George Benson's approach to playing chord changes

[christianm77]

I've found that different 'musical geniuses' have pretty differing views on this whole thinking thing. Some say they're not thinking. Others scoff at those that say that and will tell you if course they're all thinking. I've even heard one guy say that he doesn't like the sound of a player when it sounds like he's not thinking and just letting his fingers lead. He prefers to play (and listen to guys who play) where the intellect is very much in play.

Well it takes all sorts to make a world. I'd be interested to know who you are talking about.

Letting your fingers lead is not what I talking about. That's just empty muscle memory, and I'm as keen to avoid it in my playing as 'the guy' you mentioned is. I want to play new things by instinct in the moment, not just things I've practiced.

This can happen, because it has happened to me on rare occasions. I have become a conduit for music - I hope that doesn't sound massively pretentious because it's the only way I can describe it.

To me it all seems like a personal taste type of issue.

Eh? What? Are you even on the internet? :-)

I think it gets very confusing for music students. It falls into the pedagogical problem of the 'descriptive' / 'prescriptive' confusion. I've met a lot of musicians in my life who hear their musical hero say 'I don't think when I play'...and the student takes that to be a prescription for playing that way...when really it's more of a description of a particular state that musician goes into. It would be like if a hungry person watched someone through a window after gorging their self at a Thanksgiving feast. They might see that person burping a lot, reclining in their chair, and unbuttoning their pants. But no matter how many times the hungry person tries all these things out, it will never make him feel full.

As has been pointed out...Benson and all the other geniuses out there have put in crazy time and effort to their craft. Some of them may turn their thinking off, others may not....but it shouldn't be confused as anything more than a descriptive state of what they're experiencing.

I I loved reading that story about the guys in his band saying he went back to his hotel room after performing to keep practicing. Seems like we hear stories like that about all the greats. Very humanizing.

I like your metaphor. 'Not thinking' is only possible with the correct preparation.

On the whole I hate thinking in performance. I think it is the Enemy, and it kills music. Don't practice on the bandstand.

I believe it is always possible to tell when a musician is playing intellectually.

But - what might be a fun experiment is if you send some links of players - some who you know to be 'intellectual' and some who are not, and see if we can actually spot the difference. If you'd be up for this, it might be worth a separate thread. Game?

[targuit]

Perhaps it is also a matter of semantics - from dictionary.com :
the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.

Thinking may imply different things to different individuals. No one is suggesting that human master musicians are inert lumps of clay. They are sentient human beings, capable of thought and intentional actions. But, to use the song Body and Soul as an example, if you are playing and singing the tune as you go measure by measure along, of course you are not playing random notes or chords on the finger board. But if you are a guitarist at a certain level, you hear melody and harmony in your mind and your fingers powered by neurological impulses to their muscles execute your intention. It is not a question of this scenario.

"Ok - first measure I play Ebm7 and then Bb9, second measure Ebm7 and Ab7, third measure Dbmaj7 and Gb7 ....."

I mean, you might be reading off a lead sheet, but if you are recording or in performance, you cannot stop to think "Now, should I finger the Edim7 at the sixth fret or in the first position?" You have to follow where the melody, chords and especially the voice leading suggest. If that is "thinking" to you, then yes, you are thinking as you perform. I tend to regard that as "listening" and reacting. Maybe it is more an issue of semantics. Though that is a ballad and can be played at a leisurely tempo, some tunes at allegro tempos go by too fast to "think about" the changes.

In the pre-performance woodshed, of course you have the leisure of reflecting on what you intend to play in performance and to practice until you are satisfied you can pull the tune off smoothly. But in performance you have to be in the moment and totally absorbed in the music. That is why I call that moment "listening" rather than "thinking". Semantics.

[destinytot]

'Not thinking' is only possible with the correct preparation.

On the whole I hate thinking in performance. I think it is the Enemy, and it kills music. Don't practice on the bandstand.

+1

[targuit]

Somebody please check out Costa Lukacs on YT. I would link a few of his videos, but I don't want to disrupt the flow of the thread. His solo playing is an excellent example of a master musician executing what he surely has practiced hundreds of times, but in the moment he is absorbed in the music. He becomes the vessel.

I also suggested that his ballad playing has something in common with George Benson and Joe Pass for that matter. Sensibility and technical excellence.

[West LA Jazz]

Tag,

I've enjoyed reading some of your posts from back in 2011. It's fun to see people trying to decipher George.

One thing he's said that seems so simple, is so true, and yet so hard to uncover is this saying of his:

"Everything Works!"

I can see how the cynical would say yeah that helps me a lot, :-) But he's right... harmonically almost anything can be made to work, via tension release, but it depends on where you start and how you navigate to the strong notes, rhythmically speaking. So much of George's genius is in his timing too, as many have observed.

I cracked up when I saw him talk about his father teaching him the chromatic scale, as he fingers up a scale "ba, ba, ba ba" "But Dad, what can you do with that?" "I realized he meant that every note is related to the root".

I see such beauty in that, not just musical truth but also a metaphysical reflection on Reality. Meaning that all eventually returns to the Root of all that is.

Peace,
Breezin78'

Very true. Apparently, Howard Roberts used to say "there is no wrong note,… unless of course you play a wrong note".
Initially sounds strange until the truth reveals itself to you (or me). ;-)

[MarkRhodes]

If you can't play while thinking about what your playing.... you're not going to be able to play when not thinking about it.

Well, Reg, that's another thing I've heard you say that I never heard anyone else say. ) This is now my 'thought for the day.' Thanks!

[christianm77]

@jordanklemons and targuit

Further thoughts (I had a swim. My stroke is not yet practiced enough to become completely automatic, but I still find myself making connections when I exercise.) These are not specific response, more idle thoughts.

*What is thinking? Do we mean the same thing?
*Muscle memory is important for music. No-one can play without some automatic element to their playing.
*Is mindfulness in performance the same thing as thinking? (I would say not?)
*Shaping intention is an important part of the improvising process. For example it is common to advise an improvisation student to start with a strong statement, and most of the great solos, if not all, have this. This implies shaping intent at the outset.
*There is always an element of decision making in performance. Is this this conscious thought? For example, you might follow Miles Davis' advice 'finish it before it's ended' - in this case, is this a conscious shaping thought during performance?
*Practice can be focussed around the mastering of set material or the development of processes to create music. There is a lot of stuff in the middle.
*Practice can involve practicing 'non-thinking' as well as engaging in more intellectual forms of work.
*What is the interplay between 'distracted concentration' (as it is described by Hal Galper) and mindfulness (which I perhaps incorrectly think involves more of a focussed concentration or absorption).

In this case perhaps there is a meta-level where some conscious intention can in fact shape the more intuitive element of 'just playing.'

Hopefully, some here have some specific ideas relating to these points.

[targuit]

To me mindfulness while playing music is 'being in the moment'. It stands to reason that no matter how mindful a beginner or even intermediate guitarist is during a performance, if they don't yet have the chops, they will not execute music at the level of a more advanced musician. So mindfulness to me is a state of concentration and intention but also a state of receptivity or 'listening' to the musical voices in your mind as well as bandmates if that is the case.

[mr. beaumont]

Very true. Apparently, Howard Roberts used to say "there is no wrong note,… unless of course you play a wrong note".
Initially sounds strange until the truth reveals itself to you (or me). ;-)

It's funny, but profound too...

Intent is SO important when it comes to sounding good. Play it like ya mean it, they say.

[destinytot]

If you can't play while thinking about what your playing.... your not going to be able to play when not thinking about it.

Thinking based on 'feel' - making choices? (Not the same as hesitation.)

[Tag101]

So many interesting thoughts.

On the thinking, I would say everyone thinks a little bit at times. Back to the old analogy of it being like talking. The best players have the largest vocabulary of things they have digested, and play them at will, no thought needed, just as when we are writing on this thread. I am not thinking about the words i am typing right now at all, they are just coming out at the speed of thought. Still, now and then, I have to think of the right wording, or think of where my next thought is going to lead me. When I am playing at a level i am comfortable with, it is EXACTLY the same thing. When I am pushing myself to the limit, I am thinking a lot more, and when I am playing a new song, or one i am not familiar with, I am thinking a LOT. It seems to me to be the same thing. No difference at all, other than the keyboard here is my guitar that my thoughts, lines and feelings have to go through before anyone else can read (hear) them. When you learn new words, its fun to use them, but it can be a bit forced when you first do it, and you have to think some time ahead as to how to place them. After you do it over and over, its second nature, and you never think about it again.

[Breezin78]

Yeah whatever it is, thinking or not thinking, one thing for sure I've realized from my transcribing is this: George's trick bag is VERY deep. Patterns emerge when you analyze his note choice over several pieces, and what becomes clear is that the sheer number of them can create the appearance that some kind of spontaneous generation is happening, but my money is on the bet that George actually took the time to craft each one of these lines and then to memorize them one by one, until he had 100s of them. I'll give you a quote from one of his interviews:

"I used to practice so much. I have a theory that if you practice a hundred things, you'll remember 10%. So if you practice 1000 things, you'll remember 100. So that was a lot of things. I found out hat a lot of what I was saying - thinking, was true. I knew that I could never run out of ideas..."

There, straight from the King's mouth...

[Groyniad]

look guys the whole - do you think when you're playing or not - thing just gets nowhere - every time it comes up

the best way to see why is to reflect on the very tight analogy between jazz improvisation and talking

you can talk to someone (or a larger audience) more or less thoughtfully - but that does not mean you are doing two things (you don't have time for that!). to speak thoughtfully is to speak in a certain way - carefully, constantly keeping close to your theme etc.; to speak thoughtlessly is to speak in a certain way - carelessly, babbling, unconcerned about the order and flow of one's thoughts. thoughtful speech is NOT ordinary speech accompanied by something extra going on in your head. (gilbert ryle is famous for making these points - in the late 40's early 50's - 'the concept of mind').

if you're talking about a difficult topic then you will need to speak thoughtfully (unless you know the difficult topic inside-out) - if you're talking about the price of eggs or the recent weather perhaps you won't. the first case is not talking plus something - an inner performance of some (mysterious) kind - and neither is the second. they're both ways of talking

when we speak effortlessly to someone in the street we are deploying an extraordinary world of words and applying an extraordinary world of rules for their proper combination - and none of this requires explicit reflection. if it did we would not be able to speak much at all. that we don't think about vocabulary or grammar and syntax much or at all when we talk (even very very thoughtfully) doesn't mean we aren't really using a vocabulary and applying rules of grammar (even if - as is true with most of us - we couldn't talk about them at all even if we tried really hard).

to speak well - off the cuff - is something it takes a great deal of deep-education to be able to do. speaking well is a matter of being able to develop a difficult theme without repetition or obfuscation, without being boring or too difficult to follow, without being dull and without acting like a clown. the deep-education it requires must itself involve lots and lots of talking (i.e. you can't learn everything there is to know about contemporary politics and never say or write a word about it and then expect to be able to speak or write well about it).

also, people who are really really good at talking in an interesting and engaging way don't just talk about anything (politics, fish, ancient greece, jazz, food, hinduism, the nitrogen cycle, the super-ego, chicago) they have specializations that they can talk so engagingly about because they've been learning how to talk about them for years and years and years.

we don't invent our own words or our own rules for combining them - but when we get good, pretty much everything we say of any note at all, expresses our own unique character and style.

if we give a 'talk' and we've prepared everything we're going to say beforehand and either learn it all by rote or write it all down and read it out, its likely to feel stale and lifeless - even if it is better structured than it would have been if we'd just made it up as we went along after getting to know our theme really really well.

so what we're all trying to do as jazz players is learn to 'talk' off the cuff about all sorts of really full-on things - but in such a way as to be both interesting/insightful/original AND casual/relaxed/off-hand even

it takes even more thought and care to learn how to talk casually and breezily about seriously significant stuff than it does to learn how to talk in a careful and considered (i.e. obviously thoughtful) way about seriously significant stuff.

this is a better framework within which to think about the role of thought in jazz improvisation than the typical one (which keeps on an on asking whether something is or isn't going on in the players head at the time he is improvising).

[destinytot]

I broadly agree with Groyniad, but - with regard to the OP - I consider it very important indeed to recognise that it's Benson's very use of language that has enabled him to prevail.

From Wikipedia:
"According to Bernstein in Class, Codes and Control (1971):
Forms of spoken language in the process of their learning initiate, generalize and reinforce special types of relationship with the environment and thus create for the individual particular forms of significance (p.76).
That is to say that the way language is used within a particular societal class affects the way people assign significance and meaning to the things about which they are speaking "

Benson's approach to playing changes has allowed him to elevate popular music - where jazz has its roots - to an art. Talk about 'register and style'.

[Reg]

Nice... So I still choose to think about what I'm playing, or might be playing... I may play off the cuff, but generally I'm reacting, interacting etc... to and with other musicians. I'm making very conscious choices of what I'm playing.

So from...

"so what we're all trying to do as jazz players is learn to 'talk' off the cuff about all sorts of really full-on things - but in such a way as to be both interesting/insightful/original AND casual/relaxed/off-hand even

it takes even more thought and care to learn how to talk casually and breezily about seriously significant stuff than it does to learn how to talk in a careful and considered (i.e. obviously thoughtful) way about seriously significant stuff."

I take it you believe thinking is going on?

Here's a thought...
When your still getting you shit together... one thought(s) may be about four bars.... maybe one bar...maybe just the moment your in... but eventually... one thought becomes the complete tune.... maybe a hundred versions of that complete tune... that's closer to being in the moment. That one moment has all the possible versions of the tune you've played before... all the possible versions of that tune you've thought about playing before... and any reaction to what someone else might have played etc...

I still believe I'm thinking about what I'm playing... I could just react, but I have the time while playing to think about and make choices, there are always lots of choices of what to play...

If I was playing say that version of "Old Devil Moon" that destinytot posted above. I would first think... hey the tunes in C not F and the basic groove is I bVII instead or I V- And then during GB's solo section... hey I could take that groove to a few basic harmonic targets... the bass line etc... could imply the obvious Cmin , F dominant, the II V, C- to F7... or I could play off Bb maj in a bluesy style... All this takes is an instant... right, the time it tales to push one key when typing.
All in the GB style of V I etc...

[destinytot]

Nice... So I still choose to think about what I'm playing, or might be playing... I may play off the cuff, but generally I'm reacting, interacting etc... to and with other musicians. I'm making very conscious choices of what I'm playing.

So from...

"so what we're all trying to do as jazz players is learn to 'talk' off the cuff about all sorts of really full-on things - but in such a way as to be both interesting/insightful/original AND casual/relaxed/off-hand even

it takes even more thought and care to learn how to talk casually and breezily about seriously significant stuff than it does to learn how to talk in a careful and considered (i.e. obviously thoughtful) way about seriously significant stuff."

I take it you believe thinking is going on?

Here's a thought...
When your still getting you shit together... one thought(s) may be about four bars.... maybe one bar...maybe just the moment your in... but eventually... one thought becomes the complete tune.... maybe a hundred versions of that complete tune... that's closer to being in the moment. That one moment has all the possible versions of the tune you've played before... all the possible versions of that tune you've thought about playing before... and any reaction to what someone else might have played etc...

I still believe I'm thinking about what I'm playing... I could just react, but I have the time while playing to think about and make choices, there are always lots of choices of what to play...

If I was playing say that version of "Old Devil Moon" that destinytot posted above. I would first think... hey the tunes in C not F and the basic groove is I bVII instead or I V- And then during GB's solo section... hey I could take that groove to a few basic harmonic targets... the bass line etc... could imply the obvious Cmin , F dominant, the II V, C- to F7... or I could play off Bb maj in a bluesy style... All this takes is an instant... right, the time it tales to push one key when typing.
All in the GB style of V I etc...

I'd call that mastery.

[princeplanet]

Hmm, things to "think" about, let's see...

- what I'm gonna do here (pre fab chunk)

- when/how I'm going to start it,

- when/how to end current pre fab chunk

- leave silence or keep playing?

- if "joining" to another prefab chunk, which note do I target (presuming I have practiced starting specific chunk at all chord tones)

- if i need to fill in notes between the end and start of chunks, will I dither, encircle, approach etc? (hard to always nail it !)

- And a fun one- Don't play any chunks here! just free wheel, and, er, "Play what you hear!"


So yeah, I agree with Reg (I think) if he means that much of the thinking only takes a nanosecond, the "thoughts" are just "triggers" for inserting prefab material for much of the time during soloing. If I'm brave I can free wheel more which forces me to consider every note, but that slows me way down and often leads me astray... Sure I can get better at it, but I actually want to also get better at stringing chunks together as well.

[Groyniad]

words don't just fall out of your mouth without your having anything to do with it (like puke when you're really ill) - you can try to spout gobbledygook i suppose - if you do it feels very odd very quickly.

so even the least thoughtful talking still involves thought (amazing amounts of it in a way) - but not as an inner accompaniment to the words (as if, first you say it to yourself, then you translate it into public language and start making articulate noises). that's a terrible way to describe what we're all doing when we talk meaningfully to one another.

just as we all know how to ask questions, tell jokes, answer questions, greet, warn, inform, promise, insinuate, compliment, insult, commend, ridicule, welcome - and we know, occasion by occasion, how to do these things without thinking carefully about them (i.e. we never warn when we meant to welcome, or promise when we meant to ask a question etc.) - just as we know how to do all those things simply because we are competent speakers of the language, so we know how to play a short intro, play an answering phrase, embellish, add a fill, harmonize, resolve an idea quickly or delay the resolution, play an ending phrase etc. etc. without thinking carefully about what we're doing - and we just know how to do such thing simply because we've been listening and playing the music for a decent amount of time.


a skilled lecturer can plan an hour of talking about something crazy she knows terribly well in the 2 mins it takes to walk from her office to the lecture-hall. a skilled improviser can 'plan' 16 bars in the time it takes to breath in before the first measure starts.

and we should not confuse thinking about or when you're playing with singing or pre-hearing what you're playing. everyone good, even when playing with total abandon, pre-hears or sings what they're playing before/as they're playing it. not to would be the equivalent of talking without having any idea at all what you wanted to say!!!

[MarkRhodes]

words don't just fall out of your mouth without your having anything to do with it (like puke when you're really ill) - you can try to spout gobbledygook i suppose - if you do it feels very odd very quickly.

so even the least thoughtful talking still involves thought (amazing amounts of it in a way) - but not as an inner accompaniment to the words (as if, first you say it to yourself, then you translate it into public language and start making articulate noises). that's a terrible way to describe what we're all doing when we talk meaningfully to one another.

Jon, I'm glad you made this point so strongly. All too often when the analogy of improvising-as-speech is used, the user forgets how thoughtful apt speech is! (And how exasperating thoughtless speech can be. "I dunno, whadda YOU wanna do?")

[targuit]

One might point out that playing a phrase with a guitar is NOT speech.

[MarkRhodes]

One might point out that playing a phrase with a guitar is NOT speech.

Everyone knows that. That is why this would be an analogy. ("Music is the universal language," for example.)

[Flyin' Brian]

One might point out that playing a phrase with a guitar is NOT speech.

No but in both cases, the more advanced and inclusive the vocabulary, the more distinct and interesting the outcome.

[christianm77]

I don't know, might be fun to try and play a dissertation about fish.

[Groyniad]

melodies aren't about things in the way that sentences are

so there are very important problems with the analogy between playing music and speaking

but there are all sorts of ways in which articulating the analogy can help avoid making the most obvious mistakes about what we're doing when we play music

people who don't improvise tend to think that either you're making it all up 'from nothing' or you're just playing exercises or patterns learned by rote. that's a false dichotomy.

even the most original speaker (say a crazy cool poet) is using words and applying rules for combining them he hasn't invented - and he also hasn't invented or created what he's talking about either

having said that - crazy cool poets (shakespeare is the leading example) kind of re-invent the language they use in using it!!! and so do crazy cool players (armstrong and parker are surely the leading examples here)

[grahambop]

One might point out that playing a phrase with a guitar is NOT speech.

Sometimes the guitar can talk - check out Albert Collins at 4 mins 0 secs here!