-
Very interesting comments and playing from Peter Bernstein on how to play Monk's tunes--and others.
"make your improvisation about the melody as much as it is about the chords"
"don't be afraid to play something dumb"
"play the same idea" as the melody in your improvisation
"play the idea of the song"
-
03-22-2015 02:05 PM
-
I will try to absorb anything and everything Peter says. I hope he does a book sooner than later on his soloing ideas/concepts.
-
This guy has become my latest "Jazz Guitar Hero."
-
I am sure that it is the primacy of hearing that makes he soloing so integral...
He plays what he hears in a higher sence... when all practical tools and theories (whatever they are) serve only to play the music that he can hear first...
It is hearing what makes The musician... no less no more
seems to be so simple but really it is so seldom to meet
By the way I somehow think that he will not make a book.. maybe I am wrong.. but his playing and the way he speaks ... he seems to be avoiding elaborated concepts at least not to an extent to systemize and put it down... and he teaches also more an approach and illustrates it in practice than explaining theoretical concept...
I think this also comes form the point that he supposes that one should hear something first he pushes to hearing hoping that when one can hear he will find the way how to organize playing...
-
Jonah, I used to study privately with Pete, and I think you are probably right. In all the time I spent with him, I never picked up on any kind of 'system' or 'method'. You just listen to the music you love, use your ears, and figure stuff out. And play a lot. He very well may treat different students differently, I can't answer that...maybe he gave other people more specific things. But with me, we just played a lot. And he would ALWAYS be trying to point out things to me to listen to. I might play a chord and he'd stop me and put the chord under the microscope and show me that it really wasn't sounding so great. It was like I was doing it more by habit than by intentionally using something I'd tested and listened to and knew would sound good. It was a lot of habit breaking really. Not letting the fingers run the show and really get serious about listening and making decisions as an artist. It was very challenging, primarily because I kept wanting some type of method...something my mind could work through one step at a time. And I never really got that. The whole thing for me was more like one giant free-fall...and just trying to hold on for dear life and not pass out from the uncertainty and velocity...and to try and fall in love with that feeling.
If he comes out with a book, I would definitely get it, but yeah...it wouldn't surprise me if that didn't happen.
I will say that on multiple occasions he would tell me that it was always better to practice opening my ears than to practice my technique. He'd say that I'd get more mileage out of developing my ears than any other aspect of the music. And I've heard him say that in video interviews as well. As musicians, our ears really are king.
-
Thanks jordanklemons.. it's great to have it from the perosn who took lessons from Peter.. especially for me.. I think I have very small chance to listen to him live... I do not even mention lessonsJonah, I used to study privately with Pete...
I should say I really like his playing last years... the most in organ trio.. but also Solo and Monk album.. his early records are also good of course but last years..
When he plays I feel that I am really any moment at the point where music comes out o.. I mean I can hear that he is at the moment of discovering something too and I am involved... I participate in his personal life exepreine in real time... I think it is what the art for - the supreme form of comunication... no conventions.. just soul to soul
Thanks again
-
Man, if you ever get the chance to hear him perform live...definitely take it! His records are great, but seeing him play in person is just a whole different layer. He just exudes such an amazing energy...so captivating. It's like taking valium through your ears! Hahahaha
And everything you're saying about what you pick up from his music is pretty spot on. Super nice guy...but VERY serious about his work.
He was the first guy that I studied with my first semester when I started my program. I think I was looking for/expecting some kind of systematic approach or method that I could carry with me. I didn't get that from him. We just hung out every week for an hour and played tunes. It forced me to really step up to the plate, and I learned so much having to comp for him and having to improvise with him...but there was a longing on my part for a method. I sort of had to learn to let go of that and just focus on applying myself and really focusing on the music and just trying to bring my humanity to it.
During our last lesson together I asked him, Pete, if you could go back in time and talk to yourself when you were younger, what advice would you give to your younger self?
He told me that he would recommend to himself to spend more time focusing on the head of the tunes he was learning. Listen to the recordings, study the composition itself like an etude, figure out the real bass movement (not just what's written in the books, but what the guy was really playing), try and pick out the harmony as much as possible, and specifically to focus on the phrasing of the melody. The composers and players were making VERY specific statements with the composition and arranging of their tunes. Most of us tend to learn the tune only well enough to get through the melody so that we can get into improvising, but then we mostly get stuck playing the same patterns and ideas that we know...we just play our stuff on it. And when we listen to transcribe, it's usually to learn from other people's solos. But he said he would advice his younger self to really transcribe the heads of the tune...focusing on the arrangement, the phrasing, the way different horns were harmonizing and interacting, etc. Trying to learn as much as possible about how those musicians were thinking based on the pre-planned stuff...the melody, the tune, etc.
I've tried to take that to heart.
-
Thank you jordanklemons!
I always check his tours to see if he comes in the country close enough for me to visit... if I ever go to US I will of course try to get to listen to him alive..
From what you describe I see that my approach and understanding of musci is probably really very close to his... both in practical and general issues... of course for me not at theat level of performance skill...
by the way even on this forum I can often see that this approach is not much popular... I like analyzing songs as they are (not only as persperctive to improvization) and I did a couple of times but I noticed that it did not iterest anybody much... people are more into technical and method stuff... I even cannot understand questions like: what can I play over that chord?
But where's the song? The harmonic context? The melodic ideas?
It's great that there's player like Peter who just proves this approach with his own practical sample.
Once there was discussion about his Solo record... and somebody said that he seemed not to find his into yet.. because he plays always lines-changes-lines - changes all the time... franly when I firrst heard I also had this feeling but ib couple of months I came to it again.. and impression changed.. because I could what was behind it. Lines - changes were just a texture here ... and he just probably did not involve texture that much as other means and for jazz regulars it's not really common... but for me it really brings his playing at the level of complex expression methods of classical music
-
Man, when players get to a certain point...it's sort of not a question anymore of whether or not they're good, or who's better, or any of that non-sense...it becomes a matter of taste and opinion. Frankly, 5 or 10 years ago, I wouldn't have love Pete's playing...I simply wasn't ready for it. But it's like a fine scotch. It just gets better and better as it ages. He's so refined. Not that anyone will ever be 'the next Jim Hall'...but in many ways Pete reminds me of him. Very little flash. All heart and ear. There's a great video of Rosenwinkel and Pete performing together with Scott Colley on bass and I think Eric Harland on drums? It's so interesting hearing Kurt and Pete play together. They have such different vibes but are so complimentary. Kurts speed, agility, and flash on the guitar are through the roof...but Pete never gets left in the dust with him. They play off each other beautifully. To me. Just different approaches. A lot of guys do want that faster, technique driven stuff. And that can be fun to listen to for a little while...but it doesn't make me feel good. Physically and emotionally. Not usually. It peaks my interest. It gets my brain and my intellect turned on and thinking. But guys like Pete and Jim Hall have a way of hitting me in the soul, where the intellect just doesn't really come into the picture. It's an emotional and physical experience. Very few guys can do that AND have the fast technique stuff. They're out there. But it's rare to find someone who can balance both.
Mike Moreno was once asked to record a guitar solo for some 'jazz guitar solo etudes book' thing. They gave him a set of chord changes and said here, record a Mike Moreno solo over these. I suppose they would then transcribe it and print it up in the book for others to buy and try and learn from. Mike actually said it was surprisingly difficult for him to do because there was no melody to set up the vibe....just a bunch of chords. He felt like there was no musical direction to play off of because without the melody you're sort of lost in the woods with no compass. At least if the melody is important to you as an improvisor...which like you said is not always the case. And is often not the 'tastiest' stuff to talk about because it generally requires that we drop the speed, the patterns, and all of our 'stuff' and really approach learning something brand new and absorbing someone else's thing. It's tough though.
At my first lesson with Pete we started things off with playing Days of Wine and Roses. At the end of it he looked at me nodding his head and said, "Yeah man! You can play all the right notes!" Then he smiled and leaned in like he was going to tell me a secret and said, "You know...a computer can play all the right notes." It was tough to hear...but he was right. It was both a compliment to all the work that he could tell I'd put in on my instrument of being able to play the 'right' stuff. But it was also his way of saying that it just didn't sound human. We spent a good bit of the rest of the lesson improvising on the tune, but always from the melody. Basically playing the melody over and over, chorus after chorus, but just trying to get bored with it and trying to find new ways to rephrase it each time. I could add notes and take notes away and pretty much do whatever I wanted to the melody...but the idea was to stick with it for multiple chorus without letting myself fall into playing patterns and pre-worked out ideas. It was challenging, but a lot of fun. These days, if I find myself playing patterns and ideas I already know too much, and I start to get bored with it...I generally will always come back to the melody to force me out of my comfort zone and see where I can go from there.
It's not a right or wrong thing. It's just about what we want for our playing. What are our priorities. The more we know what they are and feel justified in them simply because it's what we care about, the better off everything is...regardless of what those priorities are.
-
I mostly second to all what you say... only you see .. I had classical background (and still I have) - even not meaning only classical guitar... but I have been always deeply involved in orchestral, chamber, operatic music.. I listened played analyzed over and over.. so for me from the very beginning music was.... well... music...
that's why I think I was a bit frustrated when I wanted to check practical methods for jazz guitar with all these 'shapes', 'patterns' 'licks' etc. I was used to complex syntentic thinking of classicals and that seemed too over-simplified for me...
Frankly it took me years to adopt and connect somehow my hearing of music to jazz language...
Prallel with Jim Hall is obvious of course but I like also to see the difference... to me Jim's playing has always been much more conceptual than Peter's... I always feel that he is interested in applying and realizing some musical concept at the moment... he has inventive mind I would say... I'd say the word 'intellectual' is very good for him in a direct sence... and with combination with great lyrical simplicity of pharising and strong blues feel and easy and subtle swinging style in comping.. it makes a great music.
But in general he kind of 'looking at any song from point of view of musical concept he is now more involved into''
And with Peter I would not use word 'intellectual' (it does not mean he does not think of course).. he is much more direct... and I think the realtion is opposite.. he gets deeply involved rather into the song itself than into developing of some abstract musical ideas in it. And his swinging and blues feel is much harded, he somehow reminds me of soul or spiritual music...
About the situation with Mike Moreno you described... I think it depends much on personal approach of a player... for some changes might be a good point to create and develope interesting melody, for others it is important to have some melody as a start, and some do not need anything at all but form concept (as it is regular for classical improvization)...
Beside there are enough samples in jazz when they do not actually develop melodic ideas strongly but still sound great... maybe this is just not that close for me personally... noit my way of thinking
I think the question of form - so important in classical music - is often ignored in jazz - by quite understandable reasons connected with practice of few players plying solos consequently... I dont mean it's bad.. i think it's natural for jazz.. but for me it's more interesting when they see the whole song as one form not as a set of forms...
In that concern in jazz the best it comes out only when there is one soloist in the piece (or he dominates in soloing), or when the group has very strong internal connection so that they can build it up together... the case of Larry-Peter-Bill trio for example.
As for players.. you know I just think that as far as it goes for arts there's nothing but 'taste and opinion'... there are no objectively good or bad players... it's only the matter of conviction and convention...
So I have no problem if I do not like some performance of my favourite player... maybe next day I like it... and another day dislike it again - I do not see it as progressive movement...Last edited by Jonah; 04-22-2015 at 05:21 AM.
-
Jonah
Peter has done a couple of masterclasses for the London Jazz Guitar Society when he was over here, playing at Ronnie Scott's with the Goldings/Stewart trio. Both times it's been in January and so I've missed it due to the pressures of my very seasonal job. A shame for me, because everyone reckons that they were really good sessions and I really like how Peter plays (and sounds - the best tone of the modern players IMHO).
However, there may be video of one or even both sessions. If you PM DaveB on this board, he will probably be able to advise you as he is now the man in charge of the LJGS and he will know if anyone does.
Good luck.
-
It's like he had that thing that all makes other guitarists feel like they have to play fast impressive stuff surgically removed, so he could focus on the music.
Originally Posted by jordanklemons
-
Very interesting comments by Peter which really capsulize his approach. In many ways you get the essence in his comments about attention to the melody and as well as focusing on the relation between the harmony and the melody in terms of color notes like extensions, along with the relationships of melody and harmony in terms of the intervals and the tensions inherent in that context. How you can improvise by being faithful to the composer's intention.
It really is about the ears and developing the technique to play what you hear.
-
Good point! Because you said 'focus on the music;. So funny how many people there are involved in musical business socially but actually doing no music at all... they do sports, money, nice company, researches, many options... but not music.It's like he had that thing that all makes other guitarists feel like they have to play fast impressive stuff surgically removed, so he could focus on the music.
And I also think that Peter is already beyond this...
it's like in classics I put on Furtwangler or Horwitz... and somebody says: 'you know he takes the tempo too fast or too slow here or he takes too much sustain pedal here...' so many classical fans going to concerts to count the tempo and check 'if he made this legato or not...
I say: 'man... it's far beyond these details... I see how the whole human nature is investigated here right in front of me and you tell me about tempos and pedals...
Imagine - can you say that this Van Gogh's painting could be good if he put a bit less of red, and a bit more of blue.. You may like it or not... but you can immediately see that he did what he wanted, you can feel his confidence... that's what I hear in these performances too'
I believe artists of this level do think in 'meanings' directly... they just express it.
-
-
Peee-taaaah!
I love this approach to playing, but it is often neglected in many jazz circles. I will try to take one lesson from this guy before I move to LA. We are the same height (5'6" on a good day), and our guitars are the same color, so I think we'll get along
Peter plays guitar like a story teller, he crafts phrases that have an arch, theme, and range. His playing doesn't sound overtly licky.
-
Originally Posted by Irez87
Peee-taaaah!
I love this approach to playing, but it is often neglected in many jazz circles. I will try to take one lesson from this guy before I move to LA. We are the same height (5'6" on a good day), and our guitars are the same color, so I think we'll get along
Peter plays guitar like a story teller, he crafts phrases that have an arch, theme, and range. His playing doesn't sound overtly licky.
In other words he plays like the old cats off the melody and chord function.
-
Great find doc!! Thanks for sharing this. Always good to be reminded of the important stuff!
@Irez... anxious to hear how your lesson with him goes.
-
I just bought the whole video that this is a advertising for and it's the best $10 I've spend in a long time.
A lot of what Peter is saying is common sense, but sometimes we need to hear common sense from a great to whack us in the head.
-
I haven't watched the video yet but the title reminded of the three types of improvising over a tune
use the changes
use the key centres
or use the melody
then of course you could just disregard everything and go loose.
-
Peter Bernstein playing some beautiful Originally Posted by docbop
lines there ....
I don't think its very common sense .... !
play the chords absolutely , but at the same time
aim to play the important/distinctive parts
of the melody
I can't do it yet , but i can hear it and appreciate it in Peters playing
-
i think its great that this guy is a tune-addict. he reminds me of bill evans in this. a lot of his own work for the last few years has been on 'the repertoire' - duo's with piano - and solo guitar.
is that right?
-
you can play the opening refrain of this tune - the name of which escapes me - in such a way as the primary melodic phrase is embedded in 8ths or even 16ths - (you'd need rests too mind).
so there need be no conflict between playing lots of notes and embellishing/developing the melody. you allow crucial hinges in the tune to emerge through the 8ths or 16ths. and you can hear a bunch of those notes surrounding and supporting the melody without playing very many of them.
-
Nobody Else But Me. (it does very briefly say it in the opening titles). Originally Posted by Groyniad
Coincidentally another version by Peter has been posted in the thread of the same name (in the Chord Melody section).Last edited by grahambop; 01-24-2016 at 06:42 PM.
-
He was doing Small's a lot doing a solo and now he pops up over at Mezzrow instead since it's designed for singles, duo, and similar performers. He's done a solo album in a year or two ago. He's one of those can can fit in any type of performance. He mentions in the full video he can Jim Hall got to play a number of times and Jim Hall's last performance Peter played with him as part of the show. Originally Posted by Groyniad
Reply With Quote
dearmond 1100 reissue vs original which one is...
Today, 03:30 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos