Guitar Picking Speed

[woland]

O my God, is that me? So s-l-o-w! But I do like that exercise and some others from that book. I was using Conti's .38 Jim Dunlop nylon pick. (When you order "Precision Technique," he includes a couple with the book/DVD.)

Does Conti recommend .38 picks? I play with 3-4mm picks - thin picks get tangled in strings!

[rpguitar]

1) Heard of it, never tried it, not gonna.
2) Messed with it some once, no big deal.
3) I'm thinking about giving this a try
3) I'm working on it now
4) It's what I do and I'll never to back to the standard grip...

For me, it's "Revisit it periodically to be sure, but believe it's not an investment I'm willing to make."

[MarkRhodes]

Does Conti recommend .38 picks? I play with 3-4mm picks - thin picks get tangled in strings!

Yes, that's what Conti uses. And believe me, picks that thin CANNOT get tangled up in strings. They're too flexible to catch. I say they're "all give." (They don't produce much volume, which really puts some people off, but they helped me develop a lighter touch. They're a little TOO flexible for Benson picking, though.)

Conti is using one in this clip. You can see it around 1:30.

[MarkRhodes]

Back to the idea of a Benson poll. I think one might be useful.

Let's say there are five options (and people may choose only one.)

I think one should be Not interested, never tried it, not for me. (That's not the suggested wording but you get the point. Strong NO vote.)

And another should be 'That's how I play and I have no plans to change.' (Strong Yes / positive / I'm sold on it.)

Another should be 'I'm giving it a go now.'

That leaves two other options. One might be some version of "I'm thinking of giving it a go."

And another might be some version of "I tried it but it didn't work for me."

[KennyH]

Mark,

Which method gave you more speed and accuracy?

Conti's or Benson's?

Which would you recommend?

[MarkRhodes]

Mark,

Which method gave you more speed and accuracy?

Conti's or Benson's?

Which would you recommend?

I'm faster with the Benson technique. (Yesterday I posted a vid on Philco's Benson picking thread in the Player's forum, so you can see / hear for yourself. It's spotty, but it's pretty danged fast in places. I'm ironing out the wrinkles, focusing more on groove now.)
Conti is incredibly fast his way. (I like his super-thin picks too. Took me awhile to get used to them but they really helped me develop a lighter touch. I'm now having to teach my left hand to play with a lighter touch...) And I use a lot of lines I learned from Conti. You won't hear me say anything against him. But for me, Benson picking is much faster.

[MarkRhodes]

Okay, I started a poll in the Chit Chat / Introductions forum. Please vote. (It's asking about your view / experience of Benson picking, so if you DON'T use it, your vote is just as important as if you do!)

[Patrick2]

Conti has unfortunately never played a single note in time ever.

lolololololol Rich, You're so predictable. Of all the absurd comments you've got to your credit here at JGF. This one really has to be the most amusing.

[ecj]

lolololololol Rich, You're so predictable. Of all the absurd comments you've got to your credit here at JGF. This one really has to be the most amusing.

Like most things Rich says, this one was over the top. I do hear what he's talking about, though. Conti reminds me a little bit of an organ player. I think the lack of "weighted keys" for organs tends to make their time feel a little odd. I wonder if Conti's super thin pick makes it harder for him to stick in the pocket. He definitely has a very loose time feel sometimes.

I wouldn't say always, though. There are many tracks where he is definitely in the groove.

[woland]

Conti is incredibly fast his way. (I like his super-thin picks too. Took me awhile to get used to them but they really helped me develop a lighter touch. I'm now having to teach my left hand to play with a lighter touch...)

My archtop (d'A EXL-1) seems to require very light touch to keep the tone vibrant - you dig in and you get ugly thud. I have DA 12 Chromes on it. Need to check if perhaps going back to TIs will do the trick. Otherwise perhaps exploring thin pick is the way to go. Out of all the picks I have (30-40 different types mostly thick ones) only Golden Gate mandolin pick sound dark and warm with Chromes.

[Patrick2]

Like most things Rich says, this one was over the top. I do hear what he's talking about, though. Conti reminds me a little bit of an organ player. I think the lack of "weighted keys" for organs tends to make their time feel a little odd. I wonder if Conti's super thin pick makes it harder for him to stick in the pocket. He definitely has a very loose time feel sometimes.

I wouldn't say always, though. There are many tracks where he is definitely in the groove.

What I like about Richb is that he seems to even laugh at himself sometimes due to some of his comments. Example, he gave me a like in my post even though I called him our on that comment. That's pertty cool. Ya gotta love a guy who can laugh at himself. I'm always very surprised at how many people here actually get pissed at Richb. WE all know who he is and exactly what he means when he makes such an over the top hyperbolic comment.

My reply was to the comment that "Conti never played a single note in time ever". He knows that's not true and we all know that he knows it's not true. I do agree that when Conti is trying to be flashy in a teaching vid . . he sometimes gets outside the pocket. I think that would happen to Conti with what ever pick he was using. But, really . . who doesn't? (George Benson not withstanding) ;-)

[woland]

Yes, that's what Conti uses. And believe me, picks that thin CANNOT get tangled up in strings. They're too flexible to catch. I say they're "all give." (They don't produce much volume, which really puts some people off, but they helped me develop a lighter touch. They're a little TOO flexible for Benson picking, though.)

Conti is using one in this clip. You can see it around 1:30.

Thanks - I will check this idea. He seems to be "afternoon" picker - angles pick at 1-7 o'clock line. I spent a lot of time to get on 11-5 o'clock line after I started using thick picks but I will check these 0.38 things - maybe that is the way to go.

[MarkRhodes]

Like most things Rich says, this one was over the top. I do hear what he's talking about, though. Conti reminds me a little bit of an organ player. I think the lack of "weighted keys" for organs tends to make their time feel a little odd. I wonder if Conti's super thin pick makes it harder for him to stick in the pocket. He definitely has a very loose time feel sometimes.

I wouldn't say always, though. There are many tracks where he is definitely in the groove.

Time seems fine to me here. Opens with Conti playing solo on an 8-string and then the band comes in.

[mr. beaumont]

If you tap your foot to that intro, you'll hear he's pretty rock solid in time.

But once the band comes in, I have to disagree.

Mind you, I'm not a stickler that everything has to be played in pocket...unless it's clearly a "pocket" tune.

The way the drummer plays here, it doesn't allow for much wiggle room.


Anyway, back to speed...

My take, after a semi-crisis with it.

There's nothing better about any specific style, but your style has to work for you, to the point of where its not nagging you. I do think we have physical limits, but I also think few of us are anywhere close to them because we haven't really worked on it to that end yet.

I think wherever anybody's at, they can get faster, with work.

[MarkRhodes]

True, but a good solo is more than just an unrelated string of licks. Charlie Parker proves that an incredibly brilliant solo might, in a micro sense, be understood as a string of his pet licks, but this is only one step above the (obvious but vacuous) statement that every solo is just a string of notes. How does the whole solo hang together?

Clearly at fast tempi you're going to have to rely on muscle memory/licks, but you can still say something profound by your use of millions of other ingredients, including space, dynamics, dissonance, phrasing, articulation, group interplay, etc.

I think the term "licks" is ill-chosen here. The point of Owens using the term "formulaic" for Parker's improvising is that the passages were specific to certain harmonic situations. And keys. (Parker used phrases over and over in Bb blues that he rarely used in an F blues and vice versa; they were not just 'blues' licks, they were 'blues in Bb things' and 'blues in F' things.)

This becomes important when novices need to learn something they are often encouraged to learn but not told how to learn: "leave some space in your solos." It is educational to compare several Charlie Parker solos on a common set of changes (-rhythm changes, for example) and see where he tended to leave space. It makes more sense when you see the forumlae he went to after the pause and you hear the pause as a set-up for that.

Earl Hines talked about how Diz and Bird brought their practice books to gigs and in between sets were going over the books looking for things that might fit certain parts in the tunes they played. Bird later told Paul Desmond "it was all done with books." An overstatement, but it shows how much attention Parker paid to how lines laid against certain changes and made a point to use those lines in those places.

One of the great insights of Owens into some of Parker's long lines is that they are carefully built on lond scalar descents. (That is, there is a long descending line that you don't notice as such because of all the surrounding notes, but it seems to be a key in how Charlie build some of those incredibly long, flowing lines. It took a tremendous amount of diligent work for him to learn how to do that.)

[Reg]

So maybe... there's picking technique, a few styles etc.. some better than others.

And then there is application of a picking style, actual playing.

Rhythmic application of your picking... is not just rehearsed or memorized performance of whatever. Jazz has a very different style of performance... you need to be able to play what you haven't memorized, or practiced. Your technique needs to not breakdown when your stretching your limits of what you've played before.

Being in the pocket, groove etc... is more than just performing the notes in straight or swing time.

I tend to use the word Form with most aspects of performing... and application of your picking technique should also have Form...
-the actual picking patterns, your phrasing should be able to repeat, without you needing to consciously think about it.

-there is also Form to how your picking technique keeps your feel in the pocket... if your forcing your playing, generally your picking, the rhythmic application of your melodic playing, anyway if your having to force your picking technique to get what you hear or want to play out.... generally there's not much chance your going to be locked into any feel, pocket groove etc..

[MarkRhodes]

So maybe... there's picking technique, a few styles etc.. some better than others.

And then there is application of a picking style, actual playing.

Yes, I agree. And I think this is understood in most aspects of playing. For example, when we learn certain new (to us) chord voicings, we're not smooth with them and it would be wrong to think we should be. Maybe we play kinda slow and stiff to make sure we make the changes at the right time, smoothly, all the right notes ringing (and none of the shoulda-been-muted notes ringing). That takes time. But when we get the grips down and can make the changes, we work on making them at a brisker tempo, and with some variations (-an anticipation here, a delayed resolution there, etc).

Same thing with scales or a new fingering of an arpeggio. First you get it down. Then you get it down in time. Then you play around with the time. Then you screw up and go back to getting it down in time again! ;o)

Right hand technique is a big subject but each part takes work to get the mechanics right--whether is a New Orleans style funk comp, hammers and pull-offs, what have you----and once you do, you work on the timing. it's hard to work on two things at once. (First: how do I do this? Second: How do I do this with a good time feel?)

[Reg]

Hey Mark,
sounds pretty logical.... But I've always had a different approach. I don't learn things slow, I do the research, understand the mechanics, methodologies or theoretical or what ever...get to the point where I understand whatever I'm getting together.
Then I dive in full speed ahead . Sometimes the first few performances might be rough... But the feel is usually in the pocket, and generally that gets me through those first technically rough first few performances.

If I can't hear or feel what I'm trying to play...it's not going to happen.

Ive always had this approach, at least with jazz technique etc...

[Stephen_Bridgland]

Conti has unfortunately never played a single note in time ever.

It's not the technique. It's the MUSICIAN behind it that makes all the difference.

There is no "superior" technique. You Benson-pickers are aware that there are MANY
guys who use the Benson thing and cant play in time and sound awful right?

It is no magic bullet.

The only "secret" is in the mind. Improve the musician
and the technique will improve too.

I don't know anything about Robert Conti so won't comment on that, but I agree 100% with everything else in that post. I think that methods to achieve perfect technique (whatever that is) are easy things to sell to guitarists, but for me the technique somebody uses is intimately entwined with the music they make, or wish to make. I don't think somebody's technique and their music are separate things. Technique is often as individual as the player's own music/style is...I think of Benson, Barney Kessel, Nelson Veras, Tim Miller, Jim Hall, Ted Greene, Derek Bailey, Bill Frisell etc...I can't imagine those players achieving their music, their sound with technique(s) other than the one(s) they use. For me technique must always be something that is developed to serve a personal conception of music.

[MarkRhodes]

Hey Mark,
sounds pretty logical.... But I've always had a different approach. I don't learn things slow, I do the research, understand the mechanics, methodologies or theoretical or what ever...get to the point where I understand whatever I'm getting together.

What you do works phenomenally well. If I could start over and had as one choice "push this button and you will have Reg's skill set," I would definitely push it! In retrospect, I had a poor beginning---a few basic lessons, nothing serious, a couple books I picked up in the guitar store, and I worked through them on my own. On the one hand, I got creative----I started writing my own songs very young. I'm glad I did that. But I had poor technique.

It wasn't apparent then because I was a kid playing mainly slow, strummy things. By the time I realized my technique was a huge problem, I found it a miserably tough set of bad habits to break. I'm still working on that! I wouldn't recommend going about things the way that I have. But I can't go back and start over, so I have to work from where I am. Like that old song by The Band: "Whoa, you don't know the shape I'm in!" ;o)

[Reg]

Hey Mark... thanks.. but I don't think I have any magic skill set or approach. I just keep it simple.

I try and not force what technique or skill...or previous understanding of some aspect of playing that I already have developed to be the only way I perform something.

If how I'm trying to play something doesn't work... I logically think about it...and make changes. Usually requiring a few steps backwards. But I don't try and force different technique or harmonic/theoretical understandings to perform everything.

While I was young, I always checked out the players who could play whatever music I wanted to cover. Still do.

And I believe that performing up tempo music at slow tempo doesn't work that well. Obviously any method will eventually work if you stay at it long enough. But the slow memorize and gradually get up to tempo... works for performance of memorized music much better that performance of improved jazz.

Everything in music is subdivided... how we deal with those subdivisions... or are aware of them is what gives different styles of music their feel... what makes them lock into their groove. There is no slow, there are just less attacks.

Loop a four bar phrase at 240...or faster. one chord, no chord, whatever..

-play one downbeat on beat one of each bar. Accent that attack on beat one of each bar.

-then play the upbeat of beat one of each bar, but don't feel or count that... up beat or + of one ...as the target, play off of the downbeat of the downbeat of one you started... play off that accented downbeat... it will become a feel.

Now do the same thing but this time play the... + or upbeat of beat four of each bar. Still use the original accented downbeat one from first example for reference... your playing off the downbeat, but this time your anticipating the accented downbeat of one. and one.... and one...and one etc...This will also become a feel.

See how you pick these examples... try different picking patterns, see how your picking influences the feels... obviously you can add more beats and variations and begin to develop feels at faster tempos.

Sorry, trying to give examples where there are choices at real time tempos.

[woland]

Yes, that's what Conti uses. And believe me, picks that thin CANNOT get tangled up in strings. They're too flexible to catch. I say they're "all give." (They don't produce much volume, which really puts some people off, but they helped me develop a lighter touch. They're a little TOO flexible for Benson picking, though.)

Well I think I will go get me some 0.38 picks. I have real issue with my d'A EXL-1 - it really needs VERY light touch - you can get full spectrum of tones for it as long as your attack is light. So when you approach it with my typical 2-4mm pick you immediately push it out of like "linear range". The thinnest pick I had at home was Fender teardrop in Heavy ;-) and it had much improved tone over my regular picks. So I am curious what 0.38 will do. I may grab Conti's DVD at some point - right now I work on Andrew Green book.

[rsclosson]

Lots of great info on this thread. I am using it to extrapolate a method to improve my left and right hand coordination. Thanks!

[MarkRhodes]

Well I think I will go get me some 0.38 picks.

I hope you like 'em. They're cheap, so if you don't like 'em, you're only out 50 cents or so. Some people think they are TOO thin, wispy. But after I got used to them, I really liked them. By the way, Dunlop has another nylon pick that's just a little thicker---you might want to get one of each and use the slighter-thickiner one as a stepping stone to the really thin one. It's a whole new world!

[woland]

I hope you like 'em. They're cheap, so if you don't like 'em, you're only out 50 cents or so. Some people think they are TOO thin, wispy. But after I got used to them, I really liked them. By the way, Dunlop has another nylon pick that's just a little thicker---you might want to get one of each and use the slighter-thickiner one as a stepping stone to the really thin one. It's a whole new world!

Thanks - I went rather methodical - raided the pick stand at Guitar Resurrection and walked out with 12 different thin picks. Dunlop 38 is like trying to fighting off grizzly bear with pointy cushion.... there is definite frustration factor. I think I need to retrain my right hand for different type of attack - perhaps I can get darker tone. I do like Gibson thin picks quite a bit so - small teardrop black ones.
With the picking resistance gone I need better control over my hand - I relied on resistance - the bounce that you get of strings to help stop hand movement. So there is a lot to learn. Tonewise I have to say I will need to do something about the snappy part but at the very least it does not push my d'A past the "linear range" - into thuddy percussive buzzy part. Which is very nice.
Thanks again - will do some pick research and report results. Dunlop 38s are seem tiny pit fragile - I have those, 46s and 50s. I need to research Clayton ones too (Ultem?)