Ear Training
Ken
Supercourse"? Have you used it? Do you know anyone who has used it? I'm
considering buying it and sure would like to get some feedback. If this
isn't so good, what other recommendations do you have?
Thank you all!
Ken
Nazodesu
<kbro...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Does anyone know anything about David Burge's "Relative Pitch Ear Training
> Supercourse"? Have you used it? Do you know anyone who has used it?
I've heard two things: complaints that it's useless, and admissions of
folks who purchased it, and thought it would work just fine if they
"did the work" which they didn't do.
Zero sum.
There are a number of books and methods on ear training that I would
investigate first.
Bo Johansson
Who says it´s useless? I heard some complaints about the PERFECT pitch course.
I think the relative pitch course is worth every penny.
Bosse
Ken
Ken
"Nazodesu" <mus...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:060720022028346129%mus...@adelphia.net...
Nazodesu
<kbro...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > There are a number of books and methods on ear training that I would
> > investigate first.
>
> Any specific book and methods?
I have no recommendations, no.
GGarava352
marketed by Hal Leonard and was $12.95 with the cd. It seems like a good book
although I haven't gotten too far in it yet. It's worth looking at and isn't
too expensive. It may be a good place to start.
Gerry
'
Jack A. Zucker
--
web: http://www.jackzucker.com
"GGarava352" <ggara...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020707060816...@mb-fm.aol.com...
Chris
I bought Burge's perfect-pitch course; conceptually I thought it was
dynamite, but the organization was unpleasantly vague and the whole
thing was poorly presented (I can't believe they left in that bit
where he messes up a guitar chord three times in a row! Did they
think it was funny?). And I had a *lot* of trouble actually doing the
work and the exercises because
- I don't have a partner
- you really have to work to figure out what the exercises *are*.
So I wrote a Visual Basic computer program to lead me through it.
...that's when I found out just HOW vague he was.. there was one
lesson where he said "You already know what to do" and moved on, and
when I broke that down for the computer program I found out that that
one sentence represented TWELVE different exercises.
Since it's just a couple days old, I'm still looking for people to try
it out and give me feedback.. I posted it at
http://www.aruffo.com/eartraining.. I'm on lesson 6, myself. Please
go check it out!
[I know it asks for a couple buxx for bandwidth fees.. but the first
five people who download it and mention you saw this message I'll send
the full version "for free"; you do need to download and install that
posted version, though, 'cos it has the support files.]
cheers
chris
Bo Johansson <bo.p...@telia.com> wrote in message news:<CFN374442...@news1.telia.com>...
> On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 03:28:34 GMT Nazodesu <mus...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <s3IV8.1507$3x.172...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, Ken
> > <kbro...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Does anyone know anything about David Burge's "Relative Pitch Ear Training
> >> Supercourse"? Have you used it? Do you know anyone who has used it?
> >
> > I've heard two things: complaints that it's useless, and admissions of
> > folks who purchased it, and thought it would work just fine if they
> > "did the work" which they didn't do.
> >
> > Zero sum.
> >
> > There are a number of books and methods on ear training that I would
> > investigate first.
> >
> Who says it?s useless? I heard some complaints about the PERFECT pitch course.
IvanDRodriguez
route cuz it was way less expensive than the Relative Pitch one. I sure hope
it gets better. The first 2 CDs, IMO, basically says the same thing over and
over and over, defining pitch....with no real indication other than " here's an
F#, and here is a E , can you "hear" the difference?"
Sometimes I wonder how much money I'm really wasting on some of this
stuff....lol, .
Ivan
Dan Adler
Ivan,
I think the perfect pitch course is very unlikely to yield any fruit.
The idea of listening deeply to the overtones and aftersound is good
and maybe for some people it yields the desired outcome, but I haven't
had any luck with it. If I listen for a long time to multiple pitches
I can hear faint "color" differences, but that doesn't mean I can
identify them based on that. If I listen enough to Chinese I will be
able to discern some words but the distance from that to speaking the
language is pretty vast...
Go the relative pitch route. It's a longer path, but it's proven to
yield results in 90% of people who put in the time, whereas there are
no stats as to what percentage of people can actually develop perfect
pitch.
Charlie Robinson
yield results in 90% of people who put in the time, whereas there are
no stats as to what percentage of people can actually develop perfect
pitch.
-Dan
http://danadler.com >>
------------------------------------
I think that this is good advice. For myself, transcribing some music every
once in a while (which is a great way to develop relative pitch) does more for
my ears than anything else that I've come across.
Charlie Robinson Jazz Guitarist, Composer
You can hear me online at: http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/robinsonchazz
or: <A HREF="http://rmmgj.iuma.com">http://rmmgj.iuma.com</A>
IvanDRodriguez
time, it was way over my current budget. But I'll give the relative path a look
see...:)
I remember in my very short stay in a music program , the instructor asked me
to sing a note. I didn't know his intention was to have another student name
it, so like a dumb ass, I sang " Seeeeeeeeeeeeee" lol.
He asked me " Do you have perfect pitch".....cuz you just sang a C note. I was
thinking.....that was damn lucky.. maybe I should play the lotto today....lol
Ivan
Chris
> I think the perfect pitch course is very unlikely to yield any fruit.
> identify them based on that. If I listen enough to Chinese I will be
It's occurred to me over the past week that the main reason that pitch
recognition is so obscure is that you *can't* describe a pitch. I
know what a "monitor" is; I look at it and immediately apprehend the
object. But how could I describe it to anyone if I couldn't use
words? All I could do would be to show it and say "Um, it's *this*."
I think I understand what needs to be done, and it's something along
this line. Picture the color green in your head. Notice that you do
that without any reference-- not only do you not have to relate
"green" to any other color in order to conceptualize it, but you
probably are just thinking of some shapeless green blob (if indeed you
are thinking of a finite object at all). You can do the same thing
with tastes (imagine the taste of an onion) or textures (imagine what
it's like to feel sandpaper). You don't want to describe silk as
"soft" or "smooth"-- that might make you confuse it with a baby's
butt. The touch of silk is what it is, and you can only comprehend it
as itself. Likewise pitches.
So I believe the idea of "pitch color" is clever, but misleading. The
goal of perfect pitch training is to imagine a pitch in your mind,
disassociated from any other tone or timbre, just as readily as you do
any other sensation.
Seriously. Listen to a C. Now imagine the pitch. Just keep it in
your head-- let the played note die away and "listen" to it mentally.
Got it? There. Now you know what "C" sounds like. When you can
remember what you're imagining right now, without any prompting or
reference point-- just as you can currently do for "green" or the
taste of an onion or the texture of sandpaper-- then you will have
"perfect pitch".
At least, that's what it seems to me.
cheers
chris
Dan Adler
> Seriously. Listen to a C. Now imagine the pitch. Just keep it in
> your head-- let the played note die away and "listen" to it mentally.
> Got it? There. Now you know what "C" sounds like. When you can
> remember what you're imagining right now, without any prompting or
> reference point-- just as you can currently do for "green" or the
> taste of an onion or the texture of sandpaper-- then you will have
> "perfect pitch".
Chris,
That is the essence of the David Burge recipe, but it doesn't answer
the question of what am I listening for. So, the way he answers that
is to have you listen to two tones, then discern what sounds different
between them, and then you sort of get the idea of what you're
supposed to be listening for so that you can eventually imagine "it".
kuboken
> nos...@aruffo.com (Chris) wrote in message news:<5d7e6d54.02072...@posting.google.com>...
> > Seriously. Listen to a C. Now imagine the pitch. Just keep it in
> > your head-- let the played note die away and "listen" to it mentally.
> > Got it? There. Now you know what "C" sounds like. When you can
> > remember what you're imagining right now, without any prompting or
> > reference point-- just as you can currently do for "green" or the
> > taste of an onion or the texture of sandpaper-- then you will have
> > "perfect pitch".
How about this to put the "perfect pitch" courses out of business: I
know someone with perfect pitch who was told at Jiulliard
(pre-college) to hit a tuning fork and put it on top of your head once
a day (so your skull vibrates)...
Maybe this only works when your young...
Ken
Chris
> the question of what am I listening for. So, the way he answers that
> is to have you listen to two tones, then discern what sounds different
> between them, and then you sort of get the idea of what you're
> supposed to be listening for so that you can eventually imagine "it".
Yes, that's true. Have you realized that the "question of what am I
listening for" can't be answered?
I mean, literally, it can't be.
You can't describe a pitch any more than you can describe a taste or a
smell. There are words which a pitch might *evoke*, but there is no
way to truly communicate what it's like to hear a pitch, any more than
you can confer the concept of a color or a smell or a taste. That's
why the cliche "tastes like chicken" exists-- there's no other way to
describe a taste except as itself, or as related to another taste that
you already know.
All you can do to answer "what am I listening for" is present the
pitch and say "it's this".
cheers
chris
Joe Finn
> *----
> Yes, that's true. Have you realized that the "question of what am I
> listening for" can't be answered?
>
> I mean, literally, it can't be.
>
> You can't describe a pitch any more than you can describe a taste or a
> smell. There are words which a pitch might *evoke*, but there is no
> way to truly communicate what it's like to hear a pitch, any more than
> you can confer the concept of a color or a smell or a taste. That's
> why the cliche "tastes like chicken" exists-- there's no other way to
> describe a taste except as itself, or as related to another taste that
> you already know.
>
Good point, Chris. I have viewed this as a limitation of the English
language; perhaps mistakenly. Do other languages have words for the "taste
of chicken", "the smell of coffee" or "the sound of C# "?
Associating tones with colors or whatever is one of the keys to the Burge
approach but perhaps the linguistic limitation is the real roadblock.
....joe
--
Visit me on the web. www.JoeFinn.net
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Dan Adler
> > That is the essence of the David Burge recipe, but it doesn't answer
> > the question of what am I listening for. So, the way he answers that
> > is to have you listen to two tones, then discern what sounds different
> > between them, and then you sort of get the idea of what you're
> > supposed to be listening for so that you can eventually imagine "it".
> *----
> Yes, that's true. Have you realized that the "question of what am I
> listening for" can't be answered?
>
> I mean, literally, it can't be.
Chris,
It's true that it can't be described, just as color can't be
described, but it can be demonstrated by contrast. Since I have little
kids, I see every day how they grasp concepts that seem impossible to
explain to them. Take the example of color. There are little books
that show a whole page of items in red. Now, the items might be a
fruit and a bike and then on the next page there are items all in blue
and we just point to the first page and say "red" and somehow they
figure out what it is they are supposed to abstract from that picture.
You don't see kids go around thinking that red is a name for all
things which are fruits or bikes. Somehow, with pitch it's not that
clear at all, so people need help figuring out what to look for or
listen for or abstract out or whatever word you want to use.
In any case, I've been listening on and off to pitches for a long time
and have still no idea what I'm listening for. Once in a while I will
notice that the A sounds completely different in some way, but it's
not anything I can latch on to and use to identify it. Maybe it takes
more time.
I do find the deep listening useful, though. It somehow enhances my
overall enjoyment of music in a way I can't explain. It makes me aware
of how pitches resonate in my head - so I have never viewed this as a
waste of time. But, perfect pitch? not.
Thom_j.
This is a great way to explain/describe this with "to abstract"
if this concept is used in a 'literal sense' it becomes easier to
grasp just what you have stated below.. my 2 pence thom_j.
Chris
I'm fascinated by your reply. You make some extremely interesting
points about children learning color... but you seem to stop yourself
from drawing any parallels with pitch.
You say that children can get "red" from little books full of
different red objects. They grasp "red" disassociated from the
object. What if someone played them a C# on a xylophone, a piano, a
guitar, and a trumpet? Would they grasp "C#" disassociated from the
instrument?
You say that the best way to understand a color, or a pitch, is
demonstration by contrast. By showing all the red items which are
radically different from each other, the child can pick up on the
common element, which is "red".
Perhaps it's not different instruments, necessarily, but comparison to
other pitches which does the trick for sound-- I think that's the
reason why the Burge course begins with listening to chords and
picking the individual notes out of those chords.
But this is what intrigues me the most: you say that you have little
kids yourself, and that they are understanding concepts which seem
inexplicable.. and then you go on to say that because *you*, as an
*adult*, have had trouble understanding pitches, pitches are difficult
for anyone to understand. But maybe children, just as they can
understand "red", would be able to intuitively pick up on pitch
recognition.
I think it would be fascinating if you tried to teach your children
pitches, just as you're letting them learn their colors. [You haven't
tried yet, yes?]
I mean, just think about it-- for just a few minutes every day, you
could play them notes on the keyboard (from different instruments,
even, if you have a synthesizer), and tell them the names; then you
could quiz them on what they just heard.
"Here's a D" *plunk*
"and here's an E" *plunk*
"and here's an F" *plunk*
"Now what's this?" *plunk*
"E?"
"No, *this* is an E" *plunk*
"This was a D." *plunk*
"So what is this?" *plunk*
"F!"
"Right! This is an F!" *plunk*
So, by playing them the correct note versus the guesses, they'll get
the demonstration by contrast that you mention, and perhaps they
*will* abstract out what they need to hear-- that thing you and I have
such trouble comprehending as adults.
I know that when I have little kids, I'm definitely going to try this
and see what happens. I was further encouraged when I saw a father
with his tiny tot at the post office; he handed her a customs form and
asked "What color is it? What color?" and she *didn't know*. She
just stared at it with a strange look on her face. (It was green.)
---
I definitely agree with you that deep listening is a major plus.
After doing some of the first few of Burge's exercises, I listened to
my car stereo again for the first time, and I immediately thought that
someone had been playing around with the settings, since it seemed
brighter and fuller than it had before. But it was the same old
system and I'm the only one who ever uses it.
And I think that it does take time-- and serious meditation-- to
identify "what we're listening for". But I don't see why it shouldn't
be possible.
cheers
chris
Paul Sanwald
of teaching children perfect pitch.
however (and this part isn't really related to your post directly), if
the burge stuff really worked, you would think you would run across
some people who have perfect pitch as a result of it. I have
personally never met or read about anyone who has acquired perfect
pitch as a result of the course, or for that matter in any other
manner. I'm not saying the course isn't helpful, but as far as
actually being able to give you perfect pitch it seems a bit shaky.
as a caveat I do believe there are "relative" degrees of perfect
pitch. I (and many other people who don't have perfect pitch) can
usually tell if a song's in a different key that the "standard" one,
and occasionally I hear notes and know exactly what they are without a
reference. if I "know" that I know what a note is, which only happens
occasionally, I am never wrong. however, FWIW I work really hard at
developing my relative pitch since it seems to help the most in
everyday gig situations.
someone else mentioned Paul Bollenback's ear training stuff, which is
really (IMHO) great. Paul told me he derived at least part of it from
his studies with Dr. Zlotnick in Baltimore. The best thing to me about
Paul's method is it's (like almost everything he says) very practical
and usuable in a real world situation. Incidentally, Paul told me that
Zlotnick didn't have perfect pitch, but could name every note in a
randomly struck piano chord. I also had a teacher that had developed
his relative pitch to such a high degree it was virtually
indistinguishable from perfect pitch. also, since I'm rambling, I play
with a sax player who has perfect pitch, but told me that his relative
pitch is much stronger and he relies on it more. I am still trying to
figure out what to make of that statement.
sorry for the long post. I love to talk about ear training, mostly
because I feel that it enhances my enjoyment of music (and thus of
life) whether I'm listening to, playing or talking about music. I
think it would be a lot of fun to teach ear training to people that
think that music is something outside of themselves.
--paul
nos...@aruffo.com (Chris) wrote in message news:<5d7e6d54.02072...@posting.google.com>...
Lumpy
> ...I play with a sax player who has perfect pitch...
I'd be interested to know does this sax guy
sense pitch in concert C or in Bb/Eb?
lumpy
Charlie Robinson
lumpy
>>
------------------------------
I played with a sax player who had it too. When I'd get to the gig I'd say
"...give me an E Willie" and he'd whistle it for me. He thought in concert I
guess.
Chris
my contribution...
pcsa...@pobox.com (Paul Sanwald) wrote in message
> this is a cool post, chris, and I don't disagree with the possibility
> of teaching children perfect pitch.
*------
If anyone tries, I'll be most interested in hearing their progress and
results! Since I am not a father, teacher, or babysitter, I don't
have daily access to littleuns to do this myself.. and I haven't met
any parents interested enough to want to teach their kids. Yet.
There's got to be someone.. somewhere!
> however (and this part isn't really related to your post directly), if
> the burge stuff really worked, you would think you would run across
> some people who have perfect pitch as a result of it.
*-------
Yes, you *would* think so! It's maddening. The "testimonials" on his
website sound totally bogus, like hokey infomercial actors, and I also
have not met or even heard of even one person who claims to have
succeeded (and I've looked, and I've asked). That's why I wrote the
Visual Basic ear-training program (http://www.aruffo.com/eartraining,
for those who might've missed it, and I apologize in advance for the
total lack of website design)-- although it will be fun if other
people decide to use it, I wrote it for *me* so that I could learn it
myself. If I succeed then I don't have to wonder or search any more,
'cos I'll *know*.
I've been giving a lot of thought to perfect pitch lately, of course;
initially it was the theory of "what is perfect pitch" and now that
I'm starting to use the VB program I'm starting to think more about
the process of learning.
I'm discovering that Burge's lessons are as disorganized as his
speaking style; as I move forward with the computer program (which
*had* been organized exactly the same as his "Supercourse") I find
that some exercises are asking too much too quickly and a few others
just aren't useful. Even if you could figure out what you're supposed
to do, based on what he says (and that's not always easy), it seems as
though it's designed to make you give up in frustration! The more I
actually work on this, the more I have to reorganize and finesse, and
the more I understand why everyone thinks Burge's course is lame.
As I was driving, a few days ago, I was trying to figure out why it
seems useful to start by listening to chords, instead of trying to
identify notes. It seemed obvious enough that by listening to chords
you are listening more deeply, but what was the point? And, as I was
pondering this, I happened to drive by a billboard with a brilliant
picture of a scarlet macaw (do a Google image search if you need to
know). Right there, on its back, was red, yellow, blue, green, and
red again.. all in stripes but all faded into each other. I looked
wonderingly at the image of this bird. Sure enough, I could instantly
tell that there were five colors. I could see where one began to fade
into the other-- I couldn't quite tell where one started and another
stopped, but I could clearly and unquestionably identify a distinct
row of each color.
And I realized, of course, *that* is why I'm listening to chords.
Even if I don't have names for the notes, I want to be able to hear a
mess of sound and be able to recognize the clear evidence of each
pitch within that noise. Each pitch will become individually more
distinct by itself and from each other.
> reference. if I "know" that I know what a note is, which only happens
> occasionally, I am never wrong.
*--------
I'm finding that, too. When I *know* what the note is, I'm not wrong,
but if I am hesitant as I guess then sometimes I am. I find that
heartening because I see that it is possible to know.
After seeing the macaw, I began thinking about the comparison I've
heard about how learning perfect pitch is like learning a language.
When you learn a language, you have a set of labels that you need to
apply to objects. You make flash cards and you drill the #*&% out of
yourself so that the word-object association is automatic. I think of
that and I realize that if I honestly expect to learn this, then I
must dedicate as much effort and energy to pitch study, and as much
attention and time, as I would to the vocabulary drills of a language
class. Slacking off even one day will be a step backwards.
The macaw makes me realize, though, of course, that the biggest
challenge is knowing what to listen for. Since I can already perceive
the colors on the macaw's back, learning a new language would just be
slapping new labels on the colors and making them stick in my memory.
But I can't perceive the pitches in a chord-- even when I can hear
them separately, I can't identify them for what they are.. and until I
can do that, no amount of drilling will make any labels stick. So I
spend time each day meditating on different notes. (Even at work.. if
you do a Google search for "Virtual Keyboard", the first result is a
little piano that you can play at the office.)
> someone else mentioned Paul Bollenback's ear training stuff
*-----
Can you point me towards this? I'd like to check it out.
> his relative pitch to such a high degree it was virtually
> indistinguishable from perfect pitch. also, since I'm rambling, I play
> with a sax player who has perfect pitch, but told me that his relative
> pitch is much stronger and he relies on it more. I am still trying to
> figure out what to make of that statement.
*--------
That makes sense, though, doesn't it? Perfect pitch is useful for
knowing music, and relative pitch is useful for playing it. Perfect
pitch will tell you what key you're playing in, and relative pitch
will tell you where you're going and what you're doing within the key.
I read somewhere-- can't remember where, now-- the account of a fellow
who had perfect pitch, who said that it was difficult for him to begin
hearing the relationships between notes. Because each note was
individually distinct to him, he didn't understand how this one could
be "two steps higher" than another.. it was just *different*, is all.
I think that little anecdote-- I hope I've explained enough of it--
helps to illustrate the fundamental difference between the use of
relative and perfect pitch. What it reminds me of is the "color
wheel".. if no one ever told us about ROY G BIV, would we ever figure
out for ourselves that blue is "two steps darker" than yellow? It
would be very difficult to judge just how different one color is from
another, but it's very easy to see that they are in fact different.
And someone else wrote:
>I'd be interested to know does this sax guy
>sense pitch in concert C or in Bb/Eb?
*---------
*I'd* be interested to know if that's a relevant question. Based on
what I've been learning, "sensing pitch" does not happen based on any
scale-- you perceive the notes for what they are and then you put a
verbal label on them. The verbal label that you choose might be
different based on your instrument, but it seems probable to me that
this is the same as my calling an object a "pen" and a Frenchman
calling the same object a "stylo". We perceive the same thing, we
just use different names for it.
A little extrapolation of that gave me an answer for other cultures,
which have scales of 5 notes or 25 notes or whatever... I've heard
some wags ask "What did perfect-pitch people hear before the 12-tone
scale?", and that seems to be a question you only ask if you think
that "perfect pitch" means attaching labels to notes. Concert A is
440, right? If a person with perfect pitch hears 442, they'll say
"It's an A-- but it's sharp." It's not difficult to infer that
another culture might give an entirely different name to a slightly
sharp A-- call it A-prime, if you will-- and suddenly there's a
thirteen-note scale, and the person with perfect pitch can perceive it
just as easily as a twelve-note, simply adding the new note label
A-prime to their list of acceptable names.
Aright aright.. that's enough blathering from me today, yes? I've
been giving this quite a lot of thought, don'tcha know.
cheers
chris
_KS_
Learn Solfege
Dick Grove
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
Paul Sanwald
the times I've spoken to him about it, he always speaks in concert.
but I wouldn't think it would make a difference to him. most sax-brass
players can talk just as easily in concert as Bb or Eb.
--paul
Paul Sanwald
>
hey chris, I'll post more later but I only have a minute right now. I
learned paul bollenback's method through private lessons with him, so
I don't know if he has a book out or anything. paul is one of the
busiest people I have ever met, so if he has time to write a book you
can color me impressed. it would be great if he did it, though. if you
ever get the chance to take a lesson with bollenback, I'm sure he will
give you a great explanation, as he really is a great teacher.
--paul
Dan Adler
> hey chris, I'll post more later but I only have a minute right now. I
> learned paul bollenback's method through private lessons with him, so
> I don't know if he has a book out or anything. paul is one of the
> busiest people I have ever met, so if he has time to write a book you
> can color me impressed. it would be great if he did it, though. if you
> ever get the chance to take a lesson with bollenback, I'm sure he will
> give you a great explanation, as he really is a great teacher.
>
> --paul
I agree. I've taken a few lessons with him, and he is fantastic.
Actually, all the great players I have taken lessons with have turned
out to be very perceptive and great teachers.
Richard
>
> I agree. I've taken a few lessons with him, and he is fantastic.
> Actually, all the great players I have taken lessons with have turned
> out to be very perceptive and great teachers.
Dan,
I recall from reading your posts that you have studied with quite a
few "greats". If memory serves: Ted Greene, Wilkins, etc etc..
Care to comment on what you got from each, anecdotes, contrasting
approaches to teaching...
Ted is such a recluse...any insights you got on him as an
artist/player?
Also did any of these players expressly mention other guitarists they
admired, I always find that question very revealing/interesting.
Hope I haven't given you too much typing work here!!!! :-)
Thanks,
Richard
Dan Adler
Richard,
I don't know that I can give you a general rundown of what I got for
each player, but I can try to give you specifics if you ask. I don't
recommend this necessarily to beginners, but to intermediates like
myself, it's great. The common thread I found with all great players
is that they don't try to impart some generic wisdom on you, they play
with you, listen to your weak spots and suggest things to work on,
unless you come in with a specific goal. Like with Jack Wilkins, I
came in to learn his bass-line-and-comping style, but that evolved in
many directions.
As for Ted Greene, that was over 15 years ago, so my memory is pretty
vague. I remember the first thing he asked me was to play the
"prettiest" chord I know. I was a little baffled, and he proceeded to
reel off all of his amazing voicings. His point was that if you don't
have a vocabulary of "pretty" voicings, it probably means you haven't
spent time alone fiddling with voicings. He gave me a few arrangements
and some pointers in other areas where he noticed problems and
encouraged me to work things out on my own. His point was that his
books were just a collection of things he worked out on his own, and
you should use them as starting points for exploration. I should add
that he was very accomodating, I called him and asked for a lesson,
and he said he had an opening in 3 months, so I said that I was in
town for two days, and he said: why don't you come over now...
Peter Sprague is another one that I learned a lot from. He is much
more systematic in his approach, and that is expressed in his book. At
the time when I studied with him, systematic was great for me.
Not sure what else I can add. For information like influences I
generally look to printed interviews rather than lessons. In lessons I
try to zero in on how they can help me improve and what they did to
get to where they are.
I should also say that I've found it very useful to go to
masterclasses and study with non-guitarists (sax/trumpet/piano/drums).
They always look at me funny when I go to one of these things, and
once in a while they will spend an annoying amount of time talking
about circular breathing and mouth pieces, but for the most part,
music is music, and people like Bob Berg, Joe Lovano, Greg Osby,
Walter Blanding, etc. have so much to offer in terms of insights.
If you have more specific questions I can try to answer.
thomas
> I don't
> recommend this necessarily to beginners, but to intermediates like
> myself, it's great.
Dan, I've heard your clips. You passed out of intermediate at
least ten years ago if not more. Catch up with your bad self.
Dan Adler
Tom,
Thanks. Who did you say I should make the check out to? :-)
Sometimes I think the difference between people who are very good and
ones that are great is consistency. Being able to always sound good
even when you are out of your comfort zone. I think that's why you
don't really "know" a player until you've seen them live and can see
how many moments of "greatness" there are in a whole set.