-
[quote=Baltar Hornbeek;124702] Think about it, who has inspired more people to pick up a guitar than John Lennon? /quote]
Elvis Presley, and that includes me and especially John Lennon too.
Last edited by 63Bigsby; 02-17-2011 at 05:41 PM.
-
02-17-2011 05:16 PM
-
Well, there certainly are physiological considerations. The ratio of fast and slow twitch (or Type I and Type II) muscle fibers have a great deal in determining the upper limit of speed for any physical activity. Some people are born with larger percentages of fast twitch and some with more slow twitch. Some of us were born to be sprinters, some to be marathoners.
Originally Posted by max_power
Now, obviously there are other factors: relaxation, precision, efficiency. And there is some research that exercise can slightly alter the ratio of fast to slow, and presumably that would apply to guitar playing as well. But eventually, you run up against a wall.
Well, I spent 6 years working on a cruise ship playing in an orchestra where I had long stretches of 30 hour practice weeks (in addition to playing 2-5 hours per night.) Sure, I made some great improvements, but eventually you hit a physiological wall, or at least a point of greatly diminished returns. I look forward to getting some of those back once I can start studying jazz again. Originally Posted by max_power
To some extent "burners" are self-selecting. They burn because they can. Yes, they worked hard, but they also had a physiological make-up that made the super fast speed possible. The ones that didn't either got burned out and quit or evolved a taste that involved not playing as fast as you can.
I've had plenty of students who burned like crazy. I've had others who practiced twice as much and for twice as long and were doing everything right, but still could not get their speed up beyond a certain point.
We live in this "everyone is equal" world and like to think that everyone is born with the same innate abilities and the same potential. Perhaps everyone is born with some potential for something. In track, I was always the distance guy. I couldn't run as fast as the sprinters, but I could run at 99% of my full-out speed for 5k and leave the sprinters in the dust after the first lap. It's just a fact of life - we aren't all born with the same physiological make-up. It may not be fair but it is life.
Peace,
Kevin
-
Looong argument. The only real outcome as I see it being that taste is important when it comes to what you like/dislike. My dime would be that I love Miles, Coltrane, Parker, Dylan was my first idol, still love his work and his voice/phrasing. I enjoy Chet's trumpet playing, it is more beautiful than Miles', like I think a Jaguar MKII is more beautiful than any Volvo. I love Miles' musicality, it's magic. I love Jim Hall's careful use of the palette, I love NHOP's way to make extraordinary chops sound beautiful.
Most of all I love learning things from all those masters, and from all you marvellous characters here at this forum who make me think and practice and feel that there is a reason for it all; to go as far as possible, and connect to that magic that is 'jazz'. To connect. Yeah, that's it. To feel that tingle when hitting the exact right note at the exact right moment in time. In my case it may not happen very often, but occasionally it does, and - by Miles - that makes it worthwhile!
Peace
Skei (the Cinderella she seems so easy, it takes one to know one she smiles, puts her hands in her back pockets, Bette davis style one)
-
I read somewhere that John Coltrane was over-blowing through most all of his solos toward the end of his musical career, & this was attributed to the influence of Pharaoh Sanders. Originally Posted by StraightNoChaser
-
Of course I agree with you on this. I wasn't trying to assert that everyone has equal potential to play fast... all I was saying is that it can be done, to a certain extent, by anyone who was absolutely dedicated. There are videos that show you certain exercises to practice, how to use the metronome to practice and how to systematically increase your speed... and on top of that, they prescribe very specific ways to hold the guitar, hold the pick, placement of the left hand, how to finger any combination of notes, how to pick in terms of right hand placement and elbow and wrist movement... etc. There is a science to it. But are you willing to completely re-learn how to play guitar and sit in front of a metronome all day playing technique-building exercises, making sure everything you play is 101% precise before you increase the speed, in order to burn like Yngwie Malmsteen? Some people are. I'm not. Some people, as you've mentioned, are genetically gifted such that they don't have to practice with such a strict regiment in order to play really fast. We might have to disagree here, but I am of the opinion that anyone COULD do it, with sufficient practice and the implementation of the correct methods. But it might be at the expense of other aspects of music (and for people like me, it would take up so much time that this would absolutely be the case). Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
-
Originally Posted by musicjohnny
Especially on Jazz Guitar Online: Free Online Jazz Guitar Lessons, Tabs, Chords, Guitar Chord Charts & Guitar Tuner.
-
Of John's many talents, I'd say that guitar playing was one of his weakest. Originally Posted by Baltar Hornbeek
-
Can't...believe...this....conver..sation...ever... .even...(gasp)....started!!!
.....in (gasp) ...shock!
It's MILES!!!!!!
If only I couldn't play the notes that he didn't
-
Originally Posted by sgreb
-
He was a trumpet player among other things. He composed, arranged, conceptualized the sounds he wanted to hear and then put together the band that could turn it into a reality, inspired his musicians to get the sound he was after, acted very cool and somehow turned himself into an icon that somehow fed itself back into the music, provoked people in a way that drew them toward him instead of away, constantly evolved musically in a way that few others could, etc., etc.
If you just isolate his technique as a trumpet player, sure you'll get lots of opinions, but as a whole musician, Miles is kind of hard to argue against . . .
-
Well stated. But no one wants to hear the truth about their physical limitations. Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
Particularly in music, people want this illusion that if they just practice hard enough they can be as good as fill in blank.
I have noticed this peculiarity in music. In running I haven't seen people saying that if they just practice running really fast they will be in the Olympics.
-
"Miles Davis was mediocre":
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaa!!
-
This is absolutely no help in any particular situation. The assumption here is that each person's limit is a) set and b) knowable. Limits on the guitar are nothing like the limits of running. Playing guitar calls for a more varied set of skills. Even if it is true that your fingers cannot physically play faster than X, *you* don't know what X is, and no one else can tell you, either: all you can do is practice and see how far you develop. (Speed isn't the only thing one develops, of course: the ability to fret complex chords and change them smoothly at brisk tempi is a skill most of us developed slowly but surely over time and none of us would've got very good at it if a teacher had said, 'well, you can only change chords so fast, and you should accept that you're a genetic slow poke.' Didn't we all suck horribly at that once upon a time?) Originally Posted by Drumbler
Even if we each have set limits, we cannot *know* them. All we can do is practice, practice, practice to get as good as we can get. It's what all the jazz players we admire did. Before he became a "natural," Charlie Parker practiced at least eight hours a day for *years*.
-
this reminds me of what they used to say about Prez. his tone was considered "weak" when he was starting out. and look what he became. his tone was never weak. he just wasn't an aggressive player. and his music was always sweet.
-
WHO said I was mediocre?
-
Miles is the answer. What was the question again?.........
-
I think phrasing has to be a much bigger factor when talking about a jazz artist. Billie Holiday's technical skills definitely weren't superior to anyone else's.
-
Yeah, but it also depends on what you mean by "good." It's only a problem if you think that "good" is defined as superficial, technical flash. Originally Posted by Drumbler
Peace,
Kevin
-
Bechet's version of Summertime is sublime. Can't quite see all the fuss about Miles Davis myself. I tend to agree with what the Poet/Jazz critic Philip Larkin said about his "morose" playing:
:" his lifeless muted tone, at once hollow and unresonant, creeps along only just in tempo......."
While I have always admired "Kind of Blue", I suspect it's brilliance was more to do with the other players than with Miles himself. Especially Bill Evans.
If he had a special skill, I would say it was probably his charisma which enabled him to marshal the best musicians.
As for the Beatles, well they kept harmony and melody alive while the modernists in the jazz and classical world gradually succeeded in alienating the listening public.
Of the three writers McCartney was by far the most natural musician, and many of his songs are harmonically very sophisticated and innovative. The modulations in Penny Lane are one example, and there are plenty on Abbey Rd too. He could, seemingly effortlessly, compose in a variety of styles. I always loved his pastiche of 20's jazz "Honey Pie" on the white album.
I think it's possible to trace his brilliance back to the influence of his father who was a trad/swing jazzer.
Mind you, don't want to underestimate the other two.
The chords, tunes and structures of the amazing "I am the Walrus" and "Savoy Truffle" are an education in themselves. Not much hyper-phrygian/super-lochrian antics going on in there though...
Last edited by Nick0783; 02-19-2011 at 03:23 PM.
-
Originally Posted by Nick0783
You have to take anything Larkin says with a grain of salt. He was not a fan of any jazz that wasn't dixieland.
-
What's "superficial" about "technical flash"? Seems to me it's a hard-earned musical skill shared by most jazz greats. (Standards of "flash" change, but Charlie Christian and Django made a lot of jaws drop in their day, as did Bird and Diz later, and Coltrane still later.) Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
-
She took a mistake and turned it into a phenomenon. Kind of like the guy that invented the post-it note. But that's for another forum. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
Because she didn't have the right timing and the right pitch, (and she didn't have formal training,) she'd anticipate the note too early and glide into tune. That became her style, and some people to liked it. I'll bet a lot of people at the time also said "She sucks", or whatever someone back then would say that means the same thing.
-
It's on the surface of the music. It is not the music itself. Bad music can be played with great flash and be made to sound "good." I've known a lot of players that had lots of technical flash but very little going on below the surface. How fast you play the notes has nothing to do with the "depth" of music. It is a surface element. Originally Posted by markerhodes
Of course I didn't say that the two are mutually exclusive. There are some great, flashy, technical players that also have depth to their music.
Yes, but they also had something going on below the surface. And just for the record, I don't think of CC as blowing people away with his technique - it was the notes that he was playing and the drive with which he was playing and the fact that he could be heard in a jazz band. There were other guitarist around that were playing much faster, more technical stuff. Django for instance blows him out of the water, if measured by technique alone. Originally Posted by markerhodes
Peace,
Kevin
-
Kevin, really, this is crap and I'm done with it. ***MELODY**** is "on the surface of the music." So are harmony and rhythm. The music is what you hear when you put on the record, *not* your analysis (or the composer's). Conversely, "depth" is not a musical term. Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
-
Jeez man, relax. Originally Posted by markerhodes
I wouldn't call melody superficial. The structure of the how a melody moves and relates to the harmony of form of a tune are deeper elements. I'm not talking about it's physical position on the page, but it's relation ship to the structure of the music.
"Depth" may not be a common musical term, but it is used a lot. Anyone who's done some Schenkerian analysis has talked about different layers and surface and deeper structures. The concept of "depth" is often referenced when talking about aesthetics and creativity.
My point is that the technical aspects are very superficial to musicality. Playing notes fast does not make it more musical. Playing something that is very musical but not technically demanding does not make it less musical.
Yes, I know that "superficial" often has a negative connotation, but I just mean that it's on the surface. For example, just saying that Django's playing exhibits more technical flash than Christian's does not say that his is a better musician. To say that Van Halen has more technical flash than BB King does not say that he is a better musician. The technical aspects of playing the instrument are superficial to the music that these people are producing.
Please don't get so offended just because I'm disagreeing with you.
Peace,
Kevin
Reply With Quote
When Sunny Gets Blue - Jazz Ballads by Jeff...
Today, 04:52 AM in Chord-Melody