What it means to slow down...
David Kotschessa
thought. Like any of my posts, this could very well be complete
drivel.
Playing slow for the sake of playing slow makes about as much sense as
playing fast for the sake of playing fast to me. Fast playing is an
expression of passion or excitement and is very appropriate at times,
as is playing slow.
So when people tell you to "slow down," they think they are giving you
good advice, when it's quite possible that artifically playing less
notes could be taking you further away from your real voice. It
sounds like slowing down means to play "less notes per chord" or "less
notes per measure," which simply may not be appropriate for a song.
What I recently found out, was that slowing down, meant for me was to
actually slow the song down, not to slow my playing down over a given
tempo. I realized that if I really slowed songs to a ballad tempo
(this only works after I have internalized the chords of the song at a
normal tempo) I could more easily play the notes I was hearing in my
head. At first the notes are distant, as if they are in somewhere
else in the room and I have to listen carefully to find out where they
are. It's like I have to "aurally squint" (don't ask what this means)
to play them.
Then I try to play the note - if I don't, that's fine, because at this
tempo I have 2 or 3 tries. Eventually I have been able to work
melodies out this way. I don't conciously know what scales or
arpeggios I'm playing. This doesn't work all the time BTW. I have to
be pretty relaxed, and actually the best time for me has been times
when I am physically exhausted. After a while I can start to bring
the tempo up gradually.
Like we were talking aobut in another thread, this is something that
I've done at a later stage of my learning, and I had already gone
through all the scale/arpeggio stuff for a long time beforehand. What
I'm trying to figure out is a way for people to start doing this a lot
sooner than this. I think that it's possible to do this while you are
in the stage of still learning scales and arpeggios. It needs to be a
separate practice.
I also realize that since I am probably a jazz adolescent, I don't
have any CDs and nobody here has heard my playing, that there probably
is no motivation to try and follow what I'm talking about unless it
just sounds like a good idea to you. I do happen to feel like I'm
onto something though.
-Dave
Steve Modica
--
Steve Modica
"Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day, hit him with a fish and
he leaves you alone" - me
Steve Modica
--
Steve ModicaDavid Kotschessa wrote:
<snip>
> What I recently found out, was that slowing down, meant for me was to
> actually slow the song down, not to slow my playing down over a given
> tempo. I realized that if I really slowed songs to a ballad tempo
> (this only works after I have internalized the chords of the song at a
> normal tempo) I could more easily play the notes I was hearing in my
> head. At first the notes are distant, as if they are in somewhere
> else in the room and I have to listen carefully to find out where they
> are. It's like I have to "aurally squint" (don't ask what this means)
> to play them.
I think aurally squinting sounds something like a fart.
Steve
David Moss
my teacher since I started lessons was to slow
the tempo. I went down to 100 bpm, or even
80 bpm, and all the things I thought I couldn't do -
i.e. thinking up a line and executing it within the
rhythm, while keeping some awareness of where
I am in relation to the chord tones, payng some
attention to expression, anticipating where I wanted
the phrase to land in 2 or 3 measures - suddenly
I could do all of that.
"David Kotschessa" wrote...
Wfsilva
>(this only works after I have internalized the chords of the song at a
>normal tempo) I could more easily play the notes I was hearing in my
>head. At first the notes are distant, as if they are in somewhere
>else
I've have had this experience......
I think when you slow down you no longer can play your favorite licks, so your
ear takes an active role. It's exciting,isn't it.
Bill.
Gerry Scott-Moore
Kotschessa <dkots...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So when people tell you to "slow down," they think they are giving you
> good advice, when it's quite possible that artifically playing less
> notes could be taking you further away from your real voice. It
> sounds like slowing down means to play "less notes per chord" or "less
> notes per measure," which simply may not be appropriate for a song.
On the other hand it usually says alot more about rhythmic options, and
the use of rests. A fast tune usually has an unending reel of 8ths or
16ths that stop from time to time. But that's the basic unit.
I find that as one decreases the tempo more rhythmic modifications and
more thoughtful note selection is possible.
There are believable analysis of speed playing that says essentially
that beyond a certain speed you are playing licks and cliches you've
played many times and are possibly connecting them in novel or
not-so-novel ways.
Slower play allows for thinking about what you're doing with a lot more
focus. That's not limited to improvisation or music.
> What I recently found out, was that slowing down, meant for me was to
> actually slow the song down, not to slow my playing down over a given
> tempo. I realized that if I really slowed songs to a ballad tempo
> (this only works after I have internalized the chords of the song at a
> normal tempo) I could more easily play the notes I was hearing in my
> head.
Bingo. That's the most important thing say I.
> At first the notes are distant, as if they are in somewhere
> else in the room and I have to listen carefully to find out where they
> are. It's like I have to "aurally squint" (don't ask what this means)
> to play them.
A curious phrase, but I get you. It's still a question of focus.
> Then I try to play the note - if I don't, that's fine, because at this
> tempo I have 2 or 3 tries. Eventually I have been able to work
> melodies out this way. I don't conciously know what scales or
> arpeggios I'm playing. This doesn't work all the time BTW. I have to
> be pretty relaxed, and actually the best time for me has been times
> when I am physically exhausted. After a while I can start to bring
> the tempo up gradually.
It gets easier. And frankly there's no reason to bring the tempo up,
unless it's grotesque. And remember, you *can* do this by thinking in
broader time. You mention note selection. As I work my way anew
through Barry Galbraith's "Guitar Improv", a series of single-string
solos, I come across one revelation after another regarding rhythmic
selections. These always seem to be more difficult to come up with on
my own, during the "aural squint" if you will. The rhythmic thing
doesn't just come to me through trial and error in the same way note
selection does. Imitating what I hear on other folk's solos, and
particularly reading/analyzing transcriptions does provide rhythmic
concepts I'd never come up with.
> Like we were talking aobut in another thread, this is something that
> I've done at a later stage of my learning, and I had already gone
> through all the scale/arpeggio stuff for a long time beforehand. What
> I'm trying to figure out is a way for people to start doing this a lot
> sooner than this. I think that it's possible to do this while you are
> in the stage of still learning scales and arpeggios. It needs to be a
> separate practice.
You know it's not really so much about speed as it is density. When
your density becomes quarters instead of 8ths, it then demands more
rhythmic evolution. And there you are.
> I also realize that since I am probably a jazz adolescent, I don't
> have any CDs and nobody here has heard my playing, that there probably
> is no motivation to try and follow what I'm talking about unless it
> just sounds like a good idea to you. I do happen to feel like I'm
> onto something though.
If you think you are, you are.
--
///--- Nazodesu no more.
Paul Sanwald
wrote:
>
>Then I try to play the note - if I don't, that's fine, because at this
>tempo I have 2 or 3 tries. Eventually I have been able to work
>melodies out this way. I don't conciously know what scales or
>arpeggios I'm playing. This doesn't work all the time BTW. I have to
>be pretty relaxed, and actually the best time for me has been times
>when I am physically exhausted. After a while I can start to bring
>the tempo up gradually.
>
My primary goal in music for a long time has been to play this way at
any tempo, not just slowly. to me, this is what playing music is
about.
--paul
Adam Bravo
more, no less - it's not somehow "easier." Playing lines that you don't hear
isn't going to benefit you - some people just play with a higher note
density than others.
"David Kotschessa" <dkots...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4589696c.03010...@posting.google.com...
Michael DiFebbo
>
>I also realize that since I am probably a jazz adolescent, I don't
>have any CDs and nobody here has heard my playing, that there probably
>
Mike D.
_______________________________
http://www.jazzexplosion.com
http://www.impressionsjazz.com
David Kotschessa
Of course that's the goal - and perhaps I wasn't clear on this point -
but I'm talking about practice and development, not performance. I'm
not talking about playing everything as a ballad forever, that would
be boring as hell. But once you've learned to follow your ear at
these slower tempos You can bring the song back up again so it sounds
like the music you want to play.
-Dave
David Kotschessa
> In article <4589696c.03010...@posting.google.com>, David
> Kotschessa <dkots...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > So when people tell you to "slow down," they think they are giving you
> > good advice, when it's quite possible that artifically playing less
> > notes could be taking you further away from your real voice. It
> > sounds like slowing down means to play "less notes per chord" or "less
> > notes per measure," which simply may not be appropriate for a song.
>
> On the other hand it usually says alot more about rhythmic options, and
> the use of rests. A fast tune usually has an unending reel of 8ths or
> 16ths that stop from time to time. But that's the basic unit.
>
> I find that as one decreases the tempo more rhythmic modifications and
> more thoughtful note selection is possible.
Ah, phrasing, my other discovery of recent. Awhile ago, when I was
becoming frustrated with what I was playing, I realized I was taking
for granted the fact that I was playing over the changes just fine.
Earlier in my practice I would have killed to have this ability, now I
have it and I'm not happy with what I'm playing.
So I started thinking in rythmic phrases rather than just the notes.
The notes were already there - I know how to play notes that sound
good over the changes, so I let that occur automatically and
concentrated on phrasing - sometimes even at the expense of the notes
I wanted. I think sometimes it's useful to practice this way for
awhile too - phrasing 1st, notes 2nd. I learned a lot by doing this.
> There are believable analysis of speed playing that says essentially
> that beyond a certain speed you are playing licks and cliches you've
> played many times and are possibly connecting them in novel or
> not-so-novel ways.
>
> Slower play allows for thinking about what you're doing with a lot more
> focus. That's not limited to improvisation or music.
It seems that when start slower like this and gradually build speed,
you are essentially "rebuilding" your vocabulary - your own personal
cliches if you will. I think as long as your licks are you own, this
isn't a problem until you think it is. When I start thinking "I'm
playing licks and repeating myself." This is when I take the song
back down again - tear down the house and rebuild.
> > What I recently found out, was that slowing down, meant for me was to
> > actually slow the song down, not to slow my playing down over a given
> > tempo. I realized that if I really slowed songs to a ballad tempo
> > (this only works after I have internalized the chords of the song at a
> > normal tempo) I could more easily play the notes I was hearing in my
> > head.
>
> Bingo. That's the most important thing say I.
>
> > At first the notes are distant, as if they are in somewhere
> > else in the room and I have to listen carefully to find out where they
> > are. It's like I have to "aurally squint" (don't ask what this means)
> > to play them.
>
> A curious phrase, but I get you. It's still a question of focus.
I was hoping somebody would...
> > Then I try to play the note - if I don't, that's fine, because at this
> > tempo I have 2 or 3 tries. Eventually I have been able to work
> > melodies out this way. I don't conciously know what scales or
> > arpeggios I'm playing. This doesn't work all the time BTW. I have to
> > be pretty relaxed, and actually the best time for me has been times
> > when I am physically exhausted. After a while I can start to bring
> > the tempo up gradually.
>
> It gets easier. And frankly there's no reason to bring the tempo up,
> unless it's grotesque. And remember, you *can* do this by thinking in
> broader time. You mention note selection. As I work my way anew
> through Barry Galbraith's "Guitar Improv", a series of single-string
> solos, I come across one revelation after another regarding rhythmic
> selections. These always seem to be more difficult to come up with on
> my own, during the "aural squint" if you will. The rhythmic thing
> doesn't just come to me through trial and error in the same way note
> selection does. Imitating what I hear on other folk's solos, and
> particularly reading/analyzing transcriptions does provide rhythmic
> concepts I'd never come up with.
Well the reason for bringing the tempo back up is due to the speed
that I usually do this practice. I sometimes slow things down to 60
BPM or less. I don't think BIAB goes lower than 45. I call this
tempo "painfully slow." To make music though, I want to be able to
play at all tempos, like Paul mentioned.
-Dave
David Kotschessa
> >
> >
> >I also realize that since I am probably a jazz adolescent, I don't
> >have any CDs and nobody here has heard my playing, that there probably
> >
> Dave, this is only half true ... I've been to that jam session you've written about in other threads, but I'm still not sure that I've heard your playing. You need to play louder! ;)
Ah, so you've SEEN me play perhaps. Well, I can hear it just fine :)
Actually, my amp wigs out after a certain point. I guess I have to
get a bigger one of those amp thingies. I've never been big on gear.
It took me 11 years to buy a guitar worth more than $200.
-Dave