One way to hold a guitar pick

[grahambop]

Actually I must try those drum things out, sounds interesting. I've got the Downbeat article somewhere. There's a pile of Downbeats on the floor next to my chair - must be in one of those!

[vintagelove]

Vintagelove, you are full of good advice to share and you can play fast, no doubt, I've heard you play. I believe you speak from experience. However you still did not answer my question. Not that you have to, it's just odd to me you claim something then strictly avoid to explain. Maybe we just do not understand each other?

You said, some famous players used economy picking so to avoid outside picking. My question is, why they avoid only "outside", why is "inside" somehow better, so they do not have to avoid it? As far as I can play it is exactly the same. Economy is more economical compared to either. In all your posts you were explaining the advantage of economy vs. alternate, which I have nothing to add to, or ask about, still the issue of "inside" being better than "outside" remains unanswered.

I won't push this subject any more.

No problem.

first off, for me, I spent lots of time working on alternate picking. Musically, I could play into the high 160's with sixteenth notes. I can go faster than that, but we're talking machine gun city. So the problem is, it takes a good amount of practice to keep that up, and even when you do, you run into a wall around 170. It also sounds bad. So there is a "diminishing returns " kind of thing. How much do I want to practice picking for a fairly rare situation. Personally I think there are much more important things to work on.

second, the economy picking is used for a specific task, keeping the direction of string changes the same. Usually when ascending I use downstrokes. When descending, it can be either upstrokes using economy, downstrokes if there is an even number of notes on a string. Or a combination of the two to keep the direction consistent.

so, long story short I am able to play the same speed or faster, with less practice. As for other players, I think it's a combination of that and comfort. This becomes more important as the tempo gets faster.

i think you may be misunderstanding the inside/outside definition. I think of outside picking as having to skip over a string, then use the opposite (to the direction I am going) pick stroke to hit the next note. Think
dud udu dud udu if ascending. If descending, udu dud udu dud.


To be honest, the definition isn't so important. Recognizing where the little bumps in the road are, is what to worry about. Once you know where the little bumps are, you can figure out what's the best way to minimize them. That's why they all do it a little different, but for the same reason.



.........


regarding the drum rudiment thing. While I'm sure it's a good excercise, it really simply boils down to simple maths...

if you have an odd number of notes on a string, your pick direction will change. If you have an even number, it stays the same.

[Vladan]

OK then, it's down to Pluck-Turn-Skip(-pluck) being more convenient than Pluck-Skip-Turn(-pluck).
BTW, my question was not aimed at Vintage only, but rather at public, so is this one: is PTS generally considered more convenient than PST?

[fumblefingers]

ok. Just FYI I did try to clarify a couple times that I was talking about when one improvises. That's okay though.

understood but i still don't think it works that way. one should still be able to hear an idea and think "can I pull that off or should I hold back, so as not to mess up big time?" it's not unlike other mental physical processes, athletics etc. there's the idea and then the execution.

[pamosmusic]

See that's all well and good. I just don't really think that's the case. I don't think there are calculations happening like that. I think that your technique and your pure ear make up a system. As changes are flying by I think your ear is limited by what you've explored on the instrument. As I said - not exclusively things you have played verbatim - but rather things that you have a physical concept of. If you listen to bebop all the time but play B.B. King blues I don't think you're going to be hearing Au Privave over the next blues you play.


I am fully aware that some might not agree with this and that's totally fine - it's not like it's something we can quantify - but I don't plan on insulting anyone's intelligence for not agreeing with it. I'd appreciate the same consideration.

[fumblefingers]

See that's all well and good. I just don't really think that's the case. I don't think there are calculations happening like that. I think that your technique and your pure ear make up a system. As changes are flying by I think your ear is limited by what you've explored on the instrument. As I said - not exclusively things you have played verbatim - but rather things that you have a physical concept of. If you listen to bebop all the time but play B.B. King blues I don't think you're going to be hearing Au Privave over the next blues you play.


I am fully aware that some might not agree with this and that's totally fine - it's not like it's something we can quantify - but I don't plan on insulting anyone's intelligence for not agreeing with it. I'd appreciate the same consideration.

sorry for being brash, didn't mean to insult your intelligence, just meant to challenge your hypothesis which surprises me frankly, given your formal & professional background. i just think that it's flatly false and further think that you, and anyone else who's serious, should not believe it for their own sake. i think it can and will hold you back.

i think that we can agree that what one plays is limited by what they have played/practiced, but what one "hears" in their mind (not ears) is not limited by any instrument, at least it need not be.

that's why we do all that ear training. we learn dictation of harmony, melody & rhythm. its challenging. i hate dictation BTW, I think it's the most difficult part of ear training, and i realize that some formal programs give it short shrift, and that many/most self taught musicians avoid it altogether. but it builds your ear (your mind, actually) so that you can "hear" or imagine a sound and know what it is. you can picture it notated, and then write it down without touching any instrument.

but let's take something more physical. one can practice scat singing. you can develop a skill to scat all kinds of ideas, at least basic ones that don't require hyper articulation. this is another way to get more in touch with sound imaginations (i.e. "what you hear") free from a man-made instrument.

so "what you hear" should in no way be limited by what you've played on your guitar. "what you play" is limited to a significant extent, and that's why we have to practice technique, and the art of improv itself.

there is ear training, and there is instrument training. many people skip the former, but there's a price to pay. it's a question of how we choose to limit ourselves vs. how we choose to enable ourselves.

finally, it might be tempting to say that all the above is "IMO", but that would be inaccurate. it's what is broadly taught in music schools both traditional and contemporary/jazz.

thoughts?

[MarkRhodes]

sorry for being brash, didn't mean to insult your intelligence, just meant to challenge your hypothesis which surprises me frankly, given your formal & professional background. i just think that it's flatly false and further think that you, and anyone else who's serious, should not believe it for their own sake. i think it can and will hold you back.

i think that we can agree that what one plays is limited by what they have played/practiced, but what one "hears" in their mind (not ears) is not limited by any instrument, at least it need not be.

I think the point was that when improvising you have to able to know how to play what you hear or else hearing it is just a distraction. I think this is why people like Jimmy Bruno are so fussy about fingerings---the goal is connect the ear and the finger, so that when you hear something in your head, you know where to play it on the guitar.

[pamosmusic]

I think the point was that when improvising you have to able to know how to play what you hear or else hearing it is just a distraction.

That's an interesting thought. I mean ... if you're listening to yourself the whole time whether it's what you're actually playing or what you're thinking about playing then you're probably missing a lot of what's going on around you.

[fumblefingers]

Mark - Is that so? i don't know. i didn't have time to read any follow-up points, just the first statement which is that you can't hear what you haven't played on your guitar.

and i'm sorry but i would have to say that if a person's ideas when improvising are a "distraction", then we still have a problem Houston. after all, one only has one mind to use for ideas/impulses that spawn their art. if that mind is generating garbage that causes the person to fail, well, then we have a fail. that's why we need improv practice. mind and body together.

i'm repeating myself but... if a person's playing experience is the only thing that informs their wellspring of ideas, than that person has a HUGE problem. that's why we say listen to a lot of music, that's why we say train your ear, that's why we say master your instrument, and why we insist that serious jazz students study improv itself. (UNT 4 long semesters, MI - 6 terms, Berklee - quite a few as well, etc.)

context is important here too - are we taking about a beginning to intermediate student improviser, or one who has some level of mastery or at least solid skill set with the art? not that it makes any difference as far as i'm concerned. the hypothesis is faulty and should be rejected by teachers and students alike. i have never heard anyone in jazz ed say it like that from the 60s until 2015. not Jerry Coker, Dave Baker, Dick Grove, John Laporta, Garrison Fewell, Mike Steinel, etc, etc.

sorry 'bout that.

[pamosmusic]

sorry for being brash, didn't mean to insult your intelligence, just meant to challenge your hypothesis which surprises me frankly, given your formal & professional background. i just think that it's flatly false and further think that you, and anyone else who's serious, should not believe it for their own sake. i think it can and will hold you back.

No worries on part I ... more on part II to come.

i think that we can agree that what one plays is limited by what they have played/practiced, but what one "hears" in their mind (not ears) is not limited by any instrument, at least it need not be.

I'm going to flip this around on your for a second ... can you play every single line you hear in your head? Next question: Do you hear lines exactly the same way when you're playing as when you're sitting still listening to your mind's ear? Next question: If you hear them differently then wouldn't you say that what you hear in your mind's ear while improvising is impacted by the territory you inhabit on the guitar? If you don't hear them differently then how do you play? Do you skip entire lines that you can't play? Do you start playing and stop when you get to a spot that you can't play? How far out ahead of your playing is your ear hearing the line? Do you hear lines a measure in front of where you are in the music? two measure? four? eight? To me that seems like a weird set of questions. It's not a chess game. I can't always execute what I go for but I always come close. I don't just start these burning bebop lines and play the first four notes, skip the next two, play the two after, lay out for a measure, play five more notes, lay out again, and then finish my thought. Do you?

that's why we do all that ear training. we learn dictation of harmony, melody & rhythm. its challenging. i hate dictation BTW, I think it's the most difficult part of ear training, and i realize that some formal programs give it short shrift, and that many/most self taught musicians avoid it altogether. but it builds your ear (your mind, actually) so that you can "hear" or imagine a sound and know what it is. you can picture it notated, and then write it down without touching any instrument.

Okay. This is neither here nor there. I'm not talking about lines you can hear while sitting at a piano with blank staff paper and a pencil. I really think we use the word "hear" very liberally when we're talking about hearing lines while improvising. Mostly for the reasons I went into above. I think that improvising is more intuitive then we like to think. The ear training DOES give you the resources to hear and interpret what's going on AROUND you though which I think you should always be able to hear and be on top of (easier said than done unfortunately ...)

there is ear training, and there is instrument training. many people skip the former, but there's a price to pay. it's a question of how we choose to limit ourselves vs. how we choose to enable ourselves.

I'll discuss this more in a second but I really think there's a lot to be had by not thinking of them as two separate things. They're halves of a whole - you can work on each half separately (and should) but that doesn't mean that they aren't parts of the same system that interact with each other.

finally, it might be tempting to say that all the above is "IMO", but that would be inaccurate. it's what is broadly taught in music schools both traditional and contemporary/jazz.

I thought about that quite a lot in school ... not to toot my own horn but I did REALLY really well in ear-training and I think a big part of it was because I didn't think of it as a class on training your ear. It was something I practiced that should be linked intimately with my knowledge of theory and the things I could do on my instrument. I feel like you're implying that what I said somehow diminishes the value I place on ear-training and that's not the case. I've definitely slacked off of late and my ear needs a whole lot of work but of course I think that ear-training is massively important.



By and large I just think that improvising is more reflexive and intuitive than we like to think. We're not supposed to sit there and think about how we're holding the pick or how we're going to pick through a phrase while we're improvising but we're supposed to hear lines far enough ahead of time that we can calculate whether or not we can execute them ... scrap them .. think of another ... calculate ... and then play? Seems a little odd to me.

[pamosmusic]

Mark - Is that so? i don't know. i didn't have time to read any follow-up points, just the first statement which is that you can't hear what you haven't played on your guitar.

Well then I feel obligated to point out that I absolutely unequivocally NEVER said that. I specifically said that I did NOT mean that you can't hear what you haven't played explicitly.

[fumblefingers]

Well then I feel obligated to point out that I absolutely unequivocally NEVER said that. I specifically said that I did NOT mean that you can't hear what you haven't played explicitly.

OK well, in post #146 it seemed like that's what you said.

but maybe i misunderstood.


Happy Fourth of July.

[Para]

Herb Ellis said you should sing what you play or play what you sing take George Benson for instance he sings every note he plays, most top musicians not just guitarists sing what they are playing.

[pamosmusic]

OK well, in post #146 it seemed like that's what you said.

but maybe i misunderstood.


Happy Fourth of July.

Post #146 was the post where you quoted me and said 'are you serious' .... post #131 was the post you were quoting from and oddly enough when you quoted me you cut out the line where I said "I'm also not saying that you'll never play something you haven't practiced explicitly. "

[fumblefingers]

here we go again though. your hypothesis is related to what one "hears". not what they play. that's a different topic.

[fumblefingers]

Herb Ellis said you should sing what you play or play what you sing take George Benson for instance he sings every note he plays, most top musicians not just guitarists sing what they are playing.

yeah. i wish they'd leave that to the practice room, lol.

Herb's "singing" sounded like gibberish of course, and Keith Jarrett sounds like and old man in a rest home having his catheter changed out.

I kind of liked the sound of Elvin Jones grunting/humming playing with McLaughlin though.

[MarkRhodes]

That's an interesting thought. I mean ... if you're listening to yourself the whole time whether it's what you're actually playing or what you're thinking about playing then you're probably missing a lot of what's going on around you.

Perhaps I can state this more clearly. Hearing what others are doing around you is part of playing well with others. That's a given. But unless you're parroting them, your solo is not going to come from what they are doing. It's your solo, after all. (Just as their solos will not be a matter of doubling whatever you happen to be playing while they solo.) And jazz moves by pretty fast. So you nave to be able to translate what you hear in your head---what you want to play now---to your instrument immediately. There has to be a connection between your ears (brain) and your hands so that you can play what you wish to play without figuring out how to play it.

That is how I understood the post I was commenting on.

[MarkRhodes]

Herb Ellis said you should sing what you play or play what you sing take George Benson for instance he sings every note he plays, most top musicians not just guitarists sing what they are playing.

Herb did stress that. Oscar Peterson was another great player who did this. Herb says horn players do it too. It's not always the most pleasant sound---of course, it's not being done for the audience to hear---but I think it important that so many great players, deep into their long, successful careers kept doing this. There just might be something to it.....

[pamosmusic]

here we go again though. your hypothesis is related to what one "hears". not what they play. that's a different topic.

Okay fine but my contention was that the technique and the ear are pretty intertwined while one is improvising ... any thoughts on my long post of "thoughts" that you requested?

[MarkRhodes]

Okay fine but my contention was that the technique and the ear are pretty intertwined while one is improvising ...

I don't think there's any way around this.

Another way to see it is to consider, say, Wes. He had, by all accounts, a phenomenal ear. He played with many first-rate musicians. But he always sounded like Wes. His technique (and I don't just mean playing with his thumb, though that was certainly part of it) was a huge part of what made Wes sound like Wes.

[grahambop]

Keith Jarrett sounds like and old man in a rest home having his catheter changed out.

I wish someone would develop a Keith Jarrett grunt removal plugin or app or something.

I've only got one Jarrett CD (Live at the Deer's Head Inn). Absolutely love his playing and the trio, but I can hardly listen to it because of the grunts etc.

[grahambop]

I wish someone would develop a Keith Jarrett grunt removal plugin or app or something.

I've only got one Jarrett CD (Live at the Deer's Head Inn). Absolutely love his playing and the trio, but I can hardly listen to it because of the grunts etc.

Correction - I have also got one of his classical ones - Handel keyboard suites. That is wonderful and he does not make a sound! Perhaps Manfred Eicher tapes his mouth up for the classical recordings.

[Reg]

Yes if you can't play fast lines with articulations that you want... as compared to what happens because of your technique, you do have a problems. Is that a big deal... not really. what you can physically play becomes your style.

Most guitarist aren't even aware of articulations...

If you want to improve your technique... it's obvious what you need to do. If your more worried about being able to just perform... it's a different practice thing. It just depends on what levels you want to be able to perform at... generally I don't really think it's going to be a problem for most to not have burnin technique etc... If you really want to be able to cover up tempo etc... there's no way around developing GOOD TECHNIQUE, both fingerings and picking. Will that make you a great performer... maybe, you still need to have something to play, say etc... Performance is a different set of skills.

Being able to jump strings etc... and keep alternate picking going is a skill, I personally believe is very useful.

Arpeggios etc are great... but the best exercise is still generally that 1 2 3 4 , 1 3 4 2 , 1 4 2 3 etc... on different strings from low to high and from high to low strings. Not musical at all... strictly a technique exercise.

A few months of practicing all the patterns etc... no way around developing better technique. What you develop is a base reference. Then start applying the percussion studies for different rhythmic pattern... with the newly developed picking technique....

Try it for 15 min a day for a few weeks... you'll be amazed how you will be forced to develop workable picking and fingering technique... you'll develop tight least amount of movement technique. The other aspect... your going to develop the skill to think faster... or at least skills for being able to be aware of faster moving note combinations and not overloading.

If you check out some of my playing I can play up tempo very effortlessly... what I play may suck, but the feel is what I want... not just what comes out. this translates into all aspects of your playing... personally I believe it helps me be able to create feels and grooves etc...

[fumblefingers]

Correction - I have also got one of his classical ones - Handel keyboard suites. That is wonderful and he does not make a sound! Perhaps Manfred Eicher tapes his mouth up for the classical recordings.

i suspect it's just self control, and i think that it could be used at any time but i understand why it's not for some guys.

i think that the grunting and groaning is just one way to open oneself up to free expression. i don't believe that these top guys do it because they really need to, although they may have at one time. in the end i think they just do it because they want to.

[fumblefingers]

Okay fine but my contention was that the technique and the ear are pretty intertwined while one is improvising ... any thoughts on my long post of "thoughts" that you requested?

heck no, i hate long posts and my response was about one specific claim that you made about hearing.


plus, this thread was about picking, (dare i say "non-Benson" picking?) then it morphed into improv.

i would suggest that you consider opening up a thread about improv if you really want to explore some deep questions related to it, and i'll certainly participate if i find it interesting. i find improv to be the most interesting topic on the forum as a matter of fact. without it we could separate the entire forum into gear, theory, and "how to play the plectrum guitar", and be done with it.

cheers.