Too Many Broad Strokes?

I know exactly what you are saying. I recently posted the old song Ride Captain Ride in the Easy Songs. My band has been playing this song, and I thought others here might enjoy it. It is loaded with great guitar, there is a Spanish sounding acoustic that plays some beautiful fills, and some great electric guitar fills too. The problem is, I am also the singer on the song, and it is very difficult to play these parts while singing. If I wasn't singing, I could pull it off. And I've tried to play some of the fills, but it diverts my attention too much and my singing suffers. So, I had to ask myself which is more important, the singing, or those great fills? Pretty easy, I wanted to sound good singing. So now I just strum the chords during the verses. I do play the solos in the middle and at the end. It sounds just fine without all those fills.

You have to remember when they record these songs, they put it together in pieces. They lay down a basic rhythm track and then add all sorts of fills. Even the bands that record these songs cannot play them live that way. I remember going to see Led Zeppelin back in 1973. Man, did they sound completely different than their albums. John Paul Jones would play keyboards on some songs, bass on others. When he played keyboards there was no bass, the music had no bottom end whatsoever. And when Jimmy Page played solos it also sounded very empty, because there is usually great rhythm guitar going on in the background. Now this is one of the greatest groups ever, and they couldn't even sound like themselves! :D

If you are making a recording, then go back and add extra rhythm tracks, fills, etc... But realize that when you perform you can only do so much.

I know exactly what you are talking about blue. Every time I record, even if I add more than one guitar track, I play like I'm the only instrument that's going to be there. It's a habit I'm trying to break, but it's ingrained. It's like I'm afraid to have any quiet spots on any of the tracks.

This is about arrangement and orchestration, including voicings, layers, (non-played) space and other musical dimensions that separate and define parts, instruments and musical ideas. Sometimes dense is the effect one seeks -- but only sometimes. More often, sparse, controlled playing produces better results, helping to better define rhythmic elements, as well as the melodic/harmonic. Listen carefully to well-produced recorded music. You may be surprised how little many of the musicians actually play.

When I record, I try to play only a little. That rarely works. So in addition, I often edit out parts of solos and fills removing anywhere from 25 to 75% of what I played. Often, that makes the overall result better ... and much more interesting.

"Less is more" is also a great lesson for jamming. Being able to play a tune with two or three other guitarists, a keyboard and bass, yet not step all over each other takes a bit of on-the-spot arrangement, and a good ear for what's going on in the tune. Gotta find your space to play and keep out of everyone elses -- or better yet complement them.

I know exactly what you are talking about blue. Every time I record, even if I add more than one guitar track, I play like I'm the only instrument that's going to be there. It's a habit I'm trying to break, but it's ingrained. It's like I'm afraid to have any quiet spots on any of the tracks.
That's it! There's so much more to the "art" of making music. Allowing those quiet spots or as Wes said, adding some fills that fit well. I've been playing broad strokes too often. Gotta stop it. But Wes, your point is taken! I just don't want to get so used to it that its all I know. I feel like someday I'll reach the conclusion that I know how to play guitar but then again, I don't. Ya know?

Edit: Greg, I posted as you did. I agree with what you said. That's the heart of where I want to be!

Every time I record a new song, I always start with strummed chords and a vocal - even if I'm going to be fingerpicking. I find my timing's pretty good working that way. So I'll have one mono track on Audacity - guitar and vocal. I'll play that back through headphones, and record a new guitar track over it. Now I've got two tracks - the guide guitar and vocal, which I'll shunt over to the left, and the rhythm guitar track, which I'll pan to the right. I'll play those tracks back and record a new vocal, which I'll pan to the left.....then I'll play the whole thing back, muting the original track. Once I'm satisfied the solo guitar and solo vocal tracks are OK, I'll lose the original track.

Then I'll start layering....adding anything else I need.

If I had access to some decent drum patterns, I'd probably do the drums first, then the guitar/vocal track. I could use a click track - but if there's one skill I have been blessed with, it's pretty good timing, so I don't bother. I probably would if I was going for a really good recording, but with the equipment at my disposal, all I can manage is a rough-sounding demo, unfortunately.

Oh, and I agree with most of what Gnease said. Except.........
Sometimes dense is the effect one seeks -- but only sometimes.

Not if your name's Phil Spector!

:D :D :D

Vic

Hi,

The great thing about music is that you're never going to run out of new things to learn and fresh ways to do things. I'm currently trying to learn just a little bit about arranging and mixing, because it can make such a huge difference to what you end up with. One thing that I often see with local bands live is how big a difference it makes if not much thought has gone into an arrangement, and if there's no mixer. Typically, you end up with a wall of noise, with everybody whanging away for dear life. Having a great time, but no subtlety, an everybody pretty much drowning each other out. :?

At the other end of the scale, I was watching a DVD a while back of a big concert. All through I could see a guy playing a harmonica - leaping around and blowing his heart out. But, apart from when they gave him a few bars of solo on one track, I never heard a note he played. For better or worse, he'd just been left out of the mix, until the mixer felt that he was essential. :(

But, yes, sometimes an ounce of 'shut the hell up' is worth more than a ton of strummedly strum... Vic's method of starting with a basic reference track and then building up the elements layer by layer, and learning how to drop, fade or remove things as required, sounds great to me.

Chris

I would bet we all have shared this experience. we are alone in our room learning guitar and songs.
soon we have the chords down, then the rhythm, in our heads we hear the drums. we find ourselves playing
with flourish and feeling to fill in the 'emptiness'.
now that I am recording. I need to play sparsely, specifically, surgically. I play more triads than full chords.
that's when recording.
if I were jamming with others I'd probably play the way I usually do.
it's interesting. I am discovering more things on my fretboard in the recording playing.
lot's more double stops. bending double stops. holding one string and bending the next.
two note harmonic or chromanic runs.
and then there is dynamics. when you are not a one player band everything changes.
it's parts and the whole.

Oh, and I agree with most of what Gnease said. Except.........
Sometimes dense is the effect one seeks -- but only sometimes.

Not if your name's Phil Spector!

:D :D :D

Vic

Good point. I was thinking punk and similar. But even Phil's wall of sound was synthesized carefully from many lesser elements. And he managed to give us his dense mix without suffocating us completely. Beatles did it, too. And even Mr. Tasteful-on-Guitar, Chet Atkins, created the syrup-laden Nashville sound than so many country fan love (tho not me). But most of us mere mortals should make our fewer notes work a little harder. Give 'em the good stuff, less of it and leave 'em hungry for more.

This all relates to something that was tough for me as a beginner. Learning what to play and how to play songs in the one guitar arrangement style. I focused too much on it, but it really fits my needs right now.

The last song I played before logging on was "No Woman No Cry" by Bob Marley. It took me quite some time to get a feel for that song. I wanted to learn it a few years ago, and again every 6 months or so until recently. What I got is nothing at all like what's recorded by them, but, it sounds almost good for a single guitar. Doing a single guitar and singing leaves you with two instruments. No bass, no drums, no keys and no guitars 2 thru 5. That took a long time to get used to. With one guitar, you gotta make it sound like the song. That's when I start getting more energetic and fuller chords, etc.

Going from that to, say, AC/DC Back In Black and trying to do one guitar part without filling in for the rest of the band on guitar is quite a challenge. It's a big time different style and way of playing than I'm used to. If anything, it's quite an interesting study in music's dynamics. I'm not there yet, but am trying to learn lead (non-strummy guitar playing) and trying to get a feel for a non-bashing form of guitar playing.

I guess that's it Roy. Its a learning step for me. Like you said, you have basically 2 instraments. Your guitar and your voice. And that's fine playing in your living room or camfire...whatever. People need to take the broader stokes under those circumstances. I hear the single guitar parts, the rests in the music I'm trying to compose. But aquiring the tools to do that is going to take some time.

Now, like Chris said, learning how to mix and produce, that's an entire new skill set you need. That, in and of itself, can be a challenge!

Roy- Even for a single-guitar and singer, there is a lot that can be done without always doing lots-o-strumming. First thing about this set-up is that few people expect it to cover the sound of an electrified, crunchy band. There is a lot of arrangement lattitude. Learning many and varied rhythm styles is important. Otherwise, every tune sounds a lot like the last. Examples of singer-songwriter-performers who are good at doing varied, sometimes sparse/sometimes heavy and usually highly rhythmic acoustic guitar backing for their solo vocals are Leon Redbone, Jack Johnson, Pete Townshend, John Hiatt, Richard Thompson, Joni Mitchell ... Plus consider all those bygone acoustic blues players!

I've been trying to write and record in different styles lately. I'm on a bit of a Bossa-nova kick. The simplicity of the mix is stunning. The power when the drums go from brushes to sticks is amazing. The lightness of the mix is what makes it good. And when the mix gets thick for effect the contrast is so great that even with a minimal number of instruments the power drives you.

If you listen to "Lost Summer Days" on my myspace page. There are many passages where I play 2 short strokes per measure instead of the actual rhythm. That's so I can sing.

Music is is the arrangement of pitch in time and space. Don't be afraid to include some space.

One of my favorite albums is Jackson Browne Solo Acoustic Vol 1. Just him and the guitar (or piano). I think that's a perfect example of what you, Greg and Nick, are both saying. Nick, I've not yet listened to your song yet but will. One of my favorite things about that album is that Jackson has great control over the volume (in both quantity of the notes being played and in the decibles), space, etc..All makes for some very great and very subtle peices.

I guess that album also exemplifies what I'm saying as well. It would be a pretty boaring album if you got up on stage and took all broad strokes ...C, D, A...strum, strum, strum. BORING! But he doesn't. There's a lot of room for the quiet, small notes, the 3 note fills and then full chords. And as you stated Nick, hearing those differences really drives you.

Wow! This is to my mind one of the most important threads here in a long time! I am a lapsed piano player, now focused on guitar, but guitar is something I picked up along the way, not an instrument I've ever studied. As a result, I strum, boy do I strum--broadly, BROADLY. :oops:

I learned to play under the influence of the great acoustic artists of the 60s and 70s, but I never paid much attention to their accompaniment styles. I just strummed, broadly, in order to accompany my voice. And I was happy.... :)

But three things have converged recently to unsettle my bliss:

1. recording software; when I record tracks the boomy fullness of my big dreadnaught is overwhelming, and frankly not very pleasant;

2. I started a band, and I had to figure out how to adapt my solo strum to other instruments. This included lowering the bass eq, for instance, and it included playing more four- and three-string chords on the high strings--leaving the A and E strings pretty much alone;

3. I decided to buy a electric guitar (Gretsch 6120 8) ) and within a few minutes I realized that I had no idea how to play this thing! Not being a lead player, I can't use it for soloing. But as a pure broad strummer, I couldn't adapt very easily to playing rhythm on the electric guitar. Still working on this!

Anyway, if one looks at good tabs for, say, Bob Dylan songs, one sees a lot of riffing, alternative bass lines, etc. Those guys were NOT simple strummers, even though for years I heard them this way. Apparently, I'm not alone.

Sorry for the rant, but this is a topic close to my mind these days.

And if anyone has thoughts about adapting from acoustic to electric rhythm playing, I'd appreciate hearing them.