It's all about touch

[jjkrause84]

Transcribing the Peter Green solo from Jumping at Shadows just now and man.....what a great player!

Him...not me....

It's great transcribing a guy like Peter Green because it makes you realize JUST how much is in your touch. His licks are often pretty simple (reminds me a lot of BB King which isn't surprising given Green's influences.....) but sound heavenly because of precisely how he played them.

Certainly somethign to aspire to!

So, next time you're playing remember....it's not so much the note, it's the touch....

[slowpinky]

Its one of those musical phenomena that is rarely investigated - but I totally agree with you!

[Budda]

That version from Live At The Boston Tea Party is one of my all time favorites!
Yeah, TOUCH!!!



And the TONE?



Outstanding!!!!

Not sure what gear he was using on it, though.

Anyway, I think I worked out the Chord Changes.

READ NO FURTHER, IF THIS WILL SCREW UP YOUR TRANSCRIBING!!!!

You have been warned!!









I think this is correct:

Simple Shuffle Pattern/Rhythm.

32 Bar A A B A Form.


Basically, it's like an 8 Bar Blues in G.
But, some cool Variations, and a Bridge.


I G I C I G I A I

I C A I C D I G C I G D :II

Looks like this 8 Bar Chorus repeats 4 Times? (I gotta go back and count them).

On the 4th. Chorus, there are some little "Tweaks" going on.
* Bars 1 & 2 add the b7 to the Simple Shuffle
** Bars 5 & 6 contain Chords and a little Chord/Arpeggio type Lick
*** Bar 8 Stays on the G


Next, the Solo Chorus:

I C I C I G I G I
I E I C I A I D II

And then it finishes with another Chorus of 8 Bars that is like the first Choruses.

Hope I dodn't butt in where I wasn't wanted. Just thought the Form was cool, and might be helpful.

[jjkrause84]

Oh, no....don't worry. I've had the chord changes down for a while now. I'm just finally off my butt and doing the solo.

[Larry F]

Max Mathews, the father of computer music, made the interesting observation that the simpler one aspect of music is, the more complex is another. In my words, I think he is talking about what could be termed a homeostatic principle of expression. You point out an example of that when you say:

"His licks are often pretty simple...but sound heavenly because of precisely how he played them."

An example of the inverse of this is a player with mega-chops, whose touch is not recognized as much as the complexity and speed of his playing. A few people come to mind: John McGlaughlin, Oscar Peterson, and Frank Zappa.

[gmann]

I definately agree about the touch. How many times have you seen someone play something pretty much note for note but somehow it's just not the same? Touch is often overlooked. Peter Green has another song that I really like called 'I Loved Another Women' that I can play note perfect. It's an easy song really but it's nowhere near as effective as my touch is nothing like his. Well it's something for me to work on.

[slowpinky]

Originally Posted by Larry F

An example of the inverse of this is a player with mega-chops, whose touch is not recognized as much as the complexity and speed of his playing. A few people come to mind: John McGlaughlin, Oscar Peterson, and Frank Zappa.

Thats an interesting perspective - I do subscribe to it to some degree and the examples you cite may well support that - because of the sheer 'busy -ness' that those players can be associated with - but when you start talking about touch - youre going to get all sorts of opinions about that!

I'd argue that some players - Bill Evans for instance had both - no question(for me) I'd recognize his touch anywhere - (the only recording of him that stumped me is his playing on Oliver Nelson's Blues and the Abstract truth) - and both his concepts and technique are advanced - although the ease with which he executes his ideas can belie that complexity.

Wes, Django, Charlie Christian,Herbie Hancock, Jim Hall, Wayne Shorter ,Jimi - they all have strikingly unique 'touches' on the instrument and are all virtuosi in their own way - but I wonder if perception of touch lies in how we ourselves create a tangible image of what we hear - because we to some degree desire to hear it.



Glenn Gould and Vladimir Horowitz are examples of the classical virtuosi whose touch is instantly recogniseable (to me).

We use touch to describe a lot more than just the sound - its a fascinating area and you wont find much in the way of research or literature on it.

[boneyguy]

I always find it fascinating to consider 'touch' on instruments where there is not an immediate touching of the apparatus that generates the sound. A piano for example has all sorts of mechanical parts that are in play between the finger and the string. It's almost like the piano is playing the piano.

Not so on a guitar where the touch is immediate and seemingly more intimate. There's a part of my thinking that thinks that because of a piano's mechanical distancing between finger and string then how could there possibly be a distinciton in 'touch' between Bill Evans purposefully pushing down a key and a 5 year old kid accidentally bumping up against the very same key.

In other words "what's the difference that makes the difference" between those two examples. Is 'intention' the force that transcends the mechanical bridge between finger and string? When someone like Bill Evans touched the keys where was his intention? On the keys? On the strings? On the sound? Did it flow from place to place? I don't know but I've often wondered about this sort of thing.

[slowpinky]

There is a book called "The Act of Touch" by Tobias Matthay - written early last century in which the author painstakingly and verbosely directs the student on the physiology and mechanics of playing a note on the piano. The Classical guys I know think the book is pretty funny - but the fact that they all know it suggests that it played some role in pianistic learning at some point. The idea of over-arching intention is more or less replaced by the deliberate attention to every minute stage.

BG - when you asked how the intention flows - I thought of this book - and how much just plain attenton to detail might result in a complete and singular action.

[boneyguy]

Originally Posted by slowpinky

There is a book called "The Act of Touch" by Tobias Matthay - written early last century in which the author painstakingly and verbosely directs the student on the physiology and mechanics of playing a note on the piano. The Classical guys I know think the book is pretty funny - but the fact that they all know it suggests that it played some role in pianistic learning at some point. The idea of over-arching intention is more or less replaced by the deliberate attention to every minute stage.

BG - when you asked how the intention flows - I thought of this book - and how much just plain attenton to detail might result in a complete and singular action.

Cool. I'm going to see what I can find out about that book. It sounds like the book is focused on physiology which is cool because physiology is just the mind made visible. Body and mind are not connected....because they are not seperate but are actually one and the same thing. That's very clear to me. You can very easily change a persons intent by changing their physiology.


I'm always interested in the intersection of our neurology and the 'outside' world, if 'outside' even actually exists. What's the difference that makes the difference. I think that question is attributed to Gregory Bateson and for me it's such an important and useful question to pursue. Why does Bill Evans sound like he does and I don't?

[Del Pickup]

Absolutely right about touch being so important in developing your own tone.

I've been working on a whole heap of Peter Green material recently as I've decided to put a band together to do a gig full of their material from the early days. Not quite a tribute show but just playing their material.

I very quickly discovered that I had to put my pick down and use my fingers to get anywhere close to Peter Green's tone and playing style - although from what I've seen on early TV clips he seemed to use a pick!

But his touch was amazing and it's that part of his sound that is so difficult to replicate. In fact I doubt if I'll ever match it as I've discovered long ago that if you give 2 players identical gear they'll make it sound different.

Incidentally, I think in the chords for Jumping at Shadows in the lead break it's E minor rather than major as shown above. But then I might be wrong............. it has happened before!

[Le Jab]

Kinda says it all......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxgY9eEFiYM

The journey Green takes you on is a masterclass. If you dont cry, then you have no soul.

[boneyguy]

Originally Posted by Le Jab

Kinda says it all......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxgY9eEFiYM

The journey Green takes you on is a masterclass. If you dont cry, then you have no soul.

What if I'm crying because I realize I have no soul? Does that mean I have soul? I'm confused.

[Scotty Lonesome]

If someone says "touch" is in the underpants, I'm gonna scream.
<giggles>
Scotty.

[Le Jab]

Originally Posted by boneyguy

What if I'm crying because I realize I have no soul? Does that mean I have soul? I'm confused.

Nope, your tears wont be soulful tears. There's a difference.

[boneyguy]

Originally Posted by Le Jab

Nope, your tears wont be soulful tears. There's a difference.

Ahhh crap!! I've got so much to learn.

[slowpinky]

Originally Posted by Scotty Lonesome

If someone says "touch" is in the underpants, I'm gonna scream.
<giggles>
Scotty.

You beat me to it!