Theory vs. playing by ear

[Christian Miller]

I remember in the third grade we were herded into the cafeteria one afternoon for a "screening test" about the time that some of us would begin the music playing (instruments) part of the music program. A woman tapped pairs of rhythmic patterns and we all marked an answer form whether the two patterns were the same or different, I guess about twenty-five sets of those. Then she did a similar number of sets of pitch pairs with us marking if they were the same or different, or perhaps which was higher or lower... don't recall that.

I do remember thinking that the tests were ludicrously easy; I had been listening to music my whole life and always had a strong interest in it. Shortly after that I was very excited to be learning to read music and play Bb clarinet (still have it, still play it). A few years later would come six years of classical piano. I still have that piano and play it too. However, it is the guitar I would really love the most for the last 50 years.

Good racket. Let me screen my students for aptitude, teach the more naturally talented ones and congratulate myself on my abilities as a teacher.

[John A.]

Good racket. Let me screen my students for aptitude, teach the more naturally talented ones and congratulate myself on my abilities as a teacher.

Said the man with degrees from highly selective institutions …

Pot calling the kettle black here. Nonetheless, cherry-picking students is the secret to most schools' "success" and reputation (along with various mechanisms to enforce socioeconomic inequality). How many institutions are judged by what they do for students who don’t pass screens? (In the US, I know the answer; UK might be doing this better than the US).

[CliffR]

Good point, John. It's certainly true you need good grades to get into a university in the UK and, the more prestigious the university, the higher the grades you need.

I remember undergoing an ear test at secondary school to decide who would learn an instrument, since I guess there were neither enough teacher resources or instruments for everyone. (As I recall, it was very much a minority of kids who ended up taking instrument lessons.) I remember being asked to say which of two notes was the higher pitch and having absolutely no idea what was being asked of me!

[Reg]

Yea... It's fun to talk theory. But as a kid or when one doesn't have the technical skills, or just not old enough to be able to understand LOL. The approach of quoting theory or playing memorized music seems kind of the same thing.

Not good or bad, I just think it takes understanding to make the next step. I mean ...who cares, you can play or you can't... playing live music you haven't rehearsed with musicians you haven't worked with at gigs is a good beginning test to help one figure out what they need to work on.

I know that's what helped me as a kid.... LOL. Granted, I'm just an average jazz player, but I can verbally explain music and can notate what I am playing or thinking LOL. Which is a very useful skill that doesn't come from playing by ear. The results can still suck.

[Litterick]

Afterwards, Benson started quizzing him on different chord shapes. He would play something and ask Richie to identify it. This was all pretty easy stuff, since he knew his theory backwards and forwards. But he soon realized that GB was not quizzing him, but genuinely asking him the names of the chords because GB did not know what they were called. It was very much a wake up call.

Dasein told this anecdote on the George Benson thread. I think we should pause for reflection.

[Tal_175]

Afterwards, Benson started quizzing him on different chord shapes. He would play something and ask Richie to identify it. This was all pretty easy stuff, since he knew his theory backwards and forwards. But he soon realized that GB was not quizzing him, but genuinely asking him the names of the chords because GB did not know what they were called. It was very much a wake up call.

Dasein told this anecdote on the George Benson thread. I think we should pause for reflection.

Peter Farrell also had a similar story. He says it in one of is videos. He played a Maj7 and George Benson asked him what it was. Peter Farrell I think is much younger than Richie Hart so this must have happened years after the Richie Hart's story.

So we can drive one of two conclusions from this:
a- It's not that George Benson wasn't interested in theory, he just wasn't good at retaining the info. He kept asking people around him what chord is this, what chord is that and then he would forget even though these were very basic chord types.
b- Of course he knew what a friggin Maj7 chord was. He knew about all these chords 50 years ago. These were tongue-in-cheek statements intended to convey to his students what he valued in musical development. He may have also gotten a kick out of shocking his highly theory-savvy students.

[Christian Miller]

Said the man with degrees from highly selective institutions … .

Well how did you think I learned it?

I don’t see how that invalidates the observation… if anything presumably I am more aware of it because I’ve been in the system that if I hadn’t…

the actual teaching at UCL I would describe as quite mediocre. Some good lecturers, a few great teachers, mostly not. Probably par for the course for uni lol.

It’s not really about that though. At that point at least I don’t think they institutionally gave a stuff whether they were teaching well or not, so you know, there was an honesty in it. The smart and motivated ones will work it out, and the other ones can go and do something else after they graduate. Now, bugger off smelly undergrads, I have research to do.

I imagine it’s much the same at most places like that.

the teaching at Trinity - much better. It was a degree in music education though and even there I feel there was more interest in research than teaching. That degree was a LOT less selective btw - the main tension here was between the type of academic habitus (?) demanded by the course assessment criteria and the practical non-academic orientation of the music educators on it.

I suppose that’s the always the pitfall of getting academics to teach. In any case everyone muddles through as they have for centuries.

[grahambop]

Peter Farrell also had a similar story. He says it in one of is videos. He played a Maj7 and George Benson asked him what it was. Peter Farrell I think is much younger than Richie Hart so this must have happened years after the Richie Hart's story.

So we can drive one of two conclusions from this:
a- It's not that George Benson wasn't interested in theory, he just wasn't good at retaining the info. He kept asking people around him what chord is this, what chord is that and then he would forget even though these were very basic chord types.
b- Of course he knew what a friggin Maj7 chord was. He knew about all these chords 50 years ago. These were tongue-in-cheek statements intended to convey to his students what he valued in musical development. He may have also gotten a kick out of shocking his highly theory-savvy students.

I suspect it’s simply that people like Benson long ago reached a level where they can play whatever they hear without needing names or number references for what they play, so that information gets put to some distant part of brain storage or something. Then they have trouble recalling it, because they hardly ever need it.

I think Wes was like that in that video of him and the Dutch group rehearsing a tune.

Even Joe Pass does it on one of those hot licks videos somewhere, he plays a pretty standard chord, tries to say what it is, then can’t name it.

[rob taft]

[QUOTE=grahambop;1233921]I suspect it’s simply that people like Benson long ago reached a level where they can play whatever they hear without needing names or number references for what they play, so that information gets put to some distant part of brain storage or something. Then they have trouble recalling it, because they hardly ever need it.[/QUOTE

Your. comment reminded me of a video of Bireli Lagrene out takes from an instructional video. The whole video is interesting but the point at the 2:08 minute mark is theory related.

[Tal_175]

Your. comment reminded me of a video of Bireli Lagrene out takes from an instructional video. The whole video is interesting but the point at the 2:08 minute mark is theory related.

It's the other guy who didn't know theory. Bireli was about to say sol-diez major pentatonic. The other guy interrupted him and said "F minor pentatonic". Like most guitarist he didn't know his relative majors. Lol. Admittedly, La bemol major pentatonic would've been the correct enharmonic spelling.

Joking aside, at least Bireli seems to know chord names and he knows what pentatonic scale is. Also he knows the note names on guitar. That last point alone puts him in the 95th percentile of all guitar players in terms of theory knowledge.

[RLetson]

That Bireli video is priceless. His playing is pretty clearly not theory-led, and from some of his reactions to Denis Chang's off-camera prompting, theory* does not seem to be at the front of his mind when he's playing. But then, he is one of those remarkably gifted musicians for whom naming and analysis come after execution, if at all. (I remember finding his first LP, recorded when he was 14 and already what I would call a fully-formed musician. Later, I was similarly startled by Jimmy Rosenberg.)

None of which is to deny the role of naming and analysis in developing praxis.** But, as with other expressive activities, when it's time to execute, most of us are executing, not running the color commentary. That's for the post-game-replay part of the show.

* I think my earlier posts signal my understanding of "theory" in the arts in general. Whether Bireli's playing is theory-fed is a different question. But his reactions suggest to me that at his stage of mastery, abstract analysis is not at the front of his awareness.

** To avoid confusion with practice in the sense of woodshedding/training-the-fingers.

[John A.]

Well how did you think I learned it?

I don’t see how that invalidates the observation… if anything presumably I am more aware of it because I’ve been in the system that if I hadn’t…

It doesn't invalidate the observation. It just adds a layer of irony to it (or maybe it does give one the authority to say it), Life is full of such ironies. It applies to me, too. Hence my saying "pot calling the kettle black here".

the actual teaching at UCL I would describe as quite mediocre. Some good lecturers, a few great teachers, mostly not. Probably par for the course for uni lol.

I'd describe my experience (Columbia, ~ comparable to UCL in terms of selectivity and "prestige") more as mixed than mediocre. As teachers, the majority were really quite good, while a few were brilliant, and a few were hopeless. The atrocious ones stand out because they are so much at odds with the institution's reputation. I also went to a selective high school that has an outsized reputation (a ridiculous idea in and of itself) -- the teaching there was fair to middling, but with some truly shockingly bad teachers (various combinations of incompetent and abusive). Until college, in all honesty, most of my education happened at home. My father was an econ professor, and my mother was a middle school teacher (history and English) who went back to grad school and became a poli sci prof. They spent a lot of time undoing the nonsense foisted on my sister and me by teachers.

t’s not really about that though. At that point at least I don’t think they institutionally gave a stuff whether they were teaching well or not, so you know, there was an honesty in it. The smart and motivated ones will work it out, and the other ones can go and do something else after they graduate. Now, bugger off smelly undergrads, I have research to do.

I imagine it’s much the same at most places like that.

Mostly, yes. Growing up around academics, I saw the full spectrum, but I'd say most found teaching more of a chore than an inspiration

[rpjazzguitar]

Another personal view:

I've been reading on-line posts here and elsewhere about guitar and theory for years. I've been exposed to a lot of theory on here and by reading, for example, Mark Levine and Nettles and Graf.

Most of this information has been less than useless. Meaning, I couldn't get anything out of it, but I used up time which would have been better applied elsewhere.

My favorite example was a suggestion on another forum by a college level guitar teacher to try every possible triad pair (maj, min, dim, aug and whatever else) against every possible bass note. This should come with a recipe for eternal life -- at the end of which you still wouldn't know any tunes. His recommendation for every plateau was to learn more theory.

That said, a few things, maybe more than just a few, have been enormously helpful and impacted my playing right away.

The idea of moving a voicing through different scales.

Using fourth based voicings interchangeably without avoiding the so-called avoid notes. Changed my comping overnight.

Reading Levine's explanation of why all melodic minor chords are the same chord -- changed my comping on the very next tune I played and continues to impact it.

Tritone subs.

Warren Nunes' concept of two kinds of chords (roughly, tonic and dominant, although he would have objected to that language), interchangeable within a category.

And a few other things.

During a good solo though, I'm likely to think of nothing but trying to imagine a dramatic melody and execute it. If I can't feel the harmony that well, I may think about chord tones and, less often, tonal center. I should probably be more aware of tonal center than I am -- sometimes I get the chord tones and clam the tonal center. Working on it.

Anyway, during a good solo, I'm an ear player, for the moment. If I have to think about the math, the solo usually suffers.

Others may see this as being a theory based player, but I think it varies from one phrase within a tune to the next.

My playing is too vanilla, too diatonic. I have plenty of theoretical knowledge that I could, in theory, apply to that problem. But, in fact, I learn new sounds one at at time, typically, and at a glacial pace.

So, I feel like I need to consolidate the theory I already have before I start looking for more theory.

[Bobby Timmons]

^ I've had this experience too. What helped for me was to use critical thinking and listening to analyze what problem I want to fix with my playing. Then compare with other players that have the result I want. Examples are how to create melody, I learned from listening that lines aren't always thought out whole lines, they are ideas strung together, as short as 2-4 notes. This is extremely important to grasp if one is always trying to think out whole lines. I also figured out that trying to use only scales or even scales and arps as the raw theory to generate lines from is bunk. Scales, arps, and intervals is more accurate when trying to generate ideas and will formulate every possible melody shape. I also had that problem with wasting my time on bunk theory. I suppose you just gotta use your common sense with what you think can be helpful to integrate into your playing or not.

[Gabor]

Good racket. Let me screen my students for aptitude, teach the more naturally talented ones and congratulate myself on my abilities as a teacher.

(btw this is what Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge exactly do, in an institute level)

***

that is the hardest part of all pedagogy. I mean the responsibility of the teacher to tell or not to tell to the untalented. In high school the teachers responsibility shifts to the direction to unconditionally help everyone accomplish at least a minimum requirements, help and support all students, even the untalented, and pay extra attention on talented, to allow them grow. But this is a special use case, because in high school we all learn mandatory skills. We learn basic thinking via math and physisc, we learn about humanity via history and literature, and we learn love play football and basketball.

However there are things, what are not mandatory, instead optional. For the sake of extreme example, say the student who have mediocre or less manual skills wants to be a surgeon. Who's responsibility to screen, and feedback the fact to him he is not appropriate? Is the teacher responsibility to help him accomplish the minimum level or is the teacher responsibility to filter him out, so give have a chance to pick an other area, where he "may live a better life, in a profession what is more appropriate".

The hardest part that this is not black and white. I mean talanted or not. Also hard part the high school thing. A high school teacher can see early signs of the student profession pick, and may see if it does not fit to the students natural talent set. Then the question raises: support unconditionaly the student to accomplish, or try to orient the student an emphatic way to an other direction. (an save the society from a future bad surgeon, or a total disaster future teacher, or a frustrated below mediocre design artist, etc)

[Litterick]

From the Harvard Crimson:

A study of 30 elite US colleges from 2011 found that students whose parents graduated from the college were 45 percent more likely to be admitted compared to students without a legacy background. At Harvard, the acceptance rate for legacy students was 33 percent between 2014 and 2019 even though the overall acceptance rate during the same period was less than 6 percent. Most legacy students tend to be white and come from very privileged backgrounds — let’s face it, these students do not need any additional advantage in the admissions process.

[Christian Miller]

It doesn't invalidate the observation. It just adds a layer of irony to it (or maybe it does give one the authority to say it), Life is full of such ironies. It applies to me, too. Hence my saying "pot calling the kettle black here".

I'd describe my experience (Columbia, ~ comparable to UCL in terms of selectivity and "prestige") more as mixed than mediocre. As teachers, the majority were really quite good, while a few were brilliant, and a few were hopeless. The atrocious ones stand out because they are so much at odds with the institution's reputation. I also went to a selective high school that has an outsized reputation (a ridiculous idea in and of itself) -- the teaching there was fair to middling, but with some truly shockingly bad teachers (various combinations of incompetent and abusive). Until college, in all honesty, most of my education happened at home. My father was an econ professor, and my mother was a middle school teacher (history and English) who went back to grad school and became a poli sci prof. They spent a lot of time undoing the nonsense foisted on my sister and me by teachers.

Yeah, mixed is probably a better word. Amazing though! Well done your mum.

(Couldn't go into academia though myself even if they'd have me.)

To be perfectly honest I learn more about astronomy from YouTube channels these days than I did at uni (TBF science has marched on massively since 2000). Channels like Dr Becky (based at Oxford) and Cool Worlds (based at Columbia IRRC) both give you a ringside seat for cutting edge research and represent as good science communication as anything I encountered at uni; most is more on the pop science side, but because you are dealing with an actual scientist rather than a third party science journalist simplifying what may already be their own partial understanding, the info tends to be much more accurate than what you may find in the mainstream press.

People diss YouTube, but quite honestly, I can see YouTube video blogs from actual working researchers as being the future of science edu. These people are born teachers, and have followings of hundreds of thousands of subs.

And this stuff is free. Of course distance learning though academic institutions is not uncommon now. The music education course became that over the course of Covid (physical rooms are harder to get than qualified lecturers apparently). Most of the Big Name Institutions are able to provide it at low marginal cost especially with pre recorded lectures and so on, so it is also cheap.

The place that does charge through the nose is a place called Berklee? I think I might have heard of it?

Mostly, yes. Growing up around academics, I saw the full spectrum, but I'd say most found teaching more of a chore than an inspiration

For sure.

Opposite for me. People think I'm an academic type, but in fact I find research dumb and stupid, and teaching to be the real deal. I cottoned onto the fact in my final year when I realised that a PhD would be another four years of trying to work out why my computer program wasn't working and I could get paid for that. (A couple of decades on, I realise that teaching brings out the best of me.)

I think most make that calculus, though I'm pleased to say some of my classmates selflessly carried on with it. One ended up at the VLT in Chile, and another is on the instrumentation team for JWST. Well done them!

Music education research in particular I find especially interminable; mostly it's a very mono-cultural scene dominated by a specific tribe of people who think and talk a certain way. It also (necessarily) incredibly unsatisfying from the perspective of having come from STEM, much more messy! There's some good stuff in there, but I wouldn't want it to be my life any more than debugging code. But I'm glad I've had a taste of both sides.

[John A.]

Yeah, mixed is probably a better word. Amazing though! Well done your mum.

(Couldn't go into academia though myself even if they'd have me.)

To be perfectly honest I learn more about astronomy from YouTube channels these days than I did at uni (TBF science has marched on massively since 2000). Channels like Dr Becky (based at Oxford) and Cool Worlds (based at Columbia IRRC) both give you a ringside seat for cutting edge research and represent as good science communication as anything I encountered at uni; most is more on the pop science side, but because you are dealing with an actual scientist rather than a third party science journalist simplifying what may already be their own partial understanding, the info tends to be much more accurate than what you may find in the mainstream press.

I was pushed pretty hard toward STEM when I was young, but had my fill of actually working hard at it by the time I got to college, and wound up majoring in philosophy. But I've always retained a keen interest in the actual content of science and took a bunch of science-for-non-scientists classes in college. I agree that the best stuff tends to be by actual scientists, some of whom are great explainers..

People diss YouTube, but quite honestly, I can see YouTube video blogs from actual working researchers as being the future of science edu. These people are born teachers, and have followings of hundreds of thousands of subs.

Maybe, but I have my doubts. I don't see any form of online science education being able to replicate labs and hands-on demos.

And this stuff is free. Of course distance learning though academic institutions is not uncommon now. The music education course became that over the course of Covid (physical rooms are harder to get than qualified lecturers apparently). Most of the Big Name Institutions are able to provide it at low marginal cost especially with pre recorded lectures and so on, so it is also cheap.

Free youtube is becoming unwatchable, and seems to be evolving into a tool for steering people toward paid content. Obviously, online instruction will be cheaper than on premises schools, though.

The place that does charge through the nose is a place called Berklee? I think I might have heard of it?

Too rich for my blood.

Opposite for me. People think I'm an academic type, but in fact I find research dumb and stupid, and teaching to be the real deal. I cottoned onto the fact in my final year when I realised that a PhD would be another four years of trying to work out why my computer program wasn't working and I could get paid for that. (A couple of decades on, I realise that teaching brings out the best of me.)

I would never have the stamina to stick with one subject long enough to do a PhD. And nowadays, with the tenured positions being such a rarity, It's hard to imagine taking that risk. My dad finished his Phd just as the baby boomers hit college age. So he had a fast and easy ride to tenure and spent almost his entire working life doing whatever he felt like doing. Unheard of now.

I think most make that calculus, though I'm pleased to say some of my classmates selflessly carried on with it. One ended up at the VLT in Chile, and another is on the instrumentation team for JWST. Well done them!

I'm more aware of my high school classmates' success -- Brian Greenberg and Lisa Randle (two drop a couple of names) are the best known. I can't claim any connection beyond having been in the same building with them though. College classmates are doctor, lawyers, IT people, POTUS (actually a year ahead of me, but I did live next door to him in a slum tenement) ...

Music education research in particular I find especially interminable; mostly it's a very mono-cultural scene dominated by a specific tribe of people who think and talk a certain way. It also (necessarily) incredibly unsatisfying from the perspective of having come from STEM, much more messy! There's some good stuff in there, but I wouldn't want it to be my life any more than debugging code. But I'm glad I've had a taste of both sides.

Isn't that true of teacher training in general? It seems like there's an awful lot of puffing things up for the sake of accreditation and appearance of rigor there.

[cesarguit]

It always seemed curious to me, this discussion only exists between guitarists, no other musician, whatever their instrument, considers this. The knowledge of the theory is absolutely necessary but obviously it is not the only thing. Good taste, sensitivity, artistic sense are also necessary to create something truly artistic, and no one can teach you this.

[KingKong]

I suspect it’s simply that people like Benson long ago reached a level where they can play whatever they hear without needing names or number references for what they play, so that information gets put to some distant part of brain storage or something. Then they have trouble recalling it, because they hardly ever need it.

I think Wes was like that in that video of him and the Dutch group rehearsing a tune.

Even Joe Pass does it on one of those hot licks videos somewhere, he plays a pretty standard chord, tries to say what it is, then can’t name it.

I think you and other people on this forum put these guys on a pedestal too much and think you have absolutely no chance of getting anywhere near them.

Like any great guitarist they've done this:

- figured out a system and a few basic tricks and concepts
- applied that system and concepts in a creative and imaginative way to forge a musical career.

Take Joe pass as an example, there are lots of interviews and vids I've read and seen where he is miffed at what all the fuss is about...

Some examples:

- on his famous lessons now on you tube where he talks about chords he basically says something like ' forget about if it is e.g. Cminor7thSharp9Flat9Added47th ....... just treat it as cMinor...... '

- When interviewed after a tv appearance the presenter says ( expecting some mythical response) : ' what were you thinking during that solo?'
Pass : ' I was thinking that I need to get milk on the way home'....

Pass talking about his famous virtuoso album that could be analysed ad infinitum ..... ' it was basically an exercise of getting myself into traps and then getting out of them'......

This is coming from someone who most would put in their top3 greatest jazz guitarists of all time.

Wes Montgomery, famously got his chops by learning Charlie Cristian solos note for note and repeating them in shows.

If this doesn't show that less is more, I don't know what does!

[grahambop]

I think you and other people on this forum put these guys on a pedestal too much and think you have absolutely no chance of getting anywhere near them.

So you think you might be nearly as good as George Benson, Wes Montgomery and Joe Pass one day?

Aren’t you the guy who has just started tackling Autumn Leaves? How old are you? When do you think you might get near their level?

I have been playing guitar for 50 years (jazz guitar for the last 40) and I think I know what I’m talking about.

As a total amateur I am reasonably content with my playing by the way, although I’m always looking for ways to develop and improve. You can decide for yourself what my level is, there are at least 70 video and audio clips in the links below.

[KingKong]

So you think you might be nearly as good as George Benson, Wes Montgomery and Joe Pass one day?

Aren’t you the guy who has just started tackling Autumn Leaves? How old are you? When do you think you might get near their level?

I have been playing guitar for 50 years (jazz guitar for the last 40) and I think I know what I’m talking about.

I am reasonably content with my playing by the way, although I’m always looking for ways to develop and improve. You can decide for yourself what my level is, there are at least 70 video and audio clips in the links below.

28 years paying guitar so not quite your 50, but I ought to have some idea what I am talking about after all that. Don't try to patronise me with your pomposity.

So answer this question, why can Joe Pass think about getting milk during a lovely guitar solo?

A) he's so amazing and such a savant genius that only he could have a brain to do such a thing.

B) There actually isn't a great deal to think about.

[grahambop]

In any case, the points you have made tend to support what I said. Joe Pass was always saying he likes to keep things simple.

My point is these guys have reached a stage where things have become kind of simple for them. They don’t have to over-analyse or think about chord changes etc. that much.

I understand that, for example I can improvise a good solo on Autumn Leaves in my sleep these days. It’s really easy, I don’t have to think about any key or chord changes etc. So I can see how that can work. But to get there for every tune, every tempo, etc. takes much longer, I’m not there yet. And probably won’t be, that’s ok with me.

I’m not patronising you, I’m trying to explain facts.

[grahambop]

So answer this question, why can Joe Pass think about getting milk during a lovely guitar solo?

Because you don’t think when you improvise at his level, it’s more or less automatic.

Getting to that point is what takes a long time.

Like I said, I can do it on some tunes so I have some idea of what is involved.

[KingKong]

In any case, the points you have made tend to support what I said. Joe Pass was always saying he likes to keep things simple.

My point is these guys have reached a stage where things have become kind of simple for them. They don’t have to over-analyse or think about chord changes etc. that much.

I understand that, for example I can improvise a good solo on Autumn Leaves in my sleep these days. It’s really easy, I don’t have to think about any key or chord changes etc. So I can see how that can work. But to get there for every tune, every tempo, etc. takes much longer, I’m not there yet. And probably won’t be, that’s ok with me.

I’m not patronising you, I’m trying to explain facts.

Its ok, peace to you b4 this gets out of hand.

The same theme of worshiping guitarists then sussing them out has played out over all of my guitar learning, from 13 years of age to now.

- Kurt Cobain, what a guitarist, I wish I could play all that Nirvana stuff.............. HANG on, its all 5 chords and arpeggios thereof, ah what was all the fuss about?

- John Squire, wow! gotta buy a Stone Roses book and figure all that out ..........HANG on, its all major pentatonics, ah, what was all the fuss about?

- BB King / Jimi Hendrix / Eric Clapton ............ HANG on, he's only got about 10 licks that he twists and re shapes ........

- Pass / Benson / Montgomery ........... HANG on, they're just running arpeggios with scale tones.......