-
Originally Posted by JakeAcci
-
01-01-2017 02:16 PM
-
The Mephisto Waltz by Liszt
Just a thought so bear with me on this one.
I heard this on the classical radio today. The host said that in the beginning, Franz Liszt was the only player in the world to be able to play this extremely difficult piece that he wrote. He then taught his student (I forget the name) who then taught his student (Liszt => student+> Student of student... and on and on and you get the picture) till it arrived to us today.
All this is to say that, it seems that students of other instruments with hallowed histories are not frowned upon in their search for extreme proficiency that enables them to play highly challenging pieces on their instruments. These difficult pieces often include being able to play passages that require rapid fire dexterity - end of story. Saxophone players for example are expected to show high single note playing facility on their instruments early on in their musical journeys. Is this because their instrument allows only single notes? Or is it because their instrument is naturally "fluid sounding". Mellifluous anyone?
Personally, I see classical pieces as original improvised pieces that are then committed to memory and “interpreted” by the player. Jazz players commit musical phrases to memory so that they can play them in no particular order when "improvising". Slow, medium, fast passages all add to the excitement of the listener.
Correct me if I’m wrong but somehow, in the guitar world and especially our jazz world extreme facility and especially of the single note variety are not exactly welcomed with open arms. Speed is sometimes viewed as “speed for speed’s” sake. John Petrucci, Joe Satriani and AL Di Meola et al must thank their lucky stars that they are "allowed" to do what they do.
Maybe I haven’t boned up on piano and sax blogs to read where players get chastised for playing too many notes (and I’m sure there is criticism). Becker and Coltrane are you listening?
So......Are players like McLaughlin, Lagrene and even Metheny to be penalized for playing too many "blurred" notes?
Just a thought, that’s all.
-
There must be sone 4 - 5 year old kid from Japan, or Korea who can play that Liszt piece on guitar, blindfolded.
VladanMovies BlogSpot
-
Originally Posted by Vladan
-
Originally Posted by West LA Jazz
-
Originally Posted by West LA Jazz
That boy really put the smile on my face.
The girl..., well, her string gauges are all wrong, PU pole pieces should be set differently and her right hand movements are far from economical, she could practice some sl***ing ...
... YEAH!Last edited by Vladan; 01-11-2017 at 06:17 AM.
-
Originally Posted by West LA Jazz
IMO it's partly social, partly down to the way the music is organised (which I suppose is the same thing.)
I studied classical singing for a while, and it's all about mastering everything technically so that you can start to interpret and shape your performance. Some music is out and out shred (Donizetti etc) and some is just technically very demanding for purely musical reasons (Bach, a lot of modern stuff.)
Guitar has a problem because it has little purpose built repertoire - even classical guitar. When it comes to pick guitar, we have no classical repertoire written for the instrument. (And the few legit classical works that include electric guitar are, of course, modern.)
Why is this a problem? Well 'classical' works are still regarded with absolute respect in our culture. A musician learning to scale the dizzying heights of the repertoire of their instrument is engaging in a journey based around a tradition. There's something quite ego-less about it. The technique is at the service of the written music, and technically mastering a piece is really just the first step. Also I have seen little 'show off' or 'check this out' culture in my involvement in the classical music world. Classical musicians play for only two reasons - they are practicing or rehearsing, or they are performing.
(Singers may be more likely to show off :-))
Another thing is the classical music rightly or wrongly is 'canonised.' There are wealthy and important institutions (still) dedicated to the Western canon. There is considerable kudos in these highly visible institutions - for instance, a wealthy philanthropist (as pointed out in David Byrne's wonderful book 'How Music Works') is much more likely to give to the Opera or the Ballet, or even the Symphony, than the local Jazz Club.
(Wynton's efforts IMO have been directed towards giving jazz the same kudos in the US.)
Now for improvisors this raises an interesting question - if we are playing and composing simultaneously how can the audience know that something is 'legit' or mere display? So these arguments about 'simple emotional' players and 'technical' players comes into play. It's an option to not have chops as an electric guitarist, while every serious classical guitarist, say, has to master the Villa Lobos etudes.
In terms of composition - well electric guitar players playing pseudo classical stuff always sound to me essentially kitsch. It can be fun, but it's more on the level of someone getting really really good at Mario Karts.
Fusion? I have trouble taking that music seriously on the same level as Bach or Ravel TBH. I know many may argue with me on that.
Bebop is hard because it's not guitar music (but I have learned much more about technique playing bop heads than any other activity I think.)
Gypsy jazz and Bluegrass have more credible traditions of virtuosity, but there are some how regarded Django as a bit of a shred head haha.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
It is bizarre how much can be said not about ‘fast guitar playing’ but about how many different views and opinions there are about ‘fast guitar playing.’ It’s a subject that sure gets a lot of people talking.
I’ve noticed, on the internet, that people tend to progress through sorts of phases with their perception of fast playing/technique etc.
Phase 1 is often “holy shit I want to be able to play that/that’s amazing”
Phase 2 is often the backlash of how it’s not “emotional” or somehow more notes in a given time frame is less artistic or something
And then from there, with luck, people develop more nuanced perspectives on the issue…sometimes happily regressing back to phase 1. personally I’d like to think that ideally it’s just a non issue entirely…nobody gets emotional or heated about which notes to add to chords or issues of ahead/behind the beat or whatever. It’s just another…thing, simply an aspect of music. But when you grow up as a guitarist, especially in a rock context, it’s hard for that ‘thing’ to not have a little extra weight.
-
Professional musicians I have met don't seem to have these hang ups in the same way.
I get very heated up about rhythm, swing and so on actually. The speed of a player, or otherwise couldn't interest me less. Some fast players have great feel, some not so much. Most slow players seem to have great feel simply because they kind of have to haha.
It's probably a really obvious thing, but a great way to develop chops is through trying to play music - whether by ear, or through reading.
This is the way people like Holdsworth, Satriani, Vai etc etc learned. Modern shred/fusion players like Govan or Quayle also have this feeling in their playing. They might play patterns/cool guitar licks etc, but that comes out of the musicality thing.
Perhaps this has to come from a different instrument - sax and violin for Holdsworth. Pasquale has to shred because he's playing Tatum and Bud Powell on guitar. There's nothing egotistical about that.
I think it's all to do with what you want to do as a musician. What do you want to play? Make it about the music.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
Just playing devil's advocate a bit.
My thoughts on speed:
1. Folks who say they don't like fast playing generally can't play fast.
2. Fast can be really important for certain effects. If it's the only effect, it's like painting everything the same shade of one color.
3. Speed is "unimportant" until you have to play something that's faster than you can play. Then it becomes an issue.
-
Originally Posted by JakeAcci
I mean, you want shred? Check out some of this modern pop/bluegrass stuff. The mandolin solo...
From my own perspective, audiences seem to dig it when I play fast, it's like OOOO from the audience. I regard it as a cheap trick, personally (because that stuff tends to be licks, at least for me), but hey, you got to have some cheap tricks live.
Guitarists who speak ill of players who can play fast are on the whole, IMO, talking about their own insecurities. Now, Vai's music may not be my cup of tea, but I respect him hugely, which is perhaps to say my massive insecurities lie elsewhere :-)
OTOH I think things that signal 'heavy rock guitar' are very specific and not necessarily to do with speed - I'm thinking about certain types of bends, pinch harmonics, heavy vibrato, whammy tricks, certain types of overdrive. I tend to completely avoid these things in my own electric playing for a cleaner, more modern synth like aesthetic. (Influence probably by Kurt.) Although sometimes I want a 'bluesy vibe' and go towards that - but that's more BB King or Jimi than Vai or Yngwie.
I mean my point is basically 'it's all about the music' so I don't think speed should necessarily get any extra attention either negative or positive. It's just an element, but it's part of playing, requires certain awareness and practice, etc. I mean, taking your 'develop chop through music' phrasing, the fact is we come up against a phrase we can't play sometimes, then either say 'well, guess i'm not playing this phrase' which is fine by me, or start problem solving ways to make it happen.Last edited by christianm77; 01-11-2017 at 12:09 PM.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
I started a thread here just about a relatively simple picking mechanic issue - a means to solve a musical problem - and people get , my interpretation, somewhat emotional about whether we should even be talking about speed or whether speed is good. It is just me, or is that pretty bizzare? I'm not a shred head, was just interested in the solution to a specific mechanical problem on the guitar. It seems to me that if somebody doesn't have a solution they can choose to not respond, and that's about it...this thread was definitely not started to praise the path to shredding or something.
To me these discussions about speed versus technique are infantile.
-
Originally Posted by JakeAcci
Then you have written music you need to play sometimes too, including stuff you've written.
I can't see a huge amount beyond that.
I started a thread here just about a relatively simple picking mechanic issue - a means to solve a musical problem - and people get , my interpretation, somewhat emotional about whether we should even be talking about speed or whether speed is good. It is just me, or is that pretty bizzare? I'm not a shred head, was just interested in the solution to a specific mechanical problem on the guitar. It seems to me that if somebody doesn't have a solution they can choose to not respond, and that's about it...this thread was definitely not started to praise the path to shredding or something.
How fast does it need to go? And if so why?
There's only so many hours in the day. What do you spend your time on? How do you decide? I'm not saying that to be critical of anyone, it's just a question I find important to ask, and the key thing is to realise there is a decision to me to made.
Huh? You lost me here
But there is a difference between speed and technique obviously. Yngwie was very fast but had bad technique in the '80s for example. Why do I say that? Because he injured himself. If your playing injures you, you have bad technique.Last edited by christianm77; 01-11-2017 at 12:45 PM.
-
Pickguard transparency is obviously the central issue in musical performance, but beyond that you have your style and resources and improvisor and you need to deploy these to your best ability. Some people will use sheer speed as an effect, and why not?
Then you have written music you need to play sometimes too, including stuff you've written.
I can't see a huge amount beyond that.
Apologies! :-) I am a divergent thinker so I classically derail everything.
But can I ask what was the musical context of the original query?
There's only so many hours in the day. What do you spend your time on? How do you decide?
I mean - myself for example, I don't gig much anymore, but I have, and feel my playing on standards at a restaurant gig is 'fine' and don't have a heavily vested interest to make it all that much better. I enjoy exploring various things on the guitar because I find it personally interesting and satisfying (and it helps my teaching immensely), and a lot of it is jazz related, so that's where I'm coming from.
So, hah, it's like "hey curious about this specific problem" and responses are "just play TUNES, man!" it's like...ok...not really the point.Last edited by JakeAcci; 01-11-2017 at 12:49 PM.
-
Originally Posted by JakeAcci
The last guy I studied with, he pointed out that a lot of his students were timid about bringing up speed or tempo issues and he felt it was silly, his response was "I want to be able to play with a lot of nuance and I want to be able to play slow with a lot of nuance."
Martino does both IMO - play strings of notes but also include interesting rhythms.
It's a move that is hard to avoid in the context of fairly conventional jazz lines. I think it may have been a Pat Martino line I was trying. Doing both notes on the same string did not give me the timbre I wanted, same with any sort of slur or hybrid solution.
Seven Come Eleven, which has something like your example, is not crazy fast - eights at around 260 or less. It's tricky but not super difficult although ATM I have a little trouble getting it super clean. Something worth practicing within that context, because it's something I actually play.
But within that context I probably wouldn't focus on getting it down at shred speeds, which might require a different mechanic.
BTW, Martino of course executes it cleanly, as in fact does Jim Hall and Charlie Christian.
We have to pick goals - I feel extremely comfortable in where my personal sights are set and what role music has in my life. Something that has occasionally frustrated me in this forum, since I started posting here maybe seven years ago (yikes) is that people often assume we all have the same goals - maybe that's to be doing standards gigs every night and sound like our heroes, but that's not what everybody wants. So sometimes responses come in assuming that the poster is trying to get to that point, when that really isn't the issue.
I mean - myself for example, I don't gig much anymore, but I have, and feel my playing on standards at a restaurant gig is 'fine' and don't have a heavily invested interest to make it all that much better. I enjoy exploring various things on the guitar because I find it personally interesting and satisfying (and it helps my teaching immensely), and a lot of it is jazz related, so that's where I'm coming from.
So, hah, it's like "hey curious about this specific problem" and responses are "just play TUNES, man!" it's like...ok...not really the point.
-
[QUOTE=christianm77;729125]
*Just*? Ha! That alone provides me with enough material to practice for 2 hours a day. On top of that, general practice, ear training, reading practice, writing, listening, gigging etc. It's a lot of work just to play music. Also - why do work that isn't used?
I suppose I don't see the point much beyond a specific musical situation, it just becomes like sports science or something. But that's me...
-
Ok, additional point - I often find that in this technical explorations I find things that are very useful for my teaching - for example, if I can figure out a way to get myself doing something at X tempo, especially if it involves pushing past a barrier, then what i use will often be extremely helpful to me teaching a student how to do push past their barrier which may be 10-20%, or whatever, of mine. In this context we're not at all talking about shredding, we're talking about very basic playing, say something that is 8th notes at 120 or something. I give physical corrections and guidance that get them to be able to perform something at the appropriate tempo without mistakes. Now, granted, it's not rocket science to get somebody to play something at that tempo, but 1. my profession revolves around being able to teach things like that as efficiently as possible, and 2. I'd like to set my students up with habits so that if they get more ambitious with their musicianship (most of them are kids/beginners) that they have good habits and techniques set up.
-
Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
Seriously? Of course not, you naughty internet arguer, you.
In practice I like the players I like and that's it. Intellectualising it, well I think I like players who are really musicians in the wider sense. But I think most of the good players in any genre are like that.
The point for me is that in these cases the speed comes from the ears not from hours running patterns etc. That's a given right? People who just spend hours mechanically playing scales etc don't become musicians.
That said, youtube may change this a bit.
Just playing devil's advocate a bit.
My thoughts on speed:
1. Folks who say they don't like fast playing generally can't play fast.
2. Fast can be really important for certain effects. If it's the only effect, it's like painting everything the same shade of one color.
3. Speed is "unimportant" until you have to play something that's faster than you can play. Then it becomes an issue.
The whole of bebop could fall under that umbrella haha.Last edited by christianm77; 01-11-2017 at 01:39 PM.
-
Originally Posted by JakeAcci
-
Saw a touring blues/rock band at a club a few years back. Two very good guitarists swapping off lead work. One clearly loved the arena/glam rock style of the time and had great proficiency at those high speed runs and turns and repeated figures.
The other ... wow. He could take a medium to slow scalic passage, with a chromatic or turn figure tossed in ... but with subtle ... pauses ... sudden speedups to ... pause in a slightly off-time way ... give it so much interest he could nearly make the crowd cry.
We definitely all held our breath at times. Making an amazing group experience.
You know which of the two I preferred ... 😉
Make me cry just with your "axe" ... you got a fan.
Stumbling fingers still need love ...
-
Originally Posted by R Neil
-
Originally Posted by JakeAcci
Stumbling fingers still need love ...
-
Originally Posted by Vladan
Last edited by ronjazz; 01-28-2017 at 12:59 AM.
-
Originally Posted by ronjazz
Also, I really think you should read the whole thread before making smart ass comment on a joke I made almost 3 months ago.
Comments like yours above are insulting. The show lack of effort to understand what's going on, but instead, reacting on cue with an canned stereotyped comment.
I came to this thread because of it's title. Only on further reading, I found reference to Troy Grady's teachings, which I don't hold for being of much worth (As per what I could see in his freebies, I have no access, or any wish to have it, to his full commercial offerings).
If Grady was mentioned in the title, I probably would not even read this thread. However, since I already was here and since I've learned OP could not solve his problem by applying teachings of TG, I wrote my first comment.
From that time, I made many other comments and had couple side discussions, which all made context for this one comment you decided to respond on. All my comments, even if superficially they might seem snide and jest, no matter if they included references to TG or not, were strictly on topic, that is trying to/ solving the way to pick certain set of notes at certain speed, or they were direct answers to direct questions,
So, give me a break. You don't have to read what I write, you know ..
KA PAF info please
Today, 11:52 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos