Emulate the pros who have practiced the least.

[destinytot]

Mike - I saw George Benson on February 27,1973 playing pure jazz from about five to six feet away at a front and center table at the Jazz Workshop in Boston, MA. It was heaven for me. The Workshop was a very intimate club setting and I literally had the best seat in the house for an aspiring guitarist. Benson was unbelievable. Unbeknownst to me the evening was recorded and you can find them online with several of the songs extant. He played some solo, with his group, and a couple of tunes with special guest, a very young Earl Klugh. He sang a couple, too. This was before he broke as a pop star. Given the circumstances the most remarkable concert I've ever seen. A smile never left his face, nor mine.

A great story to dine out on, Jay.

I have several stories of memorable evenings spent at London's Ronnie Scott's during the mid-70s. I was supposed to be studying - and, in a way, I was.

I see George Benson's album Body Talk - on which Earl Klugh played - was recorded in '73. This is my favourite track, and the reason I bought the album (Earl Klugh's solo at 2m53s):
(EDIT: GB's exuberant solo is the reason I bought the album. The nuance of the note-bending around 1m57s - beautiful!)

[ecj]

Aah!! Back to civility. Cool!!!

Metheney's look is rather off putting to many, including myself. But, it's really hard to see him . . . through all of that fantastic jazz guitar music he's playing. :-) The difference is . . Metheny isn't going for stage presence or a show for thousands of crazy "skulls full of mush" kids who are clueless as to the actual musical content of his playing. That definition of an audience might best describe the vast majority of Vai's following. You're not one of those. You're a guitarist with a good knowledge of musical content, who can't see past Vai's stage presence and his show. (Much like your friends can't get past Metheney's *look* to hear his fantastic music.)

Regarding Benson; Benson didn't become a huge star until he went main stream. I'm not sure he'd be able to fill the Felt Forum, let alone Madison Square Garden . . . absent of his main stream pop music followers. Similarly with Metheny. It's sucks . . and it's a damned shame . . but it's true.

Regarding the "rat's nest on Metheney's head" . . . BK also used to wear an *interesting* hair piece. Trefor Owen too. But, thankfully, Trefor has since gone au naturale.

Via seems to inhabit a very strange space, along with Paul Gilbert and a few other "rock guitar heroes." He was in a huge band back in the day with White Snake, and now he does his own prog rock thing. I wonder if there's much crossover between the people who loved hair metal and his current draw. It seems like shred guitar has had a huge resurgence thanks to YouTube, but having never seen him in concert I don't have a feel for what his audiences are like. I'm guessing mostly teenage boys?

Metheny has the strangest crowds I've ever encountered. I've seen him a ton of times live, and it's always a very strange mix of jazz guitar enthusiasts and an older crowd of people who somehow got turned on to him back in the 70s and 80s through associations with folk musicians like Joni Mitchell.

[AlsoRan]

Regarding Bensons star power. And I love Benson by the way. I called Scott Southard, promoter and booking agent for Metheny back in the mid 90s. I know Ted Kurland did this but I think Scott did too. I was very surprised to get a call back from him.

Scott called me and said - I paraphrase: "Henry. I know you. I love your music. I really do. I hear you on the radio and I might have a CD of yours around here some place. I'd love to take you on but I just can't. I have a hard enough time booking George Benson. And i'm serious. I can't book Benson! Unfortunately you have to book yourself enough to where I can take you on."

I was amazed that he called me back, that he claimed to know who I was and very disappointed all at the same time.

So in jazz the perception of what a huge star is is but a fraction of what we might think a star is.

This is why I (we) need experienced players like you around. You give us a reality check that often goes against many of the inaccurate "foregone" conclusions many of us might have.

With all the long-established acts that are going around selling out both small and medium size venues, I would have thought that George Benson could easily go to a city and book a concert.

Thanks for the reality check.

[eddy b.]

To find why Vai is Vai check out "flexible" and "flexible leftovers" the 2 best Zappa albums ever without an appearance by Frank himself.

[targuit]

Meanwhile, in regards to the question of efficient practice, I just spent the last couple of hours playing through my transcriptions of standards on my Sibelius G7 software. I cannot imagine a form of practice that would be more efficient than revising arrangements as regards key and voicings. I realize that my practice should be focused on practicing the songs that I have already dissected and arranged. Not a note for note thing but rather an issue of feeling totally comfortable in a specific key and vocal range.

Sorry, but I don't have much to say regarding Vai, except that I know the head of Julliard's classical guitar department - Sharon Isbin - recently did an album including him on a duo type recording. I am somewhat speechless at that. But it is what it is.

[goldenwave77]

Branford Marsalis said when he and Wynton were signed to Columbia, they somehow got a chance to look through some old files relating to sales figures for some of Miles Davis' mid-60s albums. They were amazed at how low the figures were. I think one of the albums, might have been Sorcerer, only sold about 3000 copies in the first year.

I wonder if those figures were to be trusted.

Let's see, fewer royalties to pay out; more profit---more taxes to be paid; plus the ability to use this as a negotiating device w/ other artists, "Just look...Miles is really big, but big in the jazz world is really small...", plus a justification for booking higher marketing costs---"look how much we had to flog these dead on arrival, jazz albums---and still so few units sold...", plus complexity in tracking actual unit sales with units shipped and returned, etc.....promos given out, etc.---all very messy to keep track of.

Add to that the record industry's absolutely STELLAR reputation for honesty, trustworthiness and fair dealing.


Nah....absolutely no reason to distrust these figures.

[grahambop]

I wonder if those figures were to be trusted.

Let's see, fewer royalties to pay out; more profit---more taxes to be paid; plus the ability to use this as a negotiating device w/ other artists, "Just look...Miles is really big, but big in the jazz world is really small...", plus a justification for booking higher marketing costs---"look how much we had to flog these dead on arrival, jazz albums---and still so few units sold...", plus complexity in tracking actual unit sales with units shipped and returned, etc.....promos given out, etc.---all very messy to keep track of.

Add to that the record industry's absolutely STELLAR reputation for honesty, trustworthiness and fair dealing.


Nah....absolutely no reason to distrust these figures.

Well I am quoting that from memory, I think it was a magazine interview way back, so the figure may be wrong. But even factoring in record company inaccuracies or shenanigans, I think the point was that jazz sales were still low even for someone like Miles (I guess they would have deflated everyone else's figures too!). I think it's probably true that we assume all his LPs sold like hot cakes when they came out, and we overestimate it.

[edh]

Sales for Miles' records couldn't have been to low...he had two Ferraris.

[henryrobinett]

According to Clive Davis' bio both Miles and Dylan were loss leader artists. They were only kept because of their prestige, not due to sales. Miles was famous for asking for "advances" he couldn't pay back. He got them most of the time. But that also meant Columbia own him. Which some say explains his attempt to get a younger audience. Clive takes credit for that.

[henryrobinett]

But jazz like Miles was all about the catalogue. Never about initial sales. Those were always poor. But sales over time were what was significant. The Sorcerer in the first year may have just been 3000. But few pop records continued to sell much after the first year. The life span of a significant jazz record can be 25 years. Clive Davis understood this.

[goldenwave77]

But jazz like Miles was all about the catalogue. Never about initial sales. Those were always poor. But sales over time were what was significant. The Sorcerer in the first year may have just been 3000. But few pop records continued to sell much after the first year. The life span of a significant jazz record can be 25 years. Clive Davis understood this.

So this Clive Davis fellow (and Columbia) subsidized money losing artists so Columbia Records could bask in their role as patrons of the arts. How noble of Columbia Records, and how downright public-minded of them!

BUT....over time, these jazz acts would pay off and become profitable. How canny, and contradictory. So, he is not only idealistic and public-minded but manages to make money at it too!

Maybe this Davis fellow should get into A & R, with his ability to spin a tale to his best advantage....oh wait, that's what he does.....how surprising.

"I was a free man in Paris, except for the work I've taken on....Stoking the star maker machinery behind the popular song...." (Joni Mitchell)

But wait, further, he was the genius behind "Bitches Brew". Gee, I thought that was Miles D. "reinventing music" for the 3rd or 4th time.


Isn't it amazing how the two liars expose the inconsistencies in each other's accounts of things?

(I have to go read this book: This sounds like another instance, just like Miles D.'s autobiography, where taking statements at face value is just not going to stand up to serious scrutiny...but no matter, Miles D. is still the "man who changed music 3 or 4 times"---the myth goes on, just like The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.)

[monk]

There are lots of musicians who have been quoted as saying that they don't, or didn't, practice. In all cases they were people who played all the time. Every available minute! Learning and working out tunes and listening to what the tunes could tell them.

There were several generations of jazz, blues and country musicians who equated "practice" with boredom, in other words, playing scales and etudes who instead used real music, which they played incessantly, to achieve the ability to play at high levels.

Wes grew up in a musical family, took up four-string tenor guitar at 11 and by all accounts spent all of his time learning to play tunes and, later, Charlie Christian's solos which he played over and over and over.

Savants who one day pick up an instrument and play it perfectly with no previous experience are even rarer than true geniuses.

People get good by playing. Period! It doesn't matter if they call it practicing, playing or goofing off.

[grahambop]

According to Adrian Ingrams' book, Wes played nightly gigs in jazz clubs in Indianapolis for about 15 years before he was 'discovered' by Cannonball Adderley. At some times he was playing 7 hours every night, at 2 clubs (and working at a factory during the day!)

So maybe a lot of his development was on the bandstand, it doesn't sound like he had a lot of practice time off it.

I reckon 15 years playing live with good jazz musicians for several hours every night would make anyone progress rapidly.

By the way I have that CD. I don't think anyone was trying to 'perpetuate a myth'. It says the journalist/radio presenter Les Tomkins simply included a few parts of a long interview so that people could hear Wes in his own words, and so they could 'hear what a nice chap Wes was' (to quote Les in the notes on my CD copy).

[grahambop]

Also that CD was issued in 1996 by the Ronnie Scott's label. It wasn't issued in the 'heyday of jazz'.

[MarkRhodes]

People get good by playing. Period! It doesn't matter if they call it practicing, playing or goofing off.

This reminds me of the story Robert Conti tells about sneaking into a club to hear Wes and having a few words with him after. The advice Wes gave him was this: play as much as you can and learn good tunes.

I think you're right that many players---especially unschooled ones---may think of practicing as a regimented thing (like football practice), rather than playing. People who tend to play songs may not think of it as practicing but as, well, playing. Like singers who sing while they're doing their daily deeds don't think of it as practicing singing but just, well, singing.

[jimmy jazz]

Ah, good point about the date of release. Not the heyday of jazz, you're right.

But still, with regard to perpetuating the myth, you have to ask: if it was a "long interview" and only a small piece of it was chosen for publication, why did they pick the one sound byte in which Wes claims he doesn't practice?

To perpetuate the myth that playing jazz, for the masters, is effortless and purely spontaneous. People eat that stuff up.

[Patrick2]

Anyone who appears to be an expert at something . . as was Wes . . and claims they have never practiced or practiced very little, or don't practice currently, simply has a misinterpretation (or their own interpretation?) of the word prcatice . . as MarkRhodes has said.

No one just picks up a guitar and plays it to a professional level, or even an amature level . . with practicing something repeatedly and for a long times.

[grahambop]

Ah, good point about the date of release. Not the heyday of jazz, you're right.

But still, with regard to perpetuating the myth, you have to ask: if it was a "long interview" and only a small piece of it was chosen for publication, why did they pick the one sound byte in which Wes claims he doesn't practice?

To perpetuate the myth that playing jazz, for the masters, is effortless and purely spontaneous. People eat that stuff up.

Maybe they thought that was the most interesting bit. Perhaps they cunningly left out the bit where he said 'C'mon guys, I was just kidding, really I practise 10 hours every day'.

Where did you get this myth from anyway? One of the first things I read about Charlie Parker was how he practised 15 hours a day. Likewise most of the other greats whose biographies I have read.

[jimmy jazz]

grahambop:

Yes, they certainly might have simply thought it was the most interesting bit. It is interesting.

But assuming their target audience was the general public (not a bunch of guitarists on a forum, ha ha!), it's fair to say that choosing this bit about Wes not practicing promotes a certain myth of virtuosity. And to answer your question, I've always thought its a real thing, this myth, and that it gets perpetuated by all parties--consciously or not. Ask a layperson (non musician). There's a common perception that improvisation happens because musicians are "born with it" and when they solo they are just out there playing what they feel and it simply comes to them. Maybe the ones who are better just have greater innate ability? That's the part we musicians buy into. But few people who aren't musicians understand the extent to which improvisers have to develop their vocabulary and organize their thinking into systematic harmonic approaches. I've spoken to plenty of non musicians who were shocked to hear that famous classical musicians often can't solo. It makes no sense to them--good musicians are supposed to be able to just play! Of course you and I know all about Parker and Coletrane obsessively woodshedding for countless hours, but I didn't know about it until an instructor discussed it in music school. I'm not so sure the average joe has any idea.

Clearly some musicians have something really special that separates them from most. While the rest of us will eventually be solid working musicians, perhaps even highly respected ones, they are the ones equipped to achieve legendary status. But it can't be talent alone that gets them there -- they won't achieve it without a lot of discipline and work. I once had a teacher who said that for every Coletrane who is born with the natural ability to realize that level of greatness (and works hard enough to realize it), there are many others born with the same ability who aren't willing to work as hard and end up little-remembered, middling musicians. And that even being born without such a level of ability, discipline and consistency will give you a better shot at success than you could have if you were born a "great one" but weren't willing to do the work.

[ronjazz]

I started with classical lessons when I reached the limit of self-teaching at the age of about 16. I was enthralled with jazz, my folks were jazz fans, my dad a drummer in a piano trio that played for dancing in local lounges, not really jazz, but all the standards with a nice swing feel.

Classical lessons were recommended by the pianists Dad worked with. Fortunately, my first teacher was an open-minded guy who liked all kinds of music, from classical to jazz to pop to Latin, and he allowed me to exercise my classical technique on standards, and when the bossa-nova craze started, he was right there learning that style with me.

I went on to play many, many jazz and commercial gigs on the archtop electric with a pick, and many, many solo or trio gigs on the nylon-string with fingers. Like Gene Bertoncini, a good friend for decades, I couldn't see the point in separating the bags; it is all music. I found that my rhythmic jazz influence created a nice forward motion in my classical repertoire, and many, many people over the years have commented on the classical influence they hear in my electric playing, which I don't get, but strangers come up and ask me if I have a classical background. I now take two guitars on most gigs (either 6 or 7 string, depending on the setting), and still don't see what the fuss is all about. Of course, playing both puts pretty strong demands on your time, especially early on, but what else is there to do?

[targuit]

Since the discussion has turned to Wes, I dug out my old copy of an August 1995 Jazz Times magazine with a cover photo of Wes entitled the genius of WM. The article is essentially contributions from guitarists who worked with or were influenced by Wes as well as Orrin Keepnews, who produced the Riverside sessions over a four year period. Thought you might like some of the excerpts.

Ted Dunbar, who met Wes in '57, and hung out. On phrasing - Wes -" 'You have to phrase everything you play. No wasted notes...should have a feeling on it.' He understood music with only his ears. Buddy and Monk also had that kind of talent. Even though he practiced, he didn't have to do it 18 hours a day. "

Steve Kahn - "He would always say that he didn't know how he did what he did, he just did it. Only after you've been playing a long time do you realize that when you're in the music, you're not really thinking about anything. ...Wes just heard the music, which is where you want to be in the end."

Pat Martino -When I asked him to explain what he had just played, he'd say, "I don't know anything about these names you're asking me about. I really can't give you an answer. That's not how I play. I play what I hear."

Melvin Rhyne, who played on The Wes Montgomery Trio (Riverside) recorded in NY. Met Wes in the early '50's. "He patiently explained a lot of tunes to me. He didn't read music, but he knew chord names like Bb9. He could speak the language...always spoke about being honest."

Creed Taylor, producer of Wes' Verve recordings. "Wes was getting $10,000 per concert just before he died.

McCoy Tyner - "John (Coltrane) asked me to show Wes the changes to some of the tunes we were doing. His harmonic concept fit well with mine and his ears were phenomenal. He was a natural musician...Intellectual musical information is okay, but ultimately you rely on your ear."

[grahambop]

grahambop:

Yes, they certainly might have simply thought it was the most interesting bit. It is interesting.

But assuming their target audience was the general public (not a bunch of guitarists on a forum, ha ha!), it's fair to say that choosing this bit about Wes not practicing promotes a certain myth of virtuosity. And to answer your question, I've always thought its a real thing, this myth, and that it gets perpetuated by all parties--consciously or not. Ask a layperson (non musician). There's a common perception that improvisation happens because musicians are "born with it" and when they solo they are just out there playing what they feel and it simply comes to them. Maybe the ones who are better just have greater innate ability? That's the part we musicians buy into. But few people who aren't musicians understand the extent to which improvisers have to develop their vocabulary and organize their thinking into systematic harmonic approaches. I've spoken to plenty of non musicians who were shocked to hear that famous classical musicians often can't solo. It makes no sense to them--good musicians are supposed to be able to just play! Of course you and I know all about Parker and Coletrane obsessively woodshedding for countless hours, but I didn't know about it until an instructor discussed it in music school. I'm not so sure the average joe has any idea.

Clearly some musicians have something really special that separates them from most. While the rest of us will eventually be solid working musicians, perhaps even highly respected ones, they are the ones equipped to achieve legendary status. But it can't be talent alone that gets them there -- they won't achieve it without a lot of discipline and work. I once had a teacher who said that for every Coletrane who is born with the natural ability to realize that level of greatness (and works hard enough to realize it), there are many others born with the same ability who aren't willing to work as hard and end up little-remembered, middling musicians. And that even being born without such a level of ability, discipline and consistency will give you a better shot at success than you could have if you were born a "great one" but weren't willing to do the work.

I certainly agree when it comes to the 'layperson's' view. I've often heard non-playing people say, 'I'd love to play a musical instrument, but I don't have the talent'. Even better are the ones who say 'Of course I could play an instrument really well, if I had the talent'. They seem to assume that good musicians just sort of spring out of the womb fully-fledged or something. The idea of long years of work and practice just doesn't seem to occur to them. Yet the same people probably have some inkling of how much training good athletes or tennis players have to do. It's strange really.

[Drumbler]

I've been watching this thread.

It's never a bad idea to get back to basics. Get simple.

1) Pick a tune (start with easy tunes)

2) Learn the melody (memorize it so you can play it without thinking too much)

2) Comp the chords (memorize them so you can play them without thinking too much)

3) Improvise over the chords (I suggest the Key Center Approach.)


Follow this approach and add a new tune every week or two.

Be forgiving of yourself. Do not expect perfection. Stay the course.

Enjoy the journey. The journey is the thing, not the destination.

Don't worry about getting "there". There is no "there".

[christianm77]

I've been watching this thread.

It's never a bad idea to get back to basics. Get simple.

1) Pick a tune (start with easy tunes)

2) Learn the melody (memorize it so you can play it without thinking too much)

2) Comp the chords (memorize them so you can play them without thinking too much)

3) Improvise over the chords (I suggest the Key Center Approach.)


Follow this approach and add a new tune every week or two.

Be forgiving of yourself. Do not expect perfection. Stay the course.

Enjoy the journey. The journey is the thing, not the destination.

Don't worry about getting "there". There is no "there".

Nonsense! The best way to get better is to argue about music theory on jazzguitar.be ;-)

Seriously - great advice. Just work on music. I add that it helps if you have some gigs to play the tunes on as well. Play them at a jam if you don't have gigs.

[MarkRhodes]

I've been watching this thread.

It's never a bad idea to get back to basics. Get simple.

1) Pick a tune (start with easy tunes)

2) Learn the melody (memorize it so you can play it without thinking too much)

2) Comp the chords (memorize them so you can play them without thinking too much)

3) Improvise over the chords (I suggest the Key Center Approach.)

I have found this approach good for my singing too. I'm no great shakes as a singer (-but I've improved from the days when my mom sent me out in the yard because I was playing in one key and singing in another and her great sense of pitch could not stand it.) In retrospect, a lot of the music I loved as a kid was not tuneful---I didn't associate singing (vocalizing, really) with hitting a precise sequence of pitches but just, you know, "rockin' out." (I thought what mattered was how I felt while I was doing it, not how I sounded when I did it. <<<<< That's a big lesson in life right there.)

Anyway, I'm working on simple tunes ("Ja Da" "Fly Me To The Moon" "I'm In The Mood For Love"), singing them, and then singing what I play as I improvise. For me, that's slow work, but it's good work.
(That is not all I do but it is something I work on every day now.)