However, before I take advice from someone on how to do something, I prefer to know that they actually know how to do the thing they are telling me how to do. If someone tries to tell me how to swim, I prefer that they know more than the theory. I would like to know that they actually know how to swim. And if they don't actually know how to swim, but only know the theory as to how to swim, then I would like to know that they have some way of demonstrating to me that their theory will allow me to learn how to swim.

In other words, if you are asking me to believe you and do what you say, shouldn't you provide me with some basis for doing that?

[Jonzo]

My mom taught me to pee standing up.

[pkirk]

The problem with the "only people who play great should speak" theory is that experts disagree. If the fact that someone is an expert musician makes him or her "right", you end up with contradictory right answers. In the end, an argument has to stand on its own merit.

There is nothing wrong with using expertise, or lack thereof, in weighing someone's argument. But it shouldn't be the whole criteria. Some of the best information I have applied to learning music came from fields unrelated to music.

It's always dicy to get into this argument, but here's my take on it. With any substantial human activity, like jazz, even if you spend a long time (in my case 35 years) of studying and working at it, there are new things to find, re-evaluations of formerly held views, migration of approaches, tastes, etc as circumstances change, etc. So discussions can be and often are useful

There are a lot of fellow travellers on nearby paths. Some discover early things I discovered late and vice versa. THere are also lots of players way ahead of me: better chops, play music I aspire to, understand groove more deeply than me, some are so far ahead of me I can;t even understand what they are doing. Likewise, there are players who are way behind me on this journey. Their latest insight about playing jazz might be the most important thing at their stage in the journey, but completely irrelevant to mine. What I overhear Scofield say to Rosenwinkel might be irrelevant to me: I may not be at the stage where I could profit from it. Worse, in my opinion, "trying to run before you can walk" is one of the surest way to fail in *any* substantial human activity: without the proper foundation advanced ideas don't work if simpler ideas aren't in place.

But human nature being what it is, and internet forums being what they are, (including the missing "tone" in written discussions) people sometimes (often?) speak with authority (just like I'm doing now?) without being experts, and either zealously expound elementary ideas as if they are the entire "truth", wrong ideas as if they are right, or pompously push advanced ideas they don't actually understand. And everything in between. We see this in politics, where demagogues with no clue "debate" scholars who dedicate their life to the study of a subject.

In a jazz guitar forum, there is an immediate way to tell where someone is: listen to their playing. This is a real good indicator: the proof is that almost nobody disagrees on who the best players are even if they disagree on who their favorite players are. It's not about "how good you are" or "how closely your playing sounds like Benson", but where is this player in relation to the reader, what they sound like and what they are striving for.

In my case, I like encouraging those who are a bit behind me and I pay attention to the comments of those ahead of me. Some speak over my head, I try not to engage in conversations I'm not equipped to engage in, and I avoid arguments with people who I think are way behind me. But not everybody sees it this way: There are many "experts" on this forum who post links to lessons, make declarative statements, etc, whose playing I consider pretty elementary, and I avoid discussions with them. There are a few modest people on the forum who make a few well placed statements I find useful that turn out to be monster players. And, after almost 20 years of reading internet jazz guitar forum I've realized that the most pompous and sure of themselves posters are virtually never nearly as good as they think they are, and usually are much much worse than they think they are.

[henryrobinett]

And, after almost 20 years of reading internet jazz guitar forum I've realized that the most pompous and sure of themselves posters are virtually never nearly as good as they think they are, and usually are much much worse than they think they are.

LOL. That would probably be me.

[Jonzo]

One needs to consider the difference between an opinion and an argument. Henry's opinion about playing the guitar holds more weight than mine, but on some issues I might be able to articulate a stronger argument. You just have to judge each on its own merits.

[henryrobinett]

One needs to consider the difference between an opinion and an argument. Henry's opinion about playing the guitar holds more weight than mine, but on some issues I might be able to articulate a stronger argument. You just have to judge each on its own merits.

Well be specific. I mean this isn't a contest. I'm not trying to the the alpha or anything. I don't even know what that means - you might be able to articulate a stronger argument. What?

If you're launch a valid argument, you should have credibility to give weight to your position, don't you think? I'm not saying you don't. But you're positing a distinction between opinion and argument. And you seem to be saying that because I can play I have solid opinions in this field, but because I'm ??? I'd lose in an argument?

[Kojo27]

One needs to consider the difference between an opinion and an argument. Henry's opinion about playing the guitar holds more weight than mine, but on some issues I might be able to articulate a stronger argument. You just have to judge each on its own merits.

​GAWD BLESS YE, JONZO, oh voice of reason and mind of literacy! Thank you for *reading* what I wrote.

[henryrobinett]

Well sorry if you didn't find what I wrote useful. I DID read what you wrote, however I was responding to what I responded to - things I think about and how I have reacted to situations of people who come off with "opinions" about peoples playing before they're ready to wear long johns. It wasn't a direct answer to your questions but rather a reaction to these situations I have encountered. It was a personal generality and not a direct answer.

[henryrobinett]

And it's most useful if you engage in conversation rather than skewd passive aggressive comments directed towards others but not to them. If you have a question ask it, clarify, ask again, make your position known, argue. So far you've had several people respond but this is the first time you have engaged in any kind of response, only to praise jonzo for being literate and reading your post.

[pkirk]

One needs to consider the difference between an opinion and an argument. Henry's opinion about playing the guitar holds more weight than mine, but on some issues I might be able to articulate a stronger argument. You just have to judge each on its own merits.

Well, thats what debating is about, and there are plenty of people who are great debaters and can articulate a strong argument for anything, even things they have little understanding of or even personally completely disagree with. Likewise, there are experts who understand something very deeply and are inarticulate in their attempts to communicate. I've seen both in this forum.

Engaging in and reading debates on a forum like this is what some people come here for. Sometimes I find following a good flame war fun. But mostly I and many others come here for other reasons, i.e. to share my experiences or knowledge or learn from others who have experiences to share. I think the challenges to "post your clips" is a way see what kind of participant you're communicating with, it saves time.

That said, I don't ask for clips from the very few people who have argued with me here. I wish every participant posted some, but I know that won't happen.

[Kojo27]

Well sorry if you didn't find what I wrote useful. I DID read what you wrote, however I was responding to what I responded to - things I think about and how I have reacted to situations of people who come off with "opinions" about peoples playing before they're ready to wear long johns. It wasn't a direct answer to your questions but rather a reaction to these situations I have encountered. It was a personal generality and not a direct answer.

Hi Henry,

Love your music, too, btw. : ) Very, very musical stuff.

Speaking of all the responses, I gotta say some strike me as downright strange... I do wonder whether some read what I said, and if so, might they have failed to comprehend it. So I cut away some unnecessary stuff -- I had to leave just after writing that and didn't have a chance to edit it properly. Also, I wrote too much. Big fault of mine, right there.

I should have asked ONE question at a time. This one first:

Why do people you see as having "strong opinions" about jazz, or improv, or whatever -- have to "audition?"

Even people who don't play an instrument can have an opinion (they probably don't very often, but there's no law against it!) And that some non-pro-level players here happen to be forceful writers - and because they express ideas about music better than players who PLAY better -- this is no fair reason to try to shut them up, and I really do think (having been here 2 years) that there's an attitude with just a few that is, "Don't take the attention away from us unless you play as well as we do." It's childish. I didn't see the post in this thread where Reg finally told the guy (who seemed frazzled at that point) not to bother with proving himself; Reg told him his posts were interesting by themselves (and they are!) Maybe a sense of reason took hold?

Apologies or any confusion that was my fault - thanks, Henry.

Loren

[Kojo27]

And it's most useful if you engage in conversation rather than skewd passive aggressive comments directed towards others but not to them. If you have a question ask it, clarify, ask again, make your position known, argue. So far you've had several people respond but this is the first time you have engaged in any kind of response, only to praise jonzo for being literate and reading your post.

Some truth in this, Henry. But it's also true that I sincerely don't know how to respond to most of the posts, because they have NOTHING to do with what I said. To respond, about the only thing I could do would be to create lists of every accusation and show how it's false, or ask that the person please show me how on earth he got this or that from what I wrote. I don't have time or patience for that.

As I said above, I had to leave, immediately after posting and was gone for 2.5 hours. I didn't have time to edit before I left, and I *did* write too much in a few spots, making comprehension more difficult. I edited that stuff out, but really the meaning is still the same.

I hope it's clear that I mention my own paltry abilities as an improviser ONLY as an EXAMPLE. Mistake! I should never have brought myself into it. Seems everybody jumped on that - "Oh, he's saying he's a hotshot or something like that, well give me my keyboard!" That seems to be what happened. I never made any claims about anything to do with myself, intentionally. Just an example for trying to make a bigger, and more general, point.

[coolvinny]

"The more you think, the more you stink."