Sounding like Yourself

[zigzag]

This is a thread I can relate to. I think most of us are shaped by our limitations, which is not necessarily a bad thing. I try to play to my strengths and practice in the areas where I want to go.

[milod]

Firstmeasure...

 

I agree most with the point about playing to an audience.

 

As for "version" vs. "Cover..."

 

I guess I see that also as a matter of audience. I'll never forget how the doowop version of "Blue Moon" didn't go over all that well with swing fans but the rock kids of the time thought it was fine. Ditto "Deep Purple" originally done in '39.

 

Then there was the piece "You belong to me" Jo Stafford, Duprees and many others did in the '50s and ... most were somewhat similar whether as sorta "swing" or "doowop." Then what, in the '90s? there's an Aly McBeal breathy "girly" version that ain't even close to the old arrangements or feel and yet... I think it went over well enough with about all age groups. A matter of time or style? I dunno.

 

Audience.

 

Some... yeah. I don't think you can play Link Wray's "Rumble" without the texture of the original, but Link himself did it in a buncha ways. Rolling Stones "Satisfaction" without that "fuzzo-ostinato" <grin>. Chuck did Johnny B. Goode in enough different ways too, although the opening is pretty mandatory, IMHO.

 

But mostly... audience, I think.

 

In fact, I just had a cupla emails this afternoon with a "sorta" Celtic duo mentioning the Clancy Bros. and Tommy Makem who turned a lotta traditional sorts of material on its ear and took the lugubrious into faster and almost celebratory. They made it work, too, for most ... audiences.

 

m

[FirstMeasure]

I like what you said about "the texture of the original", cause that's really what I'm talking about. Capturing that texture, not nailing it note for note. Even Hendrix's version of Johnny b. captures that texture while still being very Hendrix. Not sure if that would be a cover or a rendition, but I lean toward cover.

 

However the Judas Priest version leaves it so far behind that it's hard to understand what they were thinking.

 

[rocketman]

So..what part about it that's YOU don't you like?

 

And besides, when looking back at youth, there's that automatic disclaimer. Don't see why you wouldn't wear that version as a badge and be proud of it.

 

Thanks for the kind words to all! Didn't expect that .

 

OK, maybe I am too critical of my playing but I grew up as a classically trained pianist who converted to jazz and played rock guitar for fun. My jazz teacher always told me that I was a great player but I should learn that the notes I don't play are just as important as the ones I do play. I didn't get what he meant until many years later.

 

Yeah, maybe that solo fits for that tune (it's just a variation on Eddie's solo). I also got off rhythm in a few spots, which is hidden because of the high distortion. Don't get me wrong, I still love the speed but I'm more in tune with Joe Pass and Jerry Reed type playing than what I did back then.

 

BTW, I lost ALL of my piano technique. I used to play Rhapsody in Blue without even thinking about it, but now my fingers are just not there. But I think I'm a better player now because I learned to phrase correctly in my solos. I'm trying to do the same with guitar.

 

The most important thing now is that I really don't give a sh!t how I play now. It is what it is. I just have fun. There is no point in playing music if it isn't fun.

[milod]

Rocketman...

 

Love this one: "The most important thing now is that I really don't give a sh!t how I play now. It is what it is. I just have fun. There is no point in playing music if it isn't fun."

 

I wonder sometimes about the classical musician and the rock "cover artist" who are so dedicated to the exact notes and have then an "expression" only within those notes and perfection of the timing, etc....

 

I can't want to do it most of the time.

 

OTOH, I think sometimes I'm still battling the mind set of those lessons on piano taken by a 4-5 year old child with Mom and teacher at his side pressing for hitting the notes just right and at the right time...

 

That's well over 60 years ago and I'm still fighting it? Argh!!!!!!!!

 

m

[rocketman]

I hear you. I'm still fighting it too. For some reason I decided long ago that I would get every Rush tune down note for note. I did it more for learning how Alex plays than showing off that I could do it. But that's just a part of me. The other part likes to just jam at anything and let things fly as they come. What amazes me is players like Joe Pass make that so simple. He probably did everything in one take. Talk about aarrggghhh!

[btoth76]

...

However the Judas Priest version leaves it so far behind that it's hard to understand what they were thinking.

 

...

 

Hey, it's not bad at all! They've updated it to 80s style heavy rock. Well it has not much left to do with the original, tough, but a fun song to listen to. For their excuse, they did a great cover of the "Green manalishi".

 

Cheers... Bence

[badbluesplayer]

Those are called triplets. The breaking of a single beat into threes (as opposed to 2 or 4). Sextuplets, breaking a single beat into sixes, quintuplet into five and so on.

 

Triplets are imperative to Blues, Rock, country... what am I saying? Triplets are important...period.

Yup - Not really triplets, I don't think. Not breaking one beat into three notes. Just rearranging the same 16 beats into groups of three plus one extra group of 4. But whatever you call it, you gotta be able to feel it and do it.

Plus, you gotta be able to do a shuffle rhythm or you can't do much blues.

 

[FirstMeasure]

Yup - Not really triplets, I don't think. Not breaking one beat into three notes. Just rearranging the same 16 beats into groups of three plus one extra group of 4. But whatever you call it, you gotta be able to feel it and do it.

Plus, you gotta be able to do a shuffle rhythm or you can't do much blues.

 

As with most things in music, it's easier to play than explain.

[Andy R]

Not exactly on topic but I have noticed that most of the "Music the stands the test of time" and that has a unique and defined style/feel was made by bands when most all the members were in their early 20's . Not that they didn't go on to continue to make great music over the years but the definitive and groundbreaking stuff IMHO was done in their early to mid 20's...

 

 

I'm talking Zep, Stones, Floyd, Van Halen, AC/DC, The Who, Beatles, Metallica etc.. and yada yada.

 

 

Andy

[rct]

Not exactly on topic but I have noticed that most of the "Music the stands the test of time" and that has a unique and defined style/feel was made by bands when most all the members were in their early 20's . Not that they didn't go on to continue to make great music over the years but the definitive and groundbreaking stuff IMHO was done in their early to mid 20's...

 

 

I'm talking Zep, Stones, Floyd, Van Halen, AC/DC, The Who, Beatles, Metallica etc.. and yada yada.

 

 

Andy

 

Yes, it is acknowledgement of the fact, sometimes, most of the time, usually, we have really only 2 - 3 good records in us. The record companies did become very aware of that and helped it along by filling up sides of junk with a nugget or two of whatever it is the band did well. But for the most part, you can only do the same stuff over and over so many times before the band or the people that buy it get tired of it.

 

I know, there are going to be apparently a zillion exceptions to that, but when you honestly look at the exceptions, the exception is actually that people continued to buy those same two or three records over the decades for whatever reason.

 

rct

[stein]

Yup - Not really triplets, I don't think. Not breaking one beat into three notes. Just rearranging the same 16 beats into groups of three plus one extra group of 4. But whatever you call it, you gotta be able to feel it and do it.

Plus, you gotta be able to do a shuffle rhythm or you can't do much blues.

 

Ahh...you guys mean the SHUFFLE!

 

You could count it out, but it's hard, and more of like taking the simple and making it complex.

 

Basically, really, it's taking the 'half beat'(technically, the 8th note), or the "and", and moving it closer to the quarter note. So, the 8th note is no longer landing right between the quarter notes.

 

Depending on where it is placed, it might BE in a place where the triplet is. It might CREATE triplets, OR be written that way. Problem with that is, it doesn't always end up right on the triplet. (That's the same thing as what we would start with-moving it off the 8th). So when it doesn't come right on the triplet, we are trying to count out where it is again- maybe its a 16th, or maybe in between a 16th and a triplet.

 

But really, all we are doing is shifting the time of the 8th note. Don't really need to know exactly where it lands.

 

I wouldn't call it adding extra notes, or change the time signature, or do 1-2-3 1-2-3 1-2-3-4 to make it fit. That would take away from the solid quarter note feel.

[milod]

Phrasing, IMHO, is often a matter of the difference between talent and skill. It's not really quantifiable, but... it's there. I guess that's why I'm not quite so comfortable talking about exactly where a note might come in a measure for improvisation, for one thing because it ain't likely to be there the next time around.

 

It's more, to me, a matter of how a phrase fits. I think that's true whether rock, jazz, country... and to an extent even classical - actually baroque - given that a lotta the really old stuff left, in theory, plenty of wiggle room for the performer.

 

Another one that really hits me is how a "version" that retains the texture of the original often can be "better."

 

Honestly, I think the "swing" and shift into '50s "pop" era has some of the best examples.

 

My favorite really is the original 1939 Deep Purple #1 song for weeks by Larry Clinton with Bea Wain. It has one of the best girl vocals ever recorded - vs. the Artie Shaw version with Helen Forrest.

 

Frankly the difference between two marvelous girl singers is definitely a matter of personal taste but Shaw's band arrangement was so very much "thicker" in texture that to me the effect of Forrest's vocal is IMHO lessened. That's kinda odd to me because I prefer the Shaw arrangement compared to Clinton's almost 1920-esque arrangements... but...

 

m

[LarryUK]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_jDSmQ4JZg

Richie Kotzen doesn't use picks at all now and he's wonderful.

Back to the subject of sound. When I used to go in the studio I never sounded as my mind thought I did. Not the playing, just the sound. It sounded muffled. I think you should record yourself often to get an idea of your sound. It's easier these days than then.

[FirstMeasure]

Ahh...you guys mean the SHUFFLE!

 

You could count it out, but it's hard, and more of like taking the simple and making it complex.

 

Basically, really, it's taking the 'half beat'(technically, the 8th note), or the "and", and moving it closer to the quarter note. So, the 8th note is no longer landing right between the quarter notes.

 

Depending on where it is placed, it might BE in a place where the triplet is. It might CREATE triplets, OR be written that way. Problem with that is, it doesn't always end up right on the triplet. (That's the same thing as what we would start with-moving it off the 8th). So when it doesn't come right on the triplet, we are trying to count out where it is again- maybe its a 16th, or maybe in between a 16th and a triplet.

 

But really, all we are doing is shifting the time of the 8th note. Don't really need to know exactly where it lands.

 

I wouldn't call it adding extra notes, or change the time signature, or do 1-2-3 1-2-3 1-2-3-4 to make it fit. That would take away from the solid quarter note feel.

I get what you're talking about now. I though Bad Blues Player was talking about Chuck's famous Double Stops, which are often built out of triplets and eighth notes. The Shuffle, Swing, or (as we called it in Jazz Band so long ago) the "Jazz Conversion". Where you borrow from the value of the second eighth note and allot it to the previous eight note. Or, less complicated, make a group of eighth notes go dah di dah di dah di dah di dah di dah instead of dah dah dah dah dah dah. or Chooglin' as John Fogerty used to call it.

 

It may be considered a time signature change, or at least a time signature adjustment, since the tempo and count stay the same, but the feel is changed.

 

Like I've always said, theory and music jargon are important to communicating about music, not playing it.

[FirstMeasure]

Phrasing, IMHO, is often a matter of the difference between talent and skill. It's not really quantifiable, but... it's there. I guess that's why I'm not quite so comfortable talking about exactly where a note might come in a measure for improvisation, for one thing because it ain't likely to be there the next time around.

 

It's more, to me, a matter of how a phrase fits. I think that's true whether rock, jazz, country... and to an extent even classical - actually baroque - given that a lotta the really old stuff left, in theory, plenty of wiggle room for the performer.

 

Another one that really hits me is how a "version" that retains the texture of the original often can be "better."

 

Honestly, I think the "swing" and shift into '50s "pop" era has some of the best examples.

 

My favorite really is the original 1939 Deep Purple #1 song for weeks by Larry Clinton with Bea Wain. It has one of the best girl vocals ever recorded - vs. the Artie Shaw version with Helen Forrest.

 

Frankly the difference between two marvelous girl singers is definitely a matter of personal taste but Shaw's band arrangement was so very much "thicker" in texture that to me the effect of Forrest's vocal is IMHO lessened. That's kinda odd to me because I prefer the Shaw arrangement compared to Clinton's almost 1920-esque arrangements... but...

 

m

You've touched on one of the musics misconceptions, one of my pet peeves when it comes to the schooled vs. self taught musicians (which I'm somewhere in the middle. I believe in knowing your onions, but finding your own way to cook them, as it were). "Improvised Notes" are not written out. When Improvisation is written into a piece it looks very much like a long rest with instructions to improvise.

 

Same goes with time signatures, there's definite time signatures with Beats per Minute and everything spelled right out, and then there's "Free Time". A tempo-less time signature with no beats spelled out at all, allowing the musician to do whatever comes naturally. Music Theory allows for every contingency, and while it's Math explaining art, it tries to explain it without being a rigid book of rules. Many Many Many schooled musicians miss this point, and in my opinion, suffer more than the self taught musicians who embrace Improv and Free Time without knowing how to explain it, or even that they are doing it.

[Zappa912]

Have you ever tried a song, done it with proper time and decent tone, then heard yourself and gone, "@#$$#%^%@$"?

 

Yes, I feel that way anytime I play Hendrix-esque rhythm guitar.

 

One needs to have a serious groove to play rhythm like Hendrix.

 

Every guitarist has a few styles they just can't groove to.... That's mine.

[milod]

Firstmeasure...

 

I don't think it's a matter of the classical training cramping someone as much as a question whether they were taught that music theory / notes on paper / are prescriptive or descriptive. If the former it's easy to go nuts trying to write it perfectly and then perform it "by the map." If the latter... it describes the original to guide the performance, not to prescribe it exactly.

 

Same thing with grammar... and even politics. For example, some political concepts are that everything is forbidden except that which is expressly allowed - and others allow everything except that which is expressly forbidden.

 

m

[FirstMeasure]

Great perspective Milo, Thanks!

[badbluesplayer]

Ahh...you guys mean the SHUFFLE!

 

You could count it out, but it's hard, and more of like taking the simple and making it complex.

 

Basically, really, it's taking the 'half beat'(technically, the 8th note), or the "and", and moving it closer to the quarter note. So, the 8th note is no longer landing right between the quarter notes.

 

Depending on where it is placed, it might BE in a place where the triplet is. It might CREATE triplets, OR be written that way. Problem with that is, it doesn't always end up right on the triplet. (That's the same thing as what we would start with-moving it off the 8th). So when it doesn't come right on the triplet, we are trying to count out where it is again- maybe its a 16th, or maybe in between a 16th and a triplet.

 

But really, all we are doing is shifting the time of the 8th note. Don't really need to know exactly where it lands.

 

I wouldn't call it adding extra notes, or change the time signature, or do 1-2-3 1-2-3 1-2-3-4 to make it fit. That would take away from the solid quarter note feel.

 

Nah, that's not what I was trying to say. I monna have to keep it a secret now.

[badbluesplayer]

As with most things in music, it's easier to play than explain.

My problem exactly.

[badbluesplayer]

I get what you're talking about now. I though Bad Blues Player was talking about Chuck's famous Double Stops, which are often built out of triplets and eighth notes. The Shuffle, Swing, or (as we called it in Jazz Band so long ago) the "Jazz Conversion". Where you borrow from the value of the second eighth note and allot it to the previous eight note. Or, less complicated, make a group of eighth notes go dah di dah di dah di dah di dah di dah instead of dah dah dah dah dah dah. or Chooglin' as John Fogerty used to call it.

 

It may be considered a time signature change, or at least a time signature adjustment, since the tempo and count stay the same, but the feel is changed.

 

Like I've always said, theory and music jargon are important to communicating about music, not playing it.

I wasn't talking about the shuffle or swing beat or anything like that.

 

All I'm saying is to try to play the "Deep down in La next to New Orleans", which is 16 notes, as 4 groups of three notes plus one group of four notes, with the emphasis on the first note of each group of three - instead of just playing it as four groups of four notes, with the emphasis on the first note of each group of four. Play the same notes, just emphasize the 1st, 4,7,10 & 13th notes of the sequence, not the 1st, 5th, 9th & 13th notes. There's probably a name for it. I wouldn't know.

[FirstMeasure]

I wasn't talking about the shuffle or swing beat or anything like that.

 

All I'm saying is to try to play the "Deep down in La next to New Orleans", which is 16 notes, as 4 groups of three notes plus one group of four notes, with the emphasis on the first note of each group of three - instead of just playing it as four groups of four notes, with the emphasis on the first note of each group of four. Play the same notes, just emphasize the 1st, 4,7,10 & 13th notes of the sequence, not the 1st, 5th, 9th & 13th notes. There's probably a name for it. I wouldn't know.

It's three groups of 8th note triplets, and one set of 4 straight 16th notes, three more sets of 8th note triplets and 2 final sets of straight 16th notes for the intro. The intro to the lead break is all straight 16th notes.

[jdgm]

A teacher once insisted to me years ago that Chuck's 'J B Goode' intro has to be downstrokes to sound 'proper'.

I think he was right - though I haven't looked on uTube. That's how I showed it to my students.

I did see Chuck once on a TV chat show, think it was Parkinson; the studio band played him on with that intro which the guitarist played technically perfectly with some overdrive. At the end Chuck did it and you could really hear the difference because the 1st guy was far too perfect. Also I believe he originally cut it in A and they sped it up so it comes out in Bb.

[Izzy]

This is why I like piano. If you have your timing right and the right keys, you may not sound like the original, but your tone isn't an issue (provided you have a good instrument). The piano has its own voice and it will sing the note you command.

 

Guitar is just a rebel. I bend the right string at the right fret at the correct time and it sounds NOTHING like the right bent key. Makes me want to never bend a note again. God forbid you have a poopoo amp! And the chink a chink thing, good lord, I beat my head against that for a SRV song and said, "where's my Nirvana book? I'm back to basics!" It depressed me that much xD

 

 

In the end with patience and acceptance of our own limitations we can grow to become better interpreters, but I think there is something that sticks with us from the start that gives us our individual unique style. Something we don't outgrow. Those who harness this uniqueness are probably the guitarists who stand out and who are confident because they aren't vying for someone else's sound. They grow past modeling themselves after an idol and concentrate only on producing sound that mirrors what they hear in their heads as closely as possible despite limitations. Perhaps it is those limitations that give them an edge. Like Chuck playing it, "not as perfect" making the song sound the way it needs to.

 

Imagine someone you idolize hearing himself and saying, "man, that's not the way I wanted it to sound." All you can think is, "but it sounds awesome!" Mind is blown.