can phrasing be taught??

I'm sure it can be taught and besides the usual practice, practice, practice I'm not sure it's just imagination. At the end of the day you need to be able to play what you hear in your head and that means in real time so besides the practice you need to really internalize those sounds and be able to replicate them immediately on the spot. Not the easiest thing to do but with time it will come.

Well I say that because I hope it'll come, because I can't do it either but then I haven't spent enough time doing the things I've just described above.

You can learn, and a big part of the answer is in your own post:
...everybody knows them and could sing along to them...

For starters, take a song you know well and are working on. Don't have a guitar in hand. See if you can sing a phrase in one of the spaces where the vocalist isn't singing. Doesn't have to be the most stunning or complicated thing, just a short melodic phrase that you like.

Repeat this in your head enough times so that you know it without the song. Then translate it into guitar. Pick up your guitar and work it out. First find the notes you're singing. Then see if you can use some of the attributes of the guitar (vibrato, hammer-ons, pull-offs, slides, bends) to achieve some of the notes in your phrase.

You're on your way!

Of course, in practice nothing is ever this easy or cut and dried, but that's why it's something you need to consciously work at. A great way to get better at phrasing, and one that you're already aware of, is to listen. But not only to guitar - listen to all instruments from saxophones to kazoos, from voices to drums and everything in between. Phrasing is about breathing and most guitarists tend to practice in terms of scales and speeds.

Give yourself limits (in terms of number of notes or position on the fingerboard) to start with and concentrate on being melodic and rhythmic and you'll probably find yourself getting better at it soon. As CNEV says, it's a lot of steps that are taking place in your head (and hands) in a short period of time and you have to get used to that. For whatever it's worth, even people who are good at this think that they could be a lot better. So just get started and have fun with it.

Hope this helps.

Peace

Hi guys-

Phrasing is tough. I've read that Hendrix practiced by timing all of his phrases to his natural breathing, and speaking. I'm not sure how that would work, but it's interesting.

I have a tendency to run scales fast in practice, cause it makes me feel like a shredder. But I'm learning that sometimes less is more. A friend suggested trying to solo on only three notes. Makes it very interesting.

Best,
Ande

I think your phrasing can be improved by learning new ideas, solos, songs, etc. For example, if I felt my soloing was too scale oriented, I would look at different players that really have melodic solos: David Gilmour's first solo in Comfortably Numb is a good example of this. If you're a relatively slow blues player, and feel that your solos lack 'excitement', check out SRV's solos or some 'shred' type playing, while you might not like everything but it might be helpful to add the aspect of playing fast sequences or scale runs in between melodic passages to give your playing more of a dynamic.

I'm not sure exactly how innovative phrasing can be taught. but you can learn to emulate good phrasing, and at some point, you may find yourself creating your own phrasing -- either by synthesizing bits and pieces of what you've learn into something new or starting from ground up (or probably believing you going ground up while your subconscious synthesizes). in any case, I highly recommend following David's advice: start by working on humming, singing or whistling solos and see what you can do. when you move on to your guitar or other instrument, limit the number of notes so you are forced to use rhythm, dynamics and other aspects of phrasing to create the interest.

and keep in mind, like any skill, some more than others will be faster learners and ultimately become better at this. but there are many dimensions to and versions of 'better.' Gilmore's gift is not Beck's is not Jimi's is not Jimmy's is not Robin's is not Satch's. there's lot of room in the art to find your metier. and you will have hot days and cold days.

Hi,

Great questions, and some great answers so far too. :)

I think that this whole question of phrasing, touch and timing, is what makes the difference between newbie noises that are SO close, but lack the essential mojo that really counts, and the stuff that really sings.

I've tried working on this from several angles.

One path seems to suggest that if you press diligently on and on with getting better and better skills, then the art/mojo/phrasing/chops/soul or whatever you might call it will be delivered in small slices along with the skills. Much traditional pedagogy appears to be built this way and seems heavily focused on putting precision ahead of interpretation.

Another might say that - no - you can rock with three or four simple notes right there in book 1 if you approach it the right way. They might perhaps de-emphasise note reading and go full on for rhythm, drive and feel instead. For instance the piano method Simply Music teaches by breaking the job into very simple patterns and shapes (no sheet music used) and encourages you to play the feel of the music rather than an exact line of dots on the page. Methods like Suzuki also apparently emphasis ear training before teaching notation.

One thing that's worked for me is using (as David suggests) songs that I know well. In my case this was often not rock songs, but far less cool stuff like nursery rhymes and old hymns and traditional songs. Not only did they have the advantage that I already 'knew' them, but the very reason they had survived for so long was often in their structural simplicity, memorable melody, and the relatively narrow vocal range required (after all they pre-date CDs and TV, so were kept alive by the frequency and ease with which regular people could sing them). Some well known tunes, and even some classical themes, aren't much more than lightly modified scales so are pretty easy to get in the groove of.

So I'd use them wherever I could (because half the work was already stored in the brain...). Many books use traditional tunes partly for that reason (although I suspect often also because they're out of copyright). I'd still skip the inevitable boring ones (and come up with something else to learn the required skill with) but squeeze every drop out of any familiar old favourites I found.

In the last few months I've come to see rhythm as the key to it all - the backbone on which it all lives or dies. I even took a few drumming lessons to open my ears a bit, and joined a local choir where the conductor gives us some tuition in how to achieve different styles and sounds through the way we time and phrase what we sing.

At the same time I was learning using computer music programs and that threw up something interesting too. One of the learning tools I use is writing the music into a program like Finale, and then having it played back for me. This is useful in several ways. Typing it all in helps me study and learn the music. And then playing it back gives the the timing exactly as it's written. !00% accurate with pitch and timing. Interestingly, it doesn't sound quite right though. It's too precise, because the notes are all played exactly the length written, and all perfectly on the beat. Music with heart actually isn't like that. Professional recording software recognises that, and now provides the ability to both ‘quantize' the music (i.e get it right on the beat) but also to ‘humanise' it, which is an attempt to ‘de-perfect' it a bit and remove the rather sterile effect caused by quantizing. :)

I'm no expert, but I think the key is that you need to know exactly where the beat is - to have it built into your bones - so that you can then ignore it. :shock:

OK “ignore” isn't really right, but stop being a slave to landing on it. You need to be able to play ahead of the beat or behind it, to slide across it or emphasise different (and sometimes unconventional) parts of it. Neither learners nor good players will play right on the beat all the time, but maybe the difference is that the newbies miss the beat because they couldn't hit it, while the experts miss it because they meant to?.... :mrgreen:

Cheers,

Chris

Beats? Not exactly... I've noticed most new soloists are so wrapped up in thinking about where their fingers are going to go, they can't identify when the chords will change. So it's really not a matter of being on the beat - more like being on the right beat.

I believe phrasing can be taught. Vocalization is a great tool (singing along, as David suggested), and rhythm is an important element... but there are lots more factors involved. Everybody brings different abilities to the table in soloing, so there's not a standard sequence for teaching it... but these are some things to consider:

- direction (in the mental sense). Do you know what the next note will sound like before you play it? That's the first key - and the one vocalization is most helpful with. If you don't know what it's going to sound like, you're doing "poke and pray", and you'll get random results. Mental direction has to be the first goal for improving phrasing.

- resolution. When the chord changes, especially at a cadence, your melodic line needs to release tension. The best tool for improving this is using target tones.

- timing. Where do you start is easier to control at first than where you end - you should start by beginning phrases on a downbeat because it's less confusing. Then start phrases on other beats, then in anticipation of beats. When you can start a line wherever you'd like in relation to the meter, then turn to the ending... resolve slightly before the downbeat, anticipating the chord change, and hold it... let the chord change resolve your line. And most important: as you play around with rhythm, pay attention to what it does to you, to the feeling you have... that's the only way you can keep working at what you like (it's helpful to record yourself and analyze the results after the heat of the moment has passed).

-rhythmic shape - if you took away the pitches, would it still be interesting? (for really great solos, this is often true)

- tempo: are you getting faster (either by using shorter note values or accelerando) or slower? When? (in relation to the changes)

- dynamics: are you thinking about how loud/soft you're playing? Using crescendo/diminuendo?

- articulation. This is the thing that beginners focus on the most, but it really ought to wait until you have the above down. Playing identical lines, a move from C->D (or any other notes) can be done staccato or legato... and the legato choice could be picked or slurred... and the slur could be a slide, hammer-on, or bend. Each one gives you a different feel. You get to choose which notes get vibrato, which get dampened, which add pinch harmonics, etc. By themselves, articulation techniques don't make a great solo (the melodic line does that), but they can make a poor solo interesting, a fair solo pretty good, and a good one borderline great.

Those are the basic mechanics. Then there's the mental stuff - which often isn't taught at all; people usually learn these things by osmosis, through imitation. But you CAN analyze solos you like, find common elements, and deliberately emulate them:

- line direction: up or down? Stepwise, by skip, or by leap? Where will your line change direction?

- non-harmonic tones (those outside the scale) - do you use them? How? (as passing tones, neighbor tones, etc)

- employing restatement - are you 'quoting' from something you've already played, to give the audience a sense of overall structure (and perhaps added tension)? Or maybe you want to quote from something else... think of the "Pink Panther" theme used in "Tales from the Black Forest" on DiMeola/McLaughlin/DeLucia's "Friday Night in San Francisco" recording!

- the 'shape' of the solo... a good solo has an emotional shape to it: it builds tension, releases a little of it, builds some more, releases a bit more... builds to an emotional crescendo, and releases it all at the last cadence. So does your solo, consisting of perhaps four different phrases (or two/three phrases with imitation/variation) follow that?

At that point you've got all the key elements, and the fine stuff is more esoteric - the span of the lines (the distance between the highest and lowest notes in phrases), whether or not you imply extensions to the harmony, etc.

It's a long process. Slow most of the time, but with sudden noticeable advances in your ability. The real problem - and why most people don't teach it - is that analyzing melodic lines takes a lot of mental tools, and it takes a skilled teacher to listen to and analyze a student's solo in real time. So the teacher needs the tools and the ability to use them in addition to the 'normal' teaching skill set - ability to communicate, create exercises and examples to hit weaknesses, etc.

In addition to the good advice already offered, I must add this...

I love Jeff Beck's quirky phrasing. Yet I read an interview with him today where he said he thought his phrasing sucked. I've heard Peter Green and Mick Taylor say similar things right to me. And I've played gigs where I found every flaw imaginable in my playing, yet everyone else thought it was great. Enough said, I think.

But to elaborate, phrasing is one of those aspects of music where I think all musicians feel at least slightly dissatisfied with their abilities, primarily because they can see the path ahead of them and want to be further along it. Perhaps we should question musicians who don't feel like that to some extent?

I find it helps to listen a lot, and to listen to a wide range of music. Pick phrases you like and try copy them. Look for phrases on instruments other than guitar if you want to sound distinctive. I did this quite regularly and it usually doesn't show in my playing a great deal (mostly because of the years of little playing), but it has changed things and I have improved. Fingers crossed (heh heh Scrybe's nu-technique) I'll be well enough to stick at it and should see more results in coming months/years.

Okay, I've babbled enough.

I think it all goes to "feel". Garcia was very good at picking apart chords for solos that just fit right. Knowing how to play fast and all that is good, but if it doesn't fit within the context of the song, then it will be forgotten. sometimes the spaces in between the notes are just as important as the notes themselves.

Well I've never been one for arguing with Noteboat, and I'm not going to start now - but I think as well as all the regular practise etc, it's also a question of being influenced by what you hear every day. If you're listening to a lot of Santana (to take a random example) after a while you'll subconsciously start to phrase your licks and riffs like Carlos - kind of a process of assimilation.

I'm one of those guitarists who's a little uncomfortable being thrown in at the deep end and getting the nod to take a solo - it's got to be a song I know well. So I'll abide by the KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid!) principle so's I don't get too far out of my depth.

I also think this is one of those areas where guitarists who try to learn songs as exactly as they can - a note-for-note copy of the original - will do well. Most people will learn a song till they're happy with "fairly near" - there are others who'll slave over ever tiny nuance, every detail of every lick, until they've got it down right. That kind of attention to detail WILL pay dividends - again, subconsciously, those details of timing and phrasing will embed themselves in your memory and pop up when you're improvising. At least, that's what I reckon!

:D :D :D

Vic

here's the flip side to not learning a solo note-for-note, but trying to capture the essential nature: you will learn to zero in on what creates a certain feel and what is "the stuff in between" (I'm being a bit black/white here to illustrate). if you never learn to tell the difference -- and there often is a lot of the stuff in between -- then how would you decide what elements or combos of elements of a tasty solo make it tasty and make sure you know how play and use those for your own synthesis of solos?

greg,

In that I can agree with concept of the benefits of not learning solo's note for note there is no context to put this against.

I can't imagine that someone just delving into the world of soloing is going to be able to jump in with the exercise you described and be able to figure out the in between stuff. Heck they wouldn't even understand the outside stuff. This method would be fine for someone that's a bit more experinced than the first time solo-er.

It's like telling a little kid that just learned to read a few words and ask them to read a novel and pull out all the in between stuff that made it interseting. Where are these skills going to come from? Can you work them from scratch..maybe but I bet it would be very frustrating and take much longer than it should.

In every other thing we learn through school etc. it's usually learned through repetition and following something that has been done before and here's my reasoning for the note for note solo's at least until you are to the state that you can learn pretty much any solo at will, when you reach that point your are past the point of imitation and can start doing your own thing.

learning solo's note for note initially is more about the physical aspects of playing the solo than the melodic or harmonic or rhytmic contributions that it adds. in other words let's give the fingers the ability to play these passgses correctly first. If you are playing them note for note you have something concrete to compare your playing aginst. If you are making it up you don't have that ability.

Now I don't read Physcology Today much or any teaching publications and I'm sure they are always looking at ways to improve teaching but the old tried and true why to me is still the most logical. You learn the pieces, the notes, the chords etc, then you start mimicing your favorite artists by copying their songs note for note, then you take it to the next level and start adding your own stuff. If you skip the mimicing part I think most be people will end up being a less than great solo-ers and there solo's will be dull and liveless nothing more than running up and down scales.

Once you learn amy of these solo's note for note some of that is just going to naturally sink in.

here's the flip side to not learning a solo note-for-note, but trying to capture the essential nature: you will learn to zero in on what creates a certain feel and what is "the stuff in between" (I'm being a bit black/white here to illustrate). if you never learn to tell the difference -- and there often is a lot of the stuff in between -- then how would you decide what elements or combos of elements of a tasty solo make it tasty and make sure you know how play and use those for your own synthesis of solos?

+1

Very well put. That's exactly it, for my money. :)

And if that's wrong then I'm in big trouble, because I never learn things note by note. In my book, learning to play only by slavishly following somebody else's Tabs in the biggest dis-service you can do to yourself. To me, it seems like the equivalent of those "paint by numbers" kits where you attempt to copy a version of the the Mona Lisa by putting filling in the numbered spaces with paint from the pot with the matching number. It may well be satisfying in a low level 'quick-fix' kind of way but it's got sod all to do with art. With painting, you can go so far with it, but no further. I feel that way about music too.

I've got an 'official' Bob Dylan song book which gives all the details - the chords, the melody lines, and the full strumming patterns. the first few pages explain the strumming/picking patterns in very useful detail. The first two songs are in different keys and have completely different playing styles. One is strummed and the other is picked. But they're the same song - Blowin' in The Wind. So which is the 'right' version? The strummed, the picked, or one of the dozens of others ways he would have played it over the years? All of them of course. And if somebody can get the feel of it right, then theirs is too. :wink:

So when I try and play the guitar, in my amateurish beginner way, it's the heart of the music I'm trying to get, not just some sort of replica. And, because I'm one person, not a band ( and I don't have either the gear, the ability, or the same personal background and motivation as the original artist) then that always means doing my own arrangement of a song. I'd far rather learn how to
"learn to zero in on what creates a certain feel and what is "the stuff in between"
because every new thing that I discover for myself adds to my kit of tools and helps me build and discover my own original voice. That's where the joy is for me - discovering the why and how of phrasing for myself.

Others will of course differ, because we all have varied ways of working, but experimenting, noodling and improvising is where the really enjoyable learning happens for me. I believe that I can hear the 'in between stuff' if I listen for it , even with very simple music, and that it makes a vital difference.

The fascinating thing is though that my approach would be probably be quite wrong for others. I guess that it's good that we're not all the same though... :)

Cheers,

Chris

All I was doing was trying to see the "other feller's" POV.....

I think you can learn a lot from studying how a solo's constructed - BUT, if you listen to one guitarist a lot, then, consciously or subconsciously, you're going to be influenced by that particular guitarist, more so than someone you only listen to occasionally.

Take a song like "Black Magic Woman" - I love the original, by Fleetwood Mac, but I slightly prefer Santana's version. The solos are both good - and totally different from each other. It's pretty obvious from listening to the Santana version that ol' Carlos didn't learn it note for note - but then, he's a pretty good guitarist, isn't he!

I've tried jamming with a friend on BMW....it comes out as a cross between Fleetwood Mac and Santana. The rhythm's more F Mac, the lead's more Santana.....but I didn't learn it note for note. It sort of follows the melody, and, obviously, I'm not in the same class as Carlos (hah, I'm in kindergarten, he's doing post-grad - we're not even in the same school!) but the phrasing's obviously influenced by Carlos's playing rather than Peter's....probably because I've listened to Santana's version a lot more.

It's that age old conundrum - heredity vs. environment. I think in guitar terms, it's mostly environment - we're influenced by what we hear every day. I very rarely, if at all, listen to much new music - I'll always have the radio tuned to a classic rock station or an oldies station, which is probably why much of the music I write sounds like it's rooted in the sixties or seventies. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe not - but I know what I like to listen to, and I know what I like to play, and at my age I can't see my particular taste changing much.

:D :D :D

Vic