-
Obviously I phrased something very poirly. I'll try to rephrase general idea, to give some context to my previous post.
There is one's general technique and there are special techniques for certain results.
Greats are great for what we hear them play.
The result they achieved. While what one can accomplish is determined by technique and devices used it does not mean the same , or similar can not be achieved by using different means. It may be more benefitial to understand why average guy can not do something than to know some genious could do it in spite limited technique.
All experiences with deliberate self crippling prove how really unimportant general technique is for achieving limited set of goals. It proves certain techniques are better suited for certain goals, though. Whole diversity of techniques used by all various greats proves certain technique won't make you the one.
Further, students are prone to take advice literarly. Just like most of us, proof is in number of questions on this forum, came to Jazz guitar with missconception of freedom, due taking the term improvisation literarly, many of us will leave this topic with missconceptions about 3 finger technique.
Using 3 finger technique won't make me Pat. Using all devices I have on hand to emulate will make me stand as my self and if I'm any good, people will study what I did and try to achieve similar in their own way.
Point being, If something can be achieved with 3 fingers, it certainly can be with all 4 and I don't even have to use them all. However, there's no reason not to use them, if it will produce same result, just because someone else didn't, no matter how great that one may be. If nothing else, though probably at first place, because I'm not that great, at all.
-
07-06-2014 04:28 AM
-
I don't see it this way. Take singing. I'm not so good. I wish I could sing better just for the sake of singing better. I don't want to 'advance the form' of singing, I just want to sing some of the standards I play and enjoy hearing the result. I want my singing to please me (-and anyone else listening) but that's not art---it's all craft! My craft is shaky and that's the problem!
Originally Posted by princeplanet
It's art vs craft, the artist strives to please himself, the craft guy likes to see his stuff to be useful to others. It ain't "lofty" to suggest Jazz guitar is an art, and an extremely disciplined one at that!
I'm much more concerned with craft than art. "How the heck did he do that?" "How can I do that?"
I think more of "artisan" (-a worker in a skilled trade, especially one that involves making things by hand) than "artist" (however you might wish to define that). If one's craft is highly developed, one might 'advance the form' in some way, as Charlie Parker did, but unless one masters the craft, well, there just are no great jazz musicians who have not mastered the craft end of the deal. Craft comes first.
-
Not saying one bypasses craft on the way to art, like Bird himself said "First master your instrument..." But I think I get your point that it's not necessarily just art that one does that pleases oneself, geez, there's a million things we all do for pleasure that we'd all surely label " a complete waste of time "! Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
Was just making the point - like I often do to my "artistic" friends - that it's OK to do art for art's sake, that it's its own reward. Been my long held view that one's art is more admirable if it's not overly self conscious in trying to please others. Not all my friends agree of course, I have a friend we call Paul the Hat, he's an art dealer. His motto is " If no-one will pay for it then your art is BS". Of course there's no right answer, but in the interest of balance, I like to bat for the unpopular team in these kinds of debates. In these over commercialised times we pay less and less heed to "art pour l'art" but I'm with Oscar Wilde who once famously declared that the sole purpose of art is that it should be admired. Even if it's maker is the solitary admirer.....
-
07-06-2014, 12:12 PM #54destinytot GuestInsofar as technical mastery goes, yes.Craft comes first.
But this statementpoints to an important distinction.the craft guy likes to see his stuff to be useful to others.
Stopping somewhat short of actually 'wanting to advance the form' (which smacks - to me - of the kind of subliminal tyrrany passing for culture in our commodified and conformist age), I'd say that it's Craft's very 'usefulness' that distinguishes it from Art.
I think that's the distinction Oscar Wilde had in mind when he wrote: "All Art is quite useless." I suspect that, like me, Wilde wasn't much of a soccer player
... but I'm pretty sure that he'd have applauded Bill Shankly for saying that "Football is not a matter of life and death - it's much more important."
I also think Hal Galper is spot-on when he talks about "the illusion of an instrument". Sure, one needs techniques - tools for a craft - but, for me, it would be just as unwise to conflate 'artisan' with 'artist' as to place the former above the latter.
Art should be anything but useful.
Artisans make useful things. This is a matter of being practical and prosaic. So it is with the musician who, in the manner of a touch-typist, makes music to order. Likewise with the farmer, cultivating the land in order to create conditions in which crops might flourish.
In fact, I find the Farmer to be a very helpful metaphor for learning jazz guitar.
And I'm reminded of the lyrics of the standard WITHOUT A SONG, especially the part that says, "Without a song / That field would never see a plough". Tilling the soil by means of a plough is completely beyond my experience and I've no wish to perform such an arduous task but, should ever the need arise, it would be Art that inspired me to do so - not Craft, ability, know-how, technique or skill.
But I agree that technical mastery is necessary to be a great jazz musician. Both lie beyond my aspirations, though I'm determined to aim for high standards.
On the other hand, I don't consider all great jazz musicians to have been artists - I'm not talking about being great artists, but about being 'artists' at all. Some of them were/are tragic examples - again, I'm not talking about lifestyle but about mediocre musical values. (Mind you, I think this comes down to lack of character.)
The height of mediocrity is actually aspiring to making Useful Art. And Utilitarian Art represents the height of kitsch.
Utilitarianism may have brightened up our homes with dainty doilies and antimacassars, made prettier our public spaces with colourful parks and (ahem!) 'shopping malls' - surely some kind of foreshadowing of some Dantean Circle of Hell - and livened our otherwise humdrum lives (not!) with beautiful logos and catchy jingles... but it also led, arguably, to Hiroshima.
What is being harnessed comes first. If Craft means the ability to harness it, Art means working in full awareness that the power of what is being harnessed is truly awesome.Craft comes first.Last edited by destinytot; 07-06-2014 at 12:19 PM.
-
07-06-2014, 12:13 PM #55destinytot GuestHaven't read your post yet, but my eyes fixed on this - and it brought a smile.Oscar Wilde
-
Yes, ol' Oscar was right on the money, methinks, when he said all art is essentially useless. Hope we're not hijacking this interesting thread, but dammit, this is a big deal, it's at the core of why we do what we do, y'know, and I'm not just talking about playing guitar. Originally Posted by destinytot
Mind you, I have nothing against people with a burning ambition to have their art admired by as many people as possible, let's face it, most of the artists across all fields are known to us precisely due to their reknown. But I've usually had a soft spot for the artist that did their own thing and waited for the world to catch on, and not so much the one's that elbow their way to the front of the queue shouting "me too, me too!". Some of the best cats (including writers, painters etc) only became famous after they died- a tough way to prove that they were into their art for it's own sake, and not the money, travel, fame groupies etc.
And yeah, I know that saying you don't care if anyone likes your schtick can be a cop out for people who started out wanting to be liked but couldn't make it, however I'd even give them a break. Playing any instrument, even poorly, beats spending time on Facebook...
-
I'm sure there are nuances to mastering any instrument, but I don't know of another axe that has as many options for sounding a given pitch than the guitar. Given that, it's reasonable that one's concept of fingering might mature as one's musicianship and fingerboard awareness deepen.
I recall where I was at musically 20 years ago as if it were yesterday. I was nearing 30, just moved to NYC and looking to get established on the scene. There were some cats, especially Jim Hall, who apparently saw a glimmer potential in me and were supportive, but I was definitely a small fish in that big pond. Jumping into a scene like NYC (if there even is another scene like NYC) can be a real wake up call, there are so many happening players it forces you to take stock in what you have to offer and what your shortcomings are. I was at a point where I knew the jazz language and didn't really play any 'wrong notes', but my overall delivery was inconsistent. Sometimes it felt good and swinging, sometimes it was stiff and awkward. Not in a good night/bad night sense, but from phrase to phrase and lick to lick. After more than one sleepless night, I realized I couldn't continue the way I was going and needed to figure out what was wrong.
After listening back to some tapes of my playing, I began to see a pattern. While my intervallic/motivic Jim Hall/Goodrick language seemed to be heading in the right direction, it was my bebop that would fall apart every so often. I wasn't alone, I heard the same occasional lapse into stilted, non-swinging phrasing from a lot of guitarists, including a lot of well known ones. But I never heard Wes or Jimmy Raney lose their feel on any recording, and in the clubs it was Peter Bernstein that was the most happening of the cats my age.
While there were no Youtubes back then, VHS tapes were traded, and careful watching and listening revealed that Wes, Jimmy and Pete played most of their bebop lines with a three finger approach, playing diagonally on the neck rather than across in a CAGED box. Further observation led to the realization that the times when I lost the swing were times when I tried to shoehorn a line into a Leavitt/CAGED fingering rather than following it along and across the neck. It was some work letting go of old habits, and my playing didn't fully come together until until I dropped the pick for the thumb, but I knew I was on the right track from the get-go.
Like anything else on the guitar, you make choices and tradeoffs. I'm sure someone that adheres to a strict Leavitt/CAGED approach has access to some lines I don't have. And like our forum's Monk, (and most of the other 3-finger cats) it's not like I completely abandoned the 4th finger, it shows up when necessary. The key is awareness and understanding of the fingerings that Wes and Jimmy derived to play bebop with the real beboppers in the bebop era.
Here's a recent video of a gig with George Mraz, the tune is an angular line on a slightly reharmonized It Could Happen To You. There are some nice left hand closeups, it's not like the 4th finger never comes in to play, but the overall approach is built on Wes and Jimmy's 3-finger conception.
PK
-
Art and craft are one same thing. They are all about skill.
Fine art is not the same as previous 2. Fine art involves beauty, feelings and, hopefully, cathartic moment.Last edited by Vladan; 07-06-2014 at 03:12 PM.
-
This idea is older than Aristotle. The distinction between "servile" and "fine" arts is ancient. Wilde knew this because he was educated, not because he had some keen insight here. Josef Pieper's "Leisure, the Basis of Culture" is a modern classic on this (broad) subject. Vladimir Nabokov touched on this theme in several of his novels. (Nabokov thought Wilde more of a poser than a poet, a 'rank moralist,' which from Nabokov was a deep dig.) Originally Posted by princeplanet
What is of concern to me is something Jimmy Raney talked about in a video clip posted hereabouts: a young guy tells Jimmy he wants to be "original." Jimmy said to him, "Original? You can't even play!"
-
@ paulkogut
Nice! I think you have your own thing going on for sure, and I agree that to transcribe and play your lines "shoehorned" into CAGED positions would sound and feel "wrong". But then so would trying to play those exact lines alternate picking, or pima fingerpicking or.... I mean there are guys playing with 7 or 8 strings, or with P4 tuning, or playing Stanley Jordan style etc etc, there's many ways to skin a cat besides playing bop lines like the 3 finger greats did in the 50s/60s.
It's down to the individual and what they can do with whatever means they have, the music will come out if the signal in their head is strong enough, even with one finger, no?
-
Actually, apart from perhaps Nietzche, I find Wilde had some of the most profound insights into human nature! I think Nabakov calling Wilde a rank moralist is way wide of the mark - particularly as Wilde was thought to be ostensibly amoral by many of his peers. Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
But that discussion aside, regarding Jimmy Raney's no doubt well intentioned barb to the young hopeful, what if the kid's response had been "Well no Jimmy, I can't play like you, but who says I gotta, or that I even wanna?"
-
Just to get back to this really important bit of your very on point post, I also agree that the 4 fingered CAGED guys (and I'm one) very often sound unconvincing with boppish lines, and I feel that there are several reasons, some main ones being that: the pinky is weak ; string skipping is difficult ; slurring or pulling off using the pinky impedes flow ; certain language based ideas borrowed from other instruments are indeed "shoehorned" and sound forced or stilted etc etc Originally Posted by paulkogut
But, that doesn't mean 4 fingered CAGED playing has to be restrictive, even for bop. The pinky can be made strong, and the problem of picking across strings can be cured via meticulous detailed analysis of the technical demands, and developing practice routines to master them.
Look, Django had an amazing sound and style, but to play with only 2 fingers, just because that's what he had to do, strikes me as unimaginative. And to then insist that all players should play that exact same way, because no other way seems to work, well that doesn't seem right either.
-
To play with only two fingers strikes me as very imaginative not because Django had to but because orthodoxy tells us we have to play with four fingers. To exhibit no curiosity as to how Django could do what he did is, to me, unimaginative. Originally Posted by princeplanet
I don't understand why some of the respondents to this thread keep hammering on about people insisting that they play "that same way". No one is insisting that you or anyone else do anything. Do what pleases you. As I very plainly stated in an earlier post, If what you are doing is working there is no need to change anything.
Regards,
Jerome
-
07-06-2014, 04:38 PM #64destinytot GuestWhen I am deeply moved by 'jazz', I can't attribute the joy I feel to craft alone. (I can count on one hand the guitarists whose solos move me deeply - it's usually ensemble playing that has that effect.) The subjective state I experience is something of a quality closer to transcendent than to pedestrian. Originally Posted by Vladan
Obviously not the first time Wilde was said to be 'posing' as anything, nor the first time Wilde was called a 'poser' with regard to his attitude to Art. A cruel person could say the same of, say, Louis Armstrong. Walk a mile in the shoes of a married homosexual in Victorian Britain, Mr Nabokov. At least 'rank moralist' is a break from that tired old tack of dishonouring Wilde by branding him a 'sexual pervert'. Wilde's integrity and high ideals ideals are things I admire.(Nabokov thought Wilde more of a poser than a poet, a 'rank moralist,' which from Nabokov was a deep dig.)
I also admire the view that life imitates art, and not the other way round (as advocated by Aristotle). It is in this context that I view the purpose, consequences and responsibility involved in honing one's skills.This idea is older than Aristotle.
I don't know the clip of Jimmy Raney, but his answer is pretty direct and his point not a subtle one. Personally, I'm someone who can play, who values beauty above originality, and to whom this issue matters enough to deliver myself of my opinions on the matter. And, personally, I'd rather read an anecdote about an encouraging word than the sordid proliferation of put-downs - not for my sake, but for others'.Last edited by Dirk; 12-22-2021 at 10:12 AM.
-
07-06-2014, 05:00 PM #65destinytot Guest
Great post. Thank you especially for this:
While there were no Youtubes back then, VHS tapes were traded, and careful watching and listening revealed that Wes, Jimmy and Pete played most of their bebop lines with a three finger approach, playing diagonally on the neck rather than across in a CAGED box. Further observation led to the realization that the times when I lost the swing were times when I tried to shoehorn a line into a Leavitt/CAGED fingering rather than following it along and across the neck. It was some work letting go of old habits, and my playing didn't fully come together until until I dropped the pick for the thumb, but I knew I was on the right track from the get-go.
-
This, I think, is too far afield to pursue here. Originally Posted by princeplanet
-
Couple of things:
1. How can playing with 3 vs 4 left hand fingers have any influence on righ thand string skipping?
2. Isn't CAGED actually about playing over chord shapes?
3. I do not see direct connection between curiosity and imagination.
4. Topic is about 3 fingers playing.
-
Since we're talking about (predominantly) three-finger playing, is anyone comfortable (and fluid as they wanna be) in playing Charlie Christian licks in the "F" chord shape when he reaches back for the 6th on the D string?
If the actual chord is F, this is no problem because that's an open string. (In first position, I mean.)
So let's take the case of Bb. If you're playing that with your index at the 6th fret, the 6th of Bb will be the G note on the D string at the fifth fret. I've made that shift a hundred times (maybe closer to 500) and I'm better at it than I used to be, but I'm not as good at it as I would like to be. Does anyone ever get that down as smoothly as they want to?
Here is a common fingering of a Bb6 chord. I'm not talking about fingering the chord but about playing lines in this shape where you have to shift back with your index to play that note (-the 6th of the chord) there?
X
6
7
5
X
6
-
I don't have a problem playing out of what I think of as an 'E shape' and playing the 6 below the root on the Fourth String. It becomes a bit more of a challenge below Bb but not so much that I find it impossible.
That you are better at executing this move than you once were should be very encouraging. These things have a way of sneaking up on you. One day you'll play that move and realize that it's no longer a problem but you probably won't remember when it ceased to be.
-
How about Charlie Hunter ? I bet he uses his pinky a lot.
-
Here's an observation that might answer some of Mark's and Vladan's questions simultaneously. A lot of times, jazz musicians will refer to complex sets of concepts with deceptively simple terminology. Advice to 'transcribe' or 'learn tunes' is shorthand for some real in-depth studies, and the 'three fingers' concept is the same. In the context of Wes and Jimmy Raney, it's not enough to just not use the 4th finger, it's about taking a look at the entirety of how their left hands interface with the neck and fretboard. What's the angle of the arm, wrist and fingers? How are distances covered between notes; finger movement, wrist movement, arm movement? How does the right hand's role change in relation to the left hand playing more diagonally?
Although I can't quite understand why, it seems necessary to again point out that neither Monk nor I have said that this was the only way to play and everyone has to do it. It's a body of concept and technique like any other (say, Benson picking). If you like the results that certain players get, it's good to know the method behind it. If someone has another fingering approach that delivers results that they dig, that's cool, too. I will add this, though. One thing that I've noticed from years of teaching is that some folks use position playing as a crutch for not being able to independently locate notes. They get the pattern and memorize where the fingers go, but don't really know the names or degrees of the notes within. You have to be really solid on note location to get a handle on the Wes fingerings, I've seen lots of people not know the neck as well as they assumed they did.
PK
-
There are many times a line using 3 fingers forces you to shift positions (ie on the same string(s) ) whereas execution of same line in one of the CAGED or fixed positions may force you to cross strings uncomfortably, creating difficulty for the right hand. This is yet another advantage for the 3 fingered approach, and sometimes it can't be beat... Originally Posted by Vladan
-
Hear ya, let's take it up again in a bar sometime, where I can tell you what I really think about Josef Pieper Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
-
Maybe I'm just insecure and/or paranoid that I keep reading subtle inferences that I'm using my position playing as a "crutch" - but yeah, I get it and agree actually that it is harder to predict the sound of intervals played with positional playing. Harder, but not insurmountable. Lots of scale training in intervals (particularly 4th 5th 6th and 7ths) go a long way in helping one to really pre hear every note in a given fixed position. Originally Posted by paulkogut
-
I understand that, but I do not understand why CAGED has to be "fixed"? Also, I bet at least half 3 fingered people play from CAGED position. Next thing I'll her will be CAGED is not good for tapping, or whatever, like someone will arest us if we move from it. All this not ever attempting the CAGED, I do not even know what it is exactly, except that it derives from basic open chord shapes. For that matter, are not C and D, as in CAGED, actually one same shape? Originally Posted by princeplanet
Again, I say, the nature of guitar is such that we mostly play lines by 3 fingers anyway, much more than 3/4 (75%) of the whole, at least that is my impression.
I just do not see any advantage in restrictions, except for practice and training, whatever general technique is in question.
Reply With Quote
Thoughts on triplet-swing.
Today, 06:59 AM in Rhythm, Swing & Phrasing