rules for clips?
Five Sharp
Should there be any rules for recording clips?
In this clip-omania we are going through here - which some think suspect to
begin with - should we be honest enough not to use overdubs or editing in
solos? And play one complete take from beginning to end, so not a mix of two
takes and combine the best sections?
As little as it is jazz in the first place, maybe that's an idea to adhere
to.
Also you can question the number of takes. If it takes you 100 takes to come
up with a solo you deem worthy of publication, maybe it's better you
practise it some more.
Another thing you can question is the precomposing of solos (unless you have
an educational objective). That would not be a very jazz thing to do, right?
Does this make any sense? Which rule does? Which not?
Personally I never use overdubs or editing. You can't do that with videos
anyway. But I know it's real easy for audio recordings.
#####
charles robinson
such a rule could be enforced. It seems to come down to a personal choice,
an honesty to yourself.
Charlie
Charlie
"Five Sharp" <d.on...@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:38h2jlF...@individual.net...
Five Sharp
consider it anyway.
#####
"charles robinson" <robins...@comcast.net> schreef in bericht
news:_6OdnYJj-Md...@comcast.com...
charles robinson
Charlie
"Five Sharp" <d.on...@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:38h3ebF...@individual.net...
thom_j.
> Does this make any sense? Which rule does? Which not?
as my playing abilities & technique are at an all time low due
to personal circumstances) I will re'take my azz off and dub
& re'dub anything I can to make my clip 1/2azz stinky! 8^)~'
cheating my azzzz off tee'... datz me
Max Leggett
wrote:
I'm going to set up a BIAB backing track and then take a Wes
recording, digitally separate Wes from his backing, and lay it on top
of BIAB. Hahahahahaha!!!! They'll never know!!!! Oh ... wait ...
uh... did I already hit send? uh ...
------------------------------------------------
Is it not strange that sheep's guts should hale
souls out of men's bodies?
Much Ado About Nothing, II iii
----------------------------------------------
Joey Goldstein
Five Sharp wrote:
>
> Guys,
>
> Should there be any rules for recording clips?
Good luck with that.
> In this clip-omania we are going through here - which some think suspect to
> begin with - should we be honest enough not to use overdubs or editing in
> solos?
Unless you've got a band at your house I don't know how else to record
without overdubbing.
Editing and punching in and out are something else. The two clips that I
posted recently were overdubbed but not punched in anywhere for fix-ups
etc. One of them was edited in the sense that I added some EQ, reverb,
and compression. The other has no EQ, etc. Both were edited in that I
adjusted the levels when mixing to stereo.
> And play one complete take from beginning to end, so not a mix of two
> takes and combine the best sections?
To me, that depends on what I'm trying to demonsatrate in the clip. But
both my recent clips are one complete take.
> As little as it is jazz in the first place, maybe that's an idea to adhere
> to.
>
> Also you can question the number of takes. If it takes you 100 takes to come
> up with a solo you deem worthy of publication, maybe it's better you
> practise it some more.
So you'd be happier with the 200th take? What's that all about?
Are all of your clips 1st take, the 1st time you've ever played the
tune?
> Another thing you can question is the precomposing of solos (unless you have
> an educational objective). That would not be a very jazz thing to do, right?
Like you said.
> Does this make any sense? Which rule does? Which not?
>
> Personally I never use overdubs
Maybe by "overdubs" you mean "punches". I didn't see a band at your
house so you must be playing along with a previously recorded backing
track. That's called overdubbing in my experience.
> or editing. You can't do that with videos
> anyway. But I know it's real easy for audio recordings.
If I do stuff like that I feel somewhat obligated to tell people here
that I have. Just to be honest.
--
Joey Goldstein
http://www.joeygoldstein.com
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
tomb...@jhu.edu
every technical advantage you can? Maybe we should rule that picks are
less real than thumbs. And guys who put strings on their guitars are
the worst, those cheaters.
thom_j.
"Max Leggett" <hepkatre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42235df6....@News.sprint.ca...
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:03:28 -0500, "thom_j." <thom_...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Five Sharp" wrote:
>>> Does this make any sense? Which rule does? Which not?
>>Hell, if I ever get the ballz to record (thats unlikely right now
>>as my playing abilities & technique are at an all time low due
>>to personal circumstances) I will re'take my azz off and dub
>>& re'dub anything I can to make my clip 1/2azz stinky! 8^)~'
>>cheating my azzzz off tee'... datz me
>
> I'm going to set up a BIAB backing track and then take a Wes
> recording, digitally separate Wes from his backing, and lay it on top
> of BIAB. Hahahahahaha!!!! They'll never know!!!! Oh ... wait ...
> uh... did I already hit send? uh ...
>
biab...shhhhhh! don't tell any1.... 8^)~~'...
thom_j.
way through in one take! So I'll use this excuse.. 8^)'.. cheatin' tee'..
Five Sharp
not what I mean of course. I mean punching in new parts or notes. Or
combining several parts of different takes into one new end take. That's
something I feel would go against my peronsal ethics of what is right or
wrong.
No, I do several takes but never more than 5 and then simply select the best
one or abandon the session alltogether, even if I am not satisfied. First,
because I am fed up then and second because I feel if I need 100 takes, I
feel I can't play the tune anyway. But that's personal.
Sound editing I don't care about.
I think the most obvious objectives I have are:
1. punching in new notes/parts
2. combining different parts
I agree. The rest depends on the context/objective.
Of course I do not really believe in a set of "rules" here. Just wanted to
generate some ideas on this.
#####
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> schreef in bericht
news:42235CAF...@nowhere.net...
Five Sharp
their live recordings (which aren't there for some reason). I'd be
disapponted to learn for instance that Richard's take was edited after the
fact and consisted of 5 parts from different solos and contained a number of
overdubs. I'd stop listening to him and would not take him seriously
anymore. He wants to showcase his playing (and he should, he is a fine
player) and dubbing simply means he can't pull it of really.
I dare say this because I know he doesn't.
Maybe personal but nevertheless true.
#####
<tomb...@jhu.edu> schreef in bericht
news:1109614647.3...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
bob r
wrote on 2/28/05 12:27 PM:
> Guys,
>
> Should there be any rules for recording clips?
>
First of all, isn't this supposed to be for fun?
Second, why bother? The ones who are going to break the rules will do it
anyway and then say they didn't; the ones who don't need to won't do it
anyway. Unless you want to have every clip analyzed by forensics experts,
you'll never know. Let's face it; the only way to know for sure how somebody
plays is to see them live.
--
Bob Russell
http://www.bobrussellguitar.com
CD, "Watch This!", available at:
http://www.cdbaby.com/bobrussell
Five Sharp
even live clips are because they involve a preselection (thus you could
upload one fine track and leave out the lousy 14 others from the same live
gig :)
But maybe if you have a set of "unwritten" and "informal" set of
rules/ethics regarding clips, at least the fraud will know himself for what
he is ....
#####
"bob r" <what...@anyway.com> schreef in bericht
news:BE48DA8E.39561%what...@anyway.com...
bob r
wrote on 2/28/05 2:33 PM:
> But maybe if you have a set of "unwritten" and "informal" set of
> rules/ethics regarding clips, at least the fraud will know himself for what
> he is ....
The frauds already know themselves for what they are.
Why should we worry about that?
Kurt Shapiro
anyone else goes, that's their business.
On the other hand, it took me more than five takes to come up with a good
pass. Before I even get to the serious stage, I have to get a tone I like
and at levels that work, and that alone takes a few passes.
On my BornmanFunkMix, I screwed around with it for a whole evening and
everything sounded like crap -- I hadn't been playing that style for a
while. I certainly ran through it more than five times though. I just
looped and played on it until I wanted to puke. After a while, I decided it
was all crap and that I'd take a whack at it the next day.
The next day I pulled it out again and managed to get an acceptable take on
something like the third pass. One thing that impresses me about your
stuff, Five Sharp, is that you record it on video, so we know there's no
punch-ins. I didn't do any punch ins, but I really don't care if someone
does. One of my favorite solos of all time, Larry Carlton's Kid
Charlemagne, was actually two takes comped together.
Like someone said though, there's no way to enforce any rules about clip
posting. In my case, part of the reason I did the Bornman was to have an
excuse to practice playing on a funk groove and hear myself back. That's
also the reason I stuck to my rule of doing the solo in one pass; not as a
matter of honesty to the group or world, but just because I wanted to be
able to make my own honest assessment of my playing. Once I had a pass I
liked, I was just too lazy and busy to screw around with it anymore. I'd
spent enough time on it.
If I'm recording for someone else for money, which occasionally but rarely
happens, I'll do whatever it takes to make it sound good. There's a guy in
town who is probably the most in-demand studio guitarist in this little
city. This guy plays with a someone very very famous. A friend of mine
works with him occasionally. He says the guy not only does punch-ins all
the time, but edits so that the the transient peaks are time-aligned. I'm
driving a truck and he's playing music for a living. He's making better
living at it too. He's a fantastic guitar player and musician, but I
imagine he's cognizant of the realities of recording in today's digital
world and what he has to compete with.
As far as precomposing goes: Hey, if you want to bother precomposing and
then can play it all the way through, why the heck not? I'm not sure
there's all that much difference between working a lick up into time and
through various keys, and precomposing. The only difference is one way you
make a decision on-the-fly to use it and the other way you've planned out
where and when to use it. Now I'm sure there's plenty of music gods, here
and elsewhere, that never have worked on a lick in their lives, but I'm sure
as hell not one of them.
I figure if we want to know how someone recorded it, we can just ask them.
It's up to them if they want to answer, and up to them to be honest, but
it's completely unenforceable. In my case, I'm perfectly happy to be honest
because you're all just a bunch o' fr**kin' guitar players and who cares
what you think?
I also don't have anything to lose. If I was a famous or name player, I
might have a little more hesitation about 'fessin up though. Nothing
personal, but if for some whacky reason I ever was a name guitarist, I sure
wouldn't want to take a chance on screwing up my career for the benefit of a
bunch o' frustrated whacko freakin' guitar players on a newsgroup.
"Five Sharp" <d.on...@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:38h2jlF...@individual.net...
thom_j.
> Unless you want to have every clip analyzed by forensics experts,
curious tee'..
Joey Goldstein
Five Sharp wrote:
>
> Yeah, technically doing a take over a play-along is overdubbing. But that's
> not what I mean of course. I mean punching in new parts or notes. Or
> combining several parts of different takes into one new end take. That's
> something I feel would go against my peronsal ethics of what is right or
> wrong.
>
> No, I do several takes but never more than 5 and then simply select the best
> one or abandon the session alltogether, even if I am not satisfied. First,
> because I am fed up then and second because I feel if I need 100 takes, I
> feel I can't play the tune anyway. But that's personal.
That's how I learn a tune. But that's me.
mark (sixstringtheoryDOTcom)
> But you forget that many players are judged here on their clips, not on
> their live recordings (which aren't there for some reason). I'd be
> disapponted to learn for instance that Richard's take was edited after the
> fact and consisted of 5 parts from different solos and contained a number of
> overdubs. I'd stop listening to him and would not take him seriously
> anymore. He wants to showcase his playing (and he should, he is a fine
> player) and dubbing simply means he can't pull it of really.
>
> I dare say this because I know he doesn't.
>
> Maybe personal but nevertheless true.
>
> #####
>
I agree wholeheartedly with #####. I recorded my funk mix massacre and
put it out there. One take, no rehearsal. I imported, listened to it
once, and then hit record on a separate track to play over it. The end
result, which for those of you who bothered to listen, is quite poor.
I'm just not a very good player with anything other than 4/4 blues right
now, and even that I'm just okay. But if I were to have taken the time
to do any editing or overdubs, then I guarantee I'd be able to put
something together that would give the impression that I am a pretty
darn good player. Even if it took me an hour or two to put it all
together. But I think that is counter to the spirit in which I thought
these clips were being made. As an educational opportunity and
comparison. Yes, it's difficult to compare clips on true musicality, but
I don't think it's wrong or pointless to compare clips for their
approach and their technical abilities.
I wouldn't expect anyone to listen to any of these clips more than a few
times at best anyway. Perhaps others feel differently. For me, these
clips are a guage of one's playing ability and approach to a given tune
at a given point in time. I think the exercise is wonderful and I think
it's one of the best things to happen to this NG in a while. I was
disappointed of course to see/hear that I had the worst clip of all of
em : ) But at least I had the balls to put it out there unedited!
And in a year, I'm going to rerecord a funk mix and kick it's ass and
post the before and after. And you guys will all be wanting to buy my
records and take lessons from me and be saying, "And I remember when you
couldn't play over a simple funk mix!!" : )
mark (sixstringtheoryDOTcom)
> in article 38ha0lF...@individual.net, Five Sharp at d.on...@chello.nl
> wrote on 2/28/05 2:33 PM:
>
>
>>But maybe if you have a set of "unwritten" and "informal" set of
>>rules/ethics regarding clips, at least the fraud will know himself for what
>>he is ....
>
>
> The frauds already know themselves for what they are.
> Why should we worry about that?
But I don't know who the frauds are, and I'd like to know. I believe
this has been discussed ad nauseum before, but clips give me a frame of
reference as to whether me, as a beginner to jazz, is reading something
from someone who is full of shit when it comes to actually playing and
is all talk, or someone who can back it up. Unedited clips do that IMO.
mark
Tom Walls
says...
> in article 38ha0lF...@individual.net, Five Sharp at d.on...@chello.nl
> wrote on 2/28/05 2:33 PM:
>
> > But maybe if you have a set of "unwritten" and "informal" set of
> > rules/ethics regarding clips, at least the fraud will know himself for what
> > he is ....
>
> The frauds already know themselves for what they are.
> Why should we worry about that?
>
anxious to impress the newsgroup that they would bother to create a
"fraud". If anybody here would do that, please raise your hand. :)
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
Tom Walls
bob r
tw...@cornell.edu wrote on 2/28/05 3:24 PM:
> Maybe it's just me, but I have a hard time believing someone would be so
> anxious to impress the newsgroup that they would bother to create a
> "fraud". If anybody here would do that, please raise your hand. :)
My point exactly. If someone's that hard up for approval, they sure aren't
going to fess up.
thom_j.
> If anybody here would do that, please raise your hand. :)
___ | |_|' | | |_|' | ___
| |_| | | '| | | | |_| |
_ | '| | '| | '| | '|
|| )| '|,| |,| '|,| '|
| ) | | | | | | '|
| ' , , , ,|
\ |
\ /
\ /
\ /
| |
| |
=============
hand raisin' tee' 8^)~~~~'
thom_j.
"Tom Walls" <tw...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:cvvun5$nb4$2...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
> In article <eaednR_ziLY...@comcast.com>, thom_...@yahoo.com
> says...
>> "bob r" wrote:
>> > Unless you want to have every clip analyzed by forensics experts,
>> There won't be any "anal probing" will there?
>> curious tee'..
>>
>>
>>
> You wish! :)
Tom Walls
Pete Kerezman
Gosh, y'all are wordy.
Texas Pete
thom_j.
tomw
that aint nothin' 8^)'... a 2minute quickie, like my sex life 8^('....
viagra challenged tee'..
bob r
pete...@aol.com wrote on 2/28/05 4:14 PM:
> Contiguous performance.
>
> Gosh, y'all are wordy.
>
> Texas Pete
potential new NG name:
rec.music.makers.guitar.unedited.polyphonic.ensemble.improvisation
Dean
year. It seems like you are talking about posting clips to a particular
backing track. Some kind of "test" (not to be confused with a pissing
contest). Since nobody here needs to use someone else's less than
perfect efforts as ammunition to blast them, it would only matter to
the poster of their clip whether they followed any unstated rules. I
think that we can all hear whether the ideas and execution in such an
offerring were original, interesting, and musical to us.
In my own recordings, I have simply recorded one track, sometimes
trying as many as five times to get it to a reasonable quality (for me,
of course), and then played over it about the same number of times for
a second track. The result: "Duets" that expose my weaknesses, and an
occassional musical idea. I admit to having cut a few bad notes from
one or the other of the tracks, but not to inserting a segment of
another take. It would be hard to find any such segments that did not
overlap with other takes. I guess, if I were working in a studio, it
might make sense to redo a measure or two, but that wouldn't make much
of a difference for my own output.
Here's my latest stuff, offerred in an effort to make everyone else not
feel so bad about their own clips:
http://www.deanathans.com/PrinceDreams.htm
Dean
juru...@aol.com
Not
even live clips are because they involve a preselection (thus you could
upload one fine track and leave out the lousy 14 others from the same
live
gig :)
So grab a webcam, sit down and blast one out. If you want, play solo
through a mike and blast six or seven out. That's pretty live without
actually going out and booking yourself.
As to people who punch stuff up, it's a different craft, but I'm not
inclined to be dismissive of someone who does it in a commercial
venture or in pursuit of a particular sound as long as they're up front
that that's what they're doing. It's not fraudulent so long as they're
honest about it, I don't suppose.
Clif
Kevin Van Sant
wrote in message <38h2jlF...@individual.net> :
>Guys,
>
>Should there be any rules for recording clips?
>
>In this clip-omania we are going through here - which some think suspect to
>begin with - should we be honest enough not to use overdubs or editing in
>solos? And play one complete take from beginning to end, so not a mix of two
>takes and combine the best sections?
>
>As little as it is jazz in the first place, maybe that's an idea to adhere
>to.
>
>Also you can question the number of takes. If it takes you 100 takes to come
>up with a solo you deem worthy of publication, maybe it's better you
>practise it some more.
>
>Another thing you can question is the precomposing of solos (unless you have
>an educational objective). That would not be a very jazz thing to do, right?
>
>Does this make any sense? Which rule does? Which not?
I agree that splicing or punching in or "pre composing" solos aren't
really in the spirit of jazz music (whatever that means). But then
again, playing along with a static funk groove track isn't all that
"jazz" to begin with. But I also think that the idea of "rules" for
posting clips is kind of silly. My guess is that all of the guys
here who typically are putting up clips are not ever "manufacturing"
their performances. I mean, the regular clip posters are also regular
participants who we've all interacted with for months or years. Maybe
I'm wrong, but I haven't really gotten that kind of vibe from anyone
or anyone's clips. I also think that if you can't play a good
sounding solo to begin with you probably can't edit one together very
convincingly either, so you'd probably be left with a similar
impression even if a guy was editing.
_________________________________________
Kevin Van Sant
jazz guitar
http://www.kevinvansant.com
to buy my CDs, hear sound clips, see videos, and get more info.
Visit my new Instant Download Mp3 Store at:
http://www.onestopjazz.com/mp3-store.html
Alternate site for gig tape soundclips
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/kevinvansant_music.htm
Richard Bornman
on the Jimmy Smith rec. "Off the Top".
There is also some dropping in happening on
Weekend in LA...
For my part, I am happy to admit
that my solo took about 200 odd hours
to construct. I first sampled Wes and Benson.
Then combined their tones to get my perfect
"composite". A drum version of my solo
was played two handed on the keyboard
first and then the composite tone was latched
onto that. It took me a few hours to play the
rhythm in then a LOT of hours to latch the
tone to the rhythm part. Pitch was sadly next.
This took ages...trying to come up with a convincing
note choice really hurt. But what honestly hurt the most
was deceiving my RMMGJ brothers. Which is why
I had to post this note and reveal my dark and dirty
secret...
RB
Kurt Shapiro
third-world country then just chain them to my computer until the product is
complete.
"Richard Bornman" <richard...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:38hl0hF...@individual.net...
Joey Goldstein
Richard Bornman wrote:
>
> I had to post this note and reveal my dark and dirty
> secret...
Yes...But what are you wearing?
pmfan57
> >Another thing you can question is the precomposing of solos (unless
you have
> >an educational objective). That would not be a very jazz thing to
do, right?
> >
A listen to several takes of Charlie Parker at the same session on the
same tune will show that Bird had an overall architecture he was
looking to achieve in a solo, which he clearly laid out at least a
little ahead of time. Although he made modifications from take to
take, there is a lot carried over. That takes nothing away from him,
of course. He's probably about as creative as it gets.
Kurt Shapiro
just ended up sounding cranky. Okay: I'm really am cranky. I can accept
that.
I suspect (and hope) most of you couldn't care less about my "personal
rules" or how I recorded a durned thing. I don't even care myself.
Good lawd, somebody slap me!
"Kurt Shapiro" <kurtWITHOUTT...@hotmailNOSPAMTHANKS.com> wrote in
message news:XsWdnToxZJW...@comcast.com...
> My personal rule is . . .
[blah, blah, blah, snip].
daniel_anth...@yahoo.com
sonic architecture or sculpture, and if the end result is engaging
,well, that's the point to my mind...not so much the means to such and
end . To do good engaging work that somehow puts across something
magic,that's what I hope for whether I'm operating as a composer or an
improviser. Music is a funny bird though,and people even more so! I
mean the way music effects people, and what they look for and find
"worthy" in it... it's all very personal, and I think it will always
tell you more about the listener than it will about "music". So my vote
is whatever-works-works,and FWIW,my take was a first take not even
knowing if it was recording or not.but it was, and it was a good enough
example of how I might approach this type of thing and still do what I
like to do (as a soloist), so up it went .
daniel Stearns
http://kronoson.station185.com/kronosonic/contrib/dan.htm
http://zebox.com/avantgarde_jazzguitar/
Five Sharp wrote:
> Guys,
>
> Should there be any rules for recording clips?
>
> In this clip-omania we are going through here - which some think
suspect to
> begin with - should we be honest enough not to use overdubs or
editing in
> solos? And play one complete take from beginning to end, so not a mix
of two
> takes and combine the best sections?
>
> As little as it is jazz in the first place, maybe that's an idea to
adhere
> to.
>
> Also you can question the number of takes. If it takes you 100 takes
to come
> up with a solo you deem worthy of publication, maybe it's better you
> practise it some more.
>
> Another thing you can question is the precomposing of solos (unless
you have
> an educational objective). That would not be a very jazz thing to do,
right?
>
> Does this make any sense? Which rule does? Which not?
>
bob r
daniel_anth...@yahoo.com at daniel_anth...@yahoo.com wrote
on 2/28/05 10:49 PM:
> I tend to be of the "sounds good is good" opinion. To me,music is like
> sonic architecture or sculpture, and if the end result is engaging
> ,well, that's the point to my mind...not so much the means to such and
> end . To do good engaging work that somehow puts across something
> magic,that's what I hope for whether I'm operating as a composer or an
> improviser. Music is a funny bird though,and people even more so! I
> mean the way music effects people, and what they look for and find
> "worthy" in it... it's all very personal, and I think it will always
> tell you more about the listener than it will about "music". So my vote
> is whatever-works-works,and FWIW,my take was a first take not even
> knowing if it was recording or not.but it was, and it was a good enough
> example of how I might approach this type of thing and still do what I
> like to do (as a soloist), so up it went .
I had a similar outlook. Since I've always taken it for granted that there
were posters of widely varying playing ability on this NG, I just thought
that Richard's idea would be a nice chance to see a glimpse of one side of
everybody's musical personality and to hear a little bit of their playing
instead of just reading their words. Some players on here have been
dizzingly prolific at putting up clips all along; others haven't made
anything available until Richard's exhortation. For me, it was simply an
enjoyable diversion and it was cool to hear so many different spins on the
same track. Mine was definitely tossed off with no thoughts of weenie-waving
or jockeying for position. It was just for fun, which I believe was the
spirit in which Richard offered the suggestion.
JS Groot
>
> Guys,
>
> Should there be any rules for recording clips?
No drugs or alcohol abuse! Phew... have I heard some really
bad stuff from people in this group lately!
Jos Groot
Tom Walls
dat...@bellatlantic.net says...
>
> Here's my latest stuff, offerred in an effort to make everyone else not
> feel so bad about their own clips:
>
> http://www.deanathans.com/PrinceDreams.htm
>
> Dean
>
>
Tom Walls
juru...@aol.com says...
point out that while we're now talking about "ultimate and legitimate
tests", I think Richard was just curious to hear how the various players
would deal with this clip. We're not being graded on this. That's why
it's fun.
j...@jackzucker.com
Kevin Van Sant
<j...@jackzucker.com> wrote in message
<1109772099.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> :
>What's this all about? Who do you suspect is not being honest?
that's what I wondered. ##### must have heard something he didn't
believe... or didn't WANT to believe :)
Joey Goldstein
"j...@jackzucker.com" wrote:
>
> What's this all about? Who do you suspect is not being honest?
Yeah really. I've heard a bunch of clips that *should* have been edited
(like mine) but none that sound like they were.
ott...@hotmail.com
the
> same tune will show that Bird had an overall architecture he was
> looking to achieve in a solo, which he clearly laid out at least a
> little ahead of time. Although he made modifications from take to
> take, there is a lot carried over. That takes nothing away from him,
> of course. He's probably about as creative as it gets.
If you listen to much Bill Evans, there will be many similarities from
one take to another of the same session. Bill spoke of something called
Minimum level of competence, so that no matter how you feel on a
certain day, you should Never play below a certain level, even on
Auto-Pilot, so to speak.
Everybody has certain patterns, licks to fall back on, but they should
used only be to fall back on, and not in daily playing.
Bg
j...@jackzucker.com
I was transcribing Benson's solo on Billie's Bounce off the Giblets
Gravy CD and at one point he does the polyrhythm / polychordal thing of
Eb/F F/F Gb/F Cb/F and then comes into the IV chord where the phrase
he's playing seems like it's off by one beat. Listening to it at a slow
tempo, I heard a strange transition as if they spliced together a
couple takes. I wondered if he turned the time around with the
polyrhythm. I listened to it at the normal tempo and couldn't tell...
On another one of his recordings, there was a splice which dropped a
beat. I can't remember which recording it was. Maybe someone else
knows.
j...@jackzucker.com
I missed your clip. Can you repost the link?
Kurt Shapiro
(Benson's Billie's Bounce) many years ago. This was in the days before
digital stuff -- I just used a boom box. Is that old school or what?
Anyways, I remember it felt like something got dropped or turned around in
there somewhere, though when I sat down and counted it out while trying very
hard not to get lost it came out okay. Now that was probably at least 17
years ago, so not only is my aged memory suspect, but my ears were even
crappier than they are now.
I still have the transcription somewhere. I'd hate to have someone who
really knows what they're doing look at it; it's probably awful, especially
on the chord solo section.
<j...@jackzucker.com> wrote in message
news:1109783850....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
ott...@hotmail.com
I think that's the Live Recording with Stanlet Turrentine and F.
Hubbard, the guitar solo is also chopped going into the out Head.
Bg
bob r
I just got back home from a mini-vacation and saw your request for me to
repost the link to my "funk mix" clip. Here 'tis:
http://people.uncw.edu/russellr/FunkThang.mp3
Apologies to anyone who's had trouble getting in touch by email the last few
days; I haven't had 'net access for most of the time I was gone.
Jack A. Zucker
Sounds like some nashville stuff has crept into your playing. I'd like to
hear a bit of verb though...
"bob r" <Someo...@whatever.com> wrote in message
news:BE4E5305.39710%Someo...@whatever.com...
bob r
j...@jackzucker.com wrote on 3/5/05 11:12 PM:
> Nice Bob.
>
> Sounds like some nashville stuff has crept into your playing. I'd like to
> hear a bit of verb though...
Well, I thought it would be fun to mix a little chicken-pickin' in on that
one. There is some verb on that; I just had it dialed down really low to
forestall any purist bitching about overuse of effects. I figured my use of
the Demon Distortion would already get me disqualified by the Jazz Taliban.
Gerry
<Someo...@whatever.com> wrote:
> > Nice Bob.
> >
> > Sounds like some nashville stuff has crept into your playing. I'd
> > like to hear a bit of verb though...
>
> Well, I thought it would be fun to mix a little chicken-pickin' in on
> that one. There is some verb on that; I just had it dialed down
> really low to forestall any purist bitching about overuse of effects.
What a strange world. Normally you'd use more reverb but explicitly
did not because you were fearful someone would complain? Wow.
> I figured my use of the Demon Distortion would already get me
> disqualified by the Jazz Taliban.
Maybe I haven't been keeping up with this I didn't know any Jazz
Taliban would have a vendetta against your use of any damn thing you
liked. I guess I'm thankfully out of touch.
--
The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who
are undecided.
-- Casey Stengel
bob r
add...@domain.com.invalid wrote on 3/6/05 11:53 AM:
> In article <BE500FFE.397E0%Someo...@whatever.com>, bob r
> <Someo...@whatever.com> wrote:
>
>>> Nice Bob.
>>>
>>> Sounds like some nashville stuff has crept into your playing. I'd
>>> like to hear a bit of verb though...
>>
>> Well, I thought it would be fun to mix a little chicken-pickin' in on
>> that one. There is some verb on that; I just had it dialed down
>> really low to forestall any purist bitching about overuse of effects.
>
> What a strange world. Normally you'd use more reverb but explicitly
> did not because you were fearful someone would complain? Wow.
It IS a strange world, but I don't think my decision has much to do with
that fact. I've had experiences in this NG where certain people felt that
music I made was automatically disqualified as "jazz" because I used effects
or played with (horrors!) "artificial" backup or departed from "that warm
archtop sound". But apart from all that, I was doing something in a style
where I felt that too much reverb or delay would clutter up the sound. If I
were making some music strictly for my own satisfaction and I really felt
that something needed a lot of reverb or even a pitch-shifted sample of a
badger in heat, you bet your ass I'd use it.
>> I figured my use of the Demon Distortion would already get me
>> disqualified by the Jazz Taliban.
>
> Maybe I haven't been keeping up with this I didn't know any Jazz
> Taliban would have a vendetta against your use of any damn thing you
> liked. I guess I'm thankfully out of touch.
Maybe I'm just getting a little too sensitive in my old age, Gerry. Not to
worry.
Gerry
<Someo...@whatever.com> wrote:
> >> Well, I thought it would be fun to mix a little chicken-pickin' in on
> >> that one. There is some verb on that; I just had it dialed down
> >> really low to forestall any purist bitching about overuse of effects.
> >
> > What a strange world. Normally you'd use more reverb but explicitly
> > did not because you were fearful someone would complain? Wow.
>
> It IS a strange world, but I don't think my decision has much to do with
> that fact. I've had experiences in this NG where certain people felt that
> music I made was automatically disqualified as "jazz" because I used effects
> or played with (horrors!) "artificial" backup or departed from "that warm
> archtop sound". But apart from all that, I was doing something in a style
> where I felt that too much reverb or delay would clutter up the sound. If I
> were making some music strictly for my own satisfaction and I really felt
> that something needed a lot of reverb or even a pitch-shifted sample of a
> badger in heat, you bet your ass I'd use it.
Glad to hear it. The stuff I've heard of yours that made notable use
of sigproc was all sonically charming. And this from the guy that took
a few weeks of ass-kicking from the other, modern jazz Taliban for
calling agreeing that stomp pedals were "gimmicks".
> >> I figured my use of the Demon Distortion would already get me
> >> disqualified by the Jazz Taliban.
> >
> > Maybe I haven't been keeping up with this I didn't know any Jazz
> > Taliban would have a vendetta against your use of any damn thing you
> > liked. I guess I'm thankfully out of touch.
>
> Maybe I'm just getting a little too sensitive in my old age, Gerry. Not to
> worry.
--
bob r
add...@domain.com.invalid wrote on 3/6/05 9:53 PM:
> In article <BE50ADB2.39832%Someo...@whatever.com>, bob r
> <Someo...@whatever.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Well, I thought it would be fun to mix a little chicken-pickin' in on
>>>> that one. There is some verb on that; I just had it dialed down
>>>> really low to forestall any purist bitching about overuse of effects.
>>>
>>> What a strange world. Normally you'd use more reverb but explicitly
>>> did not because you were fearful someone would complain? Wow.
>>
>> It IS a strange world, but I don't think my decision has much to do with
>> that fact. I've had experiences in this NG where certain people felt that
>> music I made was automatically disqualified as "jazz" because I used effects
>> or played with (horrors!) "artificial" backup or departed from "that warm
>> archtop sound". But apart from all that, I was doing something in a style
>> where I felt that too much reverb or delay would clutter up the sound. If I
>> were making some music strictly for my own satisfaction and I really felt
>> that something needed a lot of reverb or even a pitch-shifted sample of a
>> badger in heat, you bet your ass I'd use it.
>
> Glad to hear it. The stuff I've heard of yours that made notable use
> of sigproc was all sonically charming.
Thanks. Sonic charm is important to me. (Some will tell you it's the only
kind I ever achieve...)
> And this from the guy that took a few weeks of ass-kicking from the other,
modern jazz Taliban for calling agreeing that stomp pedals were "gimmicks".
Like you said, it's a strange world. :-)
charles robinson
Charlie
"bob r" <Someo...@whatever.com> wrote in message
news:BE4E5305.39710%Someo...@whatever.com...
bob r
robins...@comcast.net wrote on 3/9/05 11:42 PM:
> Yeah, You sound right at home with that bag.
>
> Charlie
>
> "bob r" <Someo...@whatever.com> wrote in message
> news:BE4E5305.39710%Someo...@whatever.com...
>> Jack,
>>
>> I just got back home from a mini-vacation and saw your request for me to
>> repost the link to my "funk mix" clip. Here 'tis:
>>
>> http://people.uncw.edu/russellr/FunkThang.mp3
>>
>> Apologies to anyone who's had trouble getting in touch by email the last
>> few
>> days; I haven't had 'net access for most of the time I was gone.
Thanks, Charlie. It was fun to do!