Playing the changes vs. playing over the key center

[pauln]

yes
yes
probably not

yes
probably

Sus2 and sus4 might not be considered triads?

[pamosmusic]

Sus2 and sus4 might not be considered triads?

*Shrugs*

Maybe.

When we were saying “triad” with no additional modifier, though, we’re probably talking about three note, tertian, and inversions. As far as basic, easily categorized tools for improvisation go, that’s the meat and potatoes.

[Christian Miller]

I presume the context is more what **** should people work on first, rather than trying to define what is and isn’t a triad?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tal_175]

If there isn't going to be a lengthy debate about what a triad means on a playing the changes thread, then they might as well shut down the forum.

[AdroitMage]

but pace Pat and with respect, I don’t like the term ‘arpeggio’ because it literally means ‘in the manner of a harp’- which is not what we are trying to do here. I think guitarist hear arpeggio they think of something in fast note values. Maybe Yngwie haha!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I beg to differ on that point. Here is what Merriam-Webster's dictionary has as the definition for arpeggio:


arpeggio

1: production of the tones of a chord in succession and not simultaneously

2: a chord in arpeggio


I don't see anything in that definition about harps, nor have I ever heard an instructor mention harps when explaining what arpeggios are, nor any mention of the speed in which they must be played.

Personally, I prefer the word arpeggios because using the words "chord tones" implies ONLY using the notes in the particular chord of the moment. However, the arpeggios don't always only include the notes in the chord, they can also include upper structure extensions of the chord, and even include alterations of the chord. YES, it can sometimes be just only the notes in the chord. The musician has the choice of using strictly only "the chord tones" or playing notes from an arpeggio that include extensions and even alterations of the chord. As always, it depends on the context of the specific tune and just the choice of the musician. You can play it one way on one chorus and a totally different way on the next chorus, there really are a lot of valid musical options.

I like to look at it not as just an isolated chord, too. What came before the chord and what comes after the chord have an influence on what tool I might choose to use in my improv at a particular time in a song. It's that sense of direction thing in one's phrasing, where did it come from, and where is it going?

[pamosmusic]

Personally, I prefer the word arpeggios because using the words "chord tones" implies ONLY using the notes in the particular chord of the moment. However, the arpeggios don't always only include the notes in the chord, they can also include upper structure extensions of the chord, and even include alterations of the chord.

Upper structure extensions of the chord and alterations of the chord would also be chord tones.

Sorry to … um … split hairs.

Anyway … arpeggio implies a structure to me. Like when I think of an arpeggio, I think of chord tones in succession. You’re talking about using the arpeggios to visualize the chord tones within a scale. So the arpeggio there is sort of a formal structure rather than a musical device.

[henryrobinett]

Sus2 and sus4 might not be considered triads?

I consider them triads unless there's a 7th added to the sus4.

[Christian Miller]

I beg to differ on that point. Here is what Merriam-Webster's dictionary has as the definition for arpeggio:


arpeggio

1: production of the tones of a chord in succession and not simultaneously

2: a chord in arpeggio


I don't see anything in that definition about harps, nor have I ever heard an instructor mention harps when explaining what arpeggios are, nor any mention of the speed in which they must be played.

Personally, I prefer the word arpeggios because using the words "chord tones" implies ONLY using the notes in the particular chord of the moment. However, the arpeggios don't always only include the notes in the chord, they can also include upper structure extensions of the chord, and even include alterations of the chord. YES, it can sometimes be just only the notes in the chord. The musician has the choice of using strictly only "the chord tones" or playing notes from an arpeggio that include extensions and even alterations of the chord. As always, it depends on the context of the specific tune and just the choice of the musician. You can play it one way on one chorus and a totally different way on the next chorus, there really are a lot of valid musical options.

I like to look at it not as just an isolated chord, too. What came before the chord and what comes after the chord have an influence on what tool I might choose to use in my improv at a particular time in a song. It's that sense of direction thing in one's phrasing, where did it come from, and where is it going?

Otoh Wikipedia says this
‘An arpeggio (Italian: [ar?pedd?o]) is a type of broken chord in which the notes that compose a chord are individually sounded in a progressive rising or descending order. Arpeggios on keyboard instruments may be called rolled chords.’

this does not contradict the dictionary definition although it is more specific.

So, one can quibble about definitions- but the fact that this association of pitch order and speed exists at all is problematic from a communication standpoint if we are taking about playing notes out of pitch order at a slow tempo. Ie not Yngwie.

The Wikipedia description is how the term has generally been used in Western music pedagogy historically. It also has these associations in the wider guitar community, perhaps more relevantly.

Arpeggio is an Italian word derived from the infinitive ‘arpeggiare’ or ‘to play on a harp’. We know what harps do of course. Arguably that’s a sort of fossilised meaning, but actually I think it relates rather well to what most musicians mean by it.

(In fact the literal meaning of many everyday Italian musical terms are not accurately reflected by their commonly used English synonyms. The literal Italian meanings of ‘piano’ and ‘legato’ are interesting, for instance, and probably better explain what to do to a student.)

The term used in classical music theory fwiw is also chord tone when describing for instance the construction of melodies.It’s also a good clear English term. Chord tones. Tones of the chord. No Italian is necessary. I see no reason not to use this term for clarity.

Besides there are actual arpeggios in jazz, too! Parker absolutely plays an Eb+ arpeggio on the F7 in Dewey square for example. Just not … all the time… there’s plenty of uses of chord tones that aren’t parts of arpeggios in this music too, parts of scales, leaps, chromatic runs, enclosures, octave displacements etc etc

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalku

[PMB]

But you don’t do that while performing. You’re describing a classic exercise for performance improvement in any effort that requires complex interaction among motor skills, sensory input, memory, strategic thinking, imagination, etc.

I’m a lifelong auto racer. We use the same approach when learning a track and when preparing to race at one. It’s called bench racing, and every successful racer I know does it. I prefer to do it in a quiet place while reclining comfortably with no distractions (usually after getting in bed for the night). I close my eyes and visualize myself driving lap after lap, “seeing” every little detail I can remember.

I visualize everything around the track, as well as on and in it. A tiny discolored patch can be used as a visible indicator of a braking or turn-in point. A seam in the pavement or curbing is as constant a reference as a downbeat. I know from which positions I can best see the field and exactly when my mirrors will again show them when traversing elevations and curves.

I usually do a minimum of 25 to 30 laps at tracks I know well from racing there dozens of times. For a new track, I review a track map and watch films of races there long before I arrive. I walk the entire track a few times the day I get there, and I bench race after every practice session.

This is common practice for successful participants in all active endeavors - MLB, NBA, NHL, NASCAR, PGA, etc. River pilots do it. Fighter pilots do it. Ballet dancers do it. Chess players do it. The benefit for all is a subliminal mental imprint that guides and frees your brain for more imaginative use when doing the deed. It’s also how I approach playing.

I neither feel nor expressed any disdain for taking theory seriously. It’s an integral part of “bench gigging”. But I can’t imagine thinking through all of the concepts in this thread while performing. Theory’s great for shaping your concepts. But to my ears, it makes the playing of those who constantly try to integrate it into live improvisation on the fly sound arbitrary and artificial.

Apologies to any recovering alcoholics out there but this reminds me of the saying "practise like a scientist, play like a drunk" (btw, I had a good laugh at your line "...soloing by formula and rule is like kissing through a screen door").

If the goal is to play 'through' rather than 'over' the changes, there's a lot of thought and visualisation that has to be in place before a performance. I like the analogy with auto racing. Most people will start out with a generalised view of the terrain and then pay attention to each area with potentially problematic zones receiving special treatment.

[pamosmusic]

Otoh Wikipedia says this
‘An arpeggio (Italian: [ar?pedd?o]) is a type of broken chord in which the notes that compose a chord are individually sounded in a progressive rising or descending order. Arpeggios on keyboard instruments may be called rolled chords.’

So, you can quibble about which source is more authoritative BUT the fact that this association of pitch order and speed exists at all is problematic from a communication standpoint if we are taking about playing notes out of pitch order at a slow tempo. Ie not Yngwie.

That is how the term has generally been used in Western music pedagogy historically. It also has associations in the wider guitar community, perhaps more relevantly.

Arpeggio is an Italian word derived from the infinitive ‘arpeggiare’ or ‘to play on a harp’. We know what harps do of course. Arguably that’s a sort of fossilised meaning, but actually I think it relates rather well to what most musicians mean by it.

(In fact the literal meaning of many everyday Italian musical terms are not accurately reflected by their commonly used English synonyms. The literal Italian meanings of ‘piano’ and ‘legato’ are interesting, for instance, and probably better explain what to do to a student.)

The term used in classical music theory fwiw is also chord tone when describing for instance the construction of melodies. I see no reason not to use this term for clarity. Besides there are actual arpeggios in jazz, too! Going up and down. And then there are other usages of chord tones.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The more I think about this, the more I think “arpeggio” sticks for guitarists (and I’m not knocking it, and I totally use it all the time) because of that visual/tactile component. Less about the pitch order or using them exclusively (even though that’s good practice, a la Jordan Klemons’s whole thing) and more about visualizing them as a part of a larger environment. Kind of like the George Benson thing where the chord changes and the fretboard “lights up.”

And in classical guitar, obviously arpeggio has a meaning not totally separate from its more general meaning, but definitely closer to that connotation of the “harp.” It refers more to a specific repetitive right hand pattern across multiple chords than to a particular collection of notes.

[Christian Miller]

The more I think about this, the more I think “arpeggio” sticks for guitarists (and I’m not knocking it, and I totally use it all the time) because of that visual/tactile component. Less about the pitch order or using them exclusively (even though that’s good practice, a la Jordan Klemons’s whole thing) and more about visualizing them as a part of a larger environment. Kind of like the George Benson thing where the chord changes and the fretboard “lights up.”

Well that’s the goal. In the final analysis terminology doesn’t matter.

But - It’s a hell of a job breaking that muscle memory aspect though. Everyone goes up and down usually from the root because it’s how you practice arpeggios. It’s hard to get students to look at a note in one chord moving to a note in another, because each arpeggio is like a self contained object and the individual notes are not randomly accessible. I guess they have memorised the fingering and shape?

Turning that into note knowledge requires a conceptual leap (it worked like that for me too tbf.)

I would say they all find it easier to play these exercises in eights than quarters of half notes. At least if I talk about ‘chord tones’ it reinforces in theory the idea that these notes can come out of, well, x 3 5 4 5 x, and the like.

But that’s the guitar - it’s a grippy instrument. Trying to get students to play the notes of a drop 2 root position grip with different fingers or as a melody with one or two fingers - students find that very difficult at first. Just to separate in their minds where the notes are from how they should be fingered.

It’s the same issue as getting a student who’s done a year of beginners classical to play D major in second position right? They will play that F# with the pinky

It’s why I rail so much against the conflating of fingering and fretboard mapping. After you can basically operate the instrument you have to bust through that to get some flexibility. We need to, as you say, have the notes light up.

But that’s not really a consideration unique to jazz necessarily, although it is associated with jazz players because we kind of need to know this stuff. The way jazz uses those resources and how best to teach that is a whole other area.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pamosmusic]

I would say they all find it easier to play these exercises in eights than quarters of half notes. At least if I talk about ‘chord tones’ it reinforces in theory the idea that these notes can come out of, well, x 3 5 4 5 x, and the like.

Those half notes are a powerful tool. Just the notion that you can’t play a complete triad on most chord changes is really useful. Or more to the point, you can’t play a complete “shape.” For that reason, I also love two-string playing. You can play eighth notes or whatever the hell you want, but almost all your “shapes” are gone. One-string obviously would maximize that.

It’s why I rail so much against the conflating of fingering and fretboard mapping. After you can basically operate the instrument you have to bust through that to get some flexibility. We need to, as you say, have the notes light up.

Yeah this is something I feel like I’m still working on as a teacher. The sequence of “pattern, combinations of patterns, restrictions on patterns, no patterns” seems to work, but I’m not sure if there’s an easier or more efficient way. When I think back, I’m pretty sure that’s how I did it (my old metal-head guitar teacher gave me this exercise called Hop Scotching that is ruthless that I still use with students), but that obviously doesn’t mean there isn’t a better way.

The way jazz uses those resources and how best to teach that is a whole other area.

Oh. Oops.

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

If the goal is to play 'through' rather than 'over' the changes, there's a lot of thought and visualisation that has to place before a performance.

It may be from having been playing for over 60 years, but that thought and visualization are ever present - I can't turn it on and off. I like to play a bit before a performance, but I don't have a preparatory ritual. Unless I'll be playing tunes that are new to me or following charts supplied by someone else, I don't give what I'm going to play a lot of thought beforehand. I let my mood and immediate thoughts guide my playing.

This is one of the many reasons I love to play solo. I've been playing a solo gig at a country French cafe this month, and it's like therapy for me. I set up and start playing tunes that stir my juices at that moment. Although I've always tried not to play the same tune more than once in a long time at a regular gig, I've started playing the same tunes different ways the same night. I did Blue Bossa as a bossa the first hour and as a swing tune the second. A few weeks ago, I did The Chicken as a medium swing tune first, then later as funk. Sometimes I like tight inside inversions and clusters and sometimes I hear chords that are wide open and sparse. I just play whatever's in my head at the time.

[Tal_175]

It may be from having been playing for over 60 years, but that thought and visualization are ever present - I can't turn it on and off. I like to play a bit before a performance, but I don't have a preparatory ritual. Unless I'll be playing tunes that are new to me or following charts supplied by someone else, I don't give what I'm going to play a lot of thought beforehand. I let my mood and immediate thoughts guide my playing.

That is the part I was asking about earlier in the thread. I'm trying to understand if you are experiencing the process of improvisation differently or the differences are mostly in how we talk about these things. If you don't mind me ask it again, I had a more concrete question in order to understand this a bit better.

So suppose you're playing All of Me. When you go to the 3rd bar from the 2nd bar, are you mentally aware that you're on E7 for two bars and you'll be leading to A7 after and does that inform how you visualize the fretboard in any way? To me that is a very essential part of improvisation. But based on how you described your process, it sounds like it is all aural imagination and memory of the tune for you and your mental map of the harmony doesn't inform how you navigate the fretboard. Is that true?

[AdroitMage]

Well that’s the goal. In the final analysis terminology doesn’t matter.

But - It’s a hell of a job breaking that muscle memory aspect though. Everyone goes up and down usually from the root because it’s how you practice arpeggios. It’s hard to get students to look at a note in one chord moving to a note in another, because each arpeggio is like a self contained object and the individual notes are not randomly accessible. I guess they have memorised the fingering and shape?

Turning that into note knowledge requires a conceptual leap (it worked like that for me too tbf.)

It's too bad some people seem to get hung up on terminology, because you are absolutely right, when it comes to the part about actually making music, the words you use to describe a scale, or triad, or arpeggio etc., flat out doesn't matter. You could call a scale or an arpeggio a 'pink elephant' and it would not make one iota of difference to how the notes sound when you play. Having set names for things musical does make it easier for musicians to communicate verbally to one another about what they're playing, though. Hey, even Metheny said in an interview that he didn't even know the names of the modes until He joined Gary Burton’s band, but he had already been playing them, he just didn't know the official names for all of them. Keep in mind that was AFTER he had already been made the youngest instructor ever at Berklee. So his playing at that point must have already been phenomenal. Truth be told, you don't need to know the names of them to become a fantastic jazz player, you only need to know where the notes are on the fretboard and how to utilize them, which supports the first sentence in this paragraph.

I agree with your other point too, students relying on memorized patterns
and such is a stumbling block for student guitarists. The goal is to have your fretboard knowledge down so well that you are NOT relying on patterns anymore, but rather playing from a standpoint of pure melody, so that you are actually playing whatever you hear in your musical, creative imagination and NOT running your fingers through some scale, mode, triad, or arpeggio pattern like an exercise. Sure, when you're first learning, you have to memorize the patterns and play exercises to get them all ingrained. It should, with practice, start to mean more to you than that, which means seeing all the intervals and how they relate to whatever harmonic context is going on, and even what other melodic possibilities are relevant to that particular harmonic environment. Way back when I was a beginner, I read something like that in an instruction book, and then it seemed impossible, LOL, but I made it the goal. I don't know if I'm there yet, but I've made progress, and as long as I'm making steady consistent progress, I'm happy. It's still always the ultimate goal, though.

I agree, too, that all guitarists should practice all the melodic tools, including chromatic, forward and backward and in all the note values, quarter, eight, sixteenths, triplets, legato, staccato, straight notes, swing notes etc., etc., starting slow and progressively going as fast as they can, cleanly, until its all second nature.

As far as what to think while you play. Personally, I think the goal is to eventually know my fretboard so well that I don't have to think about it anymore. So maybe about the cadence, say its iii min goint to ii min going to Vb9 to I maj to i min. Then to only think about what I want to say over that and have the fretboard knowledge so well ingrained that I can, on a moment's notice, make it happen, just like having a conversation with someone. You don't have to think about the grammar rules or the alphabet, or the dictionary, or what words to use, or what order to put them in, you just know it so well that you just do it. That's the ultimate goal on the instrument anyway, LOL. Am I there yet? Well, it's the goal anyway, LOL.

[pamosmusic]

It's too bad some people seem to get hung up on terminology, because you are absolutely right, when it comes to the part about actually making music, the words you use to describe a scale, or triad, or arpeggio etc., flat out doesn't matter.

Not to split hairs, but I believe this thread was dormant until you revived it to point out how distressing it was that the word "arpeggio" didn't appear until post seventy-something, even though the whole thread was about using chord tones to solo or not or whatever.

[mr. beaumont]

Nobody else gonna talk about Dewey Square?

To spark conversation, I'd like to change my response to Eb Mixolydian until the C7 bar in which I'd play F Harmonic Minor

Scale gang bitches!

[AdroitMage]

Not to split hairs, but I believe this thread was dormant until you revived it to point out how distressing it was that the word "arpeggio" didn't appear until post seventy-something, even though the whole thread was about using chord tones to solo or not or whatever.

Pamo, you seem like you have a bee in your bonnet or something. Let it go, bro. Okay? I'm not here to argue with people. I'm here to give my humble opinion, and it's only that, my opinion. If you don't agree, you're free to have your opinion and play whatever you want to, however you want to on your guitar.

I was just pointing out, maybe not in the best way, that the word triads, to me, refers to three note chords, and the word arpeggio, to me, also includes four note chords with the notes played individually not as a chord. So when I think triad, to me, that excludes four note chords, that's all I was trying to say, and maybe not in the best way.

Yes, you can construct fantastic improv, in certain contexts, by just using triads as that basis for your improv. Metheny used to do that all the time on those PMG records, and sounded beautiful, sophisticated, and super hip, like on the tune "James." Are you happy now?

I’m not here to argue, just to share my humble opinions from a guy who's been playing and studying jazz guitar for over 20 years. It's just my humble opinion, and you can have yours, no need to waste time arguing. So if one guy likes to call them chord tones and I like to call them arpeggios, big riffing deal, IMO. We're not negotiating world peace here, LOL.

Anyway, to me, the notes, chords, scales, arpeggios etc., are just like the pallet of colors to a painter. Really, it doesn't matter what the artist calls the colors on his pallet. What makes him a good artist is what he or she does with those colors when that brush hits the canvas. That is what is going to determine if he is considered a good artist or not.

I think we can at least agree on that?

[pamosmusic]

Pamo, you seem like you have a bee in your bonnet or something.

Often enough, yes.

[Christian Miller]

It's too bad some people seem to get hung up on terminology, because you are absolutely right, when it comes to the part about actually making music, the words you use to describe a scale, or triad, or arpeggio etc., flat out doesn't matter. You could call a scale or an arpeggio a 'pink elephant' and it would not make one iota of difference to how the notes sound when you play. Having set names for things musical does make it easier for musicians to communicate verbally to one another about what they're playing, though. Hey, even Metheny said in an interview that he didn't even know the names of the modes until He joined Gary Burton’s band, but he had already been playing them, he just didn't know the official names for all of them. Keep in mind that was AFTER he had already been made the youngest instructor ever at Berklee. So his playing at that point must have already been phenomenal. Truth be told, you don't need to know the names of them to become a fantastic jazz player, you only need to know where the notes are on the fretboard and how to utilize them, which supports the first sentence in this paragraph.

Pat was obviously unusually talented as a youngster, but not knowing the names of what you are playing was fairly common back then. Theoretical information would come into the mix once the student could already basically play as fresh resources for improvisation and composition (usually by appropriating jazz language from others) - in Pat’s case he was reprimanded for sounding too much like Wes which stimulated his search for new ways to play.

These days many students start with theory and expect and it’s transcription etc that enters the picture later!

Secondly, professional musicians don’t discuss theory that much in my experience. This is mostly a concern of terminology in education. Pros play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AdroitMage]

Pat was obviously unusually talented as a youngster,

Yes, and he still is "unusually talented." I'm betting, though, that the main reason he got so "unusually good" at being a musician is that from the age of 12 until he was 19 or 20 he obsessively practiced and studied for 10 hours a day. Personally, I think people thinking that being able to play so amazingly as he, and some others, do comes from just "being talented" is a misconception. This guy "paid his dues" to become a supremely accomplished player because of his supreme commitment to do so, reflected in his highly disciplined 10 hours per day study and practice routine for 7 years straight.

Even once he was selling Grammy Award-winning records, at his soundchecks he says he plays for two hours before every gig just working on whatever he feels like playing that day. Add that to his gigs, which are at least 2 hours long, and sometimes even two sets in a night, and that is still a good 4 to 6 hours of playing on gig nights. Now add to that the hours he surely must play his instrument when he is on his tour bus traveling between cities, and you'll see he is still getting in hours and hours of practice on a very regular basis. On top of all that, he says that after every show he writes in a journal about how he feels he played that night, going through the whole show. THAT is why he plays so brilliantly, in addition to his amazing gift of talent.

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

So suppose you're playing All of Me. When you go to the 3rd bar from the 2nd bar, are you mentally aware that you're on E7 for two bars and you'll be leading to A7 after and does that inform how you visualize the fretboard in any way? To me that is a very essential part of improvisation. But based on how you described your process, it sounds like it is all aural imagination and memory of the tune for you and your mental map of the harmony doesn't inform how you navigate the fretboard. Is that true?

Yes it is. Once I learn them, songs are kind of like 3D aural shapes or structures in my head. They’re not exactly like houses or sculptures - but they have discrete forms of their own. The changes define the angles, contours and junctions among the various surfaces. I don’t think at all about what specific chord I’m playing - I just use the notes that feel right on the contour I’m navigating and the direction the tune is going.

Once I have shape and dimensions in my head, it works in any key. For this, I can thank that grouchy old piano teacher who made me learn and practice scales until they were baked into me. I hated her - she never even tried to connect the dots from theory to real music for me. But once I learned the fretboard reasonably well, I could approach the song “shape” from anywhere on it. That lets me use multiple octaves, starting positions, fingerings, positions etc, and I often use different ones throughout a tune.

Hmm - I’ve never tried to put this all into words before, and it’s not easy to describe.

i “see” changes almost like different levels in a simple house, and playing them is like walking through it. Some tunes are simple, like a Cape Cod salt box, and some are mansions. Some stairs are longer and some ceilings are higher. Until I know the design and dimensions, I can get lost inside. But once I learn it well enough, it’s like being in my home - I just know where everything is, even with my eyes closed or walking through it backwards.

The above is a feeble attempt to put a mental concept into words. I don’t literally see any of this - it’s just the way it feels to me as I try to verbalize it.

[equenda]

As always, sorry for my English.
The Arpeggio VS. Scale debate do not make a lot of sense....even if I am a great fan of the "Arpeggios/Changes route".
As an example, if I consider the C9 chord with the natural extensions the notes are: C E G Bb D F A.
These are of course the 7 notes of the F major scale, F G A Bb C D E F, only in different order.......or in other words the arpeggio is build by third intervals and the scale is built in second intervals.
Personally I don't like (anymore) the major/diminished second intervals and I like the major/minor thids intervals. Even better the fourth interval but good melodic lines with fourth intervals are too difficult for me and I confess that I have tryed a lot using books by Joe Diorio and Don Mock.
Back to the topic (playing the changes) we all know that you can play good solos with almost every group of notes/intevals......and the real IMPORTANT question is: what rhythm I can play with these notes? I think that the "recipe" for a good jazz solo is to put any notes/pitch "over" a good rhythm.

Ettore

[frabarmus]

To the OP: what you play is important but, I think, how you play it is even more important, and that's up to you, your feeling, your taste etc. I mean, you can play key centre or changes or you can play outside, which is cool, too, but you want to do it in context, rather than randomly, without struggling and as meaningfullly as possible, if you will.

Having said that, I would concentrate on changes first. Start with the "harmonic skeleton". Figure out each chord's inner workings, spot cadences and work through them. Take two (or more) chords (in the song) at a time, find common notes, scales and arpeggios, melodies etc. then move to the next two (or more) chords... using both your knowledge and (especially!) your ears.

If you've got a loop pedal record two (or more) chord sequences from the song and figure out what sounds good on them (or simply sing, using your ears). You can always go deeper and analise the song's harmony and form, to get an overview. But with figuring out changes you can't go wrong. I mean, the old school stuff: what scale (and arpeggio) sounds inside each chord, before you venture outside.

[Christian Miller]

Yes, and he still is "unusually talented." I'm betting, though, that the main reason he got so "unusually good" at being a musician is that from the age of 12 until he was 19 or 20 he obsessively practiced and studied for 10 hours a day. Personally, I think people thinking that being able to play so amazingly as he, and some others, do comes from just "being talented" is a misconception. This guy "paid his dues" to become a supremely accomplished player because of his supreme commitment to do so, reflected in his highly disciplined 10 hours per day study and practice routine for 7 years straight.

Even once he was selling Grammy Award-winning records, at his soundchecks he says he plays for two hours before every gig just working on whatever he feels like playing that day. Add that to his gigs, which are at least 2 hours long, and sometimes even two sets in a night, and that is still a good 4 to 6 hours of playing on gig nights. Now add to that the hours he surely must play his instrument when he is on his tour bus traveling between cities, and you'll see he is still getting in hours and hours of practice on a very regular basis. On top of all that, he says that after every show he writes in a journal about how he feels he played that night, going through the whole show. THAT is why he plays so brilliantly, in addition to his amazing gift of talent.

All this and he still had to phone up to book gigs and drive his band to them. (I remind myself of this when I’m feeling sorry for myself, or engaging in the extreme sports cat herding that is running a band.)

(I daresay he doesn’t have to do that anymore.)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk