Speed again: 200bpm to 300bpm, leap or journey?

[Vladan]

For starters, this is purely technical question, it does not matter if playing fast has more or less merit musicaly, I just consider physical posibillity of doing it. Ok.

In regard to practical standard thread, I was wading through YT jungle, looking to hear those songs in a form that'd be the acceptable to my taste. So, I find one same tune as a slow, under 100bpm vocal balad, sax version way above 250bpm, probably 300 (99%@1/8), and guitar version at about 200bpm. It was Jim Hall and he played lots of 1/4, but I talk loooong sequences of 8ths here, at least 8 bars, but those sax players go for 16 bars and more, at 300 just like that.

So while listening to 300bpm versions, I kept thinking how impossible for me that would be to ever manage that, at that speed. While listening, I was scratching guitar, trying to fit in, could not manage more than a bar (and a half) Also, it was quite out of the key. As a note, I've never heard the tune before, don't know changes for it and so on. Tabula rasa.
While doing it, I was thinking, ok, I could probably make it at 140.

Then I found 200bpm guitar version and tried the same thing. It appeared not too difficult to maintain couple of bars, like 3 - 4, before hitting outrageously wrong note, or dropping out of a rhythm. So, it should be possible for me to get there some day. But then, if 200 is possible, 300 should not be impossible, isn't it?

Now, for all of you able to play at that level, above say 250bpm, was the transition from 200 range a leap, it just happened over short period of time, or it was targeted practice, and incremental thing?

I'm still far from it, as I said, my comfortable zone is up to 120bpm - 140bpm, or so.

[princeplanet]

I like listening to sax, so I need velocity to keep up!, so 300 is where I work up all my devices to (8ths), starting at 200 for a LONG time until every idea in each position becomes second nature. If I start slower, I can't get the flow of it going, 200 seems minimum for me to get both hands feeling united or something... I pay a lot of attention to my right hand, making sure it's clean and economical, and repeated exactly everytime.

I do hours of this and can mix my devices (as I like to call them) pretty well, just stitching together ideas and trying not to drop a stitch. I can't really improvise good Jazz yet, I can only play pre learned chunks over predictable chord sequences at 300 bpm. Yep, this is the wrong way to learn, I know, but I just feel like I have to get comfortable at this speed before I can learn the hard bit, thinking and creating new ideas with endless variations....

I feel like I'm doing a long experiment and I certainly wouldn't suggest anyone else try what I'm doing, but I was just never certain that learning to be a great improvisor at moderate tempos would necessarily lead to being equally adept at the burning ones. Must have a nervy disposition or something, but I just like burnin' Hard Bop, so that's my goal.

Life is short for the Jazz journeyman, especially us guitarists. It almost seems that we can choose to be good, or fast, but perhaps not both!

[Vladan]

Life is short for the Jazz journeyman, especially us guitarists. It almost seems that we can choose to be good, or fast, but perhaps not both!

Good one. Don't mind if I use it elwhere.

[ecj]

Unless you're George Benson?

[ChrisDowning]

Well of course you can have slow and good, and fast and good. Speed is just... speed. There is an intersting book and DVD from the guys at Flatpicking Guitar Magazine that deals with this very subject and it all kicks off playing at 60 bpm. Clearly, and as well as you can, start playing bell like tones at 60 bpm. In other words if you can't pay very well, very slowly, there is no point to speeding up what is already bad - it's not going to get better faster is it? They feel you need to do a lot of practice at all the speeds, speeding up the metronome only once we are happy at a speed. Then move it up 5 bpm.

Speed is like athletics - it takes a long time to get up to World Class and it take a lot of maintenance to stay there as well. Steve Kaufman like to beat up on his advanced classes with,"Come on guys! The slowest you'll play at a dance is 228 for a square dance!" (Jeez! That's actually 456 notes a minute!!) Then Steve rips of a relaxed tune paced at about 260 to show how it is done. All the notes clean and clear, no flubs, no crashes....so it can be done - i've sat beside him and I have seen it done. Just me that can't do it yet!

[ronjazz]

Yes, the slow practice leads to speed, because speed is dependent upon coordination between the two hands.
Speed bursts" are common in the classical guitar world: do a line of eighths for 3 bars, then a bar of 16ths, then back to 8ths again, etc. This can be in the context of a simple scale passage, or a knotty arpeggio pattern, or an exercise in intervals. Reflexive speed is the hardest to get to, since we're not all built the same way and may have trouble with the twitch muscles, etc. One can only hope to reach one's own heights, not necessarily the level of McLaughlin or Benson.

[princeplanet]

Another thing I wanted to mention is that the technique you must use for may fast phrases will feel abnormal much of the time when playing with the same technique slowly.... Consequently, good technique for slow practice may not be good technique for fast. Things like- which notes to slur, or which pick direction to use, where to sweep etc. Slurring and sweeping are harder to do slow!

You can waste a lot of time practicing slowly perfectly only to realise that you have to change the technical demand of the line(s) once you speed it up. I do a few sloppy trials at a fast clip for any line I'm trying to get up to speed, just to work out the technical issues, then slow it down to "burn it in"...

[jzucker]

Another thing I wanted to mention is that the technique you must use for may fast phrases will feel abnormal much of the time when playing with the same technique slowly.... Consequently, good technique for slow practice may not be good technique for fast. Things like- which notes to slur, or which pick direction to use, where to sweep etc. Slurring and sweeping are harder to do slow!

You can waste a lot of time practicing slowly perfectly only to realise that you have to change the technical demand of the line(s) once you speed it up. I do a few sloppy trials at a fast clip for any line I'm trying to get up to speed, just to work out the technical issues, then slow it down to "burn it in"...

you're right but I think what you've proposed might be bad for a beginning/intermediate player if taken the wrong way. Until you can execute a line cleanly fast, you should never play it sloppy fast. You should slow it down. If you practice sloppy you will get good at playing sloppy.

[edh]

Good point Jack.

Perfect practice = Perfect playing.

[ChrisDowning]

I don't understand the technical issues that crop up when playing slower than performance speed other than being able to blur over lines at speed so it doesn't really notice you haven't hit each note cleanly. At slow speeds you don't have the sustain to lengthen the notes - might die on you before you complete a slide for example - but I would still hold to the idea 'if you can't play it slow, you can't play it better fast' (Bit like handing over the driving of a car to a learner at 60mph - if you can't drive straight at 20mph, you probably won't get better at 60mph!)

One practice nostrum I came across years ago was that "if you were making mistakes you were playing too fast - slow down enough so you can play each note correctly - however slowly you have to play to make that true" In teaching I found students relaxed when they realised that - just play slower until all the notes are in the right pitch and in the right place - learn at that speed and gradually speed it up to performance speed - "simples" as the ad says.

[jzucker]

Learn Charlie Parker's solo to kim at 1/4 = 100 and then try to play it at 1/4 = 310. I think you'll see what the difference is. You couldn't possibly articulate it the same way at both tempos.

But that's a totally different issue than learning to play fast. To play fast, you absolutely have to learn to play something extremely accurately slow.

I don't understand the technical issues that crop up when playing slower than performance speed other than being able to blur over lines at speed so it doesn't really notice you haven't hit each note cleanly. At slow speeds you don't have the sustain to lengthen the notes - might die on you before you complete a slide for example - but I would still hold to the idea 'if you can't play it slow, you can't play it better fast' (Bit like handing over the driving of a car to a learner at 60mph - if you can't drive straight at 20mph, you probably won't get better at 60mph!)

One practice nostrum I came across years ago was that "if you were making mistakes you were playing too fast - slow down enough so you can play each note correctly - however slowly you have to play to make that true" In teaching I found students relaxed when they realised that - just play slower until all the notes are in the right pitch and in the right place - learn at that speed and gradually speed it up to performance speed - "simples" as the ad says.

[ecj]

I do feel like there's some truth to what princeplanet is saying. I've always struggled with alt-picking (left hand was never an issue). My breakthrough came when I stopped trying to just slowly increase metronome speeds with the technique I was using and spent some time just figuring out why I couldn't do things fast in the first place.

I would never do this with lines, but I spent a few weeks just trying to be able to comfortably play a fast tremolo on single strings, then switch between strings. This was all just open string stuff.

Once my body had "learned" how to just wiggle the pick as quickly as it needed to, I could suddenly slow down the mechanics to work on refining it. When I started I just didn't even really understand how my right hand needed to move, and it was only getting up to speed that my brain started to understand the right alignment, motion, etc.

I've gotten to where I can bring most simple patterns and things up to eights at 300 bpm without issue. I don't think I ever would've achieved that doing what I was doing before. I'll also plug the JC Stylles tutorial and say that it was extremely helpful (along with some threads here) in establishing the right hand position and mechanics.

[princeplanet]

Advanced players like Reg have said on this forum that he's happy to jump in at the deep end - the fast end- and deal with the technical issues at that speed, without working them out at a slower speed. This of course goes counter to the advice that you gotta start it slowly. As you get better technique, I think you can work it out either way, but as you're acquiring technique, stick to slow with the occasional sped up test run to show certain technical issues at speed to be aware of.

[eddy b.]

I have found that playing fast @250 bpm or more is counter-intuitive....it's all about relaxing, not forcing or being tense, not trying, just relaxing,listening,trusting and playing phrases that actually have a beginning and and end. Playing nonstop 1/8th note lines at 300 is good for practice, building confindence etc. and it is a cool device and I love Allan Holdsworth too but...phrasing is what makes the playing interesting.

[Boston Joe]

My teachers have always drilled it into my head that speed is a byproduct of accuracy. Practice with a metronome, make sure your notes are right on the beat, and clean. No "garbage" in between (stray pick or finger noise). Just try to be as clean and accurate as possible, and the speed will come.

Personally, I start sounding sloppy around 240, and I hit the wall completely around 250. 220-230 feels very comfortable for me, though.

It kind of depends what I'm playing though. I can rip pretty hard through "My Shining Hour" because it doesn't have too many key center changes. Something like "Donna Lee" is a lot harder for me. Forget Coltrane changes. I can't even play them slow.

[jzucker]

Usually the reason guitarists struggle at higher tempos is that at the slower speeds they are picking every note and this becomes impractical at 1/4=288 and above. This is why I recommend that my students transcribe Pat Metheny who is the master of slurs. I would recommend that folks transcribe Pat's solo on Mike Brecker's Slings and Arrows and work hard to master his articulation.

[nick1994]

Another great guitarist to transcribe would be Jim Hall. He was known for incorporating slurs in his playing.

[jzucker]

Another great guitarist to transcribe would be Jim Hall. He was known for incorporating slurs in his playing.

and that's where metheny learned his approach from!

[jzucker]

There is no doubt Meth learnt a lot from Hall, but I tend to think he copped most of the line type playing from Wes more than Hall.
I think the Hall influence was more in the modern concepts Hall had rather than the actual playing so much.

Have you seen that interview from Metheny's early years....its a joint Goodrick/Metheny interview.
Metheny mentions he has only been seriously playing for 4 (!) years.
He says some interesting things about picking, and not liking the older "picking everything" style.
Check the interview here:

he can say whatever he wants but his phrasing, note choices and approach are nothing like wes'. You can listen to 10 seconds of him and hear the jim hall approach. I hear very little wes in his approach. Wes influenced him on a philosophical and emotional level IMO. Take 2 of his contemporaries (albeit a few years older) Pat Martino and George Benson - They both went through periods where they sounded exactly like wes. Here 10 seconds of their early playing and there's no question who they listened to.

I think if you listen to his approach to playing blues you'll find that he has way more in common with jim hall and even ornette than Wes. Wes had a very particular way of playing blues and his note choices and phrasing and the particular alt notes he hit on very particular parts of the beat which outlined the changes and wes had almost none of that.

[nick1994]

Certainly Wes was a huge influence on Metheny, but it seems that metheny's playing has more in common with Hall than Wes, especially his sense of phrasing.

[AmundLauritzen]

Thoughts on tempos and how they feel:

I don't have monster chops, but when I practice for hours day after day I can play faster than usual.

Tempos up to 120 I can add in double time to create variety.

140-170 - rely on triplets for rhythmic variety.

180-220 is for me the most comfortable tempo.

There's quite the leap from 220-240.

Then from 250-260 it feels mostly the same to me. When I have chops above 240 I have somehow crossed that barrier and can "play" up to 260. It's strange.
And by "play" I don't necessarily mean create interesting music, but make it through the changes with 8th notes.

280 - everything falls apart.

[jzucker]

Certainly Wes was a huge influence on Metheny, but it seems that metheny's playing has more in common with Hall than Wes, especially his sense of phrasing.

Yes, it's pretty obvious I think but the note choices are what give it away. Wes, Benson and Martino have a very distinctive way of playing over ii-v movements. Metheny doesn't seem to have that in his vocabulary. Not that he can't do it but I believe his primary influence was not wes and the blues despite what he may publicly say.

[jzucker]

I dont know Jack.

Metheny certainly doesnt sound like Hall to me either.

He has the dark sound of Hall, but the constant drive towards pure melodicism in his playing points to Wes. Even the commercial Wes...

But we are talking about a genius musician. There is more Metheny in there than anyone else by far. He fashioned his own voice, and it's one of the most unique ever. So it makes sense that the influences are very muted in his style and hard to trace. It is as it should be in a musician of his originality.

Robben Ford is similar. It's hard to hear the influences because his originality is SO vivid and strong. The Bloomfield and other influences are barely there because it is pretty much all Robben's own voice. As it always is in the greatest musicians.

i hear a lot of hall in metheny's playing. I transcribed quite a bit of hall from the jim hall live and from the alone together cd. Have you transcribed much hall? I hear it in the lines, the harmonic movements and they way he plays over ii-v progressions and his rhythms. Surprised you don't hear that. It's plain as day to me!

As far as Robben goes, I like his playing but he doesn't move me on anywhere near the same level as metheny, wes, early martino, etc. But he also came from the saxophone so I think his influences are not as clear as metheny who clearly came from the same branch of the tree (along with abercrombie) from Jim Hall and not from the wes side.

[jzucker]

rich, email me. I can help you with that.