Consistent attack--talent, practice, or both?

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by KarlK

Which brings me to this Ryan Adams song, "Memories of You." Performed only live, never recorded. You can find a version below.

The song is disarmingly simple -- capo 3rd fret, with chords -- relative to the capo-- of G, C, D, Amin in the verse; G, Emin in the instrumental bridge. Single note run ups on the E, A, and D string, plus the C, B, A run down to the Amin, where there is a pull off/hammer on the B string and G string.

That's it. Nothing fancy, nothing technically challenging. You don't need to be Tommy Emmanuel to execute this. So I say to myself, "Man I can do this! It's not that hard!"

But it is, and I can't. Oh, I can get it some of it down, some of the time, and maybe I can almost work through the whole thing...but then, "sloppiness."

IMO, that's actually a good example of a pro playing with expressive sensitivity. It's "perfect" in the sense that it sounds the way he presumably intended. It's most certainly not "consistent" in its attack and articulation, in that there's huge variation in accent and stress.

As you say, it's not complicated. But maybe (in thinking you can't play it) you're confusing perfection with interpretation.
I don't suppose I could play it the exact same way RA plays it. But I wouldn't try. I'd play those chords, those patterns, those notes - but with my own personal sense of how I'd like it to sound.

I'm also sure that if you heard other live versions of RA playing that tune, they'd sound slightly different. They'd have the same mood (probably), but his guitar playing wouldn't be identical.

IOW, the "perfection" is not in the technique, the detail. It's in the overall vibe, the mood. Of course, that's not magic, it's a result of the notes he's playing and how he's playing them. He's playing in a way I would actually call "loose" - but controlled looseness. Certainly the accent patterns are random and variable. But he's totally in control of it - he's probably played it (or similar chords and patterns) many many times before he first played it in public. Expression-wise, he's not thinking about his guitar-playing (much); he's thinking about the lyrics and his voice, the guitar is merely accompaniment, slotting into that mood.

I'd say (without hearing you of course!) that you're either (a) too focussed on RA's interpretation, and/or (b) just giving up way too soon. You have to make the song your own, not be in helpless awe of his performance. Do it your way, over and over, until you inhabit it, until it feels like YOU wrote it.

As the old saying has it: "practice until you get it right. Then practice some more until you can't get it wrong." That's when you really know a song. Most people think they've done enough when they've got it right. That's just the beginning.
In a case like this, "right" doesn't mean every subtle nuance of RA's arrangement. It means knowing all the chords, and being able to play it all the way through, maybe something like RA's technique, but your own way. Then you just keep at it.

[EoE]

Shimmy I am not going to put a essay together for you any good music lit class will help you. but we are discussing this on a jazz forum and I am just going to steal a post. but I am not really sure what first desk is.. ...... ""I was reading a book earlier today called Essays in Jazz, forgot the author or technically compiler since it is basically a compilation of jazz writings.

The preface talks a little about the history of improvisation in western music.

Starting(at least in what I read) from the practice of descant/discant, improvisation has had a long and celebrated history in western music. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart and others of their ilk were all world class improvisers. Bachs son, himself a top quality musician said that what written material was present did little justice to his fathers improvisational skills and his commanding presence when seen live.

Today the repertoire is of course written out for us with lots of details regarding ornamentation and embellishment - both vital aspects of improvisation. But back in the day, sheet music was more sparse and performers were expected to take liberty in their interpretation of the score - much more than today.

There were even "cutting" contests. Often during local competitions or other such situations, musicians would be judged on the basis of their improvisational skills - toss them a melody and let them loose.
Many lesser musicians would, once they were notified that their opponent was someone of exceptionally high caliber(forgot the names cited in the book), would shirk the contest and refuse to show up for fear of embarrassment.

Haydn, Liszt, Mendelssohn and many others were supposedly great improvisers as well.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by EoE

Shimmy I am not going to put a essay together for you any good music lit class will help you. but we are discussing this on a jazz forum and I am just going to steal a post. but I am not really sure what first desk is.. ...... ""I was reading a book earlier today called Essays in Jazz, forgot the author or technically compiler since it is basically a compilation of jazz writings.

The preface talks a little about the history of improvisation in western music.

Starting(at least in what I read) from the practice of descant/discant, improvisation has had a long and celebrated history in western music. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart and others of their ilk were all world class improvisers. Bachs son, himself a top quality musician said that what written material was present did little justice to his fathers improvisational skills and his commanding presence when seen live.

Today the repertoire is of course written out for us with lots of details regarding ornamentation and embellishment - both vital aspects of improvisation. But back in the day, sheet music was more sparse and performers were expected to take liberty in their interpretation of the score - much more than today.

There were even "cutting" contests. Often during local competitions or other such situations, musicians would be judged on the basis of their improvisational skills - toss them a melody and let them loose.
Many lesser musicians would, once they were notified that their opponent was someone of exceptionally high caliber(forgot the names cited in the book), would shirk the contest and refuse to show up for fear of embarrassment.

Haydn, Liszt, Mendelssohn and many others were supposedly great improvisers as well.

True. Liszt in particular was like a virtuoso rock star. A "piano hero", if you like. They even called it "Lisztomania"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisztom...8phenomenon%29
- of course his music wasn't improvised to the extent of most jazz today; a lot of the effects of his performance were down to his expressive interpretation, of elements probably present in the composition already. Eg, variability of tempo and dynamics are well-known ways to enhance expressiveness (suspense and tension) in an existing composition.
But it's really only the symphony concert culture of the last 150 years or so that has (effectively) outlawed improvisation in classical music. The "Romantic" era liked to see composers as magical geniuses, whose works were sacred texts. Although Beethoven himself might have been an improviser, one wouldn't change a single note of anything he had written. Same applied to Bach, even though improvisation was fundamental to the Baroque era.
Of course, there was always a distinction between solo performers (such as Bach or Liszt on organ or piano), and orchestras or choirs. A soloist obviously had much more liberty than an orchestra, and could entertain with variations on a theme. There was never a culture (as far as I know) of group improvisation in classical Europe - IOW, nothing like jazz. (A keyboard accompanist might improvise chord voicings to a figured bass, but other aspects of the music were written.)
Of course, folk practices were probably different, but we don't have much record of those.

But there are many ways in which the art music of Europe (ie the written heritage of roughly the last 1000 years, loosely termed "classical") appears as a bizarre anomaly when compared to other musical cultures around the world, as well as folk cultures in Europe itself.
Even in the highly sophisticated music of India, improvisation is an essential part. The music is not written down - and it seems, in fact, that it was the invention and development of staff notation (beginning 1000 years ago) that led (gradually) to the sidelining, and even outlawing, of improvisation. Once composers could dictate every aspect of a piece of music, then they generally did! Especially when they started seeing themselves as geniuses: not just with jobs to do (performers, arrangers, group leaders), but with personal philosophical, spiritual or artistic messages to convey.

[SprintBob]

Great thread. As a beginner intermediate, I've experienced the same frustration but recently I'm seeing my playing get more accurate and consistent. A metronome and/or a backing track have been great tools for me. Don't be discouraged and as JonPR states, work within your boundaries. They will expand if you keep at it.

[Shimmy]

Originally Posted by EoE

Shimmy I am not going to put a essay together for you any good music lit class will help you. but we are discussing this on a jazz forum and I am just going to steal a post. but I am not really sure what first desk is.. ...... ""I was reading a book earlier today called Essays in Jazz, forgot the author or technically compiler since it is basically a compilation of jazz writings.

The preface talks a little about the history of improvisation in western music.

Starting(at least in what I read) from the practice of descant/discant, improvisation has had a long and celebrated history in western music. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart and others of their ilk were all world class improvisers. Bachs son, himself a top quality musician said that what written material was present did little justice to his fathers improvisational skills and his commanding presence when seen live.

Today the repertoire is of course written out for us with lots of details regarding ornamentation and embellishment - both vital aspects of improvisation. But back in the day, sheet music was more sparse and performers were expected to take liberty in their interpretation of the score - much more than today.

There were even "cutting" contests. Often during local competitions or other such situations, musicians would be judged on the basis of their improvisational skills - toss them a melody and let them loose.
Many lesser musicians would, once they were notified that their opponent was someone of exceptionally high caliber(forgot the names cited in the book), would shirk the contest and refuse to show up for fear of embarrassment.

Haydn, Liszt, Mendelssohn and many others were supposedly great improvisers as well.

I'm fully aware of all of this, but as JonPR has already covered so well it is not common now, and that is what we're discussing. I studied "lit" classes on musical history and traditions as part of my degree at the conservatoire when studying cello, so I'm pretty confident in what I'm saying here.

One of the best improvisors I've ever seen was a classical musician who could improvise double-fugues that were just jaw dropping... But he was not the norm by a long way.

At the end of the day EoE I can only convey my opinion on this matter, based on my real life experiences. I am in no way belittling classically trained musicians... I am one!lol

Ps. You don't need to cite the book, you're talking about when Marchand ran away after hearing Bach warming up before their musical duel (or so the story goes!). A great story. :-)

[ShawnH]

"Feel"
"Time"
"Time-Feel"
"Expressive"
"Dynamic"
"Soul"

It really is about all those things more and more - whatever those things mean to you - the further along you go with playing music. The notes are the notes. But oh boy what you do with them can make a big difference in how the final product turns out. And yes it's really tough. I think you can always improve on this. But I also believe there is an innate ability (talent?) that separates the top level from the rest. I certainly don't have it.


_______________

[jseth]

After posting my reply, I had several other thoughts on this subject. Reading all the replies gives me even more food for thought...

Oh, and a brilliant example of a classically trained virtuoso who BLOWS at jazz? Ithzak Perlman... listen to him with Andre Previn, Red Mitchell, Jim Hall and Shelley Mann (?)... they did a couple CDs together, back in the 80's and early 90's... the records were decent, brilliant at times, even... but Perlman just doesn't have that jazz sensibility in the slightest. Now, there's no denying his brilliance with the violin, but there is something else that happens in really good jazz, other than technique and virtuosity...

A really good way to describe playing wonderfully, with exactly the attack and sensitivity that YOU desire is to Play Each Note With INTENT...

Trying to copp someone else's EXACT phrasing and playing seems a fool's errand to me; I mean, THEY already did it! Why not "do it" the way that YOU DO IT? Try to focus on the deepest sense you can find of WHAT the music you are playing really means to you, why are you playing it? What do you want to bring to the song, to bring to the people who hear it?

The more fully in touch with this that I am allows me to "breathe" those very things into the music I play and write... As someone said earlier in this thread, it's really about where you come from, the context within which you present the music and your playing...

And I fully believe that THAT is a quality that can be present in any player, no matter their skill set or the music they play... that quality is what makes music and artists endearing and enduring for decades on end...

[Shimmy]

Good example Jseth... and I LOVE Perlman's playing. I have another example, Yehudi Menuhin and Stephane Grappelli. Menuhin, whilst being one of the most gifted violinists, just can't swing like Grappelli.

[Davis Webb]

Consistent attack is a hard won skill. Does it take talent? Yes. Is it possible without a given amount of talent? Yes.

I look to Eric Johnson as the master of clean attack. Its well worth seeing his youtube videos, he has a great instructional one up. In addition to his control of attack, he voices his guitar with effects just the right way and does a ton of drop 2 chord voicings.

I think like most things, art is 90% perspiration and 10% talent/inspiration.

[Pitar]

Originally Posted by KarlK

I am an OK player, have a couple of nice guitars, and can play a lot of songs.

But I am haunted by what my nephew said to me a long time ago. He is a skilled bassoonist, went to Julliard, played for a number years in some top orchestras.

The difference between a good player, he would say, and a player who was weak, was inconsistent attack -- attack being defined as the combination of disciplined tempo and precise delivery of the notes at the pitch and volume/dynamic range required at that moment in the flow of the music. The pejorative his professional musician colleagues would use is, "So and so is a sloppy player."

And we're not talking about hacks here, ladies and gentlemen. We're talking about people who've studied for years, can sight read like they are perusing a comic book, and know the intricacies of their instruments inside and out.

But their attack? It's sloppy.

Which brings me to this Ryan Adams song, "Memories of You." Performed only live, never recorded. You can find a version below.

The song is disarmingly simple -- capo 3rd fret, with chords -- relative to the capo-- of G, C, D, Amin in the verse; G, Emin in the instrumental bridge. Single note run ups on the E, A, and D string, plus the C, B, A run down to the Amin, where there is a pull off/hammer on the B string and G string.

That's it. Nothing fancy, nothing technically challenging. You don't need to be Tommy Emmanuel to execute this. So I say to myself, "Man I can do this! It's not that hard!"

But it is, and I can't. Oh, I can get it some of it down, some of the time, and maybe I can almost work through the whole thing...but then, "sloppiness."

Because, you see, RA's attack is perfect. And this is live. Live.

So my view is this -- the ability to execute perfect attack IS in large measure ABOUT talent. Some may disagree. But I am coming around to the disheartening conclusion that it is. I won't stop playing, I enjoy it too much. But, alas, it is what it is.

See also here for a downloadable version:

https://archive.org/details/ryanadam...-28.sbd.flac16

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1GMFtUv0uA

This comes from the soul, not any theoretical rhetoric. Do not ever confuse the two. Adams did not refer to academics to render this song.

This thread is asking for apple seeds to grow oranges. At best it's an excursion into the imagination where math creates the artists. I think this is obvious, or at least I'm hopeful that it will eventually become clear that it is.

One thing I have to say that will step on a lot of toes. It has in the past. You either have in your chest the stuff of the Adams' we're sampling here or you don't. It will not come to you from books so don't go there looking for it. Look for it from within. If you can't find it there, you will not go any further with music other than as possibly a hobbyist who remains, forever, the student of inspiration who never tastes from its fruit.

[stanron]

Originally Posted by Pitar

This comes from the soul, not any theoretical rhetoric. Do not ever confuse the two. Adams did not refer to academics to render this song.

This thread is asking for apple seeds to grow oranges. At best it's an excursion into the imagination where math creates the artists. I think this is obvious, or at least I'm hopeful that it will eventually become clear that it is.

One thing I have to say that will step on a lot of toes. It has in the past. You either have in your chest the stuff of the Adams' we're sampling here or you don't. It will not come to you from books so don't go there looking for it. Look for it from within. If you can't find it there, you will not go any further with music other than as possibly a hobbyist who remains, forever, the student of inspiration who never tastes from its fruit.

No disagreement from me.

[wcap]

To the OP,

I played 5-string banjo for several decades, intensely. I got pretty good, I think.

Then I got into guitar pretty seriously, starting about 10 years ago. A lot of skills transferred from banjo to guitar (right hand skills especially, even though my right hand technique is quite different on guitar), but in some ways I sort of felt like I was starting from scratch. For at least 5 years it didn't seem I could play anything on guitar with any sort of precision or predictability. It was quite frustrating.

I've gotten better though, and a few things have played important roles in this.

The most important thing has been getting interested in doing some recording. Recording is just a terribly painful, time consuming experience if you can't play your pieces with some degree of precision and predictability. Yes one can sometimes edit mistakes, but it is a royal pain in the neck, and it is so much nicer to just play the music right the first time. This resulted in a different sort of practice that I really had not done before, where I really focused intensely on every note and every little nuance. While I don't normally consider my time playing guitar as "practice" (which sounds like work), and prefer to just call it playing guitar (which better reflects the joyous nature of the activity, even if I am working intensely on something), I have to say that preparing pieces for trying to record them has really been a LOT of work in some cases. But this is work that has fundamentally changed me as a guitar player.

Another thing that has really had a big affect on my playing is performing, which I (often along with my family) have been doing increasingly in the summer for a number of years now. I find that preparation for performing is a bit different, since in this context I'm often most concerned about "crash proofing" a piece - in other words, trying to get to the point where if I do make a mistake I can just keep on playing through the mistake without it bringing the piece to a halt.

Taken together, the preparation for recording, and the preparation for performing, these have really improved my consistency as a guitar player.

In addition to the above, I have to say that one of the most important things is simply playing a LOT. At my peak (on banjo) I was sometimes playing 3 or 4 hours a day (spread out throughout the day, from first thing in the morning to last thing before sleeping at night). On guitar I have had some periods of time where I could manage to fit in 3 hours or so a day most days. I can't emphasize enough how much this sort of intensity of playing (or you can call it practice if you must) improves one's playing (assuming the time is spent usefully). Every time I've had the opportunity to devote this sort of time to my music I have been amazed by the results. I would think that professional musicians probably spend even more time than this (though I don't actually know). If I was able to play guitar for, say, 4 hours most days (without causing physical damage to my hands or body otherwise of course), I think I could become a seriously awesome musician.

I have not tended to use a metronome as often as I should have during my practice time, but when I have (sometimes forced to do so by my daughter who has said on at least two occasions that she would not perform particular pieces with me unless I worked with them slowly with a metronome first!), I have been very impressed by the results.

The bottom line is that if you can put a LOT of time into some really focused practice in which you focus on perfecting all the details (and focus on playing each note with intent, as jseth said), you will almost certainly find that all these details will start to become automatic and second nature.

And sometimes seemingly simple pieces can take much more time than you might think they should. I have an original arrangement of the Irish piece Sheebeg and Sheemore that I quite enjoy playing. It is fundamentally a very simple arrangement, which I play quite slowly. There is nothing technically difficult about it, except that with a slow piece like this every note and every little nuance (including tone, volume, subtleties of timing, etc, etc) matters tremendously. I put an amazing amount of time into trying to refine those nuances. I still don't have it all down perfectly, but when I play the piece now a lot of those nuances just happen automatically.

I've come to the conclusion that the time one takes getting to the point of playing a new piece with some competency and reliability (e.g. to the point where you might be able to play it for others) is really only about half of the time it takes to really refine and polish your performance. Figuring out and mastering all the nuances can take an equal amount of time and effort.

Some folks hear me play and say they think I'm really talented. I'm not sure how much of whatever talent I have is really innate though. What those folks don't typically know is how very many hours (or I should probably say weeks, months, years...) have gone into this.

I'll bet you can improve your consistency as well, given a concerted effort and a systematic approach.

[williejohnson]

Originally Posted by EoE

do you want to remain a guitar enthusiast or cross over to what we call a musician.

I'm unclear on who the we might be? Careful getting down from that high horse.


You will often hear this type of drivel spewed out by those with some type of formal musical education, who are insecure. Apparently, they cannot fathom the fact that someone who is not formally trained could actually be a better musician than they are. You rarely encounter this type of attitude among real working musicians whether trained or un-trained. In the arena of live performance, especially when playing with other musicians, you will be judged strictly upon your ability to play music without any regard to how you arrived at that level.

There are many different types of musical education. To say that someone without formal musical training is not a real musician is as ridiculous as saying that someone with formal musical training has no soul, imagination or ability to improvise.

[Shimmy]

Good post Wcap. I think it's true people can underestimate how much time some top musicians put into their craft. I think maybe that has much to do with our romantic ideas of music and art in general. I know when I was studying there were many days when I was playing 10 or so hours a day. That time could be made up of orchestral practices (sometimes 6 hours in a day), ensemble rehearsals and then private practice on top.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Pitar

This comes from the soul, not any theoretical rhetoric. Do not ever confuse the two. Adams did not refer to academics to render this song.

Sure - but there's a risk of mystifying the process, with words like "soul".
Even beginners can have a lot of "soul", a lot of feeling for music. That's no good unless they can develop the techniques for expressing it via an instrument (and/or voice)

Originally Posted by Pitar

One thing I have to say that will step on a lot of toes. It has in the past. You either have in your chest the stuff of the Adams' we're sampling here or you don't.

Chest? I think you mean "heart" . But of course, it's not really in the chest, it's in the brain.

Originally Posted by Pitar

It will not come to you from books so don't go there looking for it.

Absolutely! (And not from websites either, as I think you'd agree )

Originally Posted by Pitar

Look for it from within. If you can't find it there, you will not go any further with music other than as possibly a hobbyist who remains, forever, the student of inspiration who never tastes from its fruit.

Yes. You have to feel it, and want it.
But one still has to learn techniques - of both playing and songwriting. The best way to learn both is by listening and copying - not reading.
The more you learn, and the more you repeat stuff, the more it becomes internalised, and the more it becomes part of you - and will eventually "emerge from within" in new forms. It then feels like it comes "from the heart" (or soul), but it's not magic. We have to get it in there in the first place. (Ryan Adams, like all pros, did it the same way, copying his heroes, choosing the influences that spoke to him, until that mix became his own "voice".)

I do think it takes a specific kind of person to commit themselves to the process - long term - and to learn in the most productive way.
IMO we're all born with musical potential - otherwise we wouldn't be able to appreciate music - but only a few manage to make the most of it and become performers; generally through a mix of luck and effort. No one is hopeless, unless they really have zero relative pitch (which is extremely rare).