Nobody Cares If You Can Play it Right

[Mandobart]

Originally Posted by broy

With respect to playing it right... here's what I'm struggling with right now.....I'm really struggling with singing, so signed up for lessons.

I'm learning 'Mary Janes Last Dance by Tom Petty....[he] sings in 'C'....I have a hard time getting that high, but able to sing it in A.

My thinking is A, goes with the progression, so why not sing it in A. It's not exact to Tom Ps version, but I beleive I put out a better product. My voice coach is really insisting on doing it in C because that's what people would expect. So I"m back to struggling with singing in C. Getting better and will keep going down this path, but am I off base thinking singing in A is not a bad thing?

Anyone have thoughts on this?

My thoughts are get a different voice coach. Not because they want you to do something hard, because of the reason they're giving you.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with changing keys to match your voice. Listeners, especially at an open mic, do not know or care what key a song was originally done in. I find my vocal range changes during the day and I often need to switch keys for any given song from one performance to another. No one has ever noticed this.

BTW you should spend a little time/effort on understanding what is actually meant by a song's key - you're confusing the note being sung with the key of the song.

[stanron]

A guitarist/performer will encourage you to change key because they know that the more comfortable you are, the better you perform. A vocal coach will encourage you to sing higher because they know that practice and exercise can extend range and improve vocal/muscle tone. Neither is absolutely wrong.You choose. Why not practice the higher key and then if you get to perform you have the option of singing lower.

[rmp]

Originally Posted by broy

With respect to playing it right... here's what I'm struggling with right now.

For background, I've been a kitchen table guitar player for the past 25 years, and recently started singing so I could start attending open mics. I'm really struggling with singing, so signed up for lessons.

Back to the point of this thread. I'm learning 'Mary Janes Last Dance by Tom Petty. It's in the key of A (Am, G, D, Am) for most of the song. Tom petty sings in 'C'. (the C you get from first fret of the B string). I have a hard time getting that high, but able to sing it in A.

My thinking is A, goes with the progression, so why not sing it in A. It's not exact to Tom Ps version, but I beleive I put out a better product. My voice coach is really insisting on doing it in C because that's what people would expect. So I"m back to struggling with singing in C. Getting better and will keep going down this path, but am I off base thinking singing in A is not a bad thing?

Anyone have thoughts on this?

yea, no disrespected intended but IMHO your teacher is just wrong.

I've been doing this for 50+ years, been in hundreds of bands, and in three right now. We move keys around all the time and this is why god created "capos"

is your teacher is assuming everyone in the audience has perfect pitch?
98% of them wouldn't know the Key of C from a slice of toast.

[Bluenose]

What about instrumentals like 'Classical Gas' or the Allmans 'Little Martha'? Just recently I came across a new (to me) transcription of CG and after making a few little changes my playing of it has improved dramatically, at least to my ears. My point is, if I heard someone playing an improvised version of CG, I would in all likelihood be disappointed. I don't think too many people could improvise on this masterpiece and make it sound near as good as the original. It's the little things that sometimes make a big difference. IMHO of course.

[KevWind]

Backing up a bit
While there is un deniable value in the sense of the "Craft" of playing music , in learning to copy note for note or fairly close to that, (Especially if you are playing solo acoustic guitar instrumentals)
BUT there is also great value in "making it your own" which to my mind reflects the Art of playing music.............

And so IMO there is little functional value in terms like "right" or 'wrong" or "correct" and "incorrect" and there in lies the rub... Terms like that carry the assumption that there is a right or wrong, which I think is not really applicable in the Art of music.
I think as per the second video the phrases "Note for note" or "In the style of" are much more applicable..

And on a side but somewhat related "Note" , it was French composer Claude Debussy said, “Music is the space between the notes.” "Music is the space between the notes.” if we let that settle in a bit ,, it begins to also point to the Art, is in how that "space" unfolds ....

While from and entertainment standpoint I do agree that cover music should be recognizable to the listening audience and close enough in chord progression and basic melody that they can sing along BUT that does not require note for note or the same key . I think what is required is that you can play it the way the original makes you feel


I never do my covers note for note and yet in 30 years of gigging I never heard a complaint that I was doing it wrong and can often get the audience to sing along .

Now admittedly my version of Tim Hardin's "If I were a Carpenter" is fairly different than the original, slower for one, different guitar style and because of this thread I just recently realized I remembered some of the lyrics differently (the gist is there but the wording is different) As is true with the Johnny Rivers version which is likely the version I first heard and sort of remembered But does that make them "wrong" or just different ??????

While the chord progression and melody line are basically the same,,, the intros are way different and the over all arrangements are fairly different

[leew3]

In contrast, I recall as a teen buying a B.B. King songbook and playing each song note for note by sightreading. I played it just as it was written, and it didn't sound remotely like B.B. King!

[broy]

Originally Posted by Twiddle Dee

What about instrumentals like 'Classical Gas' or the Allmans 'Little Martha'? Just recently I came across a new (to me) transcription of CG and after making a few little changes my playing of it has improved dramatically, at least to my ears. My point is, if I heard someone playing an improvised version of CG, I would in all likelihood be disappointed. I don't think too many people could improvise on this masterpiece and make it sound near as good as the original. It's the little things that sometimes make a big difference. IMHO of course.

I appreciate something done well, vs something exactly copying the original and not done well. I say make it your own, simplify it etc... but what you do put together, make sure you can play it well.

------
(PS: to those who responded to my questions above, ty - good food for thought)

[Bluenose]

Originally Posted by broy

I appreciate something done well, vs something exactly copying the original and not done well. I say make it your own, simplify it etc... but what you do put together, make sure you can play it well.

------
(PS: to those who responded to my questions above, ty - good food for thought)

Well I think we're conflating two issues here. One is the technical aspect or how well a piece is played and then there is the quality of the composition itself. My contention is that the composer chose a specific note/chord/rest in a specific point for a reason and if you don't play it as the composer chose then you are improvising which is fine but does it improve or detract from the piece? Nine times out of ten it detracts. That's the point I tried to make in my previous post. YMMV of course.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Twiddle Dee

Well I think we're conflating two issues here. One is the technical aspect or how well a piece is played and then there is the quality of the composition itself. My contention is that the composer chose a specific note/chord/rest in a specific point for a reason and if you don't play it as the composer chose then you are improvising which is fine but does it improve or detract from the piece? Nine times out of ten it detracts. That's the point I tried to make in my previous post. YMMV of course.

I agree there is some conflating going on
One is conflating ones personal opinion with that of the larger listening audience.

Another is conflating the subjective "how well a piece is played ,,with the objective how accurate it is to the original

Most great artists when they cover a piece, try to convey how that piece makes them feel (they internalize it, make it their own and make their performance of it create and authentic representation of how it makes them feel personally ) and if they have done a good job in turn the listening audience Feels that authenticity and can take that internalize it and make it their own,,, for which exact note for note rest for rest replication of the original is not a prerequisite


Another is conflating the craft of playing music with the art of playing music because IMO most of listening audience cares more about the Art than the Craft.

Another is conflating unsubstantiated totally subjective personal bias with objective statistical analysis like say 9 times out of 10 it detracts.. And we agree ,indeed the milage does vary .

[Bluenose]

OK you're correct that I am only expressing my personal opinion and not talking so much about great artists like Glenn Gould playing Bach but more like what you would likely hear down at the open mike on a Saturday night. Sorry if I bruised anyones feelings.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Twiddle Dee

OK you're correct that I am only expressing my personal opinion and not talking so much about great artists like Glenn Gould playing Bach but more like what you would likely hear down at the open mike on a Saturday night. Sorry if I bruised anyones feelings.

Of course there are no bruised feelings )
I was simply pointing out instances of conflating the issue
Like conflating the percentage of marginal to bad performances "down at the open mic " ( which likely is a varied number as well as subjective )
With the distinction between playing "note for note" vs "some adaptation of"(the actual subject of the OP) and what the audience might care about. The level of competence of a given player is irrelevant to the OP

Because IMO a poorly played note for note is not going to sound any better, or be any less of a "detraction" from the original ,,,than a poorly played adaptation.

[Bushleague]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Of course there are no bruised feelings (nice attempt at deflection though )
I was simply pointing out instances of conflating the issue
Like conflating the percentage of marginal to bad performances "down at the open mic " ( which likely is a varied number as well as subjective )
With the distinction between playing "note for note" vs "some adaptation of"(the actual subject of the OP) and what the audience might care about. The level of competence of a given player is irrelevant to the OP

Because IMO a poorly played note for note is not going to sound any better, or be any less of a "detraction" from the original ,,,than a poorly played adaptation.

I'd hazard a guess that those Open mic wonders that have Free Bird dumbed down to about 3 chords, would likely sound even worse if they tried to play it note for note.

My own adaptations generally involve trying to make songs that were never really meant to be played on an acoustic guitar actually sound decent. No, I do not sound like a full electric band so perhaps it might be fair to claim that my version is inferior to the original, but within the scope of using a single acoustic guitar to pull it off, my versions sound noticeably better than if I were to try playing the song in its original form.

[Bluenose]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Of course there are no bruised feelings (nice attempt at deflection though )
I was simply pointing out instances of conflating the issue
Like conflating the percentage of marginal to bad performances "down at the open mic " ( which likely is a varied number as well as subjective )
With the distinction between playing "note for note" vs "some adaptation of"(the actual subject of the OP) and what the audience might care about. The level of competence of a given player is irrelevant to the OP

Because IMO a poorly played note for note is not going to sound any better, or be any less of a "detraction" from the original ,,,than a poorly played adaptation.

If it's poorly played then it's not played note for note. OK thanks it's been a blast.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Twiddle Dee

If it's poorly played then it's not played note for note. OK thanks it's been a blast.

NA ,,Not at all , of course it can played note for note and still be played poorly...It's exactly that skewed, subjective, desperate notion, that somehow note for note equals well played, that is clouding your perspective ...... Much like the baloney that using a capo is somehow "cheating", same side of coin different angles ----- Yep been fun

[CASD57]

Let's hope that is true lol
I'm learning "Sultan Of Swing" and I'll never have it perfect LOL