Speed on the Guitar

[joaopaz]

I think also there are two "kinds" of speed. One is speed playing something we are more or less memorizing. I've been learning some Jimmy Raney solos, and I usually can get those solos up to about 200-210 bpm.

But then there is speed improvising. That's something different because we are hearing music in our heads and trying to express it on the instrument. "Thought" is involved on some level, though certainly it is very different for different players.

I find my improvisation runs about a third slower than my ability to play a memorized piece or solo. But then that's progress because before I started learning these Jimmy Raney solos, I really was hard pressed to play past 120 bpm on any level, memorized or improvised.

Yes, I know what you mean. Makes all the sense and I've experienced it myself - many a times. That's why I mentioned on the opening post that speed could also have to to with the mental process... you won't play fast if you don't know, somehow, what to play!

...but at the same time I have this feeling that there's a 3rd element in this equation; something that may have to do with our character, with the way we react with things in life....
I'll put this in a very clumsy way, but I think that...
If you're a shy person, for instance,
if you have "fear" of something, of several things, etc...
you will retract yourself instinctively from exposure, from failure, from even attempting speed.

I see it on my violin kinds a lot of times: the most shy ones, are starting a piece wrong, even before actually starting it, if I can put it this way.. you see in their body expressions, in their "body talk", if something is going to come out right or not.

This mental side, is something I was also hoping to see addressed on this thread !

Thanks, Lawson (meet you at Rainey's later! )

[joaopaz]

Interesting thread.

Speed is great, but one reason I've started playing thumb-style is that I'm more concerned with playing carefully - in the pocket.

You gave me the opportunity to clarify something in this thread:

Although I'm a mere mortal, subject to the same fantasies we all are(!), it's not my goal to become the next Yngwee, or Steve Vai, or Andreas Öberg (respect!)

But there's something that's hard to avoid... if you're playing tunes, playing with other people, inevitably you'll face some up tempo tunes, some things other than ballads or slow bossa, and if you don't have to necessary skills to go with it, you'll be stuck with 8th notes, or quartet notes(!) or those tri-ple-ti-tri-ple-ti-tri-ple-ti lines that sound so lame when that's all you can do

[joaopaz]

Joaopaz, to complete the thought about practicing on one guitar: I have too many guitars, but I have always had several around because I did pit and studio work, classical and flamenco work, jazz and pop, Brazilian and African, etc. I found long ago that practicing on a "main" guitar that was not necessarily the easiest to play, but was very comfortable otherwise, led to constant improvement. When I did have to use another guitar for a gig or session, I would practice on that instrument for a few hours the day before and the day of, switching from say, a classical guitar to an electric guitar with narrow nut and arched fingerboard could be a real problem unless one prepares for it.

Currently, for instance, in order to solidify my new hybrid technique, I am practicing daily on my Godin 7-string nylon Multiac, because it is very comfortable to sit or stand with, it has a very slightly crowned fingerboard, yet has the width of a classical and, of course, nylon string to work out the fingerstyle aspects. I worked out a bit with an electric the other day, and while it took a few minutes to get comfortable, I found that it was easier to play fast tempos. I think the analogy might be the baseball player warming up for his turn at the plate with weights on his bat. Anyway, I'm not working on speed, but it's coming anyway, since I am working on coordination and movement, and taking great care to avoid unnecessary tension buildup.

Ron, again it makes all the sense for me. About an year ago when I was going to have a guitar exam I instinctively new I'll had to put all the guitars aside and for a few months I just played that one. And it worked. Problem came afterwards again, arrving home and have the "harem" waiting

Basically, what I'm reading is:
You have to have your main axe. And do the most of your work on that one, single guitar. You'll build confidence that will allow the technique to sink in deeper. Then with that plus on your side you may go and play other guitars as the role demands.

Be sure I'll give some serious though to this! Thanks again.

[fep]

My initial reaction to your adulteration of my post was that it was

bordering rude - I can take it.
out of the box - I appreciate that!
devoid of content - so I had nothing of substance to comment.

...however I honestly believe, I do, that I may be missing something and that your point simply didn't came across; I'll be glad to reply in case you want to expand on your point of view with your own written words.

I didn't think of Drumbler's response as being rude. I thought he was just making a point by comparing the issue to running. The problem was it is was open to interpretation.

What I got from it is with running, practice and training can only get you so far. No matter how much you train you'll never be an elite runner unless you have an unusual amount of innate ability.

Hitting the wall with picking speed may have much to do with ones level of innate ability. If that's the case, it is not a good use of ones time to work on picking speed once one has reached or gotten near the limit of their innate ability.

I also believe that there is individual speed limits based on ones innate ability. However, how does one know if they have reached that limit?

[joaopaz]

I didn't think of Drumbler's response as being rude. I thought he was just making a point by comparing the issue to running. The problem was it is was open to interpretation.

What I got from it is with running, practice and training can only get you so far. No matter how much you train you'll never be an elite runner unless you have an unusual amount of innate ability.

Hitting the wall with picking speed may have much to do with ones level of innate ability. If that's the case, it is not a good use of ones time to work on picking speed once one has reached or gotten near the limit of their innate ability.

I also believe that there is individual speed limits based on ones innate ability. However, how does one know if they have reached that limit?

Hi Frank,
Got your perspective, something to think about, of course - and man, that's a major issue with this kind of work ... wasting time. Glad you brought that up. That could also lead us to another discussion, about "good/proven" and "not so good/without evidence" approaches.
That is also why I started this topic; I want to know what members here have to say about what worked for them and what didn't (no need to put names, but describe it in general terms).

One other thing that your post leads me think.... so you believe that when we "hit a wall" we should accept it? ...because maybe we can bring that one down and there may be another wall, just a couple of miles ahead, but still.... so, the question is, how do you know your limit is your limit? (if there's such a thing)

Thanks for your post, Frank.

[Doublea A]

Hi guys, I’d like to hear your thoughts on this subject.


Try to think out of the box, if you can – because there are so many things taken for granted that may or may not be true.
For instance, is plawing slow and clean as possible fundamental? I think so, but is it enough or it can only take you so far?


Personally I’ve been working on speed diligently for years, but I seem to hit a wall always at the same threshold – of course, the fact that I change guitars a lot, and that I jumped from several picking methods has played greatly against me. And 10 years ago I was 44… and age is relentless (or is it not?)


Anyway…


Anything speed related – Ideas! Good ones, let’s hear them.


Some possible starters:
It’s importance for you;
Ways that improve – that you know by experience that worked!
Related to age – because there are players at advanced ages that can play fast, but may have been doing it since early ages…
Speed related to knowledge – because if you don’t know what to play it doesn’t really matter that your fingers may be able to acomplish the task.
Mental processes involved;
Importance of warmups;
Accuracy and cleaness;
etc etc…


I don’t want to be rude, but please reply with ideas that you could prove by yourself and not just because you read them a thousand times.
Speak from an experienced point of view, what worked for you (and maybe what didn’t).


Cheers, everyone!

I do not think that speed unto itself is important. When I hear instrumentalists of any kind (but especially guitarists) plying quickly without feeling, the music has a dizzying affect almost to the point of nausea. It sounds soulless and almost inhuman. Music needs to breathe, melodies need to be melodic. I don't like music that sounds like a practice session.

Music needs to be like a conversation. Complete with commas, periods, and moments of reflection.

Music needs to be like a journey. Complete with time to smell the roses and breaks for lunch.

Having said that an occasional flurry of notes played quickly can definitely add to musics intensity. But flurry after flurry is deafening and monotonous.

Just my opinion

[fep]

I do not think that speed unto itself is important. When I hear instrumentalists of any kind (but especially guitarists) plying quickly without feeling, the music has a dizzying affect almost to the point of nausea. It sounds soulless and almost inhuman. Music needs to breathe, melodies need to be melodic. I don't like music that sounds like a practice session.

Music needs to be like a conversation. Complete with commas, periods, and moments of reflection.

Music needs to be like a journey. Complete with time to smell the roses and breaks for lunch.

Having said that an occasional flurry of notes played quickly can definitely add to musics intensity. But flurry after flurry is deafening and monotonous.

Just my opinion

I understand and agree with what you are saying.

However, if you want to play bebop speed is a necessary ingredient to both play the heads and to improvise in the bebop style at some breakneck tempos.

I think this for example meets your description of "Music needs to be like a conversation. Complete with commas, periods, and moments of reflection". But also requires speed.

[viccortes285]

Hitting the wall happens I feel to all of us at times. I go out of my comfort zone when it hits for a month or so and for me it becomes a breakthrough.
I no longer work on speed but try to not think of what I playing, but to complement the songs story line. It works for me.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Doublea A]

I understand and agree with what you are saying.

However, if you want to play bebop speed is a necessary ingredient to both play the heads and to improvise in the bebop style at some breakneck tempos.

I think this for example meets your description of "Music needs to be like a conversation. Complete with commas, periods, and moments of reflection". But also requires speed.

Charlie Parker (Bebop) is very musical. There is rhythm and bounce and conversation. Yes, he speaks quickly, but it is a conversation.

[Doublea A]

I guess that I am saying is speed for the sake of speed is not music. It is Nascar with Instruments.

[christianm77]

There's a difference between playing fast runs and phrasing interestingly in double time.

[Drumbler]

My initial reaction to your adulteration of my post was that it was

bordering rude - I can take it.
out of the box - I appreciate that!
devoid of content - so I had nothing of substance to comment.

...however I honestly believe, I do, that I may be missing something and that your point simply didn't came across; I'll be glad to reply in case you want to expand on your point of view with your own written words.

No disrespect intended.

My point was that perhaps there are limits to what a particular person may achieve speed wise based on their natural abilities.

You mentioned that you have been working on increasing your speed for a long time and have hit the wall.

Perhaps the wall you hit is your personal limit due to your physical abilities. Compare it to running (sprinting in this case).

Is there a natural limit to how fast you personally can run? Or can you, by practicing running, become a very fast runner? What would be your reply to that question? Perhaps you are a very fast runner, I don't know, but let's assume for the purposes of this conversation that you are just average.

Your reply would probably be that you can only run so fast and that is it. You will never be a world class sprinter.

How would you deal with this fact? Would you continue to keep practicing your sprinting in the hope that someday you will be in the Olympics?

I personally was never a fast runner. I was never great at math. I'm not a good singer. I'm average looking. I'm average athletically.

I can't shred the guitar and I have practiced all those exercises that Paul Gilbert and Michael Batio recommend.

It's the same in many areas of our lives. How smart are you? How good in math? How good at software coding? How well can you sing? How coordinated in athletics? Etc.

How long do you bang your head into that wall?

[AlsoRan]

Hitting the wall happens I feel to all of us at times. I go out of my comfort zone when it hits for a month or so and for me it becomes a breakthrough.
I no longer work on speed but try to not think of what I playing, but to complement the songs story line. It works for me.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

In my case, when I feel I have it my limit, I try to play a lot of songs and exercises at that limit, and before you know it, I can bring the metronome up another 5 to 10 beats per minute.

It is amazing what we can get used to.

[joaopaz]

I guess that I am saying is speed for the sake of speed is not music. It is Nascar with Instruments.

There's a difference between playing fast runs and phrasing interestingly in double time.

Like a lot of things in life, there's the device/the object/the technique - and then there's the use you give to them.
I've listened to wonderful things played ultra fast, and to other things played ultra slow - and all the range between.

And one funny thing to see is that the focus of every player is almost always on the other side: those who can shred strive to be melodic, to swing, to be meaningful - and the opposite (not on every case, of course) may be also true.

Also, having the ability and being conscious of what you're are capable of will usually free everyone's mind to concentrate on what really we should.

Perhaps the sequence of events is inverted... maybe so. Perhaps we should always start with being musical and acquire the competences as they reveal themselves to be necessary.

* * *

I cannot see any musical subject as unidimensional, or even bimensional. These things develop organically.

My hope when started this thread was to hear a lot of things, revealed by experience that could somehow organically or mentally connected to speed - so far there were some great posts in this direction!

I'd love to be able to clock 16ths at 200bpm, like anyone else, for sure. But concern is not on that, but on what is required to perform the vast majority of tunes in the real book.

So here's a question:
What would be the top BPM you'd need to master, to play 16ths (when musically required!) confidently in the generality of tunes in the Real Book.
And since there's Charlie Parker and a lot of other uptempo tunes, what would be that other BPM necessary to face those tunes properly?

[AlsoRan]

...but at the same time I have this feeling that there's a 3rd element in this equation; something that may have to do with our character, with the way we react with things in life....
I'll put this in a very clumsy way, but I think that...
If you're a shy person, for instance,..

This part of your post is interesting to me because it gets to the core - based on your personality, what are your needs in music.

Depending on one's personality, they might look to music to calm them down, and they like it nice, slow, and melodic. Some look to music to relieve pain and want music that can make them cry. Others like me, who are already laid back, look to music for a thrill or for excitement, so I like faster music.

In my youth, I rode motorcycles. When I cruised around, every so often I would open the throttle up wide and burn rubber and ride a wheelie (I know, very irresponsible, but it was mainly done out on country roads although I would show off in the city sometimes, for some reason, it attracted women to me...). Otherwise, I rode the speed limit and obeyed the law. I did not want to ride one of those slow motorcycles, I needed one with power for those moments that I craved a rush.

I feel the same way with music. And, consequently, sometimes I want to crank on the throttle and burn out. If I can't play fast, then that need for a thrill will go unfulfilled, and I might as well go back to motorcycles.

[christianm77]

No disrespect intended.

My point was that perhaps there are limits to what a particular person may achieve speed wise based on their natural abilities.

You mentioned that you have been working on increasing your speed for a long time and have hit the wall.

Perhaps the wall you hit is your personal limit due to your physical abilities. Compare it to running (sprinting in this case).

Is there a natural limit to how fast you personally can run? Or can you, by practicing running, become a very fast runner? What would be your reply to that question? Perhaps you are a very fast runner, I don't know, but let's assume for the purposes of this conversation that you are just average.

Your reply would probably be that you can only run so fast and that is it. You will never be a world class sprinter.

How would you deal with this fact? Would you continue to keep practicing your sprinting in the hope that someday you will be in the Olympics?

I personally was never a fast runner. I was never great at math. I'm not a good singer. I'm average looking. I'm average athletically.

Sorry, but that's silly. It's a good analogy, but you are looking at it the wrong way.

We aren't talking about being a world class athlete. We are talking the equivalent of going for a daily run or a swim without hurting yourself. Every abled bodied person can run, right? Well everyone should be able to play 8th notes at around 280 bpm, which I would say is about where you need to be to be a competent jazz guitarist technically.

As a keen swimmer, I went for lessons a couple of years back. Swimming is very much about technique. It improved my speed and distance without me becoming fitter or more athletic. I've become a reasonably competent lane swimmer whereas before I could barely make 50m without being out of breath. And I have got fitter, because swimming is a pleasure rather than a splashy, out of breath battle.

In the pool I overtake people with much better fitness because they are swimming inefficiently, splashing around. I also have pretty good stamina now - I'm more a distance swimmer than a sprinter, but if I wanted to sprint, I would learn an appropriate technique, although a true competition technique would take it's toll physically. The technique I use is designed to minimise wear and tear on the body so that you can actually do exercise without hurting yourself.

Some go pretty fast through sheer brute force. It's impressive, but I can't help thinking who much faster and more elegant they would be if they worked on their technique, like the young competition swimmers who often train at my pool.

Michael Phelps = freakish natural attributes + a ton of technique. We might have the former but we can all up our game by learning the latter.

I can't shred the guitar and I have practiced all those exercises that Paul Gilbert and Michael Batio recommend.

That's because Gilbert and Batio have literally no idea how they are doing what they are doing. They are naturals.

Troy Grady has to come along with his high speed camera and try and break down what's going on. He embodies his teaching, because he can play a lot of this stuff, and it's been hard for him to get there. I think that's what's new about him - he's attacking the problem with Science (tm).

It might surprise you to realise that classical musicians have been doing this for a long time.

I don't mean to be rude, but plectrum guitarists are basically the idiots of the music world. But it's not our fault. We play a very difficult instrument with practically no effective technical pedagogy.

It is not unusual for professional sax players, pianists, violinists, cellists etc to play very fast. Why? Because they have an established pedagogy for teaching technique.

There should be no mystique to fast playing. It's not like being able to run 50 yards in 10 flat. It's accurate rhythmic subdivision + mechanical optimisation. Nothing mysterious about it.

You might not get up to Batio/Rusty Cooley warp speed, but those guys are the outliers, but no one needs that to play music.

How about Eric Johnson, George Benson or Django Reinhardt speed?

It's the same in many areas of our lives. How smart are you? How good in math? How good at software coding? How well can you sing? How coordinated in athletics? Etc.

How long do you bang your head into that wall?

That's a great growth mindset you got there.

It's true people have natural abilities, but it's also true that people can grow. Give me a student who works his or her arse off over a naturally talented lazy one any day. Jazz is one area where you have to work. There's no two ways about it.

[joaopaz]

No disrespect intended.

Case closed on that subject, then, no worries.


As for your post and questions...

I can't see myself/ourselves as such a fixed thing. The prof is a rather unpleasant one, is that we can always loose capabilites! So why not think positive and believe we can also improve?
We all have seen videos/photos of people with severe disabilites doing super human things... I've seen countless people without arms playing solos and tunes with their feet on guitar that defy any concept we may have about limitations.
Think, for instance, Pettruciani and the piano...
Stephen Hawking...
(put here everyone you can remember!)
Some of these are geniuses? for sure! But some are also ordinary people who transcended themselves when they had no other option left.

We don't need to go to this level of dramatic arguments; but maybe we could give a sencond though to what is that thing we call "our limits".

I'm not saying they don't exist. I just saying I'll always refuse to believe in them, methodically "just in case!". I was watching an old TV Interview with Wes Montgomery, the other day, where the host brought this story that in Wes time, everyone considered it to be impossible to play that fast with the thumb ........... they just forgot to tell Wes about it!

On a more practical level:
I did the Batio exercises too, and may return to them from time to time; they have good ideas in there (and he's quite a fun character explaining them). I was able, with regular practice, to clock on some simple exercises around 180bmp, 16ths.
But then there are other things - or other times - where I may struggle to play a line cleanly as I approach 120.
This tells me that our "wall" isn't uniform - nor was I expecting it to be.


I'm not looking for a magical pill. I'm just hoping to read as much stuff as I can, the more thought out and creative opinions on the subject - that may shed some unexpected light on the speed thing.

[Runepune]

Don't know if this will be of any help to you, but some thoughts anyway!

Can't get past repetition. Repetition. Repetition. Patient, relaxed repetition, that is.

When teaching I stress the importance of economising practice. I notice that students will often repeat long passages instead of focusing on the one problem in there. Repeating e.g. 16 notes when it's really only the transition between two notes that is the problem. By only focusing on that little spot, e.g. playing some 4 notes around that spot, you will effectively train yourself four times faster.

Practice something musical, and know the harmonic function of what you're practicing. Practicing plectrum technique with nothing but plectrum technique in mind is also some serious waste of precious time. There's no reason you can't simultaneously learn the fretboard.

Take frequent, small breaks in your sessions. If only 15-30 second ones. And instead of one long session, do several shorter ones throughout the day.

When it comes to plectrum technique, don't try to "impersonate" other guitarists technique. At least don't focus on it, as it may unintentionally prevent your hand from doing what it needs to do. It's impossible to see all the muscles involved in other peoples fast playing. Relax that right hand, be patient and it will most likely adjust itself to what's needed.

Yeah, it gets somewhat harder with age But I believe one reason for that is that those young brains don't think too much about it. They just do.

[pkirk]

a couple thoughts on speed: Most of our jazz guitar heroes make up their speedy improv lines out of pre-planned, pre-rehearsed lines. Listen to Parker, or Martino, and you hear the same licks over and over. Why are they great in addition to fast? partly because their pet licks are great, their intent is so strong, partly because they have a large bag of them, as opposed to just a couple, and hence can draw on many different ones. Why does random Joe Bebop on the internet not sound as interesting on uptempo tunes as our heroes: one important reason is that it's because he only has four preplanned licks rather than 50 or 100, and so by the second chorus he's already recycling ideas.

Thus, practicing non-musical lines (like ascending or descending scales) fast is only marginally useful for *playing* fast. If you want to play fast in a bebop style, and (like me) were not blessed with a very fast mind, you probably want to have a bunch of preplanned licks over familiar snippets of chord progressions rather than being able to play scales fast. This isnt a terribly creative way to improvise, but it will get you through. And in any case it is necessary, if you want to focus on the larger scale structure of your solo, to have pre-formed ideas you dont need to think about.

Another thing about speed I've come to realize is that if your phrasing is lousy, your speed will also be lousy. The reason is that lousy phrasing means you don't know when your phrase is going to stop, hence you end up playing long lines (say of 8th notes), and as the line gets longer so does the tension in your hands, and eventually the tension destroys the flow. Everybody can play short phrases faster than long phrases, and I believe tension is the reason. Relaxing is also important, and in particular, if you are going to play 32 bars of 8th notes at a fast tempo you better be loosey-goosey.

[MarkRhodes]

I say this as someone who an play pretty fast. I can do this cold without a warm up.

AS soon as I start thinking 'oh I'll play something fast' - I can't do it.

That called to mind the line of St. Augustine about time. (Not musical time but, uh, time time.)

"What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know."

[Hep To The Jive]

a couple thoughts on speed: Most of our jazz guitar heroes make up their speedy improv lines out of pre-planned, pre-rehearsed lines. Listen to Parker, or Martino, and you hear the same licks over and over. Why are they great in addition to fast? partly because their pet licks are great, their intent is so strong, partly because they have a large bag of them, as opposed to just a couple, and hence can draw on many different ones. Why does random Joe Bebop on the internet not sound as interesting on uptempo tunes as our heroes: one important reason is that it's because he only has four preplanned licks rather than 50 or 100, and so by the second chorus he's already recycling ideas.

Thus, practicing non-musical lines (like ascending or descending scales) fast is only marginally useful for *playing* fast. If you want to play fast in a bebop style, and (like me) were not blessed with a very fast mind, you probably want to have a bunch of preplanned licks over familiar snippets of chord progressions rather than being able to play scales fast. This isnt a terribly creative way to improvise, but it will get you through. And in any case it is necessary, if you want to focus on the larger scale structure of your solo, to have pre-formed ideas you dont need to think about.

Another thing about speed I've come to realize is that if your phrasing is lousy, your speed will also be lousy. The reason is that lousy phrasing means you don't know when your phrase is going to stop, hence you end up playing long lines (say of 8th notes), and as the line gets longer so does the tension in your hands, and eventually the tension destroys the flow. Everybody can play short phrases faster than long phrases, and I believe tension is the reason. Relaxing is also important, and in particular, if you are going to play 32 bars of 8th notes at a fast tempo you better be loosey-goosey.

I can't disagree with it. Licks licks and more licks will get you there! Somehow there is a school of thought that if you play pre planned stuff you are not truly improvising. I call it BS. Wether you realize it or not, you play what you already know. If you avoid learning licks and practice just scales and hope that somehow during your big solo it will transform into magical phrasings, you know how thats gonna end right? And at high tempo it's gonna be bad.

What I notice in my solos the best parts are the licks I stole somewhere, not my own shit. If I play something like Cherokee I'm happy i have bunch of licks that i rehearsed that get me through. I don't aim high. I can play fast what I know, and dont worry about reinventing the wheel. The touch, attack, dynamics, timing, thats where personality come through.

[AlsoRan]

I can't disagree with it. Licks licks and more licks will get you there! Somehow there is a school of thought that if you play pre planned stuff you are not truly improvising. I call it BS. Wether you realize it or not, you play what you already know.

Hep, this is one of those topics that, in my many conversations with Jazz musicians, I have never been able to get resolution. Some say they use licks (in fact, I have read about many of the great wind instrument players practicing their licks in succession over and over before gig), while others swear they are not using licks and are creating in the moment, note-by-note.

And those that musicians that told me they created music in the moment were highly offended when I questioned otherwise.

In my book, if you are imagining a pretty much complete line and playing it, you are probably playing a lick, but have a different definition of what a "lick" truly is.

This subject deserves a thread of its own, I think, but it is so personal to many artists that I don't want to bring any ill will, unintentionally.

[christianm77]

I think almost everyone plays licks to a degree.

Some players are more lucky than others. Some guys sound like long chains of licks, but if the licks are good enough that's cool.

Others cool everything down so they can always improvise even when the tempo is racing

[wolflen]

there is playing fast..and then there is obsession...I can play very fast..four bar melodic patterns/scale runs.sweep arps/melodic phrases..then to offset that..a wide interval run in dotted 8ths..or a symmetric outside lick..

I have watched and listened to guys doing scale runs over and over pushing the metronome up 5 clicks after four reps..and do that for hours..I don't even ask why..in and of itself speed is just that..

I like John McLaughlin..plays a cool melodic line - one beat rest - warp speed run - and another cool melodic line..

for me now melodic/harmonic lines are far more pleasing to the ear and I can experiment with them far easier than running at top speed and jamming on the breaks

listening to Larry Carlton lately..well crafted melodic solos with some nice outside speed jabs to keep it interesting...

[joaopaz]

About licks, speed, classical training...

Maybe a couple of weeks ago I started looking at the whole licks thing from another angle. I've been working on my own, trying to structure my ideas about improvisation and for that I started looking more and more at the violin method(s) I teach.

The thing is that while there are violinspeed training "etudes" you are being trained to speed - and every other thing - since day one.
Christian mentioned it a few posts above (I read it at work today) and it was a bit of an eye opener ... don't recall his/your exact words, but it something about speed being thing that comes naturally with technique among classical music students ... (I'm using the word classical in lack of a better word, but you all understand).

Thinking about it I realized I never heard/participated on a discussion with my fellow students/teachers in which a "speed wall" was mentioned.

There's only a very small percentage (that I can remember) of violin studies where speed is the only/single thing. In the vast majority of our work speed comes "bundled" in etudes that will address several things at the same time, dressed in a form that is almost always musical.

Among violin players you hear about Wholfhart all the time (I think it was because of Jimmy Bruno ... I don't know exactly what book is being mentioned, but there are a few that are beginner stuff for violinists, so I always smiled at that, at the impact they have with guitar players! But he wrote studies that range maybe from Grade 2 to 7 so I'd have to clarify that). But you have Kreutzer, Kayser, Mazas, Dont, Sevcik, Fiorillo, Rode, Wieniawski, ... Paganini...., and more - we don't do them all, but each violin student will go through several of these along his student path.

So, back to subject, speed comes "bundled" - it's a consequence, maybe, of the good technique anf good technical work developed through the years.

As an entry level example: begginer students with th Suzuki method, may spend some six months just perfecting a single rhythm... 4x 16ths + 2x8ths. The first tune "Twinkle, Twinkle" is based on the A major scale and has the notes from A to F#. Just that. Then with those six notes you may spend a lot more time just adding other rhythmic variations - variations 1 to 5, and just then, maybe after an intense work of many months, they will play the "theme" those same 6 notes using ..... quarter notes.

Then the tunes proceed in the key of A major and each tune introduces a single aspect - might be an arpeggio, an up bow, two down notes, etc.... scales and arpeggios are there constantly "bundled" in the tunes and etudes.

We start doing a lot of reading, then sight reading, and when finally you get to the Vivaldi and other Baroque concertos those are full of things, small units of information, that you learned and practiced, in a multitude of places, for years. It comes to a point where, when sight reading, you just glance at a page and quickly identify things like:
"there's a D major arpeggio", "that's a scale based, section", "ok this is minor, both harmonic and melodic material"... "that's the highest note in the score, ok, so I must go to 4th position", "there, I must use an open string to get back to 1st position"... etc etc etc.

At this point I must add that the violin fretboard is a sweet of organization: 4 strings in 5ths, makes everything very natural.

So, as the student evolves so does speed, is supposed to. And the vast majority of students of do their studies well, for a long time, acquire it. Naturally. They have to work for it of course, but there is never this drama, this huge topic as we have in guitar "Speed" ... my "bad" since I started this thread

ok... back to subject, licks - or small units of information as I posted above.

So, among jazz musicians we usually have this debate about using/not using licks - like, sometimes, it was like a crime; or that you will loose your voice or something....

Licks - How I'm starting to see this:

Licks are mostly short melodic (may be harmonic) structures that are "catchy" and that "survived" in a Darwinian sense; people remember some structures more than others, because they have that quality that make them survive other less memorable lines, or more incomplete/less adequate sturctures;
The key to their success is because they contain fundamental material, representative material, things that even the non trained listener may relate to, because they experienced it many many times along their "listeners" career! - all of us that love music.
Licks are therefore usually well structured, and tend to amplify things that are at the core of many other lines;
This good structure makes them good technical exercises;
The fact that you listen/play some links a thousand times means that you learned the lick (as a listener or as a player) BUT ALSO that you learned the structure and the DNA enclosed;
so as more the licks you know, the more words you know - it may be not those exact "words on the lick", but the DNA of those words that will allow you to create other words, like neologisms, for instance.... and the more words you know the more complex and meaningful sentences you may write.



But the thing is, violinists have licks widespread on books written by teachers, books that endured the test of times... some texts may be centuries old. Bach is to me the encyclopedia, to this day, and he lived some 350 years ago.

Classical musicians around here will understand this: remember Gloria Gaynor's "I Will Survive"? Well that was written some 400 years ago.... those chord changes have been around for quite some time, and every baroque concerto has its "I Will Survive" section
The equivalent in jazz I believe it would be Gerswhin's Rhythm Changes!
Think about this.....
The Rhythm Changes have been used in thousands of recordings and compositions and no one ever complained ... each tunes has one to many 251s..... talk about "Licks"!


But among us, correct me if I'm wrong, we tend to learn "licks" we like, stuff we choose, but sometimes it may be a bit random, or not presented in the proper manner, we may be using odd ways to play them, they may be more or less worthy of study....

There's an effort being made in make learning licks acquire some "universality" : play them in the 12 keys. But maybe there's more to it...


+ + + +

Ok guys, sorry for this long post, I can't help it, sometimes these came up like thinking out loud... I'm sure I left some unfinished sentences/ideas..

The ball's back to you!