Mp3 clip: Moment's notice - work in progress
k.e.maij
Hello group,
some writers here pointed me to my weak bass playing in solo
guitar. So I did an arrangement of Moment's notice to exercise
specialy heavy chord changes on solo guitar.
I will exercise more and put an improvisation later on. This is
all I could do today in 4 hours.
I know its not perfect and I dont like the end really much and I'm
still struggling with the classical play feel on the flameco
guitar but I hope it gets better.
http://www.bebop.ch/rmmgj/Karl_E._Maij_-_Moments_notice_-_work_in_progress.mp3
What do you think?
Sincerely
charlie
--
Karl E. Maij
http://www.bebop.ch/rmmgj
Bill Ribas
"k.e.maij" <qmi...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
news:hbb412pujv18fbs50...@4ax.com...
Marco
news:hbb412pujv18fbs50...@4ax.com...
>
> Hello group,
>
> some writers here pointed me to my weak bass playing in solo
> guitar. So I did an arrangement of Moment's notice to exercise
> specialy heavy chord changes on solo guitar.
>
> I will exercise more and put an improvisation later on. This is
> all I could do today in 4 hours.
>
> I know its not perfect and I dont like the end really much and I'm
> still struggling with the classical play feel on the flameco
> guitar but I hope it gets better.
>
> http://www.bebop.ch/rmmgj/Karl_E._Maij_-_Moments_notice_-_work_in_progress.mp3
>
> What do you think?
Because only 4 hours study one great player as you would improve a lot the
melodic line. Now it seems too fast and I suppose you can reach your target
speed after some more hours of study. I think you are in the right way. I
would suggest to try to communicate more, even if there is the risk is to
slow down the song. Think about Joe Pass mood while playing. Hope you do not
mind about my considerations. You are a great player.
Marco
Gerry
> some writers here pointed me to my weak bass playing in solo
> guitar. So I did an arrangement of Moment's notice to exercise
> specialy heavy chord changes on solo guitar.
> I will exercise more and put an improvisation later on. This is
> all I could do today in 4 hours.
>
> I know its not perfect and I dont like the end really much and I'm
> still struggling with the classical play feel on the flameco
> guitar but I hope it gets better.
I think working a bass line like that is quite impressive. As
mentioned elsewhere the speed could be knocked back, it's adding too
much "scramble" to the feel.
In general I'd like to hear you hold the strings down long enough to
get full tone from them. I've said that before. It seems the 8th's only
song for a 16th and the quarter only sound for a 16th too. Maybe it's
the guitar, but it sounds like the left hand. Unlike some other
offerings your right hand isn't over-the-top aggressive on the strings,
but still could be more refined. Ever broken a nylon string?
--
What a day this has been, what a rare mood I'm in.
k.e.maij
>> http://www.bebop.ch/rmmgj/Karl_E._Maij_-_Moments_notice_-_work_in_progress.mp3
>I'd slow it down just a bit to clean it up, otherwise, sounds good to me.
Yes the tempo. It was the best I could at 2 in the night :-)
The tune is actually thought for me to play up tempo. Sould be
possible to play this clean in tempo when exercising much more.
I'll see.
Thank you.
k.e.maij
>> http://www.bebop.ch/rmmgj/Karl_E._Maij_-_Moments_notice_-_work_in_progress.mp3
>>
>> What do you think?
>
>Because only 4 hours study one great player as you would improve a lot the
>melodic line.
You're right, its the beginning :-)
There are still some inaccurate parts in the arrangement, as you
hear in bar 2 or bar 6 comparing to John Coltrane's original on
the 'Blue train' recording. I have to fix them. And an other thing
is that the bass line in not very clear in the 1 chord per bar
situations.
>Now it seems too fast and I suppose you can reach your target
>speed after some more hours of study. I think you are in the right way. I
>would suggest to try to communicate more, even if there is the risk is to
>slow down the song.
Oh yes this is true. To perform or to make it nicer the tempo
surely must be downed in the current exercise state. I will try to
record a clean slower version and a up time [as is should be, but
unclean :-)] version. I feel this fast changes in the bass
exercise gives chops.
>Think about Joe Pass mood while playing. Hope you do not
>mind about my considerations. You are a great player.
I appreciate your comments and thank you for the compliment.
Did Joe Pass playing the tune solo? If so do you know the record?
k.e.maij
>> I did an arrangement of Moment's notice to exercise
>> specialy heavy chord changes on solo guitar.
>I think working a bass line like that is quite impressive. As
>mentioned elsewhere the speed could be knocked back, it's adding too
>much "scramble" to the feel.
Yes I've f** up the gig :-)
You're all right. But I wanted to have it, sure enthusiastically,
over 200 bpm.
>In general I'd like to hear you hold the strings down long enough to
>get full tone from them. I've said that before. It seems the 8th's only
>song for a 16th and the quarter only sound for a 16th too. Maybe it's
>the guitar, but it sounds like the left hand.
The idea is actually having a steady walking bass in 4th's and
playing the melody similar as a brass section like in Coltranes
original. So it is not very legato yet this is true. But looking
to the left hand I guess in some places I have to do a compromise
with the heavy fingerings and the legato feel.
I will force my ear and fingers to longer notes, a good hint.
>Unlike some other
>offerings your right hand isn't over-the-top aggressive on the strings,
>but still could be more refined.
I think a part of the agressive touch is coming from the LaBella
strings. They sound quite different, brighter and more agressive
then regular classical strings. On the other hand its still my
unableness to control the fine motoric aspect of my right hand
playing very well. This might be what you hear :-)
In general I think the guitar reacts more to what I'm doing. More
finger noise, more string noise. Much more then playing on an
electric or the archtop.
>Ever broken a nylon string?
Not, not yet. Hope it will never happen. Did you?
Gerry
> Unlike some other offerings your right hand isn't over-the-top
> aggressive on the strings, but still could be more refined.
>
> I think a part of the agressive touch is coming from the LaBella
> strings. They sound quite different, brighter and more agressive
> then regular classical strings. On the other hand its still my
> unableness to control the fine motoric aspect of my right hand
> playing very well. This might be what you hear :-)
In my experience studying classical, my teacher use to harp on my
"popular/folk" technique and point out that to operate the nylon-string
one had to pick laterally through the string. I was pulling the finger
slightly towards my palm. That is, I was pulling the string up and
away from the guitar, rather than directly parallel to the sound board.
This was giving my attack "snap" and diminishing my sustain. Since I
too play with fingers (though I began using nails at that time), he
argued that I had even more inclination for a soft, snapped tone rather
than a bright legato tone.
> In general I think the guitar reacts more to what I'm doing. More
> finger noise, more string noise. Much more then playing on an
> electric or the archtop.
I agree. Part of that seems to be technique, but as mentioned
elsewhere, it might also be due to mic-ing the hand more than mic-ing
the soundboard. You mentioned elsewhere that your hand is closer to
the bridge than the sound hole. It might well provide a fuller tone if
you played closer to, but not over, the sound hole.
It's funny how players take such different angles in discussing
performance. Some direct their attention to the technique, others to
the arrangment, yet others to the audio aspects.
>> Ever broken a nylon string?
>
> Not, not yet. Hope it will never happen. Did you?
Never, but something tells me you would win in an arm wrestling match.
k.e.maij
>Karlie:
Funny, never saw this :-)
>>> Unlike some other offerings your right hand isn't over-the-top
>>> aggressive on the strings, but still could be more refined.
>>
>> I think a part of the agressive touch is coming from the LaBella
>> strings. They sound quite different, brighter and more agressive
>> then regular classical strings. On the other hand its still my
>> unableness to control the fine motoric aspect of my right hand
>> playing very well. This might be what you hear :-)
>
>In my experience studying classical, my teacher use to harp on my
>"popular/folk" technique and point out that to operate the nylon-string
>one had to pick laterally through the string. I was pulling the finger
>slightly towards my palm. That is, I was pulling the string up and
>away from the guitar, rather than directly parallel to the sound board.
> This was giving my attack "snap" and diminishing my sustain. Since I
>too play with fingers (though I began using nails at that time), he
>argued that I had even more inclination for a soft, snapped tone rather
>than a bright legato tone.
Yes, I use to pluck a bit that way. Did not realize. This gives me
to check some things. I've never tryed the 'parallel to the sound
board' approach. But I guess I'm loosing loudness by doing this
which I want or have to have for busking or accoustic playing
generally I think. Not that I'm playing very loud on the records
but the guitar sound gives quite the impression too.
>> In general I think the guitar reacts more to what I'm doing. More
>> finger noise, more string noise. Much more then playing on an
>> electric or the archtop.
>I agree. Part of that seems to be technique, but as mentioned
>elsewhere, it might also be due to mic-ing the hand more than mic-ing
>the soundboard. You mentioned elsewhere that your hand is closer to
>the bridge than the sound hole. It might well provide a fuller tone if
>you played closer to, but not over, the sound hole.
I think I hear what you mean. The feel of loud playing or powerful
plucking has certainly to do with the strings in combination with
the smaller construction style, they really support this kind of
sound. Sounds good in Flamenco though.
I'd like to integrate this somehow.
>It's funny how players take such different angles in discussing
>performance. Some direct their attention to the technique, others to
>the arrangment, yet others to the audio aspects.
>>> Ever broken a nylon string?
>> Not, not yet. Hope it will never happen. Did you?
>Never, but something tells me you would win in an arm wrestling match.
This comes from amp carrying all day :-)
Thank you for your advices, they are very useful for me.
Gerry
> Gerry <some...@sunny.calif> schrieb:
>
>> Karlie:
>
> Funny, never saw this :-)
You said you didn't care--it seemed an easy compromise.
>> In my experience studying classical, my teacher use to harp on my
>> "popular/folk" technique and point out that to operate the nylon-string
>> one had to pick laterally through the string. I was pulling the finger
>> slightly towards my palm. That is, I was pulling the string up and
>> away from the guitar, rather than directly parallel to the sound board.
>> This was giving my attack "snap" and diminishing my sustain. Since I
>> too play with fingers (though I began using nails at that time), he
>> argued that I had even more inclination for a soft, snapped tone rather
>> than a bright legato tone.
>
> Yes, I use to pluck a bit that way. Did not realize. This gives me
> to check some things. I've never tryed the 'parallel to the sound
> board' approach. But I guess I'm loosing loudness by doing this
> which I want or have to have for busking or accoustic playing
> generally I think. Not that I'm playing very loud on the records
> but the guitar sound gives quite the impression too.
Because my teacher insisted on teaching me "orthodox" classical playing
(he said I could abandon what I wanted), he insisted that I play with
my nails. Fine: he insisted that I learn well the free stroke and the
stop stroke. The first being where the finger does not follow all the
way through and touch the adjacent string. The second being one in
which the finger comes to a stop on the next string.
In either case he forced me to use just the appropriate part of the
nail, and at the appropriate length of nail. The nail is really pretty
short, and close to the end of my finger, and the area that makes
contact with the string is really only about the last 1/4 of the nail
on the left side (thumb side) of each finger. As such, I *couldn't*
get under the string and pluck it upwards toward my palm, as the
technique makes that difficult. My finger was more on top of the string
than it was under it.
Later when I stopped study with him (he was a great teacher), and began
playing with my fingers again, there was one key result: I was only
picking the strings with a very SMALL portion of the tip of my finger:
the fleshy pad of the finger tip never got *under* the string. Thus,
the "snap" went away, or at least much of it did.
>>> In general I think the guitar reacts more to what I'm doing. More
>>> finger noise, more string noise. Much more then playing on an
>>> electric or the archtop.
>> I agree. Part of that seems to be technique, but as mentioned
>> elsewhere, it might also be due to mic-ing the hand more than mic-ing
>> the soundboard. You mentioned elsewhere that your hand is closer to
>> the bridge than the sound hole. It might well provide a fuller tone if
>> you played closer to, but not over, the sound hole.
>
> I think I hear what you mean. The feel of loud playing or powerful
> plucking has certainly to do with the strings in combination with
> the smaller construction style, they really support this kind of
> sound. Sounds good in Flamenco though.
Flamenco players too, don't really get under the string, except for effects.
> I'd like to integrate this somehow.
3 months with a good teacher would always help. With anybody actually.
It's time I took some more lessons--if for no other reason that it
makes you rethink things.
> Thank you for your advices, they are very useful for me.
I hope so. As above: abandon what you like.
Kevin Van Sant
wrote in message <1n98121k4hnp308uc...@4ax.com> :
>
>The idea is actually having a steady walking bass in 4th's and
>playing the melody similar as a brass section like in Coltranes
>original. So it is not very legato yet this is true. But looking
>to the left hand I guess in some places I have to do a compromise
>with the heavy fingerings and the legato feel.
>
I've been enjoying hearing your works in progress Karl. I know I
don't actually have a vote, but if I did I'd cast it for the approach
you were going for with Solar over what you're reaching for here.
I think you can pull off what you're trying to do with this but to me
the effort it takes for a guitarist to arrange a piece to smoothly
execute bass/chords/melody comes at the expense of the jazziness of
the feel. A few examples that come to mind are some of Earl Klugh's
solo tracks, or Howard Morgan, or Mark Elf's solo pieces, or to an
extent Martin Taylor. All of those guys can play some amazing
arrangements and perform them beautifully, but to me it becomes more
like repertory guitar music instead of living breathing jazz music.
Obviously it's possible to integrate chords/bass/melody into an
improvised performance but I think there is more of a balance where
one facet may need to be sacrificed in order for another to be the
diving force. Sometimes it's the melody which leads, or sometimes the
groove is the driving force serviced by the bass or chord action, but
in trying to maintain all three equally the overriding feel is often
lacking. I'm sure if you were just playing the head you would have a
killer feel to it, but I doubt you will be able to perform the head
that way while at the same time pulling off the bass and chords. All
this is just an explanation for my personal taste which would be to
prioritize the feel over the novelty of putting all three parts down.
Like in Solar you were going for a feel which was dictated by how you
expressed the melody, the chords and bass just fit in as was
comfortable and available in the service of that feel. To me that is
much more desirable to listen to and is much more in the spirit of
jazz music. That's why I always prefer improvised arrangements over
worked out ones, or to use my earlier terms, jazz music played on
guitar over repertory guitar music.
_________________________________________
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
Keith Freeman
> the effort it takes for a guitarist to arrange a piece to smoothly
> execute bass/chords/melody comes at the expense of the jazziness of
> the feel.
clip of Martin Taylor here recently, and while it was amazing that he
pulled off simultaneous bass/chords/melody, the melody was all chopped up
and jerky as a result.
-Keith
Portable Changes, tips etc. at http://home.wanadoo.nl/keith.freeman/
e-mail only to keith DOT freeman AT wanadoo DOT nl
Marco
is an "amazing result". Martin Taylor is one of the best. Thanks God we
have him.
Marco
Keith Freeman
> is an "amazing result". Martin Taylor is one of the best.
Different strokes for different folks!
Marco
not want to complaint your opinion on Martin Taylor style, but I only
realize that your judgment is a little bit tough ("jerky results") for
a great musician as Martin Taylor. Also I do not understand how, a
great musician as you, can judge in so quick way a giant as Martin
Taylor. I think that in our world of musicians (professionals and not
professional as me) we have to respect each other and we have to
articulate very well the criticisms. It is very important to use the
right words and the right ways otherwise there is the risk to broadcast
in the web a false and superficial information on big guitarists as
Martin Taylor. A lot of young people are reading the posts in this
group and I think is important to give them a clear idea and clear
information about our jazz guitar world. Keith, our common enemy is the
commercial music that has not value but it is well know because there
are a lot money and business around. That is jerky. I would like to see
a lot of young people at least knowing that Martin Taylor exist. We
should promote him. We should help his world even if we do not like at
all his style because we have different musical tastes, which is
normal.
Marco
Keith Freeman
> realize that your judgment is a little bit tough ("jerky results") for
> a great musician as Martin Taylor. Also I do not understand how, a
> great musician as you, can judge in so quick way a giant as Martin
> Taylor.
I'm not a great musician, Marco, just an amateur who loves music, some
kinds more than others. In fact I took the example of Martin as being one
of the best exponents of that genre (if not *the* best): I figure if *he*
can't manage to get the melody line smooth while running a nifty bass
line and chords at fast tempo then maybe it just isn't possible on the
instrument.
Now there's nothing wrong with that: plenty of people enjoy style as
players or listeners. It's just not my cup of tea, precisely because it's
often the melody that loses out.
> our common enemy is the
> commercial music that has not value but it is well know because there
> are a lot money and business around. That is jerky.
I wonder if we have a linguistic misunderstanding here. When I say
"jerky" I don't mean "like a jerk", I mean not smooth.
Marco
Marco
k.e.maij
>>The idea is actually having a steady walking bass in 4th's and
>>playing the melody similar as a brass section like in Coltranes
>>original. So it is not very legato yet this is true. But looking
>>to the left hand I guess in some places I have to do a compromise
>>with the heavy fingerings and the legato feel.
>I've been enjoying hearing your works in progress Karl.
Oh, thank you. I'm a big fan of yours :-)
> I know I
>don't actually have a vote, but if I did I'd cast it for the approach
>you were going for with Solar over what you're reaching for here.
I'm not sure if I understand this sentence. Babelfish just gives
me confusing things :-o
>I think you can pull off what you're trying to do with this but to me
>the effort it takes for a guitarist to arrange a piece to smoothly
>execute bass/chords/melody comes at the expense of the jazziness of
>the feel.
For the risk to be flamed, this is what I think as well. My goal
is it to improvise such things.
> A few examples that come to mind are some of Earl Klugh's
>solo tracks, or Howard Morgan, or Mark Elf's solo pieces, or to an
>extent Martin Taylor.
Yes I did listen to these guys. I had quite the impression of nice
arranged stuff but rare improvisation, no risk.
>All of those guys can play some amazing
>arrangements and perform them beautifully, but to me it becomes more
>like repertory guitar music instead of living breathing jazz music.
So as for me. I'm looking for the same kind of freedom when
playing with a good band.
>Obviously it's possible to integrate chords/bass/melody into an
>improvised performance but I think there is more of a balance where
>one facet may need to be sacrificed in order for another to be the
>diving force. Sometimes it's the melody which leads, or sometimes the
>groove is the driving force serviced by the bass or chord action, but
>in trying to maintain all three equally the overriding feel is often
>lacking. I'm sure if you were just playing the head you would have a
>killer feel to it, but I doubt you will be able to perform the head
>that way while at the same time pulling off the bass and chords. All
>this is just an explanation for my personal taste which would be to
>prioritize the feel over the novelty of putting all three parts down.
I have quite the same feeling of what a solo guitar should be.
This has nothing to do with making other, and surely better
players wrong. Every of these players have their own style and
approach which I like, but its not what I hear. I'm an improviser,
not an arranger. I want improvisation and expression as much as
possible and as the moment does it.
Kevin, I can totally agree with your writing.
The tune Moments Notice is thought as an exercise. I'm sure when
improvising over it I would break the walking bass to go more into
the melody. But exercises like these gives a repertoire of certain
bass/chord/scale positions which are helpful to me as some kind of
anchor points.
>Like in Solar you were going for a feel which was dictated by how you
>expressed the melody, the chords and bass just fit in as was
>comfortable and available in the service of that feel. To me that is
>much more desirable to listen to and is much more in the spirit of
>jazz music. That's why I always prefer improvised arrangements over
>worked out ones, or to use my earlier terms, jazz music played on
>guitar over repertory guitar music.
Thank you. It is good to read that others can hear the direction I
want to go to. I know this is actually more work then having nice
arranged and fail save solo pieces. But I need the risk of failing
or get the magic into the music, just as in real life.
Thank you for your statement its very interesting to me to get
your view point.
Gerry
>> I only
>> realize that your judgment is a little bit tough ("jerky results") for
>> a great musician as Martin Taylor. Also I do not understand how, a
>> great musician as you, can judge in so quick way a giant as Martin
>> Taylor.
>
> I'm not a great musician, Marco, just an amateur who loves music, some
> kinds more than others. In fact I took the example of Martin as being
> one of the best exponents of that genre (if not *the* best): I figure
> if *he* can't manage to get the melody line smooth while running a
> nifty bass line and chords at fast tempo then maybe it just isn't
> possible on the instrument.
>
> Now there's nothing wrong with that: plenty of people enjoy style as
> players or listeners. It's just not my cup of tea, precisely because
> it's often the melody that loses out.
>> our common enemy is the
>> commercial music that has not value but it is well know because there
>> are a lot money and business around. That is jerky.
> I wonder if we have a linguistic misunderstanding here. When I say
> "jerky" I don't mean "like a jerk", I mean not smooth.
I assume it was a language misunderstanding. Martin Taylor, as well as
many others, do phenomenal jobs, when everything is worked out just so,
with carrying multiple voices on the guitar. But the instrument does
have it's limitations.
I'd love more more more out of the guitar, but I am faced with my own
physical limitations and those of the instrument. Then comes the
matter of style.
One of the things I like most about the guitar is it's "reductionist"
approach vis-a-vis the piano. I like pianists that are reductionists
as well. I like all things Japanese. It all makes sense to me.
k.e.maij
>Because my teacher insisted on teaching me "orthodox" classical playing
>(he said I could abandon what I wanted), he insisted that I play with
>my nails. Fine: he insisted that I learn well the free stroke and the
>stop stroke. The first being where the finger does not follow all the
>way through and touch the adjacent string. The second being one in
>which the finger comes to a stop on the next string.
>
>In either case he forced me to use just the appropriate part of the
>nail, and at the appropriate length of nail. The nail is really pretty
>short, and close to the end of my finger, and the area that makes
>contact with the string is really only about the last 1/4 of the nail
>on the left side (thumb side) of each finger. As such, I *couldn't*
>get under the string and pluck it upwards toward my palm, as the
>technique makes that difficult. My finger was more on top of the string
>than it was under it.
>
>Later when I stopped study with him (he was a great teacher), and began
>playing with my fingers again, there was one key result: I was only
>picking the strings with a very SMALL portion of the tip of my finger:
>the fleshy pad of the finger tip never got *under* the string. Thus,
>the "snap" went away, or at least much of it did.
I will leave the entire text quoted as is is because it was
importat to me.
So this is what I've found out while keeping my eyes to the issues
you have mentioned. First I have to say, I saw a video of Joe Pass
where he answers the question about his right hand and his answer
was that 'it just falls down' so he did not pay much attention to
it which was very impressive to me. So I tried to get this falled
down :-)
When I study the behaviour of the strings under the right hand one
thing was quite obviously: Bass strings played with the fingertip
do sometimes spin for more then 360 degrees into temselves and
have an other oscillation as when played with the fingernail. This
specially happens when plucking away from the guitar. The wider
oscillation gives the undefined tone and some fretboard noise in
certain constellations.
Now my fingernails are not so short anymore so I tried to play
with them. The tune Beautiful Love mentioned in an other thread is
played with attention to the right hand playing angel as you
advised and the spin of the bass strings. I tried to use the
fingernails. You might hear it. For my feel it gives a better
sound.
So thank you for the lesson you are very kind. I will have more
work to do on this :-)
Marco
news:200603121814488930-somewhere@sunnycalif...(...)
> In either case he forced me to use just the appropriate part of the nail,
Same expereince for me. My teacher forced me to keep the nails long enough
to have the right contact with the string. Before to touch the nail the
string touch the tip finger, so the string will run first on the tip finger
and then on the nail. If the nail is too long the sound will be "grattato"
in italian in english I think the right word is "scratched". So if I watch
my left hand from the palm I will see the nails just a little bit above the
tip finger (just a little"moon").
Marco