Consistent attack--talent, practice, or both?

[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

[EoE]

did you go to school for music? or study with a mentor? do you sight read? do you practice with a metronome regularly and break your practice time down between scales, theory, and technique ? no matter what people tell you here on this sight this is what it takes to be proficient as a musician. you can achieve this but do you want to remain a guitar enthusiast or cross over to what we call a musician. It is about dedication. those sloppy players have got lazy is all. they just go play and do not do their home work.

[rick-slo]

You should listen to the control of some of the classical guitar pros. Note emphasis and phrasing is more about having a feel for the music as anything technical in many case (for example with the clip you posted). When you tackle a new tune learn it well, and think about playing expressively.

[stanron]

EoE

What a load of bollocks.

I'm sorry if this seems abrasive but I don't know any other way to express my alarm at your posting.

I started playing in the early 60s. There was no school for popular music, I didn't then sight read. I never practiced with a metronome and back then never structured my practice time. I'm willing to bet that neither the Beatles or the Rolling Stones or any of the other groups of that time did any of these things. If you are asserting that these people were or are not musicians worthy of note you should say so directly. My assertion is that listening and attempting to emulate are all that is needed to become a musician. I prefer inclusion to eliteism.

[RustyZombie]

Originally Posted by EoE

did you go to school for music? or study with a mentor? do you sight read? do you practice with a metronome regularly and break your practice time down between scales, theory, and technique ? no matter what people tell you here on this sight this is what it takes to be proficient as a musician. you can achieve this but do you want to remain a guitar enthusiast or cross over to what we call a musician. It is about dedication. those sloppy players have got lazy is all. they just go play and do not do their home work.

Thanks man, I needed a good laugh.

[Shimmy]

I think it's fair to say some people have a "feel" for their instrument that may come as a result of an inate talent but mostly it's just a LOT of hard work. Talent will generally only get you so far. I've seen hugely talented guys who don't practice enough and slowly, over time, those with less talent will surpass them in ability.

Besides, what makes a good orchestral/classical player will not always make a good Jazz improvisor, so it's all relative. I've seen highly trained classical musicians crumble in a recording session when there is no sheet music to follow or they need to improvise. Likewise, I know awesome Jazz players that marvel at how a classical musician can sight read Stravinsky and hit every note, dynamic mark, etc.

One of the main reasons I didn't follow a career as an orchestral musician was because of the elitism that exists in classical music... Funnily enough though, the ones I've trained and played with that were the child prodigies and considered "greats" of their time were often very open to all music and not as judgemental as those who seek to knock others down to make themselves feel better.

Besides, sometimes sloppy is good... Hell, look at the greats of the blues guitar! :-)

[jseth]

Well, the good news is that you actually realize that you need to be more accurate and consistent with your attack... and recognizing that is more than half the battle, as it indicates that your playing has gotten to the point where you are "seeing" where you need to go to improve...

I couldn't disagree with EoE more... as a matter of fact, if what you want is to play and compose music that is more in the vein of "popular" music, then all that studying can actually PREVENT you from being successful at it! Just witness all the brilliant classical musicians who attempt to play blues or jazz; most of the time, their training and rigorous practice leads them to sound stiff, soulless and far too "structured" to be able to impart emotion and passion to the music they play...

So, back to your "issue"... our brains work in curious ways, sometimes... if you focus on the INABILITY to do something, all that does is accentuate and exacerbate the problem. You will get what ever you focus upon, ultimately...

So, you DO need to want to play with more consistency, and at the same time, you have to have your focus on whatever you feel is the result of having that quality to your playing... which is usually being able to deliver the song/piece more effectively, to be able to communicate more fully through the music.

I do believe that practicing with a metronome can be of great assistance in this endeavor, but ONLY if you use it correctly... my advice would be to start excruciatingly S L O W, so slow you almost can not keep the beat... try playing scales with a 1/4 note = 40 bpm, and do your best to have each note be "perfect", even though it will not be... as you work at this for a period of time, you will get more accurate and consistent with your attack, and that result will automatically transfer to your playing of the music you choose, at whatever tempo you choose to play it...

Once you let your brain/body know what is wanted, give it some time to calibrate to your desires... certainly, paying some attention to that consistency of attack is necessary, but you want to avoid becoming overly "thorough" regarding how much attention you give it.

By the song you gave as an example, I am assuming that classical music or even solely instrumental music is not your desire... sightreading notation proficiently and countless hours of working with a metronome on difficult pieces are very much a part of that arena, but easily distract from the "point" of most other genres of music...

You CAN do this! If you don't think you can, then you can do THAT as well...

Good luck!

[EoE]

So tell me what great classical player who could not play jazz? jazz started when classical players would go and jam with blues players.

[Shimmy]

Originally Posted by EoE

So tell me what great classical player who could not play jazz?

In what context? Are you suggesting that a classical player could play jazz without any previous study in the discipline to anywhere near the same level as a jazz guitarist that has studied for countless years?

[EoE]

no I just hear people. that say classical players can not improve .. I have never seen it and I do not know anyone who has. a first chair player sometimes has to improvise .

[Shimmy]

Originally Posted by EoE

no I just here people. that say classical players can not improve .. I have never seen it and I do not know anyone who has. a first chair player sometimes has to improvise .

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Some, if not many classical musicians are not good at improvising because they have never developed the skill, simple as that.

I take it you mean first chair players in an orchestra, correct? I have never seen, heard or played in (and I've played in many orchestras on first desk) an orchestral piece that asks for players to improvise. Not saying there aren't any pieces out there that ask for this, so maybe you could give me an example of a piece that does so?

[Silly Moustache]

Karl, I really wanted to answer this last night but ha to get some sleep.

This angered me.

Your bassoon puffing pal comes from a COMPLETELY different musical discipline to you and there are great differences.

Classical players read - ALL the time, and are instructed how to interpret by the conductor - and have very little input as to the overall "feel". Their discipline is rigid with little or no opportunity for personal style.

You are an American style "folk" musician (for want want of a better term) , and the discipline (if that term applies) is very different.

I listened carefully to the Ryan Adams song and it is a very good/interesting song. However, the phrasing is variable and diffcult to emulate. My recommendation - don't emulate - make tyourwnsong - doing it as you see fit.

Incidentally with no intent to diminish Mr Adam's talents, his guitar tone is terrible and his attack is certainly not consistent - but does it matter?

My genuine advice to you is to be yourself even when covering someone else's song and don't let classical music concepts bother you.

[Shimmy]

[QUOTE=Silly Moustache;4301306

Classical players read - ALL the time, and are instructed how to interpret by the conductor - and have very little input as to the overall "feel". Their discipline is rigid with little or no opportunity for personal style.

[/QUOTE]

Yes and no. It is true that in an orchestra the players' job is to bring the conductors interpretation to life, but playing in an orchestra requires a different approach to other musical settings. It is less about the self and more about the group sound as a whole.

Let's take the violin section as an example. It takes great skill, practice and sensitivity for a large group of violinists to sound like one unanimous voice. It means everyone must play using the same bow length, speed, weight, placement and attack. No one should be heard individually, but only as one collective voice. Add to that fingerings and vibrato. You can't have one player using a fast vibrato and another using a slow vibrato and expect a consistent sound as a group.

IMO it's no better or worse than other musical disciplines, just different.

In regards to solo playing, well interpretation of notes on a page can vary greatly. I can hear a huge difference in the interpretation of the Bach Cello Suites from Rostropovich to Gendron. The same notes, but the phrasing, dynamics and stylistic sensitivity are different.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by KarlK

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 do disagree.
Whether or not "talent" exists, and however we want to define it, it makes no sense that some people are born with such a refined skill.
One might just be born with a greater propensity to understand music than the next person, or with some kind of physical advantage (long fingers?), but technical command of an instrument is learned.

People who make it look easy have just been doing it for a long time - often much longer than you think. They probably started as kids, and had enough discipline (or more likely sheer enjoyment) to stick with it. (If you want to argue that the discipline/enjoyment/attitude is inborn, go for it .)

I can well understand how the skills of some performers can be "disheartening" - especially when they are a lot younger than us (b******s! ), and we can't imagine ever getting to that level however long we live or however much we practise.
But personally that's never bothered me. I just enjoy what I do, and don't much care whether I'm "progressing" or not. There's a lot of music I don't have the skills to play - and never will - but I just have no interest in attempting that music; there's more than enough good music that is well within my grasp, and I discover more all the time.
There's always going to be people better then you, just as there'll always be players worse than you (look behind you...all those beginners.... ) Never compare yourself to other musicians. If you must compare yourself to someone, make it yourself a few weeks, months, years ago. If you can't play something now that you used to be able to play - that's the only thing that should concern you. But even that may not be important. If you enjoy what you can play, what more do you need?

In any case, "sloppy" playing is in the ear of the beholder. Not everyone (players or listeners) cares about it. Some people might actually appreciate it, or play deliberately in a "loose" way that some others interpret as "sloppy".

What a "perfect" attack might consist of is subjective (exactly how good do you want it to be? how microscopic is your examination of their timing and accent going to be?).
I might agree that "consistency" is important - in that one needs to be in sufficient control of one's technique; so that if we want to exert a consistent attack we can do so. But often we want to vary it for expressive purposes, for "feel" of various kinds.

In fact, what I'd say I identify in professional musicians - that differentiates them from my amateur efforts (still amateur after 50 years) - is control. They can be playing something very simple, but their timing is rock solid, and their articulation is (what I'd call) perfect. Sometimes the rhythm is loose, and the attack varies - but always in an exactly appropriate, intentional way.

Another thing about pros is that (live) they always play well within their technical limits; they don't push at the risky boundaries of what they can do. (They save that for practising).
One thing that amateurs typically do when performing is attempt to play at the top limit of their skills - which frequently exposes sloppiness, especially when stage nerves get in the way.

[Shimmy]

Great post JonPR! I wholeheartedly agree.