can phrasing be taught??

Chris C,

Because when you slavishly work on playing a song/solo note for note there is immediate feedback as to whether you can or can't pull it off. And again this is more for the physical aspects more than the musical at least at the beginning.

And as for your Blowin in the Wind example, which is correct....they both are, so pick one and learn it note for note. My point has always been about learning the song note for note regradless of what particular arrangement you choose. I never meant to imply that there is only one version, but once you decide on which one then pick it and stick to it and learn it note for note.

In pretty much everything else you learn you learn the building blocks then use those blocks to imitate what has been done before as kind of practice to move out on your own. Why did they make me write Dick and Jane can run a hundred times on my paper, why didn't they just tell me to write my own sentences right from the beginning.

So why does this not work for music, why is there this seeming disdain from everyone about learning other artists music note for note?

You want my honest opinion...and this is not necessarily directed at you....for most people that say it ,it's just a cop out it's a cop out because they CAN'T play the solo's note for note and use some random excuses about wanting to find the essence of a solo or putting your own spin on it or whatever rather than admitting that they don't have the ability to play those.

There is surely no one way to learn things and everyone learns at a different pace and by different methodologies but to me you will never push yourself if you don't try to emualte what others with more ability can do. for example when would you ever incorporate fast sections of 200 bpm synocopated rhtyhm solo's if you have never imitated that skill in real song context. I'm sure it can be done but not easily by your method. In your method you are always limited by your current physical capabilities, how do you push yourself to play more difficult passages. To me your growth woul dbe more horizontal than vertical. In terms of physically playing the guitar you would eventually be limited.

Chris --

when I first started playing, I imitated solos and everything else because it was a good learning method for getting chops and technique down -- the slavish part you mention. after a while, I began to realize much of that music -- especially solos -- was created on the spot, and I wanted to understand the reasons these things sounded so cool and start create for myself ... even in other people's songs. that's a different direction, and I think it is one that requires more musical understanding of what is going on. can it help people who don't have the chops to play the original as recorded? yes, I agree it certainly can -- but honestly, that's not even an issue for me (maybe laziness, but probably not chops, though I don't shred). and I do not understand why you would think the only reason someone would not learn note-for-note is to excuse or get around inability to play it like the original. (hopefully just a frustrated response?) so here's my PoV (no disdain): the note-for-note learning method is mainly good for learning technique and muscle memory. but for some of us, being a mimic is not (or is no longer) our goal. musical analysis and synthesis into something new is important to us. I happen to think that is an important aspect of becoming a musician, not just a guitar player. so you appreciate and aspire to creating live reproduction of the original -- possibly because you hear the original as a holistically complete work as it was recorded, and wish to recreate that experience. me? my goal is to understand and use that understanding to emulate and also create other music. I think you do not yet understand how someone doing this can push themselves. it is an entirely different challenge, and no less difficult than your preferred method -- probably more difficult in many ways.

so we disagree. we already knew that. you are free to express your opinion on this, just as am I.

one more thing: meet me behind the office after work. bring your guitar, tough guy. :lol:

greg,

I don't think we actually disagree that much. I had the suspicion that you had done that but I don't remember you ever really posting that you had. But the jist of my posts are for the people who have not already (like you) gone down the path of playing them note for note, for most (not all) I still think it's a copout mainly because any real person that I have ever met that has given me one of those lines can't play anything but the simplest solo's note for note.

I don't have a problem with your finding the essence or whatever you want to call it but FIRST you need to have the ability to actually do something with it and if haven't spent the time slaving over mimicing better players I find it difficult to beleive that you'd end up being much of a soloist.

Every thing else in your post makes sense and I agree totally. I don't think I ever said my goal was to only be able to mimic solo's note for note , it's just what I beleive to be the best training method to get the chops down but once you have them done then sure go off and do your thing that's what it's all about.

But I get the feeling and maybe incorrectly that people look down on doing that and to me that's an essential part in becoming a good soloist, maybe only one of the beginning steps but an important one never the less.

I'm not sure the order is important, Chris. I started playing over 30 years ago -- and I did spend a fair amount of time way back then making up my own solos -- mainly because I was pretty d@mn sure that's what Mark Farner, Jimi, Ritchie Blackmore, Joe Walsh and others were doing. Seemed a good idea to me. sort of turned me into a jam musician.

I was driving home and that is exactly what I was thinking, that maybe the order is not so important but I would still think it's a good exercise to do. There are alot of things to be learned from doing it.

Just to level set I am no where near that yet so this has been my approach, that doesn't mean that I don't do these things it's just that they are taking more of a back seat to trying to learn them note for note and increasing the difficulty as I go along.

And I can see where that could do that, but at the moment jam musician is not what I aspire to be...yet. Things change as your ability increases or it has for me anyway.

Next morning (Australia time...)

Hi again,

Firstly, my apologies if I sound disdainful or dismissive of learning other people's phrasing note for note. That's not what I'm meaning to say.

This is probably much easier to demonstrate with music than words, so I'll try and set my gear up again later today.

In the meantime, to illustrate what I mean, I'll try and take you back to my first few weeks of trying to learn.

I had some instructions which showed the finger positions for a fairly old song, using three chords - A, D, and E. It was a beginner lesson, so the suggestion was to strum once at the start of each bar and let the chord ring out while you counted 2,3, and 4 for the rest of the beats, and then change shapes where indicated. I think it also suggested that if that went OK you could try strumming on more of the beats. Obviously, I struggled a lot with just getting the fingers to form the shapes but even if I did get that right it still sounded absolutely nothing like a song. There were some OK noises, but nothing that I would call music. Even if I typed the chords into software that would play them back right on the beats, it still didn't sound like the song. It just sounded like chords being strummed one after another.

So I flicked through the book to see if could find the part where they explained what you had to do to turn the sounds into music. But they never did. So I bought another book or two.... and again they told me where to put my fingers, but not either HOW to turn that into music or HOW to work my way through the long stages between not being able to move your fingers accurately or being able to add some expression. It was like I'd been given a roadmap and a car, but the car had no engine or headlights, and it was pitch dark out there... :shock:

So I threw away the map and set off on foot... :)

I noodled, experimented, zig-zagged around, made lots of weird noises, and generally groped around trying to find the missing parts that nobody seemed to mention. And along the way I started to find the music, and I discovered how to play the three chord song. In fact I discovered dozens of ways to play it, and dozens more completely different tunes and effects too, all of which was far more interesting to me anyway...

And, as Greg said above, without the "stuff in between" in was just dots on a score, or numbers on a tab.

One way or another we all have to try and find a way to turn the sounds into music, and copying what others have done - trying to match them note for note and noise for noise is certainly a popular way to go. It's also inevitable that we all do that to some degree. But I think that if that's all people do then they risk missing out on major part of the creative aspect of music, by getting too reliant on a 'follow the instructions' method of doing business.

Clearly some people do prefer to follow a set path, step by step, and will try and add some personal flourishes later in the journey. But I've tried to make my own discoveries right from the start, and then perhaps apply the tools I've gathered to somebody else's interpretation later. It might seem like a reverse way of looking at it, but I believe that it will not just give me the kind of journey that I enjoy, but that in the long run it will take me further towards the places I'm aiming to go.

It's working so far... :)

Cheers,

Chris

Or to put it another way.....

What CNev's doing is breaking a song down into its component parts, to an elemental level if you like, and learning it note-by-note - it's not my way of doing things, I prefer the Chris C method (get the gist of the song, noodle and improvise.)

But what Cnev's doing is the way I tab out a song for the ESD.....learn it note for note, and tab it out as accurately as I can. Some might say, yeah, that's a great way to learn ONE song - but it's more than that. There are techniques and skills you'll learn from any solo that later on you'll use when you're improvising....

This one, for instance.
E |---------------------------|
B |-----8-----8-----8-----8---|
G |-7h9 --7h9---7h9---7h9-----|
D |---------------------------|


Pretty simple lick, right? First time I ever heard that was when I was trying to learn the solo to "Alright Now" by Free....I've heard it a million times since on different songs. I've used it more than once myself - it's one of those "go-to" licks you use when you're improvising, and trying to think what to do next.....

And that's what I mean about learning a riff, or lick, note-for-note - sooner or later, it'll stand you in good stead. You'll use it yourself - you may not even be aware you'll be doing it, but somewhere you'll have learned that lick and now that muscle memory's coming into play. I only became aware of that lick - and you can play it virtually anywhere on the fretboard, if you compensate for the B string factor and play the note on the B string a semitone lower on any other string. OR...you could play it as it's tabbed on two different strings and see what happens.....

OR - it might even give you an idea for a different riff....

:D :D :D

Vic

as to the title question, phrasing is taught, because phrasing is obviously learned. it may be learned consciously or sub, but obviously, if you have a lick you use at a certain time that sounds like someone else's that they'd use in the exact same situation, it could be that god or the muses want to hear that note at that time, but it's probably because you listened to a lot of the same recordings, learned a lot of the same songs and techniques, and because the feel of certain rhythms lend themselves to certain rhythms in the melodies.
is that basically what we mean by phrasing? the rhythms of the notes? i mean, if you play 5 different licks with the same rhythm, that's phrasing, right? if you play the same lick 7 times so it ends on the beat, that's phrasing, right? it's how we're using the rhythms, as far as i know.
but yeah, x is taught. everything in music is learned, and thus can be taught. it's the reason we aren't constantly listening to completely random sounding noise. we like a certain degree of familiarity in what we're hearing, including x. i believe that if you are conscious of teaching x, you will be a more effective teacher or learner.
it seems sarcastic, but i believe that if they want it, to go ahead and throw the kitchen sink in there. teach them everything about music. basic stuff like playing with rhythm, playing with melodies, harmonies. how scales create chords, etc. go ahead and break it down, teach them everything you know and everything you've picked up, and let them figure out how to expand on it. learning the c major scale is ok, but making music, burning across acres of fretboard, creating cool sounds, all can come from that simple scale. learning chord construction, different phrasing common to various kinds of music changes theory from abstract to visceral.
i've been playing nearly 20 years and i'm pretty good and i still feel like i'm limited in my ability and knowledge. i can't play country lead or slide at all, i can only fake my way around in any sort of jazz, i don't know anything about metal, etc. i think it's important to learn everything, even if you don't think you'll use it. you probably will, and you'll probably be happy that it's there. when i started, i never even considered the possibility that i'd want to put a lap steel sound on a track, or that i'd care about the dense chord changes in classical and jazz. i was very focused on one direction and i've gotten good at it, but i still want to enjoy the peripheral on occasion, and if i had been willing to learn more, my knowledge would be broader, my skills would be greater, and i'd be able to enjoy myself more.

As for the "note for note" debate --

For some reason there are some songs that I want to obsessively learn note for note, and others where I'd rather just learn the chords and find my own groove. And some in between.

I learned the intro to "Little Wing" precisely, note for note -- I spent hours playing the original at 1/4 normal speed, learning tiny vibratos and bends and grace notes that aren't even in the tablature. I still can't PLAY it full speed, but learning that let me get into Jimi's head a tiny bit, and it's definitely led to me using certain things when I improvise.

Now I'm learning "Stairway to heaven" and I won't be happy until I can do 90% of it note for note.

But I've learned lots of songs by Oasis and Dylan and Dire Straits and Jack Johnson where I just spend 10 minutes learning chords and then go crazy with my own ideas.

The key is this: when I choose to learn a song, I have a particular reason for learning it. Some because I want to learn some precise techniques (hence note-for-note), some where I want to learn to sing along, some where I want to learn to improvise, and so on. I think there's room for both approaches.

As for phrasing, My teacher always says "the silences are as important as the notes". It's really easy to pluck every 8th note, but it's the rests that make the phrasing. Someday I'll figure out how to do it...

Wow, interesting thread!

From my own experience, and feeling I'm not a natural guitar player in any way shape or form, learning a solo note for note is the only way I can get it to sound even remotely correct. Sure, in the realm of soloing over my own chord progression, I can sound pretty good. But as far as creating a solo in place of another artists solo, not much luck…

So for me I live by this simple statement “you can't break the rules, ‘till you know the rules”. Of course, the rules are that you should make it sound as much like the original as possible.

I am amazed at guitar players that can throw a solo in place of another, hey maybe I just haven't crossed that threshold yet.
:wink:

Pat