Right or wrong?
Pt
Note for note and chord for chord or your way.
8 out of 10 players do it their way because they are either too lazy
to learn it right or can't do it right.
But nobody will admit this.
Pt
Dwight
Pt wrote:
PT, I will readily admit that I play songs my way and for the reason you
stated, I don't know how. I would really like to get better, but seem to
be stuck where I am. I'm getting faster and smoother with chord changes,
but that isn't enough for me. When I do play with other people I seem to
just sit there in awe because they are so good and I don't seem to pick
up anything. I must be getting better, at least those that I play with
tell me I am, I just don't seem to be able to notice it. I would love to
find a good teacher now that I know a little more than I did when I had
one, but can't afford to right now.
Dwight (probably more than you wanted to know)
oasysco
Hey Pat, you just did :)-
As for me, I can't play note-for-note, feeling-for-feeling. I do get
the rhythm right because if it's not, it throws the singer and bass
player off. But for solos and fills, I get close enough to fool fellow
bandmates into thinking I'm playing note for note, but I'm only doing
20% of it... they key 20% that is telltale.
Greg
>
> Pt
Pt
> On Mar 26, 9:10 pm, "Pt" <pea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > There are two ways to play a guitar.
> > Note for note and chord for chord or your way.
> > 8 out of 10 players do it their way because they are either too lazy
> > to learn it right or can't do it right.
> > But nobody will admit this.
>
> Hey Pat, you just did :)-
>
> As for me, I can't play note-for-note, feeling-for-feeling.
Actually I can play note for note and I do get pretty close to the
feeling.
You can too if you put the time in to it.
Only problem is when playing in bands nobody else does.
I have gone so far as to learn all the parts except for the drums and
teach the others their parts.
Very time consuming but we sound good.
I'm having that problem now.
I was told to learn my parts note for note which is no problem except
that the other don't learn their parts.
The bass player does.
I really enjoy playing with him.
Pt
MikeMan...@aol.com
> teach the others their parts.
This is what I plan to do. Since I have a drum set, though, I will be
learning the drum parts also. I bought a double bass drum pedal just
yesterday. I will be using it to play my ride cymbal.
Pt
You might find that people will be insulted when you tell them how to
play....Even though they are playing wrong.
Ego's are hard to contend with.
Pt
RichL
Pt, I agree completely. Back when I played in bands, I played that
role ---> working out all the parts for everyone else. To me, if
you're doing a cover, you gotta at least know how to play it like the
original. You may want to work out your own arrangement, but you're a
lot better off knowing where the real starting point should be.
FirstAlternate
When Jose Feliciano did his version of 'Light My Fire', he was not doing it
note for note the way the Doors did it. Was he wrong? Or did he have some
sort of special pass allowing him to make changes?
I have never done, and will never do a song 'note for note' like the
original. I would never condemn myself to that particular hell. If you
want to do it that way, Pt, that's fine.
But don't even think about telling me I'm wrong for doing it my way. In my
view, there is absolutely no point to doing an exact copy of a tune and
serving it up to an audience. We're supposed to be artists. Where's the
artistry in being a human juke box?
RichL
I believe Feliciano COULD have played it note-for-note if he wanted
to. He CHOSE not to. I think a lot of cover bands now are pulling
incorrect tabs off the net and using them as is without even thinking,
or trying to listen to the song and figure the chords/notes for
themselves. There's a difference!
Guncho
Dude, you're bordering on trolling as you posted the exact same thing
like a month ago and once again, not everyone who plays guitar, plays
in cover bands.
Do you comprehend? There is another way to play guitar besides the
two you mentioned.
Chris
Guncho
And what is the reward for all this dilligence? Some drunk chick at a
bar notices you played a Collective Soul song note for note?
BOOOYAH!
Chris
Guncho
I agree with a lot of what you are saying but no one in a cover band
is supposed to be an artist. Pretty much the exact opposite. Someone
who imitates artists.
Chris
MikeMan...@aol.com
> Pt
Pat, I would rather work with beginners who do not have an ego problem
than with experienced musicians who do have an ego problem.
Pt
> artistry in being a human juke box?
The artistry is in the abikity to play someones music the way they
intended it to be played.
I love improvising and I always try to incorporate a few jam songs to
our sets.
Time and place for everything but a typical audience wants to hear
songs as close to the recordings as possible.
This is a big task for a cover band.
Don't underestimate it.
It takes discipline and work.
Pt
Lumpy
> I have never done, and will never
> do a song 'note for note' like the
> original. I would never condemn
> myself to that particular hell. If
> you want to do it that way, Pt, that's fine.
I just spent two long days in a recording studio.
The "Best" form of "chart" I had was a lyric sheet
with the vanilla chords written above the words.
My job was to make it sound "Cowboy but sort of
Latin". There was no 'note for note'. It was my
job to invent the "feel".
This kind of chart is very, very typical of the
kind of music I have ALWAYS worked from, whether
live, recording or anything else.
Like FA, I call nonsense on Pt's suggestion that
ANYONE should try and play ANYTHING note for note.
Lumpy
--
You Played on Lawrence Welk?
Yes but no blue notes. Just blue hairs.
www.lumpyguitar.net
RichL
>
> I agree with a lot of what you are saying but no one in a cover band
> is supposed to be an artist. Pretty much the exact opposite. Someone
> who imitates artists.
>
> Chris
Chris, you are really feisty tonight, even more so than usual. You
are starting to piss people off who are otherwise pretty patient and
understanding, both here and in AG. OK, so you favor originals, and
you're pretty good at it. That's good for you, you're doing your
thing, and it makes you happy. But don't cut down people just because
they choose a different path, OK?
Besides, I understand you've got a version of "Hey Jude" on your web
page.
;-)
MikeMan...@aol.com
> In my
> view, there is absolutely no point to doing an exact copy of a tune and
> serving it up to an audience. We're supposed to be artists. Where's the
> artistry in being a human juke box?
In my opinion, the "human juke box" is the one who is best qualified
to write his own arrangements, should he choose to do so. Anyone who
walks down the street does so with originality, but a trained dancer
will do so with grace.
Pt
What would you do if you wanted to play it again?
Pt
Lumpy
> What would you do if you wanted to play it again?
It NEVER is the same. No mater what. No matter who you are.
That's why they sometimes lay down a dozen tracks of the
same part. It's not because they're waiting for the player
to "get it right". They're going to listen to all the
variations in the post. Then they'll decide which parts
of each track they think fits the project.
You're just stuck in a box that tells you that
there is a "right" way to play it.
There isn't.
Lumpy
--
Were you the voice of Casper?
No. Popeye, Snagglepuss and Wells Fargo Bank.
www.lumpyvoice.net
Pt
You are for the most part writing a song on the spot.
If that song became a hit you can rest assured that it would be
transcribed and put into written music so that other people can play
it like you did.
Pt
Lumpy
> > > What would you do if you wanted to play it again?
Lump:
> > It NEVER is the same. No mater what. No matter who you are.
> > That's why they sometimes lay down a dozen tracks of the
> > same part. It's not because they're waiting for the player
> > to "get it right". They're going to listen to all the
> > variations in the post. Then they'll decide which parts
> > of each track they think fits the project.
> >
> > You're just stuck in a box that tells you that
> > there is a "right" way to play it.
Pt:
> You are for the most part writing a song on the spot.
> If that song became a hit you can rest assured that it would be
> transcribed and put into written music so that other people can play
> it like you did.
And nobody ever will be able to play it like I did.
No matter who they are, no matter their experience
level.
Hell of a theory for YOU to cling to. You who can't
remember how to play a song if you haven't played it
for a couple of days.
How's that latest band of yours doing? What's wrong
with the current "rest of the members" that's breaking
you up?
Lumpy
--
Did you entertain the troops?
Yes. Well, I'm pretty sure they were entertained.
www.lumpyvoice.org
Pt
They got me chickin pickin.
I love it!
Pt
FirstAlternate
> I believe Feliciano COULD have played it note-for-note if he wanted
> to. He CHOSE not to.
Exactly. One person here gets it.
Next!
FirstAlternate
no one in a cover band
> is supposed to be an artist.
Really? Your stock just went down, Guncho.
Next!
FirstAlternate
> intended it to be played.
Can't reach this guy.
Next!
PanHead
"Guncho" <cgu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174963163....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
me think he's a phony.
FirstAlternate
to write his own arrangements, should he choose to do so.
You assume I can't do it note for note. I can. I choose not to. That's
the reason this thread is so important. Pt is telling people entering this
avocation that there is a wrongness about rearranging songs. The only thing
wrong is Pt's position.
FirstAlternate
> Do you comprehend? There is another way to play guitar besides the
> two you mentioned.
>
OK, maybe you've got it.
Sean
> There are two ways to play a guitar.
> Note for note and chord for chord or your way.
> 8 out of 10 players do it their way because they are either too lazy
> to learn it right or can't do it right.
> But nobody will admit this.
>
> Pt
>
I'm 2 out of 10. I play it my way because I think it's better, more fun,
and way more interesting. If music isn't fun and interesting for me, and
doesn't sound like what I want it to sound like, then what's the point?
I'm not trying to make a living playing in an Eagles cover band. Why
reinvent the wheel? I play Voodoo Chile in my band. Why on earth would I
try to play it note for note like Jimi? What a colossal waste of energy
that would be. I play it like me, our band plays it like our band, we
love it, and everyone who hears it loves it.
Someone in the jazz group was writing about listening to super fast
technique. He said it was impressive, but it's like the gymnastics
during the Olympics. You watch it and your breath is taken away, but you
don't mind when the Olympics is over. Once every four years for that
kind of stuff is plenty.
To me, if I heard a band do Voodoo Chile exactly like Hendrix and the
Experience, I'd be impressed. Wow. Amazing. But I don't think it would
be interesting beyond that. I've got the CD at home.
Now, say, if Norah Jones did Voodoo Chile, that would be more interesting.
Sean
Sean
Sure it does. But to some of us, such cover bands would be a horrible
crashing bore to listen to or to play in.
Sean
And if it sounded exactly like the Beatles, what would be the point of
that? I'd only want to listen to someone else's version of Hey Jude if
they'd *interpreted* it and made it their own.
Otherwise it's exactly what Chris said: imitation. Yawn!
FirstAlternate
> To me, if I heard a band do Voodoo Chile exactly like Hendrix and the
> Experience, I'd be impressed. Wow. Amazing. But I don't think it would be
> interesting beyond that. I've got the CD at home.
Bingo! I never saw Beatlemania, but I did play a gig where a band comprised
of former cast members played as well, and it truly was amazing. But after
about three songs, I got the idea and boredom set in.
> Now, say, if Norah Jones did Voodoo Chile, that would be more interesting.
Yes it would, and that is a great example. As performers, we are supposed
to be interesting. I don't find musical mimics interesting at all - I want
to hear interpretations. Mimicry is nothing more that a mildly amusing
stunt.
oasysco
> On Mar 26, 9:01 pm, MikeMandavi...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > I have gone so far as to learn all the parts except for the drums and
> > > teach the others their parts.
>
> > learning the drum parts also. I bought a double bass drum pedal just
> > yesterday. I will be using it to play my ride cymbal.
>
> You might find that people will be insulted when you tell them how to
> play....Even though they are playing wrong.
> Ego's are hard to contend with.
>
> Pt
I've only played with one musician who really knew everybody's parts,
inc the drummer. He was a keys player and is also the program mgr of a
local radio station. He could tell hi-hat accents were missing and
where in a song. It was like he could rewind and play the tune in his
head as originally recorded. He's probably the best musician I've ever
shared the stage with.
Greg
Stefan
> The artistry is in the abikity to play someones music the way they
> intended it to be played.
The way they intended it to be played or some studio musician (or even
just the guy that did the mix).
Have you noticed that a lot of bands sound very different live, than
on their recording.
> Time and place for everything but a typical audience wants to hear
> songs as close to the recordings as possible.
I can only talk from a audience point of view, but I think the typical
audience just wants to recognize a song and dance to it. Most people
don't even hear more than the basic rythms and the most important
notes of the melody. They don't distinguish all the different parts.
Stefan
MikeMan...@aol.com
> inc the drummer. He was a keys player and is also the program mgr of a
> local radio station. He could tell hi-hat accents were missing and
> where in a song. It was like he could rewind and play the tune in his
> head as originally recorded. He's probably the best musician I've ever
> shared the stage with.
> Greg
I bought my drum set last year, but the pedal on the high hat stand
was too stiff for my liking. After buying a second stand, taking the
first stand apart, and taking the second stand apart, I finally
realized that to get the pedal action I wanted, I would have to get
some lighter cymbals. This was at the end of my mowing season, and
the cheapest cymbals I could find were eighty dollars, so I had to
wait until the off-season was over.
I am now on the first mowing cycle of my new season, and when I was at
the Guitar Center getting my pedal a couple of days ago, I saw a
cymbal pack which contains two high hat cymbals and one ride cymbal
for forty dollars. These cymbals are basicly as lightweight as such
cymbals will get, and so in a few days or so I will finally have my
full drum set ready to go. I plan on getting a bass guitar, too. And
I'm going to build a MIDI pedal board for my keyboard.
PanHead
"FirstAlternate" <FirstAl...@yahooNONONSENSE.com> wrote in message
news:BT4Oh.2933$yo3.2017@trnddc04...
I have a friend who tells me I'm playing wrong. I asked him,
"Am I Randy Rhodes?
"No"
"Am I Tony Iommi?"
"No"
"Am I Mark Farner?"
"No"
"Am I Buck Dharma?"
"No"
"Am I Richie Blackmore?"
"No"
"Ok so what's your fucking problem?"
"You're supposed to play like they do"
"Why?"
"That's the way it is"
"That's bullshit, you wanna hear the way they play it buy a fucking cd. I'm
a guitarist and that's the way I play."
Charmed Snark
> There are two ways to play a guitar.
> Note for note and chord for chord or your way.
> 8 out of 10 players do it their way because they are either too lazy
> to learn it right or can't do it right.
> But nobody will admit this.
>
> Pt
Some original musicians never play it the same way twice. They, like
many of us, get bored of doing the same thing, the same way. I can't
imagine wanting to play Born in the USA the same way more than once.
;-)
I see no harm in having some variety. Obviously, you don't want to lose
what is "successful" about a song, but why not vary it?
Snark.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Pt
> There are two ways to play a guitar.
> Note for note and chord for chord or your way.
> 8 out of 10 players do it their way because they are either too lazy
> to learn it right or can't do it right.
> But nobody will admit this.
>
> Pt
Note.
There are some newer players that this will rub off on.
They just might learn to play songs close to 'as written'.
The other day I tried something.
I played the intro to a few different songs.
Just me, no other instruments, no vocals, just 2-4 bars and asked
people if they knew what song I was playing.
Lyin' eyes.
Blvd of broken dreams.
Purple Haze.
Sunshine of your love.
Try it.
Pt
Stefan
> Note.
> There are some newer players that this will rub off on.
> They just might learn to play songs close to 'as written'.
> The other day I tried something.
> I played the intro to a few different songs.
> Just me, no other instruments, no vocals, just 2-4 bars and asked
> people if they knew what song I was playing.
> Lyin' eyes.
> Blvd of broken dreams.
> Purple Haze.
> Sunshine of your love.
Noone has said you should not try to replicte the most important riffs
that make a song recognisable. Playing the riff of "Sunshine of your
love" is a long way from replicating every note in the song.
The point is that playing the three simple riffs of Sunshine of Your
Love will make your audience happy, they don't care about every note
in the solo. I have deliberately chosen Sunshine Of Your Love, as I
have actually performed teh experiment you describe on my family and
friends with that song.
MikeMan...@aol.com
If Eric Clapton was in my band, he would have to play it like the
recording!
(gap tooth grin)
Guncho
> On Mar 26, 9:42 pm, "Guncho" <cgun...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I agree with a lot of what you are saying but no one in a cover band
> > is supposed to be an artist. Pretty much the exact opposite. Someone
> > who imitates artists.
>
> > Chris
>
> Chris, you are really feisty tonight, even more so than usual. You
> are starting to piss people off who are otherwise pretty patient and
> understanding, both here and in AG. OK, so you favor originals, and
> you're pretty good at it. That's good for you, you're doing your
> thing, and it makes you happy. But don't cut down people just because
> they choose a different path, OK?
>
> Besides, I understand you've got a version of "Hey Jude" on your web
> page.
>
> ;-)
I'm not cutting anyone down.
An artist is someone who creates something. Cover bands don't create
anything.
Chris
Guncho
> We're supposed to be artists. Where's the
>
> > artistry in being a human juke box?
>
> intended it to be played.
> our sets.
> songs as close to the recordings as possible.
> Don't underestimate it.
> It takes discipline and work.
>
> Pt
That's not artistry. Artistry is writing your own songs and playing
them.
Chris
Guncho
Why don't you try writing your own songs and stop worrying about
learning other people's songs note for note?
Chris
Pt
There is nothing wrong with people playing their own arrangements but
they should know how to play the song as it was intended to be played
before they change it.
Lets say I wrote a song.
Then you played it very close to the way I wrote it.
The right key, the right intro, solo and outro and the right rhythm.
Not note perfect but very close.
I would really appreciate that.
Or you decided to change it.
You say that playing 16th notes is too hard so I'll play 8th notes.
You have a hard time reaching the F# so you change the note to
something you can reach.
Yu can't play the strumming pattern so you do something else.
You end up with an enrtirely different song.
I would not be happy with the way you played my song.
Now if you learned to play the song right then added a few things like
accentuating the hooks, stops and rythm.
You did not change the song, you added things that you thought would
enhance the song.
That's cool and I could dig it.
Pt
Guncho
PT
You need to realize that your way is not the only way to approach
playing cover songs and is certainly not the "right" way.
If you can't realize this, then there is something wrong with you I
think. Do you have a personality disorder? Like extremely obsessive
compulsive and anal retentive or something.
Chris
FirstAlternate
> Now if you learned to play the song right then added a few things like
> accentuating the hooks, stops and rythm.
> You did not change the song, you added things that you thought would
> enhance the song.
> That's cool and I could dig it.
>
I don't simply 'add a few things' I take the song apart and restructure it.
The key is the first thing on the block, the time signature is in question
and the format may or may not be altered. I never discard things because I
can't, because, frankly, there is no 'can't', just a 'won't'. Sometimes it
goes back together pretty close to the originally presented work. I don't
have to actually play it as originally presented to know that I can.
When I'm finished with it, then it's 'right'.
Pt
> Why don't you try writing your own songs and stop worrying about
> learning other people's songs note for note?
>
> Chris- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
My days of wanting to be a rock star are long gone.
These days I like to play and I try to play so that people know what
I'm playing.
Pt
FirstAlternate
> That's not artistry. Artistry is writing your own songs and playing
> them.
>
If that's your definition, then it's case closed, Chris. But consider this:
An actor is an artist in that he interprets the work of the playwright.
That's why you audition actors, to see what each can impart to the
character. I see singers/musicians as interpreters of songs, not just
presenters; and in that I see artistry.
Pt
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you are in a band try to play one song the way it was written or
close to it.
Then tell me I'm wrong.
Pt
Derek
symphonies? Classical players? They are playing stuff that has been
around for centuries, are they all not artists? Better not tell John
Williams, Julian Bream, Sharon Isbin, Chris Parkening, et al.
What about all the jazz guys who make their living off of playing
songs written 50+ years ago? You think because you write your own
stuff you are more of an artist than Pat Martino, John Pizzarelli,
Jimmy Bruno, et al?
All of the above listed players and a huge number more make you and
your material look like childhood nursery rhymns. I like your stuff,
but you need a new definition of what a musical artist is pal.
Lumpy
> Noone has said you should not try to replicte the most important riffs
> that make a song recognisable. Playing the riff of "Sunshine of your
> love" is a long way from replicating every note in the song.
I've heard Clapton do the solo to SOYL several
different ways.
Lumpy
--
You Played on Lawrence Welk?
Yes but no blue notes. Just blue hairs.
www.lumpyguitar.net
Pt
> There are two ways to play a guitar.
> Note for note and chord for chord or your way.
> 8 out of 10 players do it their way because they are either too lazy
> to learn it right or can't do it right.
> But nobody will admit this.
>
> Pt
What we are dealing with here and in real life is guitar players
ego's.
Everyone wants to do it their way and their way is always right.
But it really isn't.
(because they are either too lazy
to learn it right or can't do it right.
"But nobody will admit this)".
Ego's are the biggest pitfalls to bands.
Most bands don't make it because of that.
I try to play my parts right but if the other band members don't I'm
beating a dead horse.
I have learned to forget about any ego I may have and try my best to
do what is wanted of me in a band.
Trying to get 5 people together without having to deal with ego's is
close to impossible.
The majority of players want to do it their way and if they are not
allow to do it their way they quit.
It's ok with me.
I go along with almost anything.
I just want to play but I will do my best to play it right even though
the others don't.
Most of you have day jobs.
You do your job the way it's supposed to be done or you're on the
outside looking in.
Playing guitar in a band or even solo is no different.
It's a job and you should do your job right and to the best of your
ability.
If you are in a band that does their own renditions of songs or
originals still do your best to do it right.
Most cover bands I see suck because they do their own renditions.
They are not well educated in the art of song writing and usually end
up ruining a good song.
Put some serious thought in to this and be honest with yourself.
Is your ego holding you back?
Drop the ego and you can be a good musician and have the time of your
life.
Pt
Lumpy
> ...Artistry is writing your own songs and playing
> them.
Frank Sinatra and Linda Ronstadt never wrote
a song.
Lumpy
--
You were on Leave it to Beaver?
No, I was on on CHiPs. That Beaver Lumpy
was Frank Bank.
www.lumpymusic.net
prs geek
"Pt" <pea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174957803.1...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> There are two ways to play a guitar.
> Note for note and chord for chord or your way.
> 8 out of 10 players do it their way because they are either too lazy
> to learn it right or can't do it right.
> But nobody will admit this.
I admit that I'm too lazy... Then again, I have some stuff I'd like to see
people play exACTly how I did it! It would be interseting, cuz maybe they'd
play it even better or even with more insight. Who knows?
You can get to a point that if all you do is learn other peoples' bad
habits, you can create any of your own!
--
Jeff
Derek
ways. I played a bunch of cover tunes Saturday for a conference, and
then at church on Sunday. We did, among others, Rascal Flatts version
of "Life is a Highway". I did not learn the guitar leads spot on, but
approximated them.
On Sunday, as a part of a spoof, we covered that lame tune from the
early 80's "Believe it or Not", which was the theme song from the even
lamer tv show "The Greatest American Hero". That song is buried
pretty deep in the public consciousness, but was memorable.
Because of this, I learned the solo spot on. I thought it added to
the effect we were going for. I also tried to mimic the overly wet
signal that was popular at that time. Went over well, got the
response we were looking for.
Would we have gotten the same response if I had approximated both the
tone and solo? Probably, but in my mind, artistry is what made me
want to try to recreate it as close as possible. There is value in
both processes. I find myself more in the approximation camp, but
value the other too.
There is more than one way to approach covering tunes.
Pt
need to realize that your way is not the only way to approach
> playing cover songs and is certainly not the "right" way.
What does "cover" mean?
Pt
prs geek
> On Mar 26, 8:10 pm, "Pt" <pea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> There are two ways to play a guitar.
>> Note for note and chord for chord or your way.
>> 8 out of 10 players do it their way because they are either too lazy
>> to learn it right or can't do it right.
>> But nobody will admit this.
>>
>> Pt
>
> Note.
> There are some newer players that this will rub off on.
> They just might learn to play songs close to 'as written'.
Maybe some of these players that don't copy note for note will turn into
something more than a jukebox. They may even write their own music sometime.
What a novel idea, eh? I play in a cover band and I write my own stuff. My
cover band is NOT note for note, but we are one of the best in our town.
> The other day I tried something.
> I played the intro to a few different songs.
> Just me, no other instruments, no vocals, just 2-4 bars and asked
> people if they knew what song I was playing.
> Lyin' eyes.
> Blvd of broken dreams.
> Purple Haze.
> Sunshine of your love.
Well, the intros are the most important parts there.
There are songs that I just can NOT do note for note. Lord, and the time it
takes. Dude may have spliced 100 tracks to get the one you just copied note
for note and still can't do it himself.
You would drive me nuts if I was in a band with you. I gotta be free man.
Pt, have you ever composed anything original and recorded it? I'm guessing
"yes", but can you even mimmick yourself?
--
Jeff
Charmed Snark
alt.guitar.beginner:
> There is nothing wrong with people playing their own arrangements
> but they should know how to play the song as it was intended to be
> played before they change it.
I think many people won't see this as a prerequisite.
> Lets say I wrote a song.
> Then you played it very close to the way I wrote it.
> The right key, the right intro, solo and outro and the right
> rhythm. Not note perfect but very close.
> I would really appreciate that.
Certainly, but you may not be the intended audience that is to be
pleased.
> Or you decided to change it.
Now we're talkin.. let's get some "artistic license" going..
> You say that playing 16th notes is too hard so I'll play 8th
> notes. You have a hard time reaching the F# so you change the note
> to something you can reach.
> Yu can't play the strumming pattern so you do something else.
> You end up with an enrtirely different song.
> I would not be happy with the way you played my song.
It may be true that you would not be happy with how they "hacked
up" your song.
But it may also be true that their intended audience (maybe a young
crowd) really liked that rendition of it.
I read somewhere that some tunes never made it big until someone did
a fingerpickin' styled version of it. Obviously, there was more to
its success than just that, but they did something radical to a
"good tune" to make it a "hit tune".
My counter-point is only that sometimes this involves radical
changes, aka artistic license.
> Now if you learned to play the song right then added a few things
> like accentuating the hooks, stops and rythm.
> You did not change the song, you added things that you thought
> would enhance the song.
> That's cool and I could dig it.
>
> Pt
I'm not suggesting that you're totally wrong about this approach.
What you describe is a great learning approach (learn from the
masters and then embellish).
But what I think you're suggesting is that the embellishing can only
be minor accents and changes. I think sometimes creative but radical
changes can be almost as refreshing as a totally new song.
There are good examples of this out there, but I've ate from too
many aluminum pots to remember any at the moment.
Just different approaches, Pt. I just think we try to make music
too much like math and physics rather than the art that it is.
Charmed Snark
<FirstAl...@yahooNONONSENSE.com> wrote in alt.guitar.beginner:
And even stuff you write yourself, may never be 'right' because it's
never truly finished.
Pt
> Pt, have you ever composed anything original and recorded it? I'm guessing
> "yes", but can you even mimmick yourself?
>
> --
> Jeff
It's been a long time.
Composing and recording is very time consuming.
I write everything out.
I'm not a good song writer so my compositions leave much to be
desired.
I do enjoy recording improvisational jazz but again it is very time
consuming.
I play in cover bands because I love playing for an audience.
Give them what they want and they give me what I want.
I am far from perfect but I give it my best shot.
Pt
Pt
> Maybe some of these players that don't copy note for note will turn into
> something more than a jukebox. They may even write their own music sometime.
> What a novel idea, eh? I play in a cover band and I write my own stuff. My
> cover band is NOT note for note, but we are one of the best in our town.
I take trying to play note for note as a learning process.
It helps you understand what the composer was thinking and trying to
get across.
Every instrument counteracts with the other instruments.
In reality everyone in a band should try to play their parts right.
If everyone did their own thing what would you have?
Certainly not a good cover of a song.
Playing cover songs is just that.
Covering the song properly.
Pt
Charmed Snark
alt.guitar.beginner:
> On Mar 26, 8:10 pm, "Pt" <pea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> There are two ways to play a guitar.
>> Note for note and chord for chord or your way.
>> 8 out of 10 players do it their way because they are either too
>> lazy to learn it right or can't do it right.
>> But nobody will admit this.
>>
>> Pt
>
> What we are dealing with here and in real life is guitar players
> ego's. Everyone wants to do it their way and their way is always
> right. But it really isn't.
But nobody has a good handle on what is the "right" way to play tune
X. If I wrote tune X, it may never be "right" because I may never
finish changing it (or be satisfied with it).
"Mary Had a Little Lamb" AFAIK, is just a melody that could be
rendered a 1,000 different ways. Reggae, rock, classical, jazz, punk
whatever..
> (because they are either too lazy
> to learn it right or can't do it right.
Of course this happens, but you can't generalize that it is always
because of this.
> "But nobody will admit this)".
>
> Ego's are the biggest pitfalls to bands.
> Most bands don't make it because of that.
I don't doubt it, and egos run rampant in many circles and sciences.
Have a visit to rec.audio.tubes for a refresher.
> I try to play my parts right but if the other band members don't
> I'm beating a dead horse.
Not necessarily. The bass player may have a better rendition of the
bassline than the original, but the fact that your lead is spot on
just makes the whole that much better. Sometimes basslines can be
pretty weak or unimaginative. There's nothing wrong with improving
that.
Obviously changes can be counter-productive if they don't mesh well.
But I think the generalization is unfounded.
> Most of you have day jobs.
Thanks for reminding me ;-)
> Playing guitar in a band or even solo is no different.
> It's a job and you should do your job right and to the best of
> your ability.
I agree with the "do your best" bit. And if the job is a "tribute
band" affair, then "right" means doing it the same way they did. But
artistic endeavours leave other possibilities open, as long as it
"works".
I'll agree that it is _easier_ to guarantee that it "works" by using
a pre-established formula -- i.e. the way "they" played it before.
I only disagree that it is the _only_ way.
> Most cover bands I see suck because they do their own renditions.
> They are not well educated in the art of song writing and usually
> end up ruining a good song.
That certainly is a hazzard of artistic license. Changes are not
always for the better. But that is different than saying that it
never works. Success or failure also depends entirely upon the
hearer(s).
> Put some serious thought in to this and be honest with yourself.
> Is your ego holding you back?
> Drop the ego and you can be a good musician and have the time of
> your life.
>
> Pt
Agreed, egos can poison just about anything.
prs geek
I just think there's 2 types of guitarists... Guys that learn from others'
work and guys that do their own. I think their playing is affected by their
way of thinking. There are are also guyslike me, who play covers (and
learned from them), but still don't care to play them exact. You might spend
extra time learning them note for note, and I might spend 1/4 the the time
and get sidetracked and come up with a new original riff.
You can't change "who" or "what" people are in their hearts and minds.
Having kids teaches you these things.
;-)
--
Jeff
prs geek
> On Mar 27, 12:26 pm, "prs geek" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Maybe some of these players that don't copy note for note will turn into
>> something more than a jukebox. They may even write their own music
>> sometime.
>> What a novel idea, eh? I play in a cover band and I write my own stuff.
>> My
>> cover band is NOT note for note, but we are one of the best in our town.
>
> I take trying to play note for note as a learning process.
> It helps you understand what the composer was thinking and trying to
> get across.
I agree with that, especially regarding the chord changes. After that, it's
something else. I mean, if our singer is constantly playing a Bmaj where
it's obviouly a Bmin, I say something till he gets it. That's my worst
offence. Gotta be able to hear the magor vs. minor thing.
> Every instrument counteracts with the other instruments.
> In reality everyone in a band should try to play their parts right.
Yeah, play the right stuff, but have some fun with it... Yikes man.
> If everyone did their own thing what would you have?
> Certainly not a good cover of a song.
> Playing cover songs is just that.
> Covering the song properly.
Properly, (to me) is get the song so that it resembles the original (play
the correct CHORDS), but have some fun with it so you don't get bored to
tears.
Jeff
pinecone poppins
<FirstAl...@yahooNONONSENSE.com> wrote:
>
>> I believe Feliciano COULD have played it note-for-note if he wanted
>> to. He CHOSE not to.
>
>Exactly. One person here gets it.
>
>Next!
>
Oh, I think a lot of others here get it but, like you said, we've been
here before. I love Bruce Cockburn's guitar playing but could never
hope to match his virtuosity. Should I never play his music? Is it
always wrong? Big diff between hacking a simple TODM tune and doing
your own interpretation of a much more difficult piece, IMO.
This is not a black & white discussion as we found ourt last time
around.
cheers,
tony
Pt
one....
Learning songs.
Most of us can go out and buy an EZ-Chord song book or download tab
and play the basic chords and sing the melody.
I did that for years and even played like that in bands.
Made up my own solos and forgot about the hooks and tricks in the
recorded song.
Sometimes people even said it sounded good but most of the time I was
told that it did not sound like the song.
Then one day I bought the book "The complete Beatles scores".
I was totally amazed with the fact that all the instrument lines were
written out.
This opened me up to "Maybe I should try to learn the songs right".
Not necessarily Beatles songs but any song.
So I dug into recording.
I did all the parts except for the drums, had a friend play that part.
Even though I made a lot of mistakes it sounded very close to the way
the song was intended to sound.
Later I was playing in a band that wanted us to sound close to the way
a song was recorded.
How do we do that?
I can't get written scores for every song we want to do.
Now comes the hard part.
Listening.
Not just listening to a song but listening to one instrument
separately over and over till I had it in my head.
Then moving to the next instrument and so on.
It takes time and dedication to really listen.
You can't hear the parts separately at first.
This is almost as time consuming as recording.
One song may have an acoustic guitar playing the intro for 2 bars.
Then a lead riff comes in, then the bass and drums then the vocals.
A lead player will listen for the proper acoustic intro to know where
and when he comes in.
If the acoustic player decides to do his own thing it screws up the
lead player.
If the acoustic player plays his part right no problem.
It's not just knowing your parts but knowing everyone else's parts
too.
Too many players don't take the time out to listen.
I mean really listen.
It takes a long time and repetition.
Each time you listen to a song you hear something new.
Once you have the entire song in your head learn to play your part.
Actually playing is the easiest part.
Pt
pinecone poppins
<lu...@digitalcartography.com> wrote:
>Guncho wrote:
>> ...Artistry is writing your own songs and playing
>> them.
>
>Frank Sinatra and Linda Ronstadt never wrote
>a song.
>
>
>Lumpy
Obviously not artists then.
Pt
> But it may also be true that their intended audience (maybe a young
> crowd) really liked that rendition of it.
You are right here.
I'm old but I still listen to new music.
I saw a band not long ago that played hip hop renditions of old rock
songs.
They were really good and everyone loved their show.
I got to know the band members and they did not jump into this
aimlessly.
They learned the songe correctly before changing the beat and actually
all they changed was the beat.
All the rhythms, riffs, hooks and stops were correct.
If I was a young dood I would seriously consider doing what they are
doing.
Pt
FirstAlternate
always reply, "No, I don't."
Charmed Snark
alt.guitar.beginner:
Were'nt they drummers?
Charmed Snark
alt.guitar.beginner:
> On Mar 27, 11:44 am, Charmed Snark <you_no_spam_me@eh> wrote:
I'm not retired yet, but not young anymore either.
But as a learning exercise, I think there is something to be said
for doing "covers". I am now trying to record some cover songs to
gain some "other experience".
But it won't be exactly the same, to be sure. But it doesn't need to
be as far as I am concerned. For me, this is just an exercise. A
path to the future, with incremental progress. The fact that it is a
recording, is also training in so many other areas.
There is simply so much to perfect!
Charmed Snark
alt.guitar.beginner:
> I was going to start another thread but I thought I'd just add to
> this one....
...
> Listening.
> Not just listening to a song but listening to one instrument
> separately over and over till I had it in my head.
> Then moving to the next instrument and so on.
> It takes time and dedication to really listen.
> You can't hear the parts separately at first.
> This is almost as time consuming as recording.
That may depend upon your circumstances. I listen to my MP3 player a
lot, since I have a long commute to work on the train.
I think its getting to the point where I know where all the AC hum
noisy spots and other strange little things are in every released
Tom Petty track. Every time I listen to the same track, I hear
something new. Hearing stuff pan, or fade, or jump out. Sometimes
the snare drum is just *whacking* away, but later on in a busy part
of the tune, you can only hear in a subdued way. Obviously, the
mixing engineer only has so much head room to work with.. so snare
drums smack when they can, but have to be held back some when they
can't etc.
The use of tambourines etc. is interesting. Led Zep seemd very fond
of using clashing cymbols for example, while others barely use it at
all.
Sometimes its surprising. Muted voices in the background. Even more
guitars than the band uses (thanks to overdubs). On some TP tunes,
the beginning is weird, because (based upon what I've read), they
sometimes just jam along in the studio and if something good came
up, they would motion to the engineer to hit record and go from
there. I don't know how much of that happens today, but some of the
older stuff seems to reflect that.
To sit down and listen purposely, _would_ take a lot of time for me.
So get an MP3 player. Now cellphones have this (it's about time). I
love my cell for that.
One thing that I've learned both from recording on my own and
listening to CDs is that some things can be fine upon first hearing
it. But after repeated listens, that same effect/whatever can really
grate on your nerves. If you record something, listen to it many
many times. If something's wrong, it will start to bug you a lot and
should probably be changed.
> Actually playing is the easiest part.
>
> Pt
I look forward to seeing that day!
RichL
Pt, I agree about the listening part. I've been spending a lot of
time recording covers for the enjoyment of family and close friends,
and I swear, for every minute I'm actually recording, I spend between
5 and 10 minutes listening. Listening with the EQ changed to bring
out highs and lows. Listening with everything panned hard left and
hard right to bring out different instruments and voices in the mix.
Straining to hear nuances in parts that aren't "out front". Before
I'm even ready to record, I know all the parts inside and out.
After this, Phase 2 is critically examining all the parts and deciding
what, if anything, to change. Do I want to try for a carbon copy?
Sometimes, yes: if you can't come up with something creatively that
you think is better, why change for the sake of change? On the other
hand, maybe a nice bass riff where the original is just repeating the
root notes might liven up the song a little. Do I want to change the
strumming pattern on a rhythm part? Yeah, if it complements the other
parts better. Leads? On the occasions where I can't play the
original note-for-note, I'll shoot for something that captures the
spirit. Or if I want to try something more inventive, yeah.
Generally, whatever I do, I try to remain within the spirit of the
original. There have been a few occasions where I think the basic
song structure is OK but the original execution sucked IMO. Then I'll
try to structure new parts throughout from scratch. On vocals, I'll
sometimes add some harmonizing parts where there were none on the
original, particularly in portions of the song that come across to me
as dead.
Now I'm ready to record. I generally lay down all the instrument
parts and then give the song a good listen with both headphones and
monitors. I may make a few changes & do re-takes at this point
depending on how the "original plan" comes across. And similarly,
once I've got vocal tracks down I may go back and revisit the "plan".
But for the most part, when I start recording, I've pretty well got it
all thought out. But I agree, the listening is the most intensive
part, and the quality of the outcome is strongly dependent on how well
I've done this job at the beginning.
Lumpy
> I think its getting to the point where
> I know where all the AC hum noisy spots
> and other strange little things are in
> every released Tom Petty track...
And you'd better get that AC hum in the right
places when you play it. Don't take the lazy
way out. It might not please Tom Petty.
Lumpy
--
You were the Ken-L-Ration St Bernard?
Yes. My dog's bigger.
www.lumpyvoice.net
Pt
But I agree, the listening is the most intensive
> part, and the quality of the outcome is strongly dependent on how well
> I've done this job at the beginning.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Excellent!.
After I have listened to a recording many times I can't help but think
"These guys are really good".
Keep up the good work.
Pt
oasysco
> Pt wrote:
> > There are two ways to play a guitar.
> > Note for note and chord for chord or your way.
> > 8 out of 10 players do it their way because they are either too lazy
> > to learn it right or can't do it right.
> > But nobody will admit this.
>
> > Pt
>
> stated, I don't know how. I would really like to get better, but seem to
> be stuck where I am. I'm getting faster and smoother with chord changes,
> but that isn't enough for me. When I do play with other people I seem to
> just sit there in awe because they are so good and I don't seem to pick
> up anything. I must be getting better, at least those that I play with
> tell me I am, I just don't seem to be able to notice it. I would love to
> find a good teacher now that I know a little more than I did when I had
> one, but can't afford to right now.
>
> Dwight (probably more than you wanted to know)
Dwight, I feel your pain. I used to be in awe of most any other player
as they all could play better 'n me. As time progressed... 5 years,
10, 15, 20, 25, I no longer feel in awe of folks like I used to unless
I come across gifted players. I'm in the middle of the pack now - and
it's a really big middle section, too; so large that I may never get
out of it, but at least it's progress.
Progress typically comes when you least expect it and often goes
unnoticed for a long time untill you get a chance to compare it to
where you used to be.
One way to do that is to record yourself as a sort of audible diary so
that you can track your progress (or lack thereof) periodically.
You need to find a friend who is a better player than you, but who is
sick of dealing with prima donna players and is willing to take a step
or two backwards and mentor you. If not then save up for a teacher. If
not then start jamming with folks; pay for the chips 'n beer and pick
up what you can.
Guitar takes time... an entire lifetime as a matter of fact, so don't
hurry unnecessarily.
Greg
RichL
The Beatles (& George Martin) are the guys who, after all these years,
never cease to amaze me. Even now, 43+ years after I first started
listening to their stuff, I'm constantly catching little things here
and there that I never noticed before.
ed
> On Mar 27, 10:56 am, "Guncho" <cgun...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > > There is nothing wrong with people playing their own arrangements but
> > > they should know how to play the song as it was intended to be played
> > > before they change it.
> > > Then you played it very close to the way I wrote it.
> > > The right key, the right intro, solo and outro and the right rhythm.
> > > Not note perfect but very close.
> > > I would really appreciate that.
> > > You have a hard time reaching the F# so you change the note to
> > > something you can reach.
> > > Yu can't play the strumming pattern so you do something else.
> > > You end up with an enrtirely different song.
> > > I would not be happy with the way you played my song.
> > > accentuating the hooks, stops and rythm.
> > > You did not change the song, you added things that you thought would
> > > enhance the song.
> > > That's cool and I could dig it.
>
>
> > PT
>
> > You need to realize that your way is not the only way to approach
> > playing cover songs and is certainly not the "right" way.
>
> > think. Do you have a personality disorder? Like extremely obsessive
> > compulsive and anal retentive or something.
>
> > Chris- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> close to it.
> Then tell me I'm wrong.
>
> Pt
Ok your wrong ! I have done songs very close ( simpler tunes ) but I
prefer to make them my own. And generally people like em. Why do you
insist on Black and White - that's just not the way the world turns.
People like variety - some like exact some like it twisted - On this
one I used slide guitar ( its not supposed to be that way) does that
make it wrong ?
http://us.share.geocities.com/edshamble/ESGENTLE.mp3
If I currently had a band I would do it this way live ( as is, its
just me multi-tracked), and I betcha people would like it.
If your trying to do it as a tribute band thats one this if your
trying to have fun and have the crowd react to the fun do what you
want, but have fun and ignite the crowd !! 2c Ed S..
Ed S.
Sean
> On Mar 27, 10:47 am, "Guncho" <cgun...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Why don't you try writing your own songs and stop worrying about
>> learning other people's songs note for note?
>>
>> Chris- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> These days I like to play and I try to play so that people know what
> I'm playing.
>
> Pt
That's a far cry from replicating note for note what you heard on a
recording. Sometimes when we play Voodoo Chile it's a quasi-Latin thing,
but anyone would know what song it is right away.
Sean
Charmed Snark
alt.guitar.beginner:
> Charmed Snark wrote:
>
>> I think its getting to the point where
>> I know where all the AC hum noisy spots
>> and other strange little things are in
>> every released Tom Petty track...
>
> And you'd better get that AC hum in the right
> places when you play it. Don't take the lazy
> way out. It might not please Tom Petty.
>
> Lumpy
You're really crackin me up today.
So you're sayin' that I need to stop being lazy and change my new
amp and put that hum back in?
Just be aware that my new amp is warm enough to double as a toaster.
Roger E. Blumberg
> From: MikeMan...@aol.com
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Newsgroups: alt.guitar.beginner
> Date: 26 Mar 2007 22:55:17 -0700
> Subject: Re: Right or wrong?
>
> First Alternate wrote:
>
>> In my
>> view, there is absolutely no point to doing an exact copy of a tune and
>> serving it up to an audience. We're supposed to be artists. Where's the
>> artistry in being a human juke box?
>
> In my opinion, the "human juke box" is the one who is best qualified
> to write his own arrangements, should he choose to do so. Anyone who
> walks down the street does so with originality, but a trained dancer
> will do so with grace.
Mike;
I like your hands, all of them. Like a craftsman, an artist, graceful.
Graceful hands. Like a gardener, seeds.
Roger
jimifan
I agree with the comments about the importance of critical listening.
My take on the whole" right" cover version is this.
If you look at established artists the best cover versions are those
artists who make the song their own. Hendrix's "hey joe" or "all along
the watchtower". Metallica's "Am I Evil" Guns n Roses " Knocking on
Heaven's Door". The list goes on.
For me the most important thing is you really try and give a song your
all and let your emotions come through. Knowing the correct parts is
great but conveying emotion in your playing is more important in my
opinion than hitting all the notes. Its a balance you have to know
enough of the parts to do the song justice but brave enough to deviate
fromt he strict interpretation and make it your own.
prs geek
Here's the dealio Pt... You should know this, but whatever they did in the
studio WAS the studio. Whetever they do live is what they're actually
capable of doing "live"... _BIG_ difference... Don't become obsessed with
the original, become obsessed with how good (or better) you can make it
sound... This is why you and ne would have "words" if we were playing
together. You'd wanna play it right, and I'd say it can't be done with
"us"...
How many 4 piece bands sound great live with 8 players????????? Most. How
many 4 piece bands sound great with 4 guys???? Not many... Listen to live ZZ
Top anytime.
--
Jeff
Twang
> There is nothing wrong with people playing their own arrangements but
> they should know how to play the song as it was intended to be played
> before they change it.
You know.. I hear this all the time.. have for years.
I never did get it.
and I've argued and argued..
but now I don't.
and here's why.
I just read a nice interview with Mark Knopfler.. who said. he didn't
learn records note for note at all..
and still doesn't.
He used his own ideas right from the get go.
well.. me either.
though I sometimes do.. it's really more curiosity than anything.
I'll add one more thing, too.. nobody listening gives a shit..
it's the band that gives a shit..
there's always someone in the band who claims he knows what the
audience likes or wants or listens to.. and he's ALWAYS full of shit..
because what they want to hear is something they will like..
not just something they liked yesterday.
and if there's one asshole in the audience I despise more than any
other. it's the guy who thinks I learned to play so I could be his
goddamn juke box.
but.. I've said that before so..
> Lets say I wrote a song.
> Then you played it very close to the way I wrote it.
> The right key, the right intro, solo and outro and the right rhythm.
> Not note perfect but very close.
> I would really appreciate that.
> Or you decided to change it.
> You say that playing 16th notes is too hard so I'll play 8th notes.
> You have a hard time reaching the F# so you change the note to
> something you can reach.
> Yu can't play the strumming pattern so you do something else.
> You end up with an enrtirely different song.
> I would not be happy with the way you played my song.
so what?
> Now if you learned to play the song right then added a few things like
> accentuating the hooks, stops and rythm.
> You did not change the song, you added things that you thought would
> enhance the song.
> That's cool and I could dig it.
>
> Pt
yeah but so what?
when was the last time somebody who's song you covered came to hear
you?
furthermore.. why can't a beginner experiment?
who's making these laws about this stuff?
I never knew ANY band when I was starting out that did good copys.
they covered the tune.. they did their best.. people danced.. end of
story.
all this how to do it shit is bogus.. every bit of it.. you can find a
different approach from every band..
you just paint the most obvious and negative scene and then kick it
with your handy alternative.
anyone can do that with anything.
you ignore all sorts of different aspects of music and human beings..
like me.. I didn't have any lesssons..and lagged behind the other
players.. so I taught myself to write..
they learned one tune..
and I wrote four.
Now.. I can play those covers just like you say.. but guess what..
most people can't write.. can't write as well as me..
so.. what's the balance point here?
there are people with different talents.. who bring those talents to
music to guitar..
and they don't need a rule book or a teacher hanging over their
shoulder to do it.
rock n roll kids..
TWANG
Twang
> On Mar 27, 10:56 am, "Guncho" <cgun...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > There is nothing wrong with people playing their own arrangements but
> > > they should know how to play the song as it was intended to be played
> > > before they change it.
> > > Then you played it very close to the way I wrote it.
> > > The right key, the right intro, solo and outro and the right rhythm.
> > > Not note perfect but very close.
> > > I would really appreciate that.
> > > Or you decided to change it.
> > > You say that playing 16th notes is too hard so I'll play 8th notes.
> > > You have a hard time reaching the F# so you change the note to
> > > something you can reach.
> > > Yu can't play the strumming pattern so you do something else.
> > > You end up with an enrtirely different song.
> > > I would not be happy with the way you played my song.
> > > accentuating the hooks, stops and rythm.
> > > You did not change the song, you added things that you thought would
> > > enhance the song.
> > > That's cool and I could dig it.
>
> > > Pt
>
>
> > You need to realize that your way is not the only way to approach
> > playing cover songs and is certainly not the "right" way.
>
> > think. Do you have a personality disorder? Like extremely obsessive
> > compulsive and anal retentive or something.
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> close to it.
> Then tell me I'm wrong.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think you're wrong. In fact I think you're a bit loopy on this one.
you need to get you a ruler and a funny suit and smack people on the
knuckles or something.
TWANG
FlatHead
> On Mar 27, 10:56 am, "Guncho" <cgun...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> need to realize that your way is not the only way to approach
>> playing cover songs and is certainly not the "right" way.
>
>
>
> Pt
>
covering your ass :)
Guncho
<FirstAltern...@yahooNONONSENSE.com> wrote:
> > That's not artistry. Artistry is writing your own songs and playing
> > them.
>
> If that's your definition, then it's case closed, Chris. But consider this:
> An actor is an artist in that he interprets the work of the playwright.
> That's why you audition actors, to see what each can impart to the
> character. I see singers/musicians as interpreters of songs, not just
> presenters; and in that I see artistry.
I don't consider an actor an artist.
An artist is someone who creates something from nothing. From their
imagination.
Chris
Guncho
> Guncho wrote:
> > ...Artistry is writing your own songs and playing
> > them.
>
> Frank Sinatra and Linda Ronstadt never wrote
> a song.
>
> Lumpy
> You were on Leave it to Beaver?
> No, I was on on CHiPs. That Beaver Lumpy
> was Frank Bank.www.lumpymusic.net
Then they are not artists. Recording artists maybe but that can be
said of anyone who's ever recording anything like say The Backstreet
Boys.
Chris
Guncho
> On Mar 27, 10:56 am, "Guncho" <cgun...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > There is nothing wrong with people playing their own arrangements but
> > > they should know how to play the song as it was intended to be played
> > > before they change it.
> > > Lets say I wrote a song.
> > > Then you played it very close to the way I wrote it.
> > > The right key, the right intro, solo and outro and the right rhythm.
> > > Not note perfect but very close.
> > > I would really appreciate that.
> > > Or you decided to change it.
> > > You say that playing 16th notes is too hard so I'll play 8th notes.
> > > You have a hard time reaching the F# so you change the note to
> > > something you can reach.
> > > Yu can't play the strumming pattern so you do something else.
> > > You end up with an enrtirely different song.
> > > I would not be happy with the way you played my song.
> > > Now if you learned to play the song right then added a few things like
> > > accentuating the hooks, stops and rythm.
> > > You did not change the song, you added things that you thought would
> > > enhance the song.
> > > That's cool and I could dig it.
>
> > > Pt
>
> > PT
>
> > playing cover songs and is certainly not the "right" way.
>
> > think. Do you have a personality disorder? Like extremely obsessive
> > compulsive and anal retentive or something.
>
> > Chris- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> If you are in a band try to play one song the way it was written or
> close to it.
> Then tell me I'm wrong.
>
> Pt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have no interest in playing cover songs note for note. It's not
because, I'm lazy, it's because it's not important to me.
As long as I can play them well enough that the crowd gets what they
want and I get what I want.
Isn't that what you said matters?
Chris
Guncho
> Chris your definition of artistry is pretty narrow minded. What of
> symphonies? Classical players? They are playing stuff that has been
> around for centuries, are they all not artists? Better not tell John
> Williams, Julian Bream, Sharon Isbin, Chris Parkening, et al.
>
> What about all the jazz guys who make their living off of playing
> songs written 50+ years ago? You think because you write your own
> stuff you are more of an artist than Pat Martino, John Pizzarelli,
> Jimmy Bruno, et al?
>
> All of the above listed players and a huge number more make you and
> your material look like childhood nursery rhymns. I like your stuff,
> but you need a new definition of what a musical artist is pal.
Why?
Someone can be a highly skilled musician and still not be an artist.
Just like if someone could copy famous paintings perfectly. They
would be a great painter but not a great artist.
Artist doesn't mean, "I'm better than you", it means, "Creates
original material".
Chris
Guncho
> On Mar 27, 10:56 am, "Guncho" <cgun...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> need to realize that your way is not the only way to approach
>
> > playing cover songs and is certainly not the "right" way.
>
>
> Pt
It means playing a song that was written by someone other than you or
or by anyone in the band you are in.
Chris
MikeMan...@aol.com
> I don't consider an actor an artist.
I'm sure that Robert Dinero would get a kick out of that remark.
pinecone poppins
dunno chris...I don't see "original" anywhere below.
from dictionary.com
art·ist noun
1. a person who produces works in any of the arts that are primarily
subject to aesthetic criteria.
2. a person who practices one of the fine arts, esp. a painter or
sculptor.
3. a person whose trade or profession requires a knowledge of design,
drawing, painting, etc.: a commercial artist.
4. a person who works in one of the performing arts, as an actor,
musician, or singer; a public performer: a mime artist; an artist of
the dance.
5. a person whose work exhibits exceptional skill.
6. a person who is expert at trickery or deceit: He's an artist with
cards.
Derek
>Why?
>Someone can be a highly skilled musician and still not be an artist.
>Just like if someone could copy famous paintings perfectly. They
>would be a great painter but not a great artist.
>Artist doesn't mean, "I'm better than you", it means, "Creates
>original material".
Like I said, you have a very narrow definition of the word "artist".
I don't know that I have ever seen anyone else make such a
exclusionary distinction before. So what do you do with the term,
"performing artist"?
I guess you and I will just have to disagree on this point.
MikeMan...@aol.com
> from dictionary.com
>
> art·ist noun
>
> 4. ...an actor...
Precisely.
Pt
> Usually start learning to play guitar by imitating others. After a while though
> it gets real boring memorizing music, chord progressions, solos, etc. If you
> only play note for note and chord for chord only, there's no option for
> creativity. If there's no creativity or an original approach, then there's no
> new ideas. Not why I would play guitar.
>
> Rich
Playing other peoples music as written opens a lot of doors.
Especially if you memorize them.
The riffs and progressions stay in your memory.
The more you memorize the more you have in your tool box.
Pt
MikeMan...@aol.com
Pat, you and I are in perfect agreement on this.