-
An open invite for everyone to post practice exercises designed to improve time/feel, swing, rhythmic accuracy.
The more the merrier!
-
11-04-2015 10:10 PM
-
metronome on the last quaver triplet, metronome on the second quaver triplet, metronome on 2&4, 1&3, then only on 1, only on 2 only on 3 and then only on 4. on the and of 1&3 and then with 2&4. shifting semi-quavers is fun. 1e+a2e+a3e+a4e+aba1e+a2e+a3e+a4e+aba etc. The extra semiquaver at the end of the 4th bar shifts it. I love these sorts of rhythm games.
-
Attack of the semi-quavers
Chris, you know my practice technique, right?
The whole macro time idea of the beat every 2, 4, and 8 measures?
-
I haven't heard it. Could you go into it for me? Macro time sounds remiscent of feeling big beats, is it like that?
Originally Posted by Irez87
Attack of the semi-quavers
Chris, you know my practice technique, right?
The whole macro time idea of the beat every 2, 4, and 8 measures?
-
Check the Performance Ear Training Blog it's post #21
I did a couple of pod casts on the idea as well, but I took some of them down to make room for other stuff on my Sound Cloud.
Plus, I felt like it was only destinytot and a few other who were listening to them (thanks destinytot and few others )
Chris, thanks for listening to that Giant Steps pod cast, that was not easy to record. Singing Giant Steps is no joke for this bloke.
https://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/bands...-training.htmlLast edited by Irez87; 11-05-2015 at 12:01 AM.
-
A decent internal clock is something that's biological, but no matter where one is on the scale - arhythmic one end to James Brown doing the Boogaloo the other - it can always be improved/developed.
I've always thought I had a decent sense of time and rhythm (used to love dancing during my teens), but in the late 80s I got heavily into drum programming and eventually drumming. With respect to machines, when you play along to something that rigid, it really draws attention to flaws in your timing...so a lot of my 'fine tuning' came from playing to mechanical grooves as opposed to backing tracks featuring real musicians (where time is pushed and pulled). At no point did that ever make my playing mechanical, because when you play without a safety net (backing) you inevitably push and pull or gain/lose a little time...all part of being human. It did a lot for my timing, but it is limited...and because I no longer practice guitar, my technique lets me down, regardless of how solid my internal clock is (fingers don't want to move when they should).
As far as developing Swing, it's only young kids (teens...possibly early 20 somethings) where I'm noticing an inability to do this naturally. I think most generations have/had some cultural reference to Swing rhythm. It's only relatively recently that music has been almost totally straight. Even some hip-hop etc has incorporated Swing, helped along by '80s Go-Go (which was essentially funk with a half-time Swing feel...I loved Chuck Brown). Possibly the only course of action is to do nothing but listen to 'old' music. Drink from the font of Swing, so to speak. Learning to play triplet time only gets you so far, because (as I'm sure many of you know) Swing straightens as time/pulse deviates from mid-tempo: approaching straight 8ths as tempos get faster, and dotted 8th-16th at slow tempos).
As I mentioned in the other thread, Swing isn't something I've ever felt the need to work on. As a kid in the 70s there were so many corny musicals from the 30s 40s and 50s on TV, plus two Rock & Roll revivals (one at the beginning of the decade, the other the tail end), that Swing-type rhythm was just something I took for granted. The first album my brother bought in the early 70s was a best of Frank Sinatra job, which was the only record we owned for years! Again, it's all to do with environment...but that can be recreated, no matter what age you are. Intense listening to the 'good stuff'.Last edited by GuitarGerry; 11-05-2015 at 07:51 AM.
-
That's not my experience at all with students. In general most people don't swing and the age has nothing to do with that. I also find that they can all learn it but it takes long, and rarely is first on the list. I am also not sure how high I want to set the bar for a students ability to swing if we are talking about people who don't play music for a living. Originally Posted by GuitarGerry
Jens
-
I don't doubt you Jens. I haven't taught in over 20 years, so I'm the first to admit I'm not the best judge of students' abilities. What I will say is that as a kid, when I got together with other aspiring musicians of my generation or older, nobody had to explain swing...we just did it. A lot of my school friends who weren't musically inclined might have had a problem, but not players. And that's what I don't understand: when, even at amateur level, musicians can't grasp a basic swing groove immediately. Originally Posted by JensL
What I do pick up on nowadays are professional players who don't appear to have much concept of swing. Of course, there are many, many modern musicians who swing as well as the best (the vast majority I'd say), but some young kids don't seem to get it...even though they have phenomenal chops. I was watching a fusion kid the other day on youtube. Excellent player and a professional teacher, probably mid 20s, possibly older. All he did was the Coltrane 'sheets of sound' thing, in straight 16ths...all to a swing backing track. It sounded totally ridiculous. At fast tempos, by all means play straight, but not for a medium swing. It was like the kid just couldn't hear, or feel, the appropriate phrasing to go with the backing. Nil point.
I also hear a lot of drummers who play all the right rhythms, but somehow lack that magical quality called 'swing'. Partly the result of 'evolution' (it's just the modern way of playing), but quite a lot of it results from the taint of heavy rock music. Drummers are such heavy-hitters nowadays...even some of the older generation play harder than they used to. IMO you need a lightness of touch to play swing (at least when it comes to drumming). A lot of that seems to have been lost now that everyone goes through the PA and plays at ear-splitting volume.
Just my opinion (I'm sure others will disagree)...Last edited by GuitarGerry; 11-05-2015 at 03:03 PM.
-
Of course there is a difference with earlier that the musicians can get really good chops and learn all sorts of harmony etc without being exposed to swing. I am also out of a generation that did not grow up with a lot of jazz on the radio and if you didn't hear it you won't play it. That doesn't mean you can't learn it though and luckily a lot of music these days has a very pronounced feel which may not be swing but if you can do one you can also learn another. I don't think there is any real reason for despair with that. The average level of a musicians is also higher than it has ever been. Originally Posted by GuitarGerry
I am probably going to get in trouble for saying this... But in my opinion if you listen to a lot of the guitar players of the 50's then some of them don't have really good time and don't swing, or at least there are a lot of recordings where they don't play well in terms of timing. This was also dificult at that time even for people that we consider to be of a quite high level.
Jens
-
I've spent some time learning to play drum beats (like a second line beat) with my hands and feet, mimicking the different parts of kit drumming.
I've also spent time playing various 12/8 patterns with my hands, like you'd do for hand drumming, though I just use a desk/my leg, etc. Learning to play the "long" and "short" "bell patterns" is pretty fun and interesting, though I'm still not sure what, if any, effect this has had on my guitar playing.
Here's a nice page with the "modes" of the bell pattern. That's been fun and challenging for me.
Cruise Ship Drummer!: African bell pattern and its inversions
Here is the meat of that page.
-
Absolutely, especially drummers. Young kids are playing at a level that leaves some of the big names of the past in the dust. At least when it comes to technique (those 'old' guys still had the ideas and continue to inspire). Originally Posted by JensL
That's one of the reasons why I rejected a lot of guitar-based jazz when I started developing an ear for the music. The earlier guitarists always seemed a bit wooden and behind the times, compared with horn players and pianists. It's only relatively recently that I've been reevaluating that generation and realizing just how pioneering they were. Plus, they still have stuff to teach me. I shouldn't have been so dismissive (the arrogance of youth). Originally Posted by JensL
-
Stick with it. If nothing, it helps you to feel time in larger chunks. You're less likely to get lost. Plus, being able to hear and understand what drummers do (most musicians merely feel their presence), can aid you in terms of interacting with them and locking in with patterns. Either way, drumming improves you as a musician, helps your timing, makes you a better arranger...the list goes on. Originally Posted by dingusmingus
-
When doing chord melody, I like to work them as triplet etudes. To start: three 8th note triplets for every quarter note etc., to get all of the subdivisions in my ears. Then, two 8th-note triplets for every quarter, with "catch-up time" in between phrases. I might work a chorus of "ahead" phrases on this framework, then a chorus of "behind" phrases. See how far "out" I can take it without losing where I am in the measure/phrase. Of course, with CM, if you take the polyrhythms far enough, the given section of melody is going to somewhat "belong" to a different chord than the original, but I'm not there quite yet anyway.
Probably very much amateur stuff, and I am one in Jazz. But I hear so many guitarists who haven't even done this basic work of subdivision, phrasing and syncopation. I think that horn players and pianists already have so much of this stuff by the time they even arrive at Jazz.
Sadly, it appears that time is just so...not-a-guitar-thing.
-
Lots of good stuff. I would like to keep the post relatively short and non discursive so it's easier to peruse got interested parties. Rather than arguing a viewpoint here I just wanted to post some questions. I'll post my own thoughts here and there.
- how does does you time when scatting rythms compare with your playing. Are they the same? Do you find yourself suffering from the same issues or are they different?
- is metronome practice necessary? If so what are its primary uses? If you don't think so, why not?
- how do you understand rhythm? Do you break it down mathematically, and if so how? If not - also how? :-)
- how important is tempo stability?
- how do you define good feel? How is it related to accuracy of rhythmic execution?
- If the general sense of time/feel has changed, how important is that we recover elements of the past?
- what time/feel issues are associated with your technique/instrument and how can they be worked on?
- what elements of time/feel excellence are most likely to get you a gig? And where? With whom?
- whose time feel would you most like to have? what steps have you taken/can you take to emulate their process?
I have ideas about these (and more questions) but I'm interested in what others have to say.Last edited by christianm77; 11-05-2015 at 10:15 PM.
-
Here's something a little more practical for anyone who can't bothered with my last post.
I've got into this exercise suggested by Lee Konitz that players could work on synchronising their playing with their foot tapping. I like this because it involves synchronising the whole body and you often see players tapping their foot compulsively without necessarily being in synch with their playing.
In any case, I have enjoyed the results of this. I'm finding it makes me much more aware of slightly inaccurate rhythms. This exercise works well both with and without a metronome.
-
I'm inclined to agree, although without wanting to start a bitch fest I wouldn't mind knowing who you mean... Originally Posted by JensL
There are also players of later and earlier eras that I could say the same about. Nowadays most well known players I hear are highly accurate and metronomic, although few of them have the grease of a grant green or jaco pastorius.
Anyway, do you think this issue is a guitar thing? If so why?
For my part I certainly don't notice the same issues with pianists and sax players, let alone drummers and bassists.
-
Re scatting, there's no real difference in my time or amount of swing. However, when I play guitar I think in a 'guitaristic' way. When using a traditional jazz guitar tone, there often isn't enough sustain to pull off simple, melodic phrasing...and my 'scat' singing tends to be simple, so it doesn't always translate to the instrument.
Re metronome practice. Many players I've known who have issues with metronomes don't have the best timing. They're fine within the context of an ensemble, but their timing issues are often an unfair burden on the rest of a rhythm section. If you have someone who is constantly pushing the beat, you have to work harder to stop the music speeding up. Often when people object to metronomes, it's because they're unforgiving and highlight flaws in one's playing (similar to what I was talking about earlier re drum machines): you quickly discover that you're speeding up/slowing down and weren't even realising it. The more you work with them, the easier it becomes. Sticking them on all 4 beats never works for me though. I start to phrase mechanically/heavily when I do that. Check out 'bits and pieces' by the Dave Clark 5 and that's the feel you end up with. A simple 2 pulse (either on the beat or backbeats) helps me to 'breath'. If someone really can't work with them, then try mechanical drum tracks. Again, they're unforgiving, but at least it sounds more natural. I knew one guy who'd object to drum machines: "they make me sound out-of-time". No son, you're out of time!
Re understand rhythm, as someone who drums I understand it mathematically. However, as a guitarist and musician, I think in terms of melody. Many Jazz drummers do, incidentally. Far too many drummers just think in terms of rhythmic cells...and it shows in their playing. Big picture approach is always more musical IMO and the best jazz drummers do that (they're always thinking of the melody and phrasing to support it).
Re solid rhythm. Arguably, it's not crucial in a live performance, because increases/decreases in tempo are all part of a dynamic performance. However, it's vital to be able to hold-down steady time and something that one should be able to do. Especially in a pop/rock context.
Re 'good feel'. Depends on the 'instrument'. If we're talking singers and horn-players playing lyrically, then I prefer a relaxed feel and phrasing. When it comes to drummers, either directly on the beat or a slightly relaxed feel. Depends on the music. Up-tight blues drummers sound wrong to my ears. Regardless of the feel you use, what you play should be able to stand alone rhythmically. If someone can't hear logic to your phrasing, or feel the basic pulse, it's just BS IMO.
"If the general sense of time/feel has changed, how important is that we recover elements of the past?"
Not important at all if you're revamping old music and making it sound modern. But to stick to 'old' conventions and not respect them seems pointless. That Fusion guy I mentioned could easily have arranged the backing for a Latin feel, or sappy funk groove. By playing along to what was obviously Swing, and not being able to phrase in the style, just sounded wrong/awful to my ears. It's not swing, don't pretend it is.
Also, just because some guitarists were a little wooden in the past, doesn't excuse any of us from playing that way. As I mentioned above, I rejected a lot of the Bop guitarists when I was younger. Instead I listened to horn players and pianists. They became my inspiration. Their phrasing was what I tried to emulate. Whether I was successful or not is another matter entirely, of course, but I don't think we should accept the limitations of our technique or the instrument. Certainly we shouldn't use them as an excuse not to swing.
"what time/feel issues are associated with your technique/instrument and how can they be worked on?"
Can't really answer that one, because I'm badly out of practice. I play mainly with my thumb so a lot of my phrasing was less percussive. That alone avoids a lot of wooden phrasing...in theory!
"what elements of time/feel excellence are most likely to get you a gig? And where? With whom?"
We mostly play rhythm, so it's important to be able to lock in with a rhythm section and have steady time. That's far more important than flowing phrasing etc. At the end of the day, we can elect not to take solos. Nobody will really care about you not soloing if you're a hot rhythm player (and by 'hot' I don't mean my gorgeous, shapely legs).
"whose time feel would you most like to have? what steps have you taken/can you take to emulate their process?"
I'm at an age where I don't purposely emulate anyone anymore. I've got my own thing going and it's good enough for me. At some point you have to find your 'own' voice (it never is you own, of course, because no man is an island. I did emulate people in the past. Mostly blues guitarists when I was young. I've always liked their lyrical approach...and that's one of the things I found hard about jazz guitarists of a certain generation. All a bit plinky-plonky (at least it was to my ears at the time). So, most of the jazz artists I emulated were sax players: late-period Ornette, Shorter, Parker by default (I worked through his transcriptions, even though he wasn't my favourite player). I've always listened to vocal music and I prefer a lot of vocal phrasing...not that it translates to the guitar necessarily. I was also drawn to guys/gals who used motifs and had a strong rhythmic sense. Either in their solos or compositions. Monk & Mingus spring to mind.
Sorry about the earlier distractions, hopefully this compensates (regardless of whether you agree with any of it, it's a start)Last edited by GuitarGerry; 11-06-2015 at 06:18 AM.
-
Two myths here, Gerry:
1. No one is born with good rhythm. You LEARN good rhythm from the music that you listen to growing up. If you listen to hip hop and funk, your straight eighths will be on point. Jazz, and you got the swing, baby.I suck at math and spatial awareness, but my time feel is solid cause I developed it like everyone else.
My mom is from Northern Africa (Morocco). Saying that I naturally have good rhythm is still intrinsically racist if you dig deep enough into the "compliment".
I learned and continue to learn good rhythm from listening and studying good rhythmic music, hip hop included.
2. Yes, the guitar has a different sustain than the trumpet. But Miles Davis once said that he got a lot of inspiration from Charlie Christian. If you narrow your conception to just your instrument, your musical conception will be even narrower.
You LIKE (caps are not yelling in my post, my fonts don't work right on the forum) that type of time feel. You probably love Herb Ellis, Bill DeArrango, Barney Kessel, and CC. Am I correct? There's nothing wrong with that. I love them too, but I also love Jim Hall, Gilad Hekselman, and Peter Bernstein.
But saying that you have to play guitaristic because of the nature of the guitar is like saying:
"Well, Coleman Hawkings always played with a Dark and Breathy tone. That guy Lester Young's got it all wrong, he sounds like a child playing a toy"
... See how ridiculous THAT sounds?
Play what moves you, just don't spread myths
Dig?
I'm not attacking, but this dialogue could get misinterpreted and get offensive. Know what I'm saying?
You sound like a cool dude, a guy worth grabbing a lager with. As a teacher myself, I don't like erroneous information, especially if it hurts others via generalization.Last edited by Irez87; 11-06-2015 at 07:08 AM.
-
Irez, I honestly believe that some people are better than others at keeping time. It's genetic, and nothing to do with race or anything. Just as some people are better at throwing a ball more accurately/further than the next person (pro sports players). Sure, there's that crap going around that 10000 hours is all you need to become a professional musician/whatever. Yet when we look at all the guys who've put in the hours, we can still come to some agreement about who is more natural in their playing. Even if we can't, there are clearly differences between players at the top. Differences that we may or may not like. So it's BS. There is a genetic component too. Originally Posted by Irez87
In my family, my brother has good time & rhythm. He doesn't work at it at all (he's not a professional musician). It's just something he's always had and takes for granted. Conversely, I've known a few musicians who no matter what, simply don't have natural ability when it comes to keeping time or generating musical phrases. They can improve, but they're not naturals.
As for people with good rhythm, it's not merely a matter of exposure to music from an early age, or starting early. As part of research for a book I've written I read a huge amount about the Indian barber-musician tradition (my book is about barber-musicians). Their profession used to be hereditary and music formed part of their job remit. Most of them, simply because they started so young, were reasonably proficient at playing their instruments by the time they'd reached maturity. Self-fulfilling prophesy: a result of the caste system. Yet within their occupation there are/were virtuosos who went on to become professional musicians and also others who were barely passable as musicians, or had little or no aptitude. They had to continue as musicians because it was part of their tradition, so it wasn't a case of giving up, or not trying harder. Some were/are more gifted than others. That's life, we make the most of what we're given (biologically).
The barber-musician tradition is something that was once universal (pretty much). Even in the US. During the antebellum era, a huge number of barbers in the Americas (not just the US) were African Americans. Mostly former slaves. Traditionally they were musicians. Like Indian barbers, it was part and parcel of being a barber - a job that was almost hereditary. For every virtuoso (and there were many), there were some who were barely adequate. Again, nothing to do with race (the racist cliche 'all blacks have good rhythm').
I will concede that if you have a healthy folk culture that fosters people to engage in music from an early age, then you have a healthy, regional musical-tradition. That doesn't make everyone outstanding though. Even if kids brought up in that environment are above (world/national, other regional) average, you still have people who excel, or find the 'subject' easier than others.
In closing, we are born with rhythm. All of us have built in time. Listen to your heart-beat...we all have rhythm within us. It is biological, and the way we respond to rhythm is biological.Last edited by GuitarGerry; 11-06-2015 at 08:11 AM.
-
I think you come across it in all instruments actually especially in that period, and probably for numerous reasons. Originally Posted by christianm77
Don't forget that a lot of people had good time too. I have never heard Charlie Christian or Django sound rushing or unintentional sloppy. Jim Hall's time is made of iron, that guy is unbelievable on practically anything I've heard. All the Jimmy Raney stuff I've heard was also solid.
Jens
-
As a multisubject teacher, I have to be fluent in all subject areas. That's why I mentioned mathematics and spatial awareness, that is how the brain usually processes time and rhythm, no?
But I am also more of a Nurture than Nature type of guy.
When we use hard science to explain what is still a bit of a mystery to us, the human brain, even with all the studies in neuroscience, we run into problems with our own humanity.
Look at how science has been used in the past to support the insanity of racism.
I love science, it caters to the imagination at it's best. 2001, A Space Odyssey is still one of the best sci-fi movies along with the original Alien. I was in an astronomy class with Michio Kaku, holy shiiittte, that was the most intellectual fun I've ever had.
That being said, my favorite author of all time will always be RALPH ELLISON.
Read Invisible Man, then read his short stories. That man knew more about everything than anyone I've ever meet or heard about on TV. I wish I could have taken a time machine back to the past and interviewed that brilliant author...
So I see both sides, but I am a strong believer in nurture over nature. That's just how I roll.Last edited by Irez87; 11-06-2015 at 08:24 AM.
-
Irez, reread my post. I specifically said that I rejected guitar music in favour of horn players, singers and pianists. I also said that I tried to emulate horn players. I have never narrowed my conception of music to just the guitar. Quite the reverse (I barely own any guitar music, compared with the rest of my music collection). What I did say, is that my scat singing and guitar playing are different. Granted, unfortunate use of terminology when I said 'guitaristic'. Not sure what other term I could have used. 'Instrumentalistic'? I certainly find lack of sustain a limitation of the non-overdriven guitar..and I find it easier to imitate the more 'cluttered' playing of horn players that the guys who go for long sustained notes. Personal shortcomings? So be it. Originally Posted by Irez87
-
I was very much so when I was your age as well. It's a little alarming how much is determined by genetics the more I experience life. (I think I have about 15 years on you.) Originally Posted by Irez87
I've had my own little science experiment going as a stepfather of one and bio-father of three. Mind-boggling how things which were never taught by stepparent or the biological other half appear from the missing biological parent. Also see a lot of things from my mother which skipped a generation and appear in my children.
I think most of the science points towards balance, if not weighing a little heavily on they nature side.
The strong "need" to believe in the ability of human nature to be changed or shaped is a good thing I think, especially when you're young. It says something about your belief in people. I wouldn't deprive you of it , as I wouldn't have wished anyone else to deprive me of it either.
-
11-06-2015, 10:39 AM #24destinytot Guest
"Syncopate the silence."
1. Sing/say the lyrics repeatedly while a clapping/tapping out a steady rhythm, but remove random words/phrases while maintaining the rhythm. (Kids enjoy a variant of that with "Head and shoulders, knees and clap/tap")
2. Same - but instead of clapping/tapping, use some kind of external reference for rhythm.
3. Same - but this time play/produce sound to fill the spaces.
-
Haha, I don't think there is much chance of forgetting that as those are guys I listen to all the time. Although Jimmy Raney is not someone I have listened to as much as I should... Originally Posted by JensL
Django raises an interesting issue though. He is not what I would think of as a swinging guitar player in the cc sense, but you wouldn't say he has poor time. Have you checked out Oscar Aleman, Jens? I think it makes for an interesting contrast.
Reply With Quote
dearmond 1100 reissue vs original which one is...
Today, 03:30 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos