Guitar Teacher Epiphany - Better lead playing

[eddie knuckles]

EPIPHANY PRACTICE LESSON FOR BETTER LEAD PLAYING
I have just about the most wonderful Guitar Teacher. He can take all of those things whirring around in my head and put them in the context of both the english language and musical sense. Using a looper here will really help

FIRST - LOOP a single chord in a single groove (A minor, for example)

1 - Simply introduce yourself musically - Like a "Hello my name is" tag that you mandatorily wear to a convention. STOP playing once you introduce yourself.

musically state:
"Hi my name is (insert name here), and I'm going to play a lead for you" - STOP Do NOT repeat the same introduction next time around.

Do this for a full five minutes - hard to not say the same introduction twice isn't it?

2- PLAY as sophisticated and complicated as you can - use dynamics, chromatics.

Do this for a full five minutes over the same progression - No cliche's!!!!!!

I found out quickly - I can actually do this!! Never thought I had it in me.

3- SELL IT -
Ok now do all the cliche, guitar-gasm, blow your musical load all over the audience. Make me want to respect you for playing with as much EMOTION as possible

do this for five minutes.

4 - CONCLUSION -
Bring me from outerspace wanker-land back to the song you are supposed to be playing.
Conclude your idea - musically state:
"Thank you for listening to my amazing guitar solo, now back to the song folks..." STOP - do it again and differently

do this for how long? - 5 minutes

This is a life lesson I can't believe I have never really looked at quite this way before.

[twangjeff]

I have used similar techniques with students before, you can be really creative with that. Some other things you can do are isolate one string to play on, two non adjacent strings, etc. You can do it using only pentatonics, only chord tones, and combine all of the above. You can use a chord progression and try hitting the 3rds and 7ths on downbeats, use guide tones, then add in chromatics, you can take that basic idea and really go wild with it!

[boneyguy]

Originally Posted by twangjeff

I have used similar techniques with students before, you can be really creative with that. Some other things you can do are isolate one string to play on, two non adjacent strings, etc. You can do it using only pentatonics, only chord tones, and combine all of the above. You can use a chord progression and try hitting the 3rds and 7ths on downbeats, use guide tones, then add in chromatics, you can take that basic idea and really go wild with it!

Although those are fine ideas I think it misses the point of Eddie Knuckles' post.

His post, I believe, is more about embodying an attitude or state of mind or at the very least a structure while playing regardless of what particular notes (such as you're suggesting) that are being played. His post deals with the 'how' rather than the 'what'. He's talking about 'how' to have a conversation (structure) and you're talking about 'what' to say (content) in a conversation. Two different things.

And to grossly paraphrase Pat Metheny when you understand structure it almost doesn't matter what the content is.

What Metheny actually said was something like if you really know how to phrase then it almost doesn't matter what notes you play or something close to that I think.

Anyway, that's what I think Mr. Kunckles OP is about.

[twangjeff]

Originally Posted by boneyguy

Anyway, that's what I think Mr. Kunckles OP is about.

Just expanding on the idea a bit, not trying to ruffle any feathers.

[eddie knuckles]

It is all good. No questions on any front.

I love to work with tones and add colors to them to develop chords, melodies, shadows, etc as well.

Using Guitar Grimoire "the black book" scale tones is fun as well

[klasaine]

Originally Posted by boneyguy

And to grossly paraphrase Pat Metheny when you understand structure it almost doesn't matter what the content is.

What Metheny actually said was something like if you really know how to phrase then it almost doesn't matter what notes you play or something close to that I think.

This is what improvising 'really' is all about.
If you know where your going, even if if there are myriad roads, you will get there.
You know, when you transcribe somebody's solo and every friggin' note is a non chord tone or breaks every 'rule' in the book, etc. ... BUT SOUNDS SO PERFECT WHEN THEY PLAY IT. They're aware of their (musical) surroundings. It's like being in a field and deciding to play baseball, hide and seek, throw dirt clods ;) or do donuts with your car. All valid, all doable, all fine at the given moment. But - you're doing whatever w/in the given space (parameters). And you're aware of the space. Or the ball goes through somebody's window or you take out the old lady's mailbox.

Every time I see a G7 to a C I have no idea whatsoever what I'd play until I play it. I don't know what the context is away from actual music. I know what I 'can' play - which is potentially thousands of things(?). The actual playing of the music collapses the wave function.

[Skintight]

Originally Posted by eddie knuckles

EPIPHANY PRACTICE LESSON FOR BETTER LEAD PLAYING
I have just about the most wonderful Guitar Teacher. He can take all of those things whirring around in my head and put them in the context of both the english language and musical sense. Using a looper here will really help

FIRST - LOOP a single chord in a single groove (A minor, for example)

1 - Simply introduce yourself musically - Like a "Hello my name is" tag that you mandatorily wear to a convention. STOP playing once you introduce yourself.

musically state:
"Hi my name is (insert name here), and I'm going to play a lead for you" - STOP Do NOT repeat the same introduction next time around.

Do this for a full five minutes - hard to not say the same introduction twice isn't it?

2- PLAY as sophisticated and complicated as you can - use dynamics, chromatics.

Do this for a full five minutes over the same progression - No cliche's!!!!!!

I found out quickly - I can actually do this!! Never thought I had it in me.

3- SELL IT -
Ok now do all the cliche, guitar-gasm, blow your musical load all over the audience. Make me want to respect you for playing with as much EMOTION as possible

do this for five minutes.

4 - CONCLUSION -
Bring me from outerspace wanker-land back to the song you are supposed to be playing.
Conclude your idea - musically state:
"Thank you for listening to my amazing guitar solo, now back to the song folks..." STOP - do it again and differently

do this for how long? - 5 minutes

This is a life lesson I can't believe I have never really looked at quite this way before.

You should get a YouTube video detailing this technique mate!

[boneyguy]

Originally Posted by twangjeff

Just expanding on the idea a bit, not trying to ruffle any feathers.

My feathers weren't ruffled.

It just seemed that the OP was celebrating a breathrough in his understanding of something very specific and I wanted to acknowledge that. That's all.

I think it's a really useful thing to be aware of what is 'form' and what is 'content' in all kinds of contexts including music. Those are the two elements that we get to play with in life and the more clarity we have about which is which and the role and importance of each of those elements the more skilled we become at any endeavour.

One way I have of thinking about what the difference is between someone who is highly skilled with music compared to someone who isn't so adept is the degree of organization of patterns (form, structure) that one has over the other. An expert has things ('sounds' in the case of music) mentally/physically organized into consistently recognizable and repeatably patterns whereas with someone not as skilled there will be a lot of disorganization and randomness to what they hear and percieve.

[klasaine]

Originally Posted by boneyguy

My feathers weren't ruffled.


One way I have of thinking about what the difference is between someone who is highly skilled with music compared to someone who isn't so adept is the degree of organization of patterns (form, structure) that one has over the other. An expert has things ('sounds' in the case of music) mentally/physically organized into consistently recognizable and repeatably patterns whereas with someone not as skilled there will be a lot of disorganization and randomness to what they hear and perceive.

A colleague of mine likes to say this, "we're all great once in a while - even the most novice player can be great occasionally". Usually in the company of ourselves where we're unhindered by a pesky audience.
*It's being great all the time (at least when the red light is on) that separates the men from the boys.

[boneyguy]

Originally Posted by klasaine

A colleague of mine likes to say this, "we're all great once in a while - even the most novice player can be great occasionally". Usually in the company of ourselves where we're unhindered by a pesky audience.
*It's being great all the time (at least when the red light is on) that separates the men from the boys.

Yes.

The devil is in the details and in this case the detail is consistency and to my mind at least, consistency is a function of recognition, recall and the general organization of patterns. Being great by accident is a nice feeling but it's hard to build a career on. I know this from personal experience.

[Seasicksailor]

Originally Posted by boneyguy

Yes.

The devil is in the details and in this case the detail is consistency and to my mind at least, consistency is a function of recognition, recall and the general organization of patterns. Being great by accident is a nice feeling but it's hard to build a career on. I know this from personal experience.

Yeah, that elusive 'creative' consistency. If I try to be consistent (at my level), I'm boring. Perhaps I find myself boring because I anticipate myself. When I take risks, I make mistakes. The funny thing is that I make most mistakes after I 'surprise' myself with something really good. It's like: "Wow! That came out really well... well done Gerry! Oh ****! What am I doing now?"

Fuuny thing is that some mistakes are not really 'wrong'. This happens very rarely. But it's really nice when it does happen. I have used solos in recordings where halfway through I have made what I consider a mistake. For the sake of it, I continue recording... just for the practice and to come up with ideas. Listening back to the whole thing, it can 'magically' fit. EDIT: And the best part is usually after the mistake when I am relaxed, thinking that I won't use the recording anyway.

What a fun exploration! :-)

As I said, all these things occur at my level... discussing or considering a career would be a Marx Brothers joke!

[slowpinky]

*It's being great all the time (at least when the red light is on) that separates the men from the boys.

Funny thing is - that Ive seen it work the other way too. A few people on this forum (particularly the theory forum) like to talk about those few people blessed with an innate sense of musicality - not one that they can articulate to others apart from through the instrument.
I know a couple of guys like this, great instinctual players - who after many years of playing seem to only "fire up" when the 'big gig" is on. The energy/pressure galvanises the musicianship with the showmanship enough for them to get (competently)excited about what they are doing! Book them for a little club gig and the energy and interest isnt really there.

This is entirely anecdotal of course - I wonder if anyone eles has seen this or even experienced it?

[Seasicksailor]

Nope, never seen this... although I can imagine that it can happen. Would it be a case of motivation, regardless if it's conscious or not?

[boneyguy]

Originally Posted by slowpinky

great instinctual players -

I'm not really answering your main question SP but I'd like to make an observation that when people are "great instinctual players" I see that as meaning they are very highly unconciously organized. They may not be able to detail how they do what they do with a great level of concious awareness but somehow they unconciously (subconciously for them that prefers it) have a very organized recognition and usage of musical patterns. Ultimately that's what we are all wanting but most of us have to stumble through the concious recognition stage first before we have our unconcious minds suitably organized.

[Seasicksailor]

Originally Posted by boneyguy

I'm not really answering your main question SP but I'd like to make an observation that when people are "great instinctual players" I see that as meaning they are very highly unconciously organized. They may not be able to detail how they do what they do with a great level of concious awareness but somehow they unconciously (subconciously for them that prefers it) have a very organized recognition and usage of musical patterns. Ultimately that's what we are all wanting but most of us have to stumble through the concious recognition stage first before we have our unconcious minds suitably organized.

That's interesting... because in cognitive psychology, there is a distinction between awareness of recognition and intention. It seems to me that there could be a parallel. These 'instinctive' and I assume not formally trained players could be aware of patterns (awareness) but lack 'intentionality' meaning control of invoking them at will.

[boneyguy]

Originally Posted by Seasicksailor

That's interesting... because in cognitive psychology, there is a distinction between awareness of recognition and intention. It seems to me that there could be a parallel. These 'instinctive' and I assume not formally trained players could be aware of patterns (awareness) but lack 'intentionality' meaning control of invoking them at will.

I'm not sure if I have the gist of what you mean. I think we are each speaking from somewhat different perspectives and understandings of what some of these terms mean.

For me 'awareness' means at least two things. There is concious awareness (that's the one we can talk about) and there is unconcious awareness (that's the one that shows itself behaviourally, physically, metaphorically). A third may be the place where those two meet.

Unconcious awareness is the one that's driving the bus. Our concious mind doesn't believe that though.

For example it is now known through brain imaging that our unconcious mind has made a decision a full six seconds before our concious mind is able to verbalize it. Yet which mind wants to take credit.

In the case of 'instinctual' players I'm saying that they have a very high unconcious "awareness of recognition", borrowing your phrase.

As far as intention (how our awareness is directionalized) is concerned I also observe that there is both concious and unconscious 'intention'. In my experience there is often a conflict between these two forces and it is where many if not most of our problems arise from including musical 'problems'.

So when a person is performing (musically or otherwise) in a 'state of grace' so to speak I see that as a result of an alignment of both unconcious awareness and intent. That alignment can be so unified that the concious mind can wonder off for extended lengths of time into the 7(+ or - 2) pieces of trivial matters it likes to think are important and not interfere with a well oiled unconcious process and everything will work just fine.

[Seasicksailor]

I have no disagreement with the essence of what you're saying... it sounds plausible to me. What I would (lightly) object to is the distinction you make between conscious and unconscious intention. I believe, if I understand you correctly, that it is purely a terminology objection. I would rather call it intentional vs unintentional (or automatic). It seems like a trivial objection, but I feel I need to emphasise the separation of the 'awareness' (conscious vs unconscious) and 'intentionality' (intentional vs automatic) aspects.
I have been struggling to come up with examples of each possible combination, but it's 4:40am here and it's definitely past my thinking time! :-)
I'll refresh my reading a bit at some point and try to establish if the parallel holds at all!
Goodnight (or morning or evening) for now.

[boneyguy]

Originally Posted by Seasicksailor

I have no disagreement with the essence of what you're saying... it sounds plausible to me. What I would (lightly) object to is the distinction you make between conscious and unconscious intention. I believe, if I understand you correctly, that it is purely a terminology objection. I would rather call it intentional vs unintentional (or automatic). It seems like a trivial objection, but I feel I need to emphasise the separation of the 'awareness' (conscious vs unconscious) and 'intentionality' (intentional vs automatic) aspects.
I have been struggling to come up with examples of each possible combination, but it's 4:40am here and it's definitely past my thinking time! :-)
I'll refresh my reading a bit at some point and try to establish if the parallel holds at all!
Goodnight (or morning or evening) for now.

You should conciously intend to get some sleep now because I'm guessing that you have been very clearly recieving signals of that exact intention from your unconcious for at least a few hours now. It's time to align them.

Let's talk later.

[Mjark]

I can't relate to anything in OP which seem to embody all the worst traits of guitarists.

[slowpinky]

I would rather call it intentional vs unintentional (or automatic). It seems like a trivial objection, but I feel I need to emphasise the separation of the 'awareness' (conscious vs unconscious) and 'intentionality' (intentional vs automatic) aspects.

I've always understood intentionality to precede consciousness - or intentionality as the sum total of one's being at any point as a pre state -but that has nothing to do with intention really - as in the case of gesture - which isnt really enabled by conscious thought....

Reading my post again - I could probably(honestly) apply that gestalt to anyone really - me just voicing a personal experience that I had recently..