New Tim Lerch interview/lesson: Ask Zac/Truetone Lounge

[ruger9]

I tried to time-stamp the link to take you to the part of the video, but the forum software doesn't work for that, so FFWD to 18:24 where Tim explains "chord melody" to someone who maybe doesn't really know what it is, and it's the best (and easiest to absorb) "lesson" on it I've ever seen... keep in mind, I am not an accomplished jazz player... but many times I try to watch lessons online, it just doesn't "sink in" for me for some reason... Tim's does.

Cool interview, just rewind to watch the whole thing.

I need to get a CC neck pickup for the new tele I have on order...

[Tal_175]

If I may contextualize, his gentle introduction to chord-melody is intended to be as unintimidating as possible for the rock guitarists. He is showing one of the three common approaches to teaching this style. He doesn't actually teach this way to jazz guitarists. I'll come back to this.

The big picture is most performers do not know much about arranging regardless of the instrument. The type of music most guitar players listen to isn't solo guitar but ensemble music where guitar parts often simple. Simple enough that one can start playing these parts one year (or less) after picking up the instrument. Pianists typically start by learning difficult solo pieces. But most pianists don't know how make solo arrangements either, they just play other people's arrangements.

Arrangement isn't just a solo guitar skill but it's just as importantly an accompaniment skill. Actually a lot of popular music is arranged by skilled producers or A-list studio musicians like Tom Bukovac and they are far more interesting and sophisticated than just hitting cowboy grips. These arrangement ideas actually can translate to solo guitar in those styles or accompaniment within smaller groups so it's a mystery why guitar players aren't more curious about solo arranging and think of it as a jazz thing.

[Tal_175]

Oh right, I was saying I'll come back to the common approaches. It's unfortunate there isn't a standardized pedagogy for teaching arrangement on guitar. In the jazz context it's typically taught by first showing a bunch of chord voicings and inversions for various chord types. Then you learn to harmonize any note with any chord using a voicing that puts the melody on top. Then you learn about passing chords and substitutions. Then reharmonization ideas using back cycling, secondary dominants, diminished theory. That's also how Tim Lerch teaches in his courses. For anyone who knows a handful of jazz standards, all this is demonstrable in a few pages. But for musicians who aren't interested in playing jazz standards, triads are more suitable.

The third approach is creating voicings and harmonic motion from the 6 diminished scales.

All the approaches are heavy on learning the fretboard. People confuse that with theory. Theory is a child's play compared to the fretboard. A tiny bit of theory means months of fretboard work if one wants to be able to employ it. The thing is most guitarists don't have the patience to put in the work.

[ruger9]

If I may contextualize his gentle introduction to chord-melody intended to be as unintimidating as possible to the rock guitarists,

.

No wonder I was able to understand it and have it sink in so easily. It's amazing how a simple change in teaching (the "angle" with which you teach, what "perception" you are giving the learner) can make all the difference in the world.

[Christian Miller]

Oh right, I was saying I'll come back to the common approaches. It's unfortunate there isn't a standardized pedagogy for teaching arrangement on guitar. In the jazz context it's typically taught by first showing a bunch of chord voicings and inversions for various chord types. Then you learn to harmonize any note with any chord using a voicing that puts the melody on top. Then you learn about passing chords and substitutions. Then reharmonization ideas using back cycling, secondary dominants, diminished theory. That's also how Tim Lerch teaches in his courses. For anyone who knows a handful of jazz standards, all this is demonstrable in a few pages. But for musicians who aren't interested in playing jazz standards, triads are more suitable.

The third approach is creating voicings and harmonic motion from the 6 diminished scales.

All the approaches are heavy on learning the fretboard. People confuse that with theory. Theory is a child's play compared to the fretboard. A tiny bit of theory means months of fretboard work if one wants to be able to employ it. The thing is most guitarists don't have the patience to put in the work.

Another approach is two part counterpoint, bass and melody, then filled in with inner voices. Kreisberg and Martin Taylor teach this way.

All are compatible with each other and build on other stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tal_175]

Another approach is two part counterpoint, bass and melody, then filled in with inner voices. Kreisberg and Martin Taylor teach this way.

All are compatible with each other and build on other stuff.

Yeah, that's the first of the three approaches I was referring to. That's the approach Tim Lerch shows in the video. Harmonizing the melody just with the bass first where the bass is mostly based on the root and the fifth. Then fill in the middle voices by ear. This is also the basis of Randy Vincent's three note voicings.

[slabboardsam]

I don't understand how Lerch has achieved the kind of traction he seems to have...He's the most ordinary player and yet he seems to have an avid following.
I guess the enthusiast/amateur/hobbyist crowd, who can't really tell, think he's great.
Thus it has ever been.

Yeah, what jazz definitely needs is fewer people representing it and introducing its concepts to a wider audience via accessible channels.

[JazzIsGood]

I'm an avid jazz fan, I listen to jazz every day (guitar and also some horns/piano players). I think Lerch is a very good player. He has really good melody and swing feel. Super fluid chord melodies too. He has nice touch and sounds better than any of the other popular teachers on YouTube IMO. I could see fans of modern or fusion not liking him, but I listen to straight ahead jazz so he's right up my alley.

I saw this interview in my feed but didn't click it because this Ask Zac guy is kinda annoying. His "please like and subscribe" speech is very long so I stopped clicking on him after one or two times checking him out.

I don't understand how Lerch has achieved the kind of traction he seems to have...He's the most ordinary player and yet he seems to have an avid following.
I guess the enthusiast/amateur/hobbyist crowd, who can't really tell, think he's great.
Thus it has ever been.

[Christian Miller]

Yeah, that's the first of the three approaches I was referring to. That's the approach Tim Lerch shows in the video. Harmonizing the melody just with the bass first where the bass is mostly based on the root and the fifth. Then fill the middle voices by ear. This is also the basis of Randy Vincent's three note voicings.

I’ve always found that the most effective approach. You can start with the vanilla changes.

Subs can be conceptualised from alternate basslines.

The middle voice can be added in by ear as you say. It should be a voice in its own right, within the limits of the guitar which I think is mostly practical in three voices - which I’ve focused on. (I also play hybrid style so I can’t do four voices except by strumming.)

Which (I haven’t read the Vincent book) are usually various inversions and voicings of shells and triads in three voices for tertial harmony. But you don’t have even have to name the chords.

Do enough of this and I think you will also start to notice the common uses of notes against bass notes. So you’ll develop a battery of ‘solo guitar licks’ that will be useful from one tune to another.

OTOH this approach also works for writing non functional changes, writing for big band (see ‘inside Gil Evans’) and it’s how Bach taught chorale harmony. So it’s powerful and versatile. Schoenberg call the bass ‘the second melody’. With that in mind you may want to move away from just roots and fifths as you gain confidence and mastery.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

As far as guitarists interests in arranging etc, I feel in rock that’s often a bass players domain. I think of John Paul Jones with Zeppelin for example, or the way Cliff Williams artfully adds the third under the A chord in Back in Black.

Or I have a student who for some reason is obsessed with Avril Lavigne (I know she’s like 11… that’s my generation lol). So I’m arranging Sk8er Boi for her to play with classmates.

I noticed it has this nice moment where the bass and guitar moves from B5 to Bb5 against a repeated G-F#-D in the melody. So while the guitar part is dead simple muted powerchords following the bass line, the overall sound is Gmaj7/B to Bbmaj7b6 on ‘any more obvious.’ Ooh, jazz chords! Beato could get a video out of that.

I doubt the songwriters cared about that, they were writing a hit song, not taking a theory test. It’s actually a classic melodic device over what is a standard songwriting chord move esp for the era. You will absolutely find the same type of move in any number of jazz standards. It’s just the punk chords that add an F into the mix.

Harmony is a fairy story told about counterpoint. Which is a posh way of saying that the chords come from bass and melody not the other way around.

Which is to say in rock music, usually the singer and the bass guitar. The guitar’s power chords fatten things out, either doubling the bass or adding something in the middle. (Perhaps with a lead guitar part adding another melodic line.) But that’s one just one of a number of elements.

What disguises this a bit is the collaborative and layered nature of rock songwriting and arranging. So, unlike the tin pan alley era, say, rock songs are most often written on the guitar with a melody composed over chords or a riff. The songwriter(s) probably won’t relate the vocal melody to the chords theoretically at all - why would they?

When the song comes to band rehearsal, the bass player adds their own touches such as inverting some of the chords, perhaps even varying the harmony between verses for word painting and so on. So you end up with a collaborative harmony that might be a lot richer than you might think from just the guitar part.

I really only started noticing this stuff when I started arranging songs in various ways. You could just play the guitar parts perfectly well in a band and be oblivious to all of this. I know I did lol.

So I think it’s about getting interested in songs, composing and arranging rather than just playing the guitar, which is obvious really. Piano players will know this stuff.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ruger9]

I don't understand how Lerch has achieved the kind of traction he seems to have...He's the most ordinary player and yet he seems to have an avid following.
I guess the enthusiast/amateur/hobbyist crowd, who can't really tell, think he's great.
Thus it has ever been.

I think he's a good teacher, and that works especially well in the era of YouTube; you don't have to be a formal student taking one of his courses, you can watch many of his videos on YouTube and learn a hell of alot. Not everyone is a good teacher, just because someone can play expertly doesn't make them a good purveyor of information.

[Tal_175]

I’ve always found that the most effective approach. You can start with the vanilla changes.

Subs can be conceptualised from alternate basslines.

The middle voice can be added in by ear as you say. It should be a voice in its own right, within the limits of the guitar which I think is mostly practical in three voices - which I’ve focused on. (I also play hybrid style so I can’t do four voices except by strumming.)

I use hybrid picking too. I use my pinky also and I love it. I like the sound. It's perfect for the soprano voice, lol. In fact, my pinky has become my hardest working finger in the hybrid style over the years. You don't like using your pinky?

Which (I haven’t read the Vincent book) are usually various inversions and voicings of shells and triads in three voices for tertial harmony. But you don’t have even have to name the chords.

Do enough of this and I think you will also start to notice the common uses of notes against bass notes. So you’ll develop a battery of ‘solo guitar licks’ that will be useful from one tune to another.

OTOH this approach also works for writing non functional changes, writing for big band (see ‘inside Gil Evans’) and it’s how Bach taught chorale harmony. So it’s powerful and versatile. Schoenberg call the bass ‘the second melody’. With that in mind you may want to move away from just roots and fifths as you gain confidence and mastery.

I have worked on many approaches. The 6th diminished scales, bass-melody-middle voice approach, constructing voicings using chord-scales, lifting chord licks, harmony devices of big bands etc. On the one hand, these are different lenses through which to view the same notion, on the other hand you learn things with each view that would be very difficult to discover using another view (even though it's theoretically possible). The opportunity cost goes the other way also perhaps. If you only stick to one view for the rest of your life, you may discover things that would be unlikely to discover with a more eclectic approach. The thing is once you learn something, it always informs your choices. I can't unlearn I diminished to I major motion even if I am telling myself that I am just playing a bass line and melody, then filling in the middle by ear.

[Christian Miller]

I use hybrid picking too. I use my pinky also and I love it. I like the sound. It's perfect for the soprano voice, lol. In fact, my pinky has become my hardest working finger in the hybrid style over the years. You don't like using your pinky?
.

No, I don’t use my pinky. I find it a bit uncomfortable.

But I’ve mostly been working on two and three voices. So maybe it’s a chicken and egg. The main reason I use hybrid is to get more polyphonic independence, which is kind of only possible in two or three voices anyway on guitar. At least for me.

If I was working on SATB Chorales or something I might have to do something else… cross that bridge…

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tal_175]

Tim Lerch is a legit player. Someone who is not a jazz musician may not recognize the amount of skill and experience that goes into reaching his level and judge according to their personal stylistic preferences but he has been in the game for a long time. He studied with Ted Greene, Joe Pass, even Lenny Breau. He recorded and performed with many big shots in the jazz world.

There is no shortage of bottom feeders on youtube when it comes to guitar content. It seems like any intermediate player with a good eye on production can have thousands of worshiping followers. But Tim Lerch isn't one of them.

[Christian Miller]

Hey Tal, you realise he has posted here in the past? Not been on here a while that I’ve seen. I’m always surprised by how many people lurk tho.

In any case Tim’s great. Very musical player. Knows what he’s about and has developed it to a really high level. After a certain point being a musician is about finding your thing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tal_175]

Hey Tal, you realise he has posted here in the past? Not been on here a while that I’ve seen. I’m always surprised by how many people lurk tho.

In any case Tim’s great. Very musical player. Knows what he’s about and has developed it to a really high level. After a certain point being a musician is about finding your thing.

Yeah, I think I've seen his posts here. Did anything I said come across dismissive of him as a player? I hope not. I was trying to make the opposite point.

[Oscar67]

The thing is most guitarists don't have the patience to put in the work.

Most guitarists have day jobs and/or families. Satriani said something similar when he and Vai were interviewed by Beato. He called people ‘lazy’ who do not study guitar the way he expects them to. That I don’t have patience for.

[pamosmusic]

Most guitarists have day jobs and/or families. Satriani said something similar when he and Vai were interviewed by Beato. He called people ‘lazy’ who do not study guitar the way he expects them to. That I don’t have patience for.

Yeah that’s obnoxious.

Tal said something slightly different though, that I kind of agree with.

I teach lots of different people and the average serious adult student probably puts in 45 minutes a day five or six days a week. I think that’s awesome and shows serious patience and commitment to a hobby, but it also isn’t going to get Jobless Kid At Conservatory kind of results.


And I make a point of never judging folks for their time. But there’s also a tradeoff where progress will be slower with less time, and I do find a lot of people can get frustrated with a sort of “I’ve been at this for six months with no results” attitude. People expect that having played for x years or having gotten lessons for y months should get them a certain result, but it’s very individual and very tied to the amount of time they’re able to put into the endeavor.

And I just try to reassure them that they’re making decent progress and that all progress is worth a high five. But also be clear that faster progress would require a larger investment.

Most people don’t have tons more time than that, but it can take them a while to adjust their expectations accordingly.

[Tal_175]

Learning arranging requires adopting a life of crime I believe. Stealing tricks and personalizing them is a lot of the process. What Tim Lerch showed in the video is part of the basics. Once you learn how to do the vanilla harmonizations and can move things around the fretboard, then it's about accumulating devices and textures learned from other players/bands and getting good at using and personalizing them. That's where I am in this process. It helps to know a small amount of theory in order to understand the ideas more abstractly rather then just reciting them. I find this process enjoyable.

[Oscar67]

I teach lots of different people and the average serious adult student probably puts in 45 minutes a day five or six days a week. I think that’s awesome and shows serious patience and commitment to a hobby, but it also isn’t going to get Jobless Kid At Conservatory kind of results. And I make a point of never judging folks for their time. But there’s also a tradeoff where progress will be slower with less time, and I do find a lot of people can get frustrated with a sort of “I’ve been at this for six months with no results” attitude. People expect that having played for x years or having gotten lessons for y months should get them a certain result, but it’s very individual and very tied to the amount of time they’re able to put into the endeavor.

One side of the coin is people projecting their personal reference frame onto others, like Satriani did. The other side of the coin is people having unrealistic expectations about their progress, like they’re entitled to a certain result. Both of these human tendencies seem to shape most of the world as we see it today.

I’d played rock, pop and funk for 30 years before getting into jazz. I have a family. I’m not very talented to begin with. I have a demanding day job. I try to get in at least 2 hours every day but it doesn’t always work out. And my practice time is shared among multiple goals: learning one or two standards every two weeks (usually in two different keys) for the guitar/vocal duo I’m part of, practicing the jazz stuff I’m going through with my teacher, rehearsing all the repertoire I already know and want to keep right under my fingertips (that’s 50-odd songs from metal to Summertime). There’s a lot to do in a short time.

[wolflen]

I don't understand how Lerch has achieved the kind of traction he seems to have...He's the most ordinary player and yet he seems to have an avid following.
I guess the enthusiast/amateur/hobbyist crowd, who can't really tell, think he's great.
Thus it has ever been.

hmm..makes one wonder what would make this person "happy"..

Its interesting to me reading comments on musicians by people who seem to infer that they might be able
to play better than the person they are "reviewing" and some may even say they CAN play better!

I read some comments on Guthrie Govan .. and for the most part they agree he is a top of the line player..
but there was one that thought "he was just" playing fast and the same thing over and over again..
I wonder what the person thinks of Oscar Peterson..or that guy Bach

when I was playing with bands .. I actually got a suggestion from a listener on" how I could play better"..
Im glad I learned to just accept the good advice and tell the person..thanks Im working on it.

[digger]

I start to doubt my own ears and judgement at times when people criticise players I really rate. I find myself thinking what am I missing? What am I not hearing? I think Tim Lerch is great, but if he isn't then that means he's not great and neither is my own judgement! It happens a lot on the web, and actually quite frequently here.

[Hep To The Jive]

Most guitarists have day jobs and/or families. Satriani said something similar when he and Vai were interviewed by Beato. He called people ‘lazy’ who do not study guitar the way he expects them to. That I don’t have patience for.

Satriani said it because it's true. Musicians like him dedicated their life to music, so as the teacher he faces two choices, either apply his own high standards of dedication to his students, or be a kind bullshitter.

Most pros teach because they have to, to help to pay the bills. And most cringe inside when a student have excuses like oh I have a demanding day job, I couldn't practice this week. Sure, whatever, you smile and say no problem, we take it slow. Satriani at least was honest as a teacher. In the end he actually hated teaching and quit as soon as his performing career took off. I mean, I shoudn't say hated, just the part when you are forced to accept anyone and sugarcoat them to make a buck. I'm sure teaching Steve Vai or Kirk Hammet was a rewarding experience.

[pamosmusic]

Satriani said it because it's true. Musicians like him dedicated their life to music, so as the teacher he faces two choices, either apply his own high standards of dedication to his students, or be a kind bullshitter.

Lots of teachers have this attitude, which is why lots of teachers suck.

The third choice would be to apply the same high standards you apply to your practice as a guitarist to your practice as a teacher.

Most teachers don’t do this.

Guess what I call those teachers?

I’ll give you a hint. Ask Satch.

[Christian Miller]

Most guitarists have day jobs and/or families. Satriani said something similar when he and Vai were interviewed by Beato. He called people ‘lazy’ who do not study guitar the way he expects them to. That I don’t have patience for.

Yeah that’s not very helpful.

Maybe he meant more about would-be professional players or music students in which case - probably true. There’s a lot of basic skills one needs to work as a player (and I’m not talking about shred licks off YouTube.)

I do think there’s a lot of hobbyist guitar players out there who have no idea how to practice to improve their skills. And people make excuses about things they find intimidating or overwhelming. But I think it’s very judgmental to call that laziness.

I don’t imagine I have a lot more time to practice what I want on guitar than an amateur, because I too have a family and being professional musician doesn’t actually just involve playing your instrument. A lot of it is a badly paid desk job.

However I feel one advantage I have is I know how to get better at stuff. I also play gigs too, which is immensely helpful in terms of knowing what to work on among other things, but you don’t have to be a pro to do that.

A lot of players are lost in noodling and feel in a rut - although if you are content to noodle, there’s no harm in that, I don’t think it’s reasonable to judge other people’s pastimes.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk