The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Posts 26 to 50 of 95
  1. #26
    Ray C. Guest


    This is a book one should read if you really want to dig into this subject-the concepts about putting in your, "10,000 hours," peeling back the exterior of someone's success to see that it is more likely one's background, upbringing, and environment rather than pure innate talent-he goes into them in very well written style. If you are an artist of any kind, I would suggest this book.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #27

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by franco6719
    I once knew a fellow who sounded exactly like John Scofield. He was fantastic and impressed everyone on the campus because he could play JUST LIKE JOHN SCOFIELD. He always played like John Scofield and couldn't play any other way. He played standards.... like John Scofield. He played modal tunes....just like John Scofield. He played free stuff....just like John Scofield. He played rock.....just like John Scofield.

    I believe he is now a truck driver or something like that. Most people who start out as clones end up as clones, in my experience. There were literally hundreds of "Pat Metheny's and John Scofields" at Berklee alone about 20 years ago. I'm trying a different approach this time.
    There is no doubt, more than one path up the mountain. However, the 3 above I mentioned played nothing (according to interviews I read with them) but CC solos for a while on the bandstand. Maybe what separated them from your Sco guy, is they continued on being full time players, and your guy went on to a career in cargo transportation. Who knows?

  4. #28

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray C.


    This is a book one should read if you really want to dig into this subject-the concepts about putting in your, "10,000 hours," peeling back the exterior of someone's success to see that it is more likely one's background, upbringing, and environment rather than pure innate talent-he goes into them in very well written style. If you are an artist of any kind, I would suggest this book.
    Sounds like a cool read Ray, thanks for the suggestion.

  5. #29

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by derek
    There is no doubt, more than one path up the mountain. However, the 3 above I mentioned played nothing (according to interviews I read with them) but CC solos for a while on the bandstand. Maybe what separated them from your Sco guy, is they continued on being full time players, and your guy went on to a career in cargo transportation. Who knows?

    Yes, you're right. I donìt even know what the heck I was arguing about. I think I was arguing with myself, as usual, Derek. When I go through some period of frustration, I sometimes just want to give up and say "it's all innate. I don't have the talent. Etc..."

    However, I think I made an important baby step yesterday afternoon. I started playing along with Joe Pass and Niels, and I almost worked out the changes to "Have You Met Miss Jones" by ear, without Real Book. The bridge threw me off. But it seemed, for a moment, that all the work may not be for nothing.

    Follow whatever approach works for you.

  6. #30

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray C.


    This is a book one should read if you really want to dig into this subject-the concepts about putting in your, "10,000 hours," peeling back the exterior of someone's success to see that it is more likely one's background, upbringing, and environment rather than pure innate talent-he goes into them in very well written style. If you are an artist of any kind, I would suggest this book.
    Looks like a book worth checking out.

  7. #31

    User Info Menu

    I read a quote not long ago (maybe on this site) that said something to the effect that a true master's greatest conceit is thinking he did it with just hard work.

    All masters have massive loads of innate talent. You simply can't get there without it. Talent without hard work is a shameful waste. Hard work without talent is a noble waste. Only when the two are combined do you get brilliance.

  8. #32

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Goofsus4
    I read a quote not long ago (maybe on this site) that said something to the effect that a true master's greatest conceit is thinking he did it with just hard work.

    All masters have massive loads of innate talent. You simply can't get there without it. Talent without hard work is a shameful waste. Hard work without talent is a noble waste. Only when the two are combined do you get brilliance.

    How could you possibly know that with any certainty? There are certainly freaks of nature, Mozart, Stevie Wonder, Bo Jackson, LeBron James, et al, but how do you (or anyone else for that matter) know that you cannot achieve greatness (however defined) by average talent and extraordinary work ethic?

  9. #33

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by derek
    How could you possibly know that with any certainty? There are certainly freaks of nature, Mozart, Stevie Wonder, Bo Jackson, LeBron James, et al, but how do you (or anyone else for that matter) know that you cannot achieve greatness (however defined) by average talent and extraordinary work ethic?
    Okay, how's this?

    High talent + hard work = brilliance

    Average talent + hard work = mastery

    Low talent + hard work = proficiency

    Any talent level + no work = waste

  10. #34

    User Info Menu

    I don't think anyone has certain answers or even solid statistics like "80% this and 20% this" for music or life in general. I do think both elements have to play some role. And it will be different for different individuals, like everything else in life.

    I just try to say and think "Do the best you can with what you do have" and don't think about becoming the next Mozart, UNLESS you really do have that level of "freakishness". That way lies madness...

  11. #35

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Goofsus4
    Okay, how's this?

    High talent + hard work = brilliance

    Average talent + hard work = mastery

    Low talent + hard work = proficiency

    Any talent level + no work = waste
    Yikes! Looking at that list, I am frightened about where I would fall.

    How about High talent + laziness? I have seen this before in a variety of settings, just frustrates the heck out of me.

    Talent is such a difficult thing to quantify, and it is just impossible to know how much of a difference it makes if you and Pat Metheny, Pat Martino (running out of Pats) put in the same amount of time practicing and performing, do you reach the level of competency they have?

  12. #36

    User Info Menu

    You all should read Kenny Werner's "Effortless Mastery".

  13. #37

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by derek
    Yikes! Looking at that list, I am frightened about where I would fall.

    How about High talent + laziness? I have seen this before in a variety of settings, just frustrates the heck out of me.

    Talent is such a difficult thing to quantify, and it is just impossible to know how much of a difference it makes if you and Pat Metheny, Pat Martino (running out of Pats) put in the same amount of time practicing and performing, do you reach the level of competency they have?
    I can assure you that quantity of time practicing can be completely worthless unless you know HOW to practice. Quality of practice time is key.

  14. #38
    Ray C. Guest
    The problem is understanding what aspects of one's talent are "innate."

    Take a high school jazz band. There's and alto and tenor, both boys took up their instruments at the same age, both went to the same music school early days. The tenor sounds smooth-like a natural. The alto choppy; seems unsure in his solos. Does the tenor have more innate talent? Maybe-or maybe he comes from a supporting family who fully back his ambition in music. And maybe the alto come from a single parent home and is distracted at home. Or his parents are not supportive and and have beaten into his head that music is a waste of time-maybe they even hate jazz.

    But you in the audience...you haven't got clue-all you have is what your hear. And what you hear may not tell anything about the true nature of the talent on the bandstand.

    It's a very tricky subject if you really dig deep. That's why I noted the Gladwell book. He goes into this and makes think about a lot of talent in many areas is wasted in our society.

  15. #39

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jthguitar
    You all should read Kenny Werner's "Effortless Mastery".
    Got it, and the video. A couple of years ago, he came to town and lectured to the UMKC jazz dept here. It was an open lecture. He then played that night with his trio. They were just smokin. Was one of the most eye opening experiences of my musical career.

    Kenny's take has certainly partially informed how I look at all of this talent vs work thing.

  16. #40

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by franco6719
    I can assure you that quantity of time practicing can be completely worthless unless you know HOW to practice. Quality of practice time is key.
    Yes, the study that concludes 10,000 hours of focused practice to master an instrument made that clear. We are not talking about noodling along to your favorite cd or backing track, but really focusing on technical aspects of your playing. Here is a link to the study if anyone hasn't seen it before.

    Wanna get to Carnegie Hall? Got 10,000 hours? - The Artful Manager

    Secrets of greatness: Practice and hard work bring success - October 30, 2006

  17. #41

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by derek
    Kenny's take has certainly partially informed how I look at all of this talent vs work thing.
    Can you elaborate on this?

  18. #42

    User Info Menu

    We are not talking about noodling along to your favorite cd or backing track.

    You can't do "focused noodling" with backing tracks?

  19. #43

    User Info Menu

    We are not talking about noodling along to your favorite cd or backing track, but really focusing on technical aspects of your playing.

    Well, I'm going to spend more time playing and noodling these days. I already did the 8-hour a day non-musical scale/technique/reading/theory insanity back at Berklee. I almost ended up insane, quite literally.

    I work on ear training and licks now. Period. And chords. If its' not somthign musical, I will go nuts again.

  20. #44

    User Info Menu

    agree, perhaps "shredding" is something like "woodpecker's nightmare".
    I'm truly fascinated, if someone is able to play that fast.
    On the other hand, isn't it boring sometimes to listen to "technical virtuosos"?
    I'd prefer to define something like "music" that has to do with - hm - somekind of "mystery tour".
    Remember that it isn't the guitar (wonderful instrument) alone
    Might be something related to voice and subconsciousness.
    Or is it a "lifestyle" ?- sorry - not meant ironic.
    Regarding my thread - "music and drugs addicted"
    any answers without poisoning appreciated.
    Because sometimes playing a trumpet or a saxophone I'm always thinking
    why?
    Once I seemed to have a pretty good baritone voice,
    now tell me the secret of "speedpicking".
    oh sorry, I really wanted to stop posting, but the post-offices in Austria
    are shutting down more and more...

  21. #45

    User Info Menu

    hm, strange thing, you don't think of "Johann Sebastian Bach"?

  22. #46

    User Info Menu

    It's like a story that Tommy Tedesco told at Berklee on a visit one time. He told about a student who could play the C Major scale faster than anyone he ever heard. That's ALL he could play though. HAHA!! He just practiced playing the C Major scale as fast as possible and became fast.

    Yes, Bach was a virtuouso and also a genius of composition, improvisation, musicality, etc..

  23. #47

    User Info Menu

    Bach? you mean a virtuoso?
    no he didn't spread words
    he was vegetarian, if u understand what this might mean to "music"

  24. #48

    User Info Menu

    Hubert said:
    "agree, perhaps "shredding" is something like "woodpecker's nightmare".
    I'm truly fascinated, if someone is able to play that fast.
    On the other hand, isn't it boring sometimes to listen to "technical virtuosos"?


    "Speedpicking" is just the normal types of picking played fast. There is no specific technique. The two most common aspects are "legato" and "sweep picking". Legato just means hammering on notes with your left fingers rather than picking each individual note with your right hand. This technique would have been invented 10 minutes after the first guitar was made. "Sweep picking" simply means strumming slowly in one direction, so that a chord will sound like an arpeggio. The arpeggio sound is reinforced by slightly reducing the finger pressure after picking, to deaden the string.

    The biggest problem most shredders have is that they don't have enough musical ideas to keep playing at the speed of light for more than 30 seconds. It is rather sad that Metal has contributed so much to the physical technique of modern guitar playing but hasn't maintained a concurrent growth in musicality. Effectively we have a generation of very technically articulate players with nothing interesting to say.

  25. #49

    User Info Menu

    well done, banshia,

    for example - metallica produces a lot of noise - my opinion -
    Jimi Hendrix might have done too, but a lot of difference between
    metal and Jimi

  26. #50

    User Info Menu

    ok - you have to admire your mistakes
    and all of that little stuff
    trying to express notes without a cup of coffee