Delivered.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Thursday, November 3, 2011
The great Partial Capo Experiment begins.
And so a very good man, Steve Cornish, did sell me a Third Hand capo this evening,
and verily I did place it upon my Ovation (strung to C2G2D3A3E4B3) in the initial position 220000, and began to play.
Oh dawggy, this is going to be an interesting ride.
I'm exhausted now--was tired when I started this, but like hell I was going to go to sleep without at least trying it out--but nonetheless tonight I tried 220000, 220002, and 001111. With the 220002 configuration I also brought the first string up a half-step so that the open pitches were DADAED, which was interesting to say the least.
Very eye-opening session. Harvey Reid is the primary advocate of the partial capo, and he seems to have a lot of ideas about how to use it. Most interesting for me is the concept that open pitches can be altered while notes up the neck remain the same, and you know what, that shit works! It opens up all kinds of open position fingerings you never thought of, while retaining the ability to play all the closed positions that you already know, up the neck. I was kind of expecting some cool factor on open string drones and bass notes, but I had not expected the impact it would have on melodic phrasing, especially in that "C-minor" centric arrangement of 001111. On the guitar (as opposed to the mandolin) the stretch to hit the m3 interval from a root note on the 5th fret of the next lower string is, indeed, a stretch, but with with a 001111 partial capo, you've got very comfortable access to that m3 and m7 and it's niice. Sure, technically you "lose" the major second, or rather you must now play it stopped on the root string, but this is a surprisingly easy tradeoff. My fingers just figured it out spontaneously, and then started playing things they don't normally gravitate toward. And then to go up the board you just...go up the board, find your root note, and play like you normally would. (Well...like someone who likes to tune the guitar in fifths would. :-)
Harmonics are going to be absolutely wild with this, and I suspect I'm going to have to just treat them separately for each possible configuration. Having an arrangement where the nodes offset each other from string to string is probably going to spawn some interesting stuff, and I look forward to it.
More to come. Just offhand I'm interested in checking out partial capoing over the third, fourth and fifth frets as well, and should start to experiment with some altered inner strings. Who the heck knows where it might lead?
Monster in the making. (Or, at least, inveterate geek.)
and verily I did place it upon my Ovation (strung to C2G2D3A3E4B3) in the initial position 220000, and began to play.
Oh dawggy, this is going to be an interesting ride.
I'm exhausted now--was tired when I started this, but like hell I was going to go to sleep without at least trying it out--but nonetheless tonight I tried 220000, 220002, and 001111. With the 220002 configuration I also brought the first string up a half-step so that the open pitches were DADAED, which was interesting to say the least.
Very eye-opening session. Harvey Reid is the primary advocate of the partial capo, and he seems to have a lot of ideas about how to use it. Most interesting for me is the concept that open pitches can be altered while notes up the neck remain the same, and you know what, that shit works! It opens up all kinds of open position fingerings you never thought of, while retaining the ability to play all the closed positions that you already know, up the neck. I was kind of expecting some cool factor on open string drones and bass notes, but I had not expected the impact it would have on melodic phrasing, especially in that "C-minor" centric arrangement of 001111. On the guitar (as opposed to the mandolin) the stretch to hit the m3 interval from a root note on the 5th fret of the next lower string is, indeed, a stretch, but with with a 001111 partial capo, you've got very comfortable access to that m3 and m7 and it's niice. Sure, technically you "lose" the major second, or rather you must now play it stopped on the root string, but this is a surprisingly easy tradeoff. My fingers just figured it out spontaneously, and then started playing things they don't normally gravitate toward. And then to go up the board you just...go up the board, find your root note, and play like you normally would. (Well...like someone who likes to tune the guitar in fifths would. :-)
Harmonics are going to be absolutely wild with this, and I suspect I'm going to have to just treat them separately for each possible configuration. Having an arrangement where the nodes offset each other from string to string is probably going to spawn some interesting stuff, and I look forward to it.
More to come. Just offhand I'm interested in checking out partial capoing over the third, fourth and fifth frets as well, and should start to experiment with some altered inner strings. Who the heck knows where it might lead?
Monster in the making. (Or, at least, inveterate geek.)
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Trick question.
Question: What's the most amazing thing about this new vid from Antoine Dufour?
Pause, for a moment, to pick your jaw up off the floor. (It always takes me a minute. :-)
Answer: it fades out. To me, that can only mean one thing: he wasn't satisfied with how he concluded the piece.
Somehow, that just strikes me as riotously funny.
Pause, for a moment, to pick your jaw up off the floor. (It always takes me a minute. :-)
Answer: it fades out. To me, that can only mean one thing: he wasn't satisfied with how he concluded the piece.
Somehow, that just strikes me as riotously funny.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Ovation's now in CGDAEB
That is, C2 G2 D3 A3 E4 B3. In playing a bit with it tonight (brain dead) I found myself making more use of the B3 than the C4, outside of harmonics in Am (and those do sound lovely). I've tasked Steve Cornish with acquiring a couple of partial capos, including the single- and double-outside string models and the Third Hand, so the Great Partial Capo Experiment can get underway. A lot of possibles there, including a D-centric capo on 2 2 0 0 0 0 (or, for an open Dm7, 2 2 0 0 1 1). Interestingly, I found that barring the F and C notes on the first and second strings and then slapping the harmonics gave me a lot of what I was looking for in the first place, although there are definite timbre differences between slapped and popped harmonics and I'd probably want to have access to them both.
I've got a funny feeling about this tuning, with partial capos. It will be this that I use to go through Scott Tennant's book Pumping Nylon, to build up a little competence with fingerstyle playing, and it will be interesting to see how things develop. I do know where those notes are in fifths, and having that first string lower than the second is interesting in the "upper" voicings.
Strings are phosphor bronze, 59w - 46w - 30w - 22w - 12p - 16p. I'm once again tempted to try electric flatwounds and see how they play as well. If I'm adopting a lighter style and amplifying it, this may be of minor concern.
Onward. Let's see what happens!
I've got a funny feeling about this tuning, with partial capos. It will be this that I use to go through Scott Tennant's book Pumping Nylon, to build up a little competence with fingerstyle playing, and it will be interesting to see how things develop. I do know where those notes are in fifths, and having that first string lower than the second is interesting in the "upper" voicings.
Strings are phosphor bronze, 59w - 46w - 30w - 22w - 12p - 16p. I'm once again tempted to try electric flatwounds and see how they play as well. If I'm adopting a lighter style and amplifying it, this may be of minor concern.
Onward. Let's see what happens!
Friday, August 19, 2011
Another tuning thought: what about CGDAEC?
A quick post to document a thought that hit me last night.
What about C2-G2-D3-A3-E4-C4?
Disadvantages:
I will have to try this out. Since I don't have years of fingerstyle under my belt yet, it may be that I can adapt to this easily enough to take advantage of the benefits. The more I think about it, the more interesting it seems: the first string is the only thing that ever "moves", and yet it seems like there are four very individual tunings there.
What about C2-G2-D3-A3-E4-C4?
Disadvantages:
- First string is lower in pitch than the second; which could theoretically get confusing.
- Without a fourth interval between the second and first strings, you do lose that beautiful ascending V-I option (especially with harmonics).
- Low C may be optimistic with nylon strings (but is fine for steel).
- All the fifths relationships of the Guitar Craft tuning (C2-G2-D3-A3-E4-G4). Two complete four-string groups in fifths, allowing lots of fifths-based scale thinking and chord construction with no need to "skip strings".
- For fingerstyle, a minor triad on the top three strings. With this voicing, at least some common alterations may present very convenient left-hand fingerings.
- First and sixth strings are two octaves apart. Lots of people playing standard tuning and DADGAD take advantage of this.
- The first string becomes a simple pivot between CGDAEC (root position Am triad on top 3 strings) and CGDAEB (GAD intervals on top 3 strings). Or, for that matter, CGDAEC# (A major triad) or even CGDAED (which is theoretically another GAD variation). Total retuning movement for the first string here is a minor third--very do-able--and well within the range of appropriately-gauged strings. And, the GAD variations re-capture the ascending V-I arrangement.
- The possibles of using these intervals with partial capoing seem immense, almost intimidating--and yet above whatever capo(s) are placed, I've still and always got five strings in fifths to work with.
I will have to try this out. Since I don't have years of fingerstyle under my belt yet, it may be that I can adapt to this easily enough to take advantage of the benefits. The more I think about it, the more interesting it seems: the first string is the only thing that ever "moves", and yet it seems like there are four very individual tunings there.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Django and Stephane.
Say what you want about YouTube--it's probably true. But this--this--has to go way, way up in the plus column:
Just magnificent.
And because I'm just so fond of the tune, here's audio of Minor Swing:
What a treasure. Two of the most important musical influences of the twentieth century, and you can immediately see and hear why.
Rest in peace, fellas. We miss you.
Just magnificent.
And because I'm just so fond of the tune, here's audio of Minor Swing:
What a treasure. Two of the most important musical influences of the twentieth century, and you can immediately see and hear why.
Rest in peace, fellas. We miss you.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Kaki King, stylist.
There is a reason this woman is such an important stylist. More than anyone else in the "percussive acoustic" genre that I've heard thus far, she throws in unexpected little phrases that are unsettlingly "not right", and yet they are perfect. If you only heard it once, it would be tempting to call it an elegantly-handled mistake (via Tom Redmond: "If you play a wrong note, play it again"), but no, this happens too often to be unintentional.
The following contains a couple examples of this, and is otherwise just a beautiful piece, excellently played. She lulls you in, and then hits your ears with a "wait, what was that?" and then is back. It's a nice touch here, too, on a reasonably conventional fingerstyle composition.
The more I hear from King, the more that I hear this as what makes her unique among her peers. You get the same sort of thing in her flashier, percussive work, or in her brooding improvs--all of it. I think at some level I just like her particular choice of dissonances (and love the fact that she seems to improvise them), but still: when the "wait, what was that?" question arrives from the ears to the brain, it's reliably King who is playing.
Flat picker Dan Crary has long impressed me with his stylistic signature of inverting the third in a common tune, after the melody has been firmly established: suddenly, he's playing the same piece in parallel minor, which is a really nice aesthetic touch in bluegrass, and he'll usually return to the original arrangement to close out. It's a simple device, really, but Crary has made it a recognizable style point, and it's almost always effective without being ham-fisted or even "leaving the genre". What King does strikes me as very similar, but she'll charge right out into chromatic territory without warning (rather than employ airbrakes with more "tonal approaches" like parallel substitutions and quick modulations), and, well, your ears just need to keep up. That can very, very easily fall flat on its face, or quickly get cliched and predictable (e.g., if the chromatic phrase always leaned on the flat-five), but somehow King avoids it, and it usually works.
I'm impressed, and aspire.
The following contains a couple examples of this, and is otherwise just a beautiful piece, excellently played. She lulls you in, and then hits your ears with a "wait, what was that?" and then is back. It's a nice touch here, too, on a reasonably conventional fingerstyle composition.
The more I hear from King, the more that I hear this as what makes her unique among her peers. You get the same sort of thing in her flashier, percussive work, or in her brooding improvs--all of it. I think at some level I just like her particular choice of dissonances (and love the fact that she seems to improvise them), but still: when the "wait, what was that?" question arrives from the ears to the brain, it's reliably King who is playing.
Flat picker Dan Crary has long impressed me with his stylistic signature of inverting the third in a common tune, after the melody has been firmly established: suddenly, he's playing the same piece in parallel minor, which is a really nice aesthetic touch in bluegrass, and he'll usually return to the original arrangement to close out. It's a simple device, really, but Crary has made it a recognizable style point, and it's almost always effective without being ham-fisted or even "leaving the genre". What King does strikes me as very similar, but she'll charge right out into chromatic territory without warning (rather than employ airbrakes with more "tonal approaches" like parallel substitutions and quick modulations), and, well, your ears just need to keep up. That can very, very easily fall flat on its face, or quickly get cliched and predictable (e.g., if the chromatic phrase always leaned on the flat-five), but somehow King avoids it, and it usually works.
I'm impressed, and aspire.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Take Five: the reunion
I am really happy to be working with a mandolin student (I'll call him G.) again. Not only does it give me a way to help with all the noise in my head, but it gives me an excuse to start looking for repertoire that will be useful in multiple contexts: performing, technique, theory, and improvisation.
This is where Dave Brubeck's (actually Paul Desmond's) "Take Five" is an absolute masterpiece. For starters, it's already a masterpiece; probably the catchiest tune counted in five that most people will ever hear, it's a beautiful vamp with a brilliant chorus, and capped off by an astonishingly beautiful and compact alto sax solo. But it's also a total treasure trove of examples and illustrations; if you need to explain a concept in basic music theory, this tune may well have it.
Like many string players, I prefer it transposed up a half-step (to Em) for convenience, but a great way to test yourself once you're comfortable with the piece, is to go try it in the original E-flat minor (which is what's convenient for the alto sax). Most of us find that using all closed shapes takes a real conscious effort, and it's worth testing yourself on. (I'll consider it G.'s 'final exam' for the piece. Poor guy. :-)
So tonight, after a long time away from Take Five (which I first approached with Guitar Craft Standard Tuning guitar, CGDAEG), I sat down with the mandolin and hashed a bunch of things out. First and foremost: man, what a fantastic piece of music that is. Improvising on it is simply intoxicating.
I worked through the melody in the first two available octaves, and will eventually work into the third. Here, I let the horn phrasing determine the right fingerings, which can be a little more convenient on the smaller instrument, and it will be good to be able to show G. an example of how you get to choose which fingerings you want to use.
G. is currently working through diatonic triads, and I will probably just use the "trust me" logic in trying to go through the vamp chords (Em and Bm7); I can't decide whether it would be better to explain the Bm7 itself, or just tell him to play a D chord instead. (The root-in-bass voicing of the Bm7 is easy; it's the other inversions that may get confusing at speed.) At any rate, there are plenty of Em and Bm7 chords available on the neck.
I'll have G. improvise over this simple two-chord vamp; that alone could take a goodly amount of time and lots of questions. Not only does he have to figure out where his Em notes are, but he can't fall back on a four-count as a crutch! (On the other hand, if he can hold in 4, I just might jump in with a 5 and we'll get us a polyrhythm going. :-)
The chorus, of course, will take a little time; first we'll work the chords:
and once he's got that, we can go over exactly what that beautiful descending movement of chords is actually doing. On the melody side, there's a chromatic example in every measure which is great for listening, and again we'll try it in at least two octaves, ideally with different fingerings.
At some point we'll deconstruct the solo too, especially Desmond's delicious phrasing, and the various techniques that one can use to play that on the mandolin (yes, vibrato is possible on the little beastie, and worth it!).
It will be interesting to see how he handles it--and I have to remember, myself, not to try and do too much too fast. First, a score he can read and chords he can see. Then, setting the vamp. Then the melody. Then improv. Then the chorus, either melody or chords first (don't know which yet) and finally the solo and improv over the chorus.
All followed by E-flat minor, which all but removes his open strings as options. (I'm a stinker, that way.)
This is where Dave Brubeck's (actually Paul Desmond's) "Take Five" is an absolute masterpiece. For starters, it's already a masterpiece; probably the catchiest tune counted in five that most people will ever hear, it's a beautiful vamp with a brilliant chorus, and capped off by an astonishingly beautiful and compact alto sax solo. But it's also a total treasure trove of examples and illustrations; if you need to explain a concept in basic music theory, this tune may well have it.
Like many string players, I prefer it transposed up a half-step (to Em) for convenience, but a great way to test yourself once you're comfortable with the piece, is to go try it in the original E-flat minor (which is what's convenient for the alto sax). Most of us find that using all closed shapes takes a real conscious effort, and it's worth testing yourself on. (I'll consider it G.'s 'final exam' for the piece. Poor guy. :-)
So tonight, after a long time away from Take Five (which I first approached with Guitar Craft Standard Tuning guitar, CGDAEG), I sat down with the mandolin and hashed a bunch of things out. First and foremost: man, what a fantastic piece of music that is. Improvising on it is simply intoxicating.
I worked through the melody in the first two available octaves, and will eventually work into the third. Here, I let the horn phrasing determine the right fingerings, which can be a little more convenient on the smaller instrument, and it will be good to be able to show G. an example of how you get to choose which fingerings you want to use.
G. is currently working through diatonic triads, and I will probably just use the "trust me" logic in trying to go through the vamp chords (Em and Bm7); I can't decide whether it would be better to explain the Bm7 itself, or just tell him to play a D chord instead. (The root-in-bass voicing of the Bm7 is easy; it's the other inversions that may get confusing at speed.) At any rate, there are plenty of Em and Bm7 chords available on the neck.
I'll have G. improvise over this simple two-chord vamp; that alone could take a goodly amount of time and lots of questions. Not only does he have to figure out where his Em notes are, but he can't fall back on a four-count as a crutch! (On the other hand, if he can hold in 4, I just might jump in with a 5 and we'll get us a polyrhythm going. :-)
The chorus, of course, will take a little time; first we'll work the chords:
Triads first:
C - Am/C - Bm - Em/B - Am - D/A - G - G
C - Am/C - Bm - Em/B - Am - D/A - F#m - B
Then, the chords as written:
Cmaj7 - Am6 - Bm7 - Em7 - Am7 - D7 - Gmaj7 - Gmaj7
Cmaj7 - Am6 - Bm7 - Em7 - Am7 - D7 - F#m7 - B7
(on the mandolin, we do tweak voicings a bit to deal with "only" four strings)
and once he's got that, we can go over exactly what that beautiful descending movement of chords is actually doing. On the melody side, there's a chromatic example in every measure which is great for listening, and again we'll try it in at least two octaves, ideally with different fingerings.
At some point we'll deconstruct the solo too, especially Desmond's delicious phrasing, and the various techniques that one can use to play that on the mandolin (yes, vibrato is possible on the little beastie, and worth it!).
It will be interesting to see how he handles it--and I have to remember, myself, not to try and do too much too fast. First, a score he can read and chords he can see. Then, setting the vamp. Then the melody. Then improv. Then the chorus, either melody or chords first (don't know which yet) and finally the solo and improv over the chorus.
All followed by E-flat minor, which all but removes his open strings as options. (I'm a stinker, that way.)
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Another DGAD revelation - harmonics
Amazing, what sits right in front of your face until you just notice it.
This morning, out of the blue, it occurred to me to actually take a structured look at the second, third and fourth natural harmonics (that is, harmonics on frets 7, 5, and 4) on the GAD strings and see what, if anything, it told me. (I've been improvising by ear for a little while now, but hadn't really analyzed the "just what notes are available?" question.) So I wrote it out.
Uh.
How about that complete D scale? (And by extension, notes in the mixolydian mode of A, lydian mode of G and aeolian mode of B.) And if the tuning is actually DGAD, that D scale can be sounded entirely in the same octave, with the major third (F#, in this case) available on the fourth string as well as on the first.
Brain spinny. Cogitation and experimenting to follow.
Hm. Now I'm wondering about the use of two Xtenders, one on the fourth string and one on the third. A basic tuning of Bb1-F2-D3-G3-A3-D4, with the fourth string dropping to C3 and the third dropping to F3, would seem to give lots of options:
This morning, out of the blue, it occurred to me to actually take a structured look at the second, third and fourth natural harmonics (that is, harmonics on frets 7, 5, and 4) on the GAD strings and see what, if anything, it told me. (I've been improvising by ear for a little while now, but hadn't really analyzed the "just what notes are available?" question.) So I wrote it out.
Uh.
How about that complete D scale? (And by extension, notes in the mixolydian mode of A, lydian mode of G and aeolian mode of B.) And if the tuning is actually DGAD, that D scale can be sounded entirely in the same octave, with the major third (F#, in this case) available on the fourth string as well as on the first.
Brain spinny. Cogitation and experimenting to follow.
Hm. Now I'm wondering about the use of two Xtenders, one on the fourth string and one on the third. A basic tuning of Bb1-F2-D3-G3-A3-D4, with the fourth string dropping to C3 and the third dropping to F3, would seem to give lots of options:
- BbFDGAD. With partial capo 110000, it's D/B with some cool options for Bm. With partial capo 220000, it's CGDGAD. With partial capo 440000, it's DADGAD. The tradeoff would seem to be dealing with the major sixth interval between fifth and fourth strings up the neck, which would be disruptive to scale runs. That is: this tuning would probably dedicate the two bass strings to a bass function, and focus on both harmonic and melodic figures out of the DGAD strings.
- BbFCGAD. This is simply CGDABE a whole step down, by which I am still very intrigued. A full set of four strings in fifths allows fifths-thinking for melody (including the separated fifth on strings 3 and 1), expansive chords in the bass and GAD chords on top. The only things this would seem to give up are the conveniences of that "D-scale-in-harmonics" and the comfortable root-on-top seventh shape that DGAD provides.
- BbFCFAD. CFAD is standard-tuning intervals a whole step down, and brings the conveniences of a Dm triad on the top three strings and the relative major (F) triad on 4-3-2.
- BbFDFAD. This may make a great Dm tuning, with multiple inversions of Dm available on open strings.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Exercises and improvising
Have taken some precious guitar time in the last few days, split between diagnostic exercises and improvising. Tunings have been CCDGAD ("Aerial Boundaries"), BF#DF#C#C# ("Raindigger") and CGDABE.
The exercises have mostly been centered around 1) the two-finger approach to fingerstyle scale playing, and 2) more work with GAD triads. Man, do I have a lot of work to do with all this, but I grow more convinced that it's something I want to add to the repertoire and perhaps even specialize in. There is a real "rightness" and pure visceral pleasure to playing this way, and the options for development seem limitless.
The improvising has been fantastic, if brief. I would never have guessed how quickly I'd take to improvising in multiple different tunings, but some really cool things have even been coming out of the "Raindigger" guitar. (Cool to me, of course. It's absolutely in the "wankery" category and just as well that I develop it much more before subjecting others...) I'm taking time to see how I can get second, third and fourth harmonics to play off stopped and open notes, and with that tuning in particular, dramatic inserts are almost always available to an open finger. With the harmonics in particular, it's amazing how many different timbres you can get from "the same note" by using 1) fingernail only upstroke 2) fingernail/fingertip upstroke 3) fingertip upstroke 4) fingernail flick downstroke 5) thumbnail 6) thumbnail/thumb tip 7) thumb tip or 8) finger tap--and any of those can be at various angles. Fingerstyle gives a lot of options for dynamics as well, that I hadn't anticipated. Pretty cool!
On the "GAD" tunings, I'm starting to reach a basic comfort with the triads and am starting to diagram the most convenient diatonic sevenths. I'm still not totally sold on whether it would be best to go with "DGAD" or "CGAD" on those intervals, and it may hinge on whether or not the seventh forms on the GAD strings are usable in themselves, or whether I really need a fourth string. (e.g., a m7b5 form arguably needs all four tones to distinguish itself; are there enough such needs that it would outweigh the utility of a four-string group all in 5ths for melody work and for mandolin-like chords?) What is becoming apparent is that I like some of the features GAD gives me, for improvising. I find myself making use of that flat-five pivot on the second string, and being able to sound a whole-tone interval in harmonics is really nice in some contexts.
We'll see what comes next. Right now I'm pretty limited in what I know about the tuning, and yet some really nice stuff manages to sneak out, easily. As I get the top strings sorted out, I'm looking forward to seeing how to add some independent bass lines, and then also to see how melodic things work when I transfer back and forth between the regular-interval strings and these top ones.
Should be fun!
The exercises have mostly been centered around 1) the two-finger approach to fingerstyle scale playing, and 2) more work with GAD triads. Man, do I have a lot of work to do with all this, but I grow more convinced that it's something I want to add to the repertoire and perhaps even specialize in. There is a real "rightness" and pure visceral pleasure to playing this way, and the options for development seem limitless.
The improvising has been fantastic, if brief. I would never have guessed how quickly I'd take to improvising in multiple different tunings, but some really cool things have even been coming out of the "Raindigger" guitar. (Cool to me, of course. It's absolutely in the "wankery" category and just as well that I develop it much more before subjecting others...) I'm taking time to see how I can get second, third and fourth harmonics to play off stopped and open notes, and with that tuning in particular, dramatic inserts are almost always available to an open finger. With the harmonics in particular, it's amazing how many different timbres you can get from "the same note" by using 1) fingernail only upstroke 2) fingernail/fingertip upstroke 3) fingertip upstroke 4) fingernail flick downstroke 5) thumbnail 6) thumbnail/thumb tip 7) thumb tip or 8) finger tap--and any of those can be at various angles. Fingerstyle gives a lot of options for dynamics as well, that I hadn't anticipated. Pretty cool!
On the "GAD" tunings, I'm starting to reach a basic comfort with the triads and am starting to diagram the most convenient diatonic sevenths. I'm still not totally sold on whether it would be best to go with "DGAD" or "CGAD" on those intervals, and it may hinge on whether or not the seventh forms on the GAD strings are usable in themselves, or whether I really need a fourth string. (e.g., a m7b5 form arguably needs all four tones to distinguish itself; are there enough such needs that it would outweigh the utility of a four-string group all in 5ths for melody work and for mandolin-like chords?) What is becoming apparent is that I like some of the features GAD gives me, for improvising. I find myself making use of that flat-five pivot on the second string, and being able to sound a whole-tone interval in harmonics is really nice in some contexts.
We'll see what comes next. Right now I'm pretty limited in what I know about the tuning, and yet some really nice stuff manages to sneak out, easily. As I get the top strings sorted out, I'm looking forward to seeing how to add some independent bass lines, and then also to see how melodic things work when I transfer back and forth between the regular-interval strings and these top ones.
Should be fun!
Thursday, June 16, 2011
A moment.
Took a little time at lunch today to try approaching fingerstyle scales using the "two-finger" method I've read about. In a nutshell, the logic seems to be "devote two fingers to the scale run on any given string", starting with i-m, but could also be m-i, i-a, a-i, m-a, or a-m. There's actually a lot more variation in that than might be immediately obvious, and one can get a little intimidated by the "what to use when?" question. I suspect the logic here is that when playing a run your goal is to reduce the possibles (also at that point it becomes like the up- and downstrokes of plectrum playing); what I'm less sure about is when and if three fingers becomes a preferred option--is this at all tied in somehow to the idea that most string intervals are a fourth or less, and therefore you'd never need more than three notes per string?
I will definitely need some more work with the "descending" patterns of the RH fingers (so: the a-m, the a-i, and the m-i), but I can see where they might come in handy.
After focusing on this for a few minutes, I let it vary a little bit, and started improvising on the CCDGAD guitar I happened to pick up. Not five minutes into this, a moment happened.
I was playing mostly out of a G natural minor scale over the third and first strings, and observing my right hand, I started to see the third finger enter the mix, naturally and spontaneously. That is, sometimes I'd be using two fingers, quite naturally over the two separated strings, and other times that third finger would just show up when it was needed, and not necessarily just for rhythmic changes. It would then drop out for a bit and then re-engage as "necessary".
! ! !
I can't speak for anyone else, but moments like that can pump me for weeks or more.
Playing devil's advocate, I shifted gears a bit, and started to try moving back-and-forth between playing "out of the chord" with three fingers, and playing these scale runs with two (all while keeping my idle thumb as relaxed as possible). Okay, I don't have a lot of history or facility with this yet, but it sure felt logical.
And the same thing happened.
This is fascinating. It reminded me of something Tony Geballe once told me, when we were discussing playing without looking at your hands. "You know where you want your hands to go, so just put them there." Maybe that's what's happening here. I do know what I want to hear, and where the notes are, so maybe at some level I'm just enlisting the attention of my fingers subconsciously. That would make me very, very happy.
The irony is that this will probably impel me to do more drills, not less. I'm not one of those who thinks that technique will somehow limit the creative impulse; rather, the more I can learn the more I can get my conscious brain out of the way, so that I can play what the muse wants without having to think about it. It frees me up to listen. :-)
I will definitely need some more work with the "descending" patterns of the RH fingers (so: the a-m, the a-i, and the m-i), but I can see where they might come in handy.
After focusing on this for a few minutes, I let it vary a little bit, and started improvising on the CCDGAD guitar I happened to pick up. Not five minutes into this, a moment happened.
I was playing mostly out of a G natural minor scale over the third and first strings, and observing my right hand, I started to see the third finger enter the mix, naturally and spontaneously. That is, sometimes I'd be using two fingers, quite naturally over the two separated strings, and other times that third finger would just show up when it was needed, and not necessarily just for rhythmic changes. It would then drop out for a bit and then re-engage as "necessary".
! ! !
I can't speak for anyone else, but moments like that can pump me for weeks or more.
Playing devil's advocate, I shifted gears a bit, and started to try moving back-and-forth between playing "out of the chord" with three fingers, and playing these scale runs with two (all while keeping my idle thumb as relaxed as possible). Okay, I don't have a lot of history or facility with this yet, but it sure felt logical.
And the same thing happened.
This is fascinating. It reminded me of something Tony Geballe once told me, when we were discussing playing without looking at your hands. "You know where you want your hands to go, so just put them there." Maybe that's what's happening here. I do know what I want to hear, and where the notes are, so maybe at some level I'm just enlisting the attention of my fingers subconsciously. That would make me very, very happy.
The irony is that this will probably impel me to do more drills, not less. I'm not one of those who thinks that technique will somehow limit the creative impulse; rather, the more I can learn the more I can get my conscious brain out of the way, so that I can play what the muse wants without having to think about it. It frees me up to listen. :-)
What about CGDABE?
After playing with the DGAD concept for a bit now, the thought suddenly occurred to me: why not CGDABE for a tuning? Some interesting attributes, compared with the CGDGAD option I've been considering as a general-purpose tuning:
Interesting thought. I may string up the SoloEtte that way, and see what happens.
- Six individual tones, as opposed to four.
- A true four-string group (6543) in all fifths.
- Fifths-based scales available on five strings, simply skipping the second string to do it.
Interesting thought. I may string up the SoloEtte that way, and see what happens.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
The iPad as do-it-all musicking device?
Musicians, please check my logic here, and post comments either way. I make no pretense at grand wisdom here, but rather am trying to learn.
Abstract
I've been putting a lot of mental energy into trying to re-approach what I want to do with "music gear", taking as holistic a view as possible and trying to find the best balance between capability, simplicity, and expense. I have recently started using an iPad 2 as part of my "day job" work, and in looking at what is available for that device, my existing mental conversation about re-approaching gear has been rather turned on its ear. After a few weeks of cogitation, I'm now at the point where I am trying to figure out why I wouldn't make the iPad the central figure in this quest.
So, I'm going to write it down here and ask people to help me shoot arrows at the idea. If you find it interesting or know someone else who might, please, by all means point them here.
Abstract
I've been putting a lot of mental energy into trying to re-approach what I want to do with "music gear", taking as holistic a view as possible and trying to find the best balance between capability, simplicity, and expense. I have recently started using an iPad 2 as part of my "day job" work, and in looking at what is available for that device, my existing mental conversation about re-approaching gear has been rather turned on its ear. After a few weeks of cogitation, I'm now at the point where I am trying to figure out why I wouldn't make the iPad the central figure in this quest.
So, I'm going to write it down here and ask people to help me shoot arrows at the idea. If you find it interesting or know someone else who might, please, by all means point them here.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Erik Mongrain, "Raindigger"
Spent a little time this evening working on the score for Erik Mongrain's "Raindigger", which is a thoroughly inspiring piece of mood-work. (Enough so for me to purchase a score, certainly.) Keep in mind that one of the reasons I decided to acquire a few new scores (currently from Mongrain, Antoine Dufour, Davy Graham and Michael Hedges) is so I can study them a bit to see how these folks play fingerstyle and maybe learn something myself. I'm hoping that by broadening my look a bit I can both deduce the common elements and also maybe see who has what signature style bits.
Here's where Erik Mongrain is really interesting.
A little while back I sat down with the piece for the first time, with a dreadnought strung up with the appropriate tuning (a beautiful Bm add9 voicing, B1-F#2-D3-F#3-C#4-C#4) and figured out his "Note 1", which covers the running rhythm figure for the piece. Once you "get it", it's actually much easier to play than to describe, and I was happy to get the basic gist and see what to work on. Tonight, I reacquainted with the basic rhythm and wanted to add at least a couple of items from the gorgeous main theme.
Wow, what a magnificent bastard Mongrain is.
If you watch the YouTube video of Erik playing the piece, you note that his left hand stays hovered right over the octave for a lot of the piece, which makes sense since that running rhythm is all over the first-harmonic notes at the octave. What is so ridiculously brilliant is all the incredibly subtle, nuanced things he does with his hands there. In addition to the "barre the octave with the ring finger, then deaden the fourth string with your index finger on the downstroke and then use it to pull off the harmonic afterward" subtlety of the running rhythm, here he has you play the melody note strongly (with a right-hand finger instead of the thumb, which is occupied with the rhythm) and then it pulls off the third string harmonic underneath. You've got to have some pretty fantastic control of your fingers to do this, but when you "get it" you hear it right away, and it's amazing.
And this is just the beginning of the subtleties, I think. I am not yet sure if the score is 100% consistent, as it does not always jibe with my ears, but one of the things he might be doing is--get this--doing this "pull off the harmonic with an 'extra' finger while the ring finger maintains the barre at the octave" technique as a double-stop, with one finger pulling off above the octave and one below it, on adjacent strings. HFS. I know what the basic sound should be (it's very strong) but I'm not convinced I've got it yet, so will reserve judgment until I get some more time and a little study of the video.
Exciting stuff--it's a beautiful piece in an unusual tuning, with Mongrain's style all over it. Worth studying, and I look forward to "getting it" enough that I can perform it.
Here's where Erik Mongrain is really interesting.
A little while back I sat down with the piece for the first time, with a dreadnought strung up with the appropriate tuning (a beautiful Bm add9 voicing, B1-F#2-D3-F#3-C#4-C#4) and figured out his "Note 1", which covers the running rhythm figure for the piece. Once you "get it", it's actually much easier to play than to describe, and I was happy to get the basic gist and see what to work on. Tonight, I reacquainted with the basic rhythm and wanted to add at least a couple of items from the gorgeous main theme.
Wow, what a magnificent bastard Mongrain is.
If you watch the YouTube video of Erik playing the piece, you note that his left hand stays hovered right over the octave for a lot of the piece, which makes sense since that running rhythm is all over the first-harmonic notes at the octave. What is so ridiculously brilliant is all the incredibly subtle, nuanced things he does with his hands there. In addition to the "barre the octave with the ring finger, then deaden the fourth string with your index finger on the downstroke and then use it to pull off the harmonic afterward" subtlety of the running rhythm, here he has you play the melody note strongly (with a right-hand finger instead of the thumb, which is occupied with the rhythm) and then it pulls off the third string harmonic underneath. You've got to have some pretty fantastic control of your fingers to do this, but when you "get it" you hear it right away, and it's amazing.
And this is just the beginning of the subtleties, I think. I am not yet sure if the score is 100% consistent, as it does not always jibe with my ears, but one of the things he might be doing is--get this--doing this "pull off the harmonic with an 'extra' finger while the ring finger maintains the barre at the octave" technique as a double-stop, with one finger pulling off above the octave and one below it, on adjacent strings. HFS. I know what the basic sound should be (it's very strong) but I'm not convinced I've got it yet, so will reserve judgment until I get some more time and a little study of the video.
Exciting stuff--it's a beautiful piece in an unusual tuning, with Mongrain's style all over it. Worth studying, and I look forward to "getting it" enough that I can perform it.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Discovered DGAD triads.
So after all the initial thinking about the DGAD concept, I finally got the chance to sit down and find some triads with my fingers, in real time.
On first impression at least: me likey.
It's pretty logical. I started with the top three strings (so, GAD) and my primary "learning box": closed position, advance the chord tone on each string for each inversion. In only a couple of places did it seem like finger gymnastics started to come into play; in that regard these triads are conspicuously easier than the Guitar Craft tuning's intervals (a P5 and m3, as opposed to a M2 and a P4 here, on those top three strings). In the GC tuning, on the top three strings it's actually much easier to produce sevenths than triads. The availability of a quick "tonally useful" barre on all three strings was also pretty common, and I suspect I'd use that in improvising.
It was also quick. I've certainly developed a bit of practice at this "discovering triads" thing, but it seemed quick to permute the shapes to cover major, minor and diminished (and even a really convenient V7 right under the root triad with root on top) in all the inversions. As is my usual wont, I started practicing them "through the scale" in all of the ways I do that: in C, I would first 1) play ascending C, C/E, C/G, then Dm, Dm/F, Dm/A, then Em, Em/G, Em/B, etc., returning to the nut rather than going above the octave; then 2) play all the root inversions (C, Dm, Em, etc.) then all the third inversions (C/E, Dm/F, Em/G, etc.) and all the fifth inversions (C/G, Dm/A, Em/B, etc.); and finally 3) play the ascending scale with the "next available" chord--in C, that is C/G at the nut, then Dm/A (2fr), then Em/G (nut), F/A (2fr), G (nut), Am (2fr), Bdim (3fr), and then the next C in root inversion at the fifth fret...followed by Dm (7fr), Em/B (4fr), F/C (5fr), G/B (4fr), Am/C (5fr), Bdim/D (7fr), leading into C/E (9fr), Dm/F (10fr), Em (9fr), F (10fr), G/D (7fr), Am/E (9fr), Bdim/F (10fr), and concluding with the C/G at the octave. It flows really nicely.
A little practice with these. Next, I'll see how things differ when using the DGA strings, rather than the GAD ones. Different voicings in the same "fret positions"; it will just be the fingerings which may change.
Then, diatonic sevenths, both across three strings and four. I've already practiced a little bit with permuting the triads directly, as that is often exactly the musical effect I want, but this will deserve more study.
Regarding the CGDGAD tuning which my interest in this topic is built around (see here), it looks like I may want to start thinking more generally in terms of three-adjacent-string chords; with that tuning I've got four different groups of 'em, and only one with the same string interval throughout. A lot of possibility but also a lot of stuff to internalize. The three-string-chord concept will also apply much more directly to the fretless, and there's more possibility of having another left-hand finger available that way. And as Jethro Burns first taught me, three-string chords are easier to alter on the fly.
More as it comes, but for now I admit: triads make me happy. :-)
On first impression at least: me likey.
It's pretty logical. I started with the top three strings (so, GAD) and my primary "learning box": closed position, advance the chord tone on each string for each inversion. In only a couple of places did it seem like finger gymnastics started to come into play; in that regard these triads are conspicuously easier than the Guitar Craft tuning's intervals (a P5 and m3, as opposed to a M2 and a P4 here, on those top three strings). In the GC tuning, on the top three strings it's actually much easier to produce sevenths than triads. The availability of a quick "tonally useful" barre on all three strings was also pretty common, and I suspect I'd use that in improvising.
It was also quick. I've certainly developed a bit of practice at this "discovering triads" thing, but it seemed quick to permute the shapes to cover major, minor and diminished (and even a really convenient V7 right under the root triad with root on top) in all the inversions. As is my usual wont, I started practicing them "through the scale" in all of the ways I do that: in C, I would first 1) play ascending C, C/E, C/G, then Dm, Dm/F, Dm/A, then Em, Em/G, Em/B, etc., returning to the nut rather than going above the octave; then 2) play all the root inversions (C, Dm, Em, etc.) then all the third inversions (C/E, Dm/F, Em/G, etc.) and all the fifth inversions (C/G, Dm/A, Em/B, etc.); and finally 3) play the ascending scale with the "next available" chord--in C, that is C/G at the nut, then Dm/A (2fr), then Em/G (nut), F/A (2fr), G (nut), Am (2fr), Bdim (3fr), and then the next C in root inversion at the fifth fret...followed by Dm (7fr), Em/B (4fr), F/C (5fr), G/B (4fr), Am/C (5fr), Bdim/D (7fr), leading into C/E (9fr), Dm/F (10fr), Em (9fr), F (10fr), G/D (7fr), Am/E (9fr), Bdim/F (10fr), and concluding with the C/G at the octave. It flows really nicely.
A little practice with these. Next, I'll see how things differ when using the DGA strings, rather than the GAD ones. Different voicings in the same "fret positions"; it will just be the fingerings which may change.
Then, diatonic sevenths, both across three strings and four. I've already practiced a little bit with permuting the triads directly, as that is often exactly the musical effect I want, but this will deserve more study.
Regarding the CGDGAD tuning which my interest in this topic is built around (see here), it looks like I may want to start thinking more generally in terms of three-adjacent-string chords; with that tuning I've got four different groups of 'em, and only one with the same string interval throughout. A lot of possibility but also a lot of stuff to internalize. The three-string-chord concept will also apply much more directly to the fretless, and there's more possibility of having another left-hand finger available that way. And as Jethro Burns first taught me, three-string chords are easier to alter on the fly.
More as it comes, but for now I admit: triads make me happy. :-)
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Avishai Cohen, according to Pandora
Avishai Cohen's thoroughly enjoyable "Nu Nu" just came up on Pandora. (Link here; be advised that the sample is not really representative.) Perhaps it was the snarkicist in me, but I just had to know why Pandora included the piece. Here ya go:
Well, at least they included "odd meter" and "minor tonality" as quantifiable attributes, but even then, is "minor tonality" accurate when the primary scale employs a minor second and a major third? And if "a twelve-eight time signature" is a viable attribute in another tune, how hard is it to add another one for, say, "seven-four"? (Keeping "odd meter" is not bad, just add the specific tag too.)
The rest is kinda funny. Apparently "acoustic piano accompaniment" was worth mentioning (and just a bit wrong; the piano plays the main figures, while being decorated by the bass and whatever instrument prompted the "unique instrumentation" reference...I'd guess oud based on the sound, but could well be wrong), but not the instruments that give the piece its essential texture, mood and identity. (The bass in this piece is simply magnificent, and the "oud" sound plays beautifully against it. Their improvisations in and around the Hebrew scale just come alive.)
I've got no idea what "light drumming" is. Do you?
"Based on what you've told us so far", there is absolutely no reason to recommend something to me based upon the presence of drums of any kind--or piano, for that matter. My patterns (for this station, which I intend to be fairly narrow) for thumbs-upping and thumbs-downing tunes should easily reveal that the number of songs I've thumbed up that do have drums are countable on two hands (and almost all of those will be tabla pieces), and the number that I've thumbed down that have drums are well over 50% of the thumb-down total. Same with piano. (Think "jazz piano trios" and "blues and folk singers" here, which still seem to reliably follow anything by John Zorn/Avishai Cohen and Davy Graham, respectively.)
Incidentally, when one looks up the tags for "Nu Nu", one finds a 100% correspondence with the list presented above. So: it matches me with every attribute listed. (Other tunes show a subset of the total for "based on what you've told us so far"; although these often seem to be more random than data-driven, it is not the case that all songs list all attributes.)
Look, Pandora: I'd be happy--happy--to have a listing both of the things about the current song that do match things that I've thumbed-up reliably, and also a listing of the things in the song that are different from what I've thumbed-up. That might be a good way to expand one's horizons. But the system regularly suggests that I've established a pattern of wanting to hear protest folk, popular blues, piano, drums, and most astonishingly, vocals. The degree of "fail" in that is impressive; it suggests rather that you haven't been listening to "what I've told you" at all.
And yet, between these fits of inexplicable (and repeated) connecting of unrelated dots, I continue to get some really great music from the service--did I not find both Avishai Cohen and Davy Graham in the first place, from an origin point of Dan Crary?--so it's not like it's all wrong.
Please, try and improve the data-driven excludes. My suggested start is to recognize that when someone reliably thwacks every single vocal tune that has ever come up in the station, he just might not want to listen to vocals. (Hint: it's not a "by artist" thing. Some people play multiple kinds of music, singing on some and not singing on others. If the attribute belongs to the song rather than the artist, you'll significantly reduce your false hits.)
Well, at least they included "odd meter" and "minor tonality" as quantifiable attributes, but even then, is "minor tonality" accurate when the primary scale employs a minor second and a major third? And if "a twelve-eight time signature" is a viable attribute in another tune, how hard is it to add another one for, say, "seven-four"? (Keeping "odd meter" is not bad, just add the specific tag too.)
The rest is kinda funny. Apparently "acoustic piano accompaniment" was worth mentioning (and just a bit wrong; the piano plays the main figures, while being decorated by the bass and whatever instrument prompted the "unique instrumentation" reference...I'd guess oud based on the sound, but could well be wrong), but not the instruments that give the piece its essential texture, mood and identity. (The bass in this piece is simply magnificent, and the "oud" sound plays beautifully against it. Their improvisations in and around the Hebrew scale just come alive.)
I've got no idea what "light drumming" is. Do you?
"Based on what you've told us so far", there is absolutely no reason to recommend something to me based upon the presence of drums of any kind--or piano, for that matter. My patterns (for this station, which I intend to be fairly narrow) for thumbs-upping and thumbs-downing tunes should easily reveal that the number of songs I've thumbed up that do have drums are countable on two hands (and almost all of those will be tabla pieces), and the number that I've thumbed down that have drums are well over 50% of the thumb-down total. Same with piano. (Think "jazz piano trios" and "blues and folk singers" here, which still seem to reliably follow anything by John Zorn/Avishai Cohen and Davy Graham, respectively.)
Incidentally, when one looks up the tags for "Nu Nu", one finds a 100% correspondence with the list presented above. So: it matches me with every attribute listed. (Other tunes show a subset of the total for "based on what you've told us so far"; although these often seem to be more random than data-driven, it is not the case that all songs list all attributes.)
Look, Pandora: I'd be happy--happy--to have a listing both of the things about the current song that do match things that I've thumbed-up reliably, and also a listing of the things in the song that are different from what I've thumbed-up. That might be a good way to expand one's horizons. But the system regularly suggests that I've established a pattern of wanting to hear protest folk, popular blues, piano, drums, and most astonishingly, vocals. The degree of "fail" in that is impressive; it suggests rather that you haven't been listening to "what I've told you" at all.
And yet, between these fits of inexplicable (and repeated) connecting of unrelated dots, I continue to get some really great music from the service--did I not find both Avishai Cohen and Davy Graham in the first place, from an origin point of Dan Crary?--so it's not like it's all wrong.
Please, try and improve the data-driven excludes. My suggested start is to recognize that when someone reliably thwacks every single vocal tune that has ever come up in the station, he just might not want to listen to vocals. (Hint: it's not a "by artist" thing. Some people play multiple kinds of music, singing on some and not singing on others. If the attribute belongs to the song rather than the artist, you'll significantly reduce your false hits.)
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
The DADGAD revelation (really, the DGAD revelation)
Dude. It may well be that the rest of the world knows all about this already, but I think I just "got" the huge value of the DADGAD tuning (or at least the DGAD part).
For the investment of selectively ignoring a string and going to the next one, you can
Note, too, that in the DGAD sequence you have two pairs of separated fifths available: DxA, and GxD. Why lookee, that's V and I with a G tonic, and I and IV with a D. (Major or minor, again take your pick.)
For fingerstyle (which is really waking me up to some of these ideas), the concept is even more appealing, since notes on these non-adjacent strings can be easily sounded together. And get this: if I take that CGDGAD tuning and add a single Hipshot detuner to the third string, bringing it down to F, the open strings (and thus all those gorgeous open-string harmonics) become CGDFAD...and that gives me two three-string blocks with different Dm voicings (DFA and FAD, all in one octave!), not to mention "FA" as the relative major's root-and-third notes. "FAD" is in fact the exact same intervallic relationship as the standard tuning's top strings, just a whole step lower. As I've been discovering recently, that's a beautiful and useful voicing.
I've been trying to have it all, of course. Melodically, because I first learned relationships in fifths (Guitar Craft's "new standard" tuning and then mandolin), I want to have that available for improvising, and four ascending fifths covers that just about as well as it can be covered.
Next on the importance list is to have useful open-string harmonics for tapping and fingerstyle accents; the standard tuning's "inverted fifth" that puts the root on top is hugely useful in this regard, and having either the m3 or the sus4 below that root, with supporting open strings below that, is great.
Third, Michael Manring has really turned me on to the idea of detuning and retuning during a piece; most people fixate on either the bass and/or treble string for that, but how about turning that idea upside down a bit and having the third string move...between a m3 and a sus4? I think that just might work*.
As yet another item in the mix (as if there weren't enough), I'm fascinated by the partial capo concept, which provides open strings for droning and accents but which does not disturb the string intervals for stopped notes. (So, for example, if for my tuning of CGDGAD I did a partial capo of 220000, I get a true DADGAD on the "open strings", but if I want to improvise, I simply play the notes where they are in CGDGAD. The only "affected" notes are below the capo. That's intriguing, and if there does prove to be a drawback there, it would be that by capoing some strings you do change the available open-string harmonics. Then again, that might prove to be an unexpected tool.)
And finally, there's quite a bit of music for DADGAD out there; just between Davy Graham (who seems to have pioneered it as a solution to playing non-Western music) and Michael Hedges (the Aerial Boundaries tuning is a simple but clever variation, C2-C3-D3-G3-A3-D4, almost a "double DGAD" since there are now three pairs of separated fifths, but at the expense of the CGDA sequence I want), I can certainly say that people I respect consider it a serious part of the vocabulary!
At any rate, I may have to string one of these git-tawr things up and give it a serious test. The idea of a true "standard tuning" that permits logical thinking when improvising, while also permitting flexible changes to open strings and providing useful open-string harmonics, is really attractive, and this idea has more nice features than anything I've seen thus far.
Jeff Cooper had his Scout Rifle; maybe his quest for the pinnacle of generalization just got under my skin beyond the realm of, er, "simple combustion engines". I'd be real happy with that explanation. (I'm not looking for "inventor" status--I'm quite sure that others have been here before--but rather, like Col. Cooper, I'm interested in arranging the best of what others have done, for my own purposes!)
_____________________
*For those who haven't looked into it: there are considerations of available physical space for the Hipshot Xtender detuners, and it is impractical to simply use detuners on all the pegs of a conventional guitar headstock--they need too much room. Here, I'm looking at leaving roots alone, and featuring two mid-scale notes instead...although I may also consider a 6th string Xtender, to allow the really nice convenience of pulling the C note up to D; for scales that feature a m7, that could even be done during playing to go between the m7 and the root. On a 3-and-3 headstock, one detuner per side should work fine.
For the investment of selectively ignoring a string and going to the next one, you can
- think of fifths-based scales normally (!!!),
- sound multiple open-string harmonics with the first string either representing the root ("GAD" as Dsus, "AD" as D or Dm), the fifth ("GxD" as G or Gm, or even "GAD" as Gsus2), or even the fourth ("AD" as Asus)...ideas can get crazier from there if you dip into the major-third harmonic too, and
- you get some really nifty options for close chord voicings in the upper register, while maintaining a wider separation in the bass where it does the most good.
Note, too, that in the DGAD sequence you have two pairs of separated fifths available: DxA, and GxD. Why lookee, that's V and I with a G tonic, and I and IV with a D. (Major or minor, again take your pick.)
For fingerstyle (which is really waking me up to some of these ideas), the concept is even more appealing, since notes on these non-adjacent strings can be easily sounded together. And get this: if I take that CGDGAD tuning and add a single Hipshot detuner to the third string, bringing it down to F, the open strings (and thus all those gorgeous open-string harmonics) become CGDFAD...and that gives me two three-string blocks with different Dm voicings (DFA and FAD, all in one octave!), not to mention "FA" as the relative major's root-and-third notes. "FAD" is in fact the exact same intervallic relationship as the standard tuning's top strings, just a whole step lower. As I've been discovering recently, that's a beautiful and useful voicing.
I've been trying to have it all, of course. Melodically, because I first learned relationships in fifths (Guitar Craft's "new standard" tuning and then mandolin), I want to have that available for improvising, and four ascending fifths covers that just about as well as it can be covered.
Next on the importance list is to have useful open-string harmonics for tapping and fingerstyle accents; the standard tuning's "inverted fifth" that puts the root on top is hugely useful in this regard, and having either the m3 or the sus4 below that root, with supporting open strings below that, is great.
Third, Michael Manring has really turned me on to the idea of detuning and retuning during a piece; most people fixate on either the bass and/or treble string for that, but how about turning that idea upside down a bit and having the third string move...between a m3 and a sus4? I think that just might work*.
As yet another item in the mix (as if there weren't enough), I'm fascinated by the partial capo concept, which provides open strings for droning and accents but which does not disturb the string intervals for stopped notes. (So, for example, if for my tuning of CGDGAD I did a partial capo of 220000, I get a true DADGAD on the "open strings", but if I want to improvise, I simply play the notes where they are in CGDGAD. The only "affected" notes are below the capo. That's intriguing, and if there does prove to be a drawback there, it would be that by capoing some strings you do change the available open-string harmonics. Then again, that might prove to be an unexpected tool.)
And finally, there's quite a bit of music for DADGAD out there; just between Davy Graham (who seems to have pioneered it as a solution to playing non-Western music) and Michael Hedges (the Aerial Boundaries tuning is a simple but clever variation, C2-C3-D3-G3-A3-D4, almost a "double DGAD" since there are now three pairs of separated fifths, but at the expense of the CGDA sequence I want), I can certainly say that people I respect consider it a serious part of the vocabulary!
At any rate, I may have to string one of these git-tawr things up and give it a serious test. The idea of a true "standard tuning" that permits logical thinking when improvising, while also permitting flexible changes to open strings and providing useful open-string harmonics, is really attractive, and this idea has more nice features than anything I've seen thus far.
Jeff Cooper had his Scout Rifle; maybe his quest for the pinnacle of generalization just got under my skin beyond the realm of, er, "simple combustion engines". I'd be real happy with that explanation. (I'm not looking for "inventor" status--I'm quite sure that others have been here before--but rather, like Col. Cooper, I'm interested in arranging the best of what others have done, for my own purposes!)
_____________________
*For those who haven't looked into it: there are considerations of available physical space for the Hipshot Xtender detuners, and it is impractical to simply use detuners on all the pegs of a conventional guitar headstock--they need too much room. Here, I'm looking at leaving roots alone, and featuring two mid-scale notes instead...although I may also consider a 6th string Xtender, to allow the really nice convenience of pulling the C note up to D; for scales that feature a m7, that could even be done during playing to go between the m7 and the root. On a 3-and-3 headstock, one detuner per side should work fine.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Standard tuning observations
In trying to learn a little bit about fingerstyle playing, using the rough-but-functional classical guitar graciously disposed onto me from Steve B., a couple of observations seem worth noting.
This is my first real exploration of the standard guitar tuning (E2-A2-D3-G3-B3-E4), since I have cut my teeth and done all my real learning with the Guitar Craft standard tuning (C2-G2-D3-A3-E4-G4). So, this is probably really old hat to most people, but I find it interesting enough to document. (Please, then, excuse the pedantry.)
I'm trying to learn a right-hand discipline that I do not yet understand, having trained myself to use a flat pick in mostly single-note mode. Consequently, I've been thinking primarily melodically--or at least, monophonically, about how the string intervals should work. It's really helped to have the regular intervals (ascending fifths, in my case), acting as an anchor point to develop and refine my sense of where those notes are, and in this effort it's quite nice if you have regular intervals you can count on.
But lo and behold, in looking more at some of even the simplest exercises of, say, "plucking chords" with thumb and three fingers, alternative ways of looking at this just kinda jump right out. Multiple ways. Polyphonic ways. And so I never really noticed a couple of things about the mojo of the standard tuning, at least from a fingerstylist's point of view:
So I'll be mulling on this one for a while, and hopefully trying a lot out. I do need to find out the essential logic of how fingerstylists play fast melodic lines; if that can be integrated with the very simple things I'm seeing here, then this should be a pretty wild ride.
On a different note, I do notice that I am having a hard time applying these initial fingerstyle exercises to the acoustic fretless, and it seems to be primarily a function of string spacing. I'm starting to get the logic, too, of the classical instrument's string spread at the bridge; the fretless' spread is scant even by electric guitar standards. Maybe that axe will wind up a five-string after all!
Okay, that got documented and my embarrassing secret is out--I may have missed all this before, but I'll start from where I am and go with it now. :-)
This is my first real exploration of the standard guitar tuning (E2-A2-D3-G3-B3-E4), since I have cut my teeth and done all my real learning with the Guitar Craft standard tuning (C2-G2-D3-A3-E4-G4). So, this is probably really old hat to most people, but I find it interesting enough to document. (Please, then, excuse the pedantry.)
I'm trying to learn a right-hand discipline that I do not yet understand, having trained myself to use a flat pick in mostly single-note mode. Consequently, I've been thinking primarily melodically--or at least, monophonically, about how the string intervals should work. It's really helped to have the regular intervals (ascending fifths, in my case), acting as an anchor point to develop and refine my sense of where those notes are, and in this effort it's quite nice if you have regular intervals you can count on.
But lo and behold, in looking more at some of even the simplest exercises of, say, "plucking chords" with thumb and three fingers, alternative ways of looking at this just kinda jump right out. Multiple ways. Polyphonic ways. And so I never really noticed a couple of things about the mojo of the standard tuning, at least from a fingerstylist's point of view:
- The top three strings are an Em triad, with the m3 in the bass and the root on top. Wholly aside from having a convenient barred minor triad available, for someone who is very interested in open-string harmonics, here's a convenient way to play three strings at once and get a minor chord in harmonics, in a dramatic voicing, and the technique can quickly become automatic. (A little improvising here made it immediately obvious how much has been done using exactly that little tidbit. Again: duh.)
- Strings 4, 3, and 2 comprise a G major triad, with fifth in bass and third on top. Further, that chord happens to be the relative major of the above Em of 3, 2, and 1. Now that is handy, again especially when you may want to ring out the open strings or open-string harmonics. And again, it falls right under the "home position" of the i-m-a fingers.
- Breaking things down further into two-string pairs (as I did a chord-plucking exercise which featured "blocking" two fingers against the thumb, instead of three) yielded another way of looking at this. Strings 2-1 are either an ascending fourth from I to IV, or an ascending fourth from V to I. I'd never thought of looking at it that latter way, even though I've known for a long time that a fourth is an inverted fifth. The voicing of V-I is a powerful voicing, especially on rising harmonics. Double duh. And then, suddenly, I could see how it is that the major interval in the otherwise-all-fourths tuning, actually produces a very useful minor chord once you exchange roots.
So I'll be mulling on this one for a while, and hopefully trying a lot out. I do need to find out the essential logic of how fingerstylists play fast melodic lines; if that can be integrated with the very simple things I'm seeing here, then this should be a pretty wild ride.
On a different note, I do notice that I am having a hard time applying these initial fingerstyle exercises to the acoustic fretless, and it seems to be primarily a function of string spacing. I'm starting to get the logic, too, of the classical instrument's string spread at the bridge; the fretless' spread is scant even by electric guitar standards. Maybe that axe will wind up a five-string after all!
Okay, that got documented and my embarrassing secret is out--I may have missed all this before, but I'll start from where I am and go with it now. :-)
Friday, April 15, 2011
Another inexplicable Pandora moment
Apologies, just felt the need to bitch for a moment. This happened three times yesterday, and again this morning. Now I've got nothing personal against one Duncan Browne, but check out why he was just selected for my playlist:
As I've said before, this is after a number of months of 100% whac-a-mole on anything with "a vocal-centric aesthetic". It's hard to get more "fail" than that. As well, Pandora's "folk" tag seems to be one of several "I don't know what to do with this piece, so I'll stick it in this bucket" classifications, almost as annoying as "world music", whatever in the holy living hell that means. (I dig all kinds of music from all over the world, and you know what? It's all different enough to have separate freakin' names! And seriously, what counts as "world music" in, say, Armenia?)
Bela Bartok wrote "folk" music, but that doesn't mean that a Bartok fan wants to hear Peter, Paul and Mary knockoffs all day. Likewise, someone looking for Joan Baez might get a little freaked out at a microtonal maqam, especially one with adjacent large and small intervals.
And so, despite really enjoying the things that Davy Graham did with his instrumental music, I really truly am not interested in having something like "Anji", "Buhaina Chant", or "Mustapha" followed by a Dylan-knockoff protest singer. I'm really not, and it would be awful nice for Pandora to stop doing that so reliably.
Okay, vent's done now. I'll try to work more on Aerial Boundaries today at lunch, to make up for it. :-)
As I've said before, this is after a number of months of 100% whac-a-mole on anything with "a vocal-centric aesthetic". It's hard to get more "fail" than that. As well, Pandora's "folk" tag seems to be one of several "I don't know what to do with this piece, so I'll stick it in this bucket" classifications, almost as annoying as "world music", whatever in the holy living hell that means. (I dig all kinds of music from all over the world, and you know what? It's all different enough to have separate freakin' names! And seriously, what counts as "world music" in, say, Armenia?)
Bela Bartok wrote "folk" music, but that doesn't mean that a Bartok fan wants to hear Peter, Paul and Mary knockoffs all day. Likewise, someone looking for Joan Baez might get a little freaked out at a microtonal maqam, especially one with adjacent large and small intervals.
And so, despite really enjoying the things that Davy Graham did with his instrumental music, I really truly am not interested in having something like "Anji", "Buhaina Chant", or "Mustapha" followed by a Dylan-knockoff protest singer. I'm really not, and it would be awful nice for Pandora to stop doing that so reliably.
Okay, vent's done now. I'll try to work more on Aerial Boundaries today at lunch, to make up for it. :-)
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Pandora Radio: a pedantic vent
Recently a friend described Pandora Radio's classification ontology as just wrong, but with no explanation. Needing something a little more concrete than "just wrong", I've started more actively looking at the tags that have been applied to some of the tunes that get put in front of me, both good and bad. Based on just a little of this, I must conclude that Nathan has a point. Today, Pandora selected a John Zorn piece based on a stated series of about twelve tags, not one of which could not also be applied to drippy lounge jazz, three-chord folk, or pretty much anything from the Classical period.
If they can't even figure out what makes John Zorn unique, then maybe several months of my whac-a-moling piano trios, Kenny G knockoffs and folk'n'blues singers really doesn't teach them anything. (Okay, I admit I'm demanding when it comes to stylists. But seriously, has it not yet occurred to the "intelligence engine" that I have reliably whacked EVERY SINGLE vocal tune that has come across my screen, usually within five seconds of hearing the singer's voice? No, I've got nothing against singing, but see, I'd like this to be an instrumental station. That would seem to be a rather fundamental sort of tag, don'tcha think? But no, and it's invariably with the blues and folk singers. Guys, I don't need Pandora radio to get my fill of that, ya dig?)
That said, it seems to come in spurts. It will stick on the "percussive acoustic guitar" theme for a little while, then a Davy Graham tune will go by and suddenly the folkies and bluesmen show up. Whac, whac, whac, this is not a blues station, people! Then it kicks loose and goes to a Dan Crary, maybe the flamenco/Spanish guitarists for a while, then Avishai Cohen or John Zorn show up, and then it's on with the piano trios and the sheer noisemakers who thought they had John Coltrane or Ornette Coleman totally figured out. Whac, whac, whac.
Sigh. Mostly it's just a minor irritation, from someone who always seems to be firmly ademographic. In the end I'm still mostly happy with Pandora. Thus far I like the interface a LOT better than last.fm, and I'll always be indebted to Pandora for awakening me to what Michael Hedges first suggested to my unsuspecting mind.
If they can't even figure out what makes John Zorn unique, then maybe several months of my whac-a-moling piano trios, Kenny G knockoffs and folk'n'blues singers really doesn't teach them anything. (Okay, I admit I'm demanding when it comes to stylists. But seriously, has it not yet occurred to the "intelligence engine" that I have reliably whacked EVERY SINGLE vocal tune that has come across my screen, usually within five seconds of hearing the singer's voice? No, I've got nothing against singing, but see, I'd like this to be an instrumental station. That would seem to be a rather fundamental sort of tag, don'tcha think? But no, and it's invariably with the blues and folk singers. Guys, I don't need Pandora radio to get my fill of that, ya dig?)
That said, it seems to come in spurts. It will stick on the "percussive acoustic guitar" theme for a little while, then a Davy Graham tune will go by and suddenly the folkies and bluesmen show up. Whac, whac, whac, this is not a blues station, people! Then it kicks loose and goes to a Dan Crary, maybe the flamenco/Spanish guitarists for a while, then Avishai Cohen or John Zorn show up, and then it's on with the piano trios and the sheer noisemakers who thought they had John Coltrane or Ornette Coleman totally figured out. Whac, whac, whac.
Sigh. Mostly it's just a minor irritation, from someone who always seems to be firmly ademographic. In the end I'm still mostly happy with Pandora. Thus far I like the interface a LOT better than last.fm, and I'll always be indebted to Pandora for awakening me to what Michael Hedges first suggested to my unsuspecting mind.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Instrument tunings - happy tweaking
Per that last post, it took me longer to get strings on things than I'd expected, and in the interim a couple of things have happened that have made me decide to tweak things a bit. Lemme 'splain. (No, there is too much. Lemme sum up. Yes, I assure you, the following is a summary.)
Ovation. I'd planned to change this one's tuning to work on an Antoine Dufour tune, but then I started working on Aerial Boundaries again, and nope, this sucker's staying in that tuning for a little while longer! And, since Dufour has several pieces that will work with standard tuning and a detuned sixth string (std, drop D, drop C), I'll use a single, other instrument to work on those. (And now, I've found it, sitting right in front of me.)
Classical. Steve Bambakidis donated me the beaten-up classical guitar that he had no use for, and I've been trying to figure out what to do with it. It's rough, but then am I not experimenting? Anyway, I'd thought I'd tune that up to work on Antoine Dufour's piece "Scratch" (via which I would learn how he approaches fingerstyle, and also learn about not only capoing, but partial capoing), but in stringing things up with a set of nylons, the limitations became obvious. Neck is far from perfect, action is not at all ideal, the body fret is of course at 12, and there's a lot going on in "Scratch" that definitively takes advantage of steel strings. And trying to bring a nylon sixth string out of a standard-tension set down to C2 is just...uh...optimistic. But! Now with the burrs on the frets cleaned up a little bit, the neck (really) rough-leveled and a new set of strings, and a decent action in first and second positions, what if I just make this instrument a standard-tuning knockabout? It can serve for guests who want/need standard tuning, and I can use it with all the standard-tuning resources I have for learning standard approaches to fingerstyle/Celtic. I'll just treat EADGBE as another alternate tuning to learn. (I might even some day get jiggy with it and try all fourths, EADGCF, because I'm just that way, and you can get all fourths without bending much. :-) Anyway, the tuning is now standard and the strings are standard-tension ("High Tension") at 43w-35w-30w-40p-32p-28p.
SoloEtte. I've not been perfectly happy with the Bb5 tuning on this axe (it's really cool in a few contexts, but it just feels like too much of a one-trick pony), and so this will become the "learn Dufour" instrument, starting with the "Scratch" tuning (C2-A2-D3-G3-B3-E4) and then migrate to the other pieces; it will be nice to have an instrument that I can work with late at night without upsetting people. I'm happy with this idea. Gauges are 59w-46w-30w-22w-12p-10p.
Fretless. Likewise, I've not been perfectly happy with either the NST tuning on this instrument, nor with the various half-assed options I've worked with so far. So, until I get the chance to fashion another nut/saddle combination (and as a teaser, there is a whole lot of head noise going on about that concept), I'm going to try out DADGAD, but with a twist. I'm going to do "CGCGFC", instead, both going down a whole step and swapping out the whole-step interval but keeping the pitches the same. This little tweak will give me the chance to try out the sus4 tuning concept while still retaining:
Anyway, now I can say that there are two instruments in the house that are in their natural tunings. That's okay, I haven't lost my mind--yet. :-)
Ovation. I'd planned to change this one's tuning to work on an Antoine Dufour tune, but then I started working on Aerial Boundaries again, and nope, this sucker's staying in that tuning for a little while longer! And, since Dufour has several pieces that will work with standard tuning and a detuned sixth string (std, drop D, drop C), I'll use a single, other instrument to work on those. (And now, I've found it, sitting right in front of me.)
Classical. Steve Bambakidis donated me the beaten-up classical guitar that he had no use for, and I've been trying to figure out what to do with it. It's rough, but then am I not experimenting? Anyway, I'd thought I'd tune that up to work on Antoine Dufour's piece "Scratch" (via which I would learn how he approaches fingerstyle, and also learn about not only capoing, but partial capoing), but in stringing things up with a set of nylons, the limitations became obvious. Neck is far from perfect, action is not at all ideal, the body fret is of course at 12, and there's a lot going on in "Scratch" that definitively takes advantage of steel strings. And trying to bring a nylon sixth string out of a standard-tension set down to C2 is just...uh...optimistic. But! Now with the burrs on the frets cleaned up a little bit, the neck (really) rough-leveled and a new set of strings, and a decent action in first and second positions, what if I just make this instrument a standard-tuning knockabout? It can serve for guests who want/need standard tuning, and I can use it with all the standard-tuning resources I have for learning standard approaches to fingerstyle/Celtic. I'll just treat EADGBE as another alternate tuning to learn. (I might even some day get jiggy with it and try all fourths, EADGCF, because I'm just that way, and you can get all fourths without bending much. :-) Anyway, the tuning is now standard and the strings are standard-tension ("High Tension") at 43w-35w-30w-40p-32p-28p.
SoloEtte. I've not been perfectly happy with the Bb5 tuning on this axe (it's really cool in a few contexts, but it just feels like too much of a one-trick pony), and so this will become the "learn Dufour" instrument, starting with the "Scratch" tuning (C2-A2-D3-G3-B3-E4) and then migrate to the other pieces; it will be nice to have an instrument that I can work with late at night without upsetting people. I'm happy with this idea. Gauges are 59w-46w-30w-22w-12p-10p.
Fretless. Likewise, I've not been perfectly happy with either the NST tuning on this instrument, nor with the various half-assed options I've worked with so far. So, until I get the chance to fashion another nut/saddle combination (and as a teaser, there is a whole lot of head noise going on about that concept), I'm going to try out DADGAD, but with a twist. I'm going to do "CGCGFC", instead, both going down a whole step and swapping out the whole-step interval but keeping the pitches the same. This little tweak will give me the chance to try out the sus4 tuning concept while still retaining:
- Three adjacent pairs of general-purpose intervals, for scale work in different registers. (Three of those, strings 6-5, 4-3, and 2-1, are a fifth apart, allowing one-octave-over-two-strings, and one of those, strings 5-4, is a fourth, both leading out of a fifth interval and into another one.
- Top three strings defining the essential sus4 chord for the tuning.
- Root on top.
- Bottom strings defining a power chord.
Anyway, now I can say that there are two instruments in the house that are in their natural tunings. That's okay, I haven't lost my mind--yet. :-)
Monday, March 21, 2011
Current instrument tunings
Because it really is kinda funny. Eight stringed instruments in the house, eight different tunings. Only one instrument is in its natural tuning.
Here's where they're at:
Here's where they're at:
- Mandolin: G3-D4-A4-E5 (natural tuning)
- Strat: C2-G2-D3-A3-E4-G4 (Guitar Craft standard tuning)
- Fretless: Bb1-F2-C3-G3-D4-G4 (experiment - 5ths with 4th on top)
- Banjo: G4-G2-D3-Bb3-F4 (experiment - open Gm7)
- SoloEtte: Bb1-F2-Bb2-F3-Bb3-F4 (experiment - open Bb5)
- Ibanez dreadnought: B1-F#2-D3-F#3-C#4-C#4 ("Raindigger" tuning - open Bm9)
- Ovation: C2-C3-D3-G3-A3-D4 ("Aerial Boundaries" tuning)
- Classical: C2-A2-D3-G3-B3-E4 ("Scratch" tuning: partial capo on 3fr, strings 1-5)
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Friday, March 11, 2011
The genre: 'violent acoustic' guitar
The final thought in that last post got me thinking. So the genre, for lack of a better term, is either "percussive acoustic" or (per Michael Hedges) "violent acoustic". Right now at least--these folks are still delightfully new to me--the critic in me would say:
___________________
Of interest: I'm not yet aware of any fretless players in here. Yes, I know that frets give the percussive effects a great deal of their identity, but I can assure you that both fretless and nylon strings can produce similar effects. Kaki King aside, there also seems to be a great deal of room for melodic improvisation in here, and I am curious to see where my love of double-harmonic scales might lead--fretted or fretless.
It's a hell of a time for innovation on the basic instrument. Keep in mind that Pandora radio has also brought me to Dan Crary during this same time, and as astonishing as his work is (still can't believe I went this many years without noticing it--especially his 12-string work and some stellar compositions), what I just can't stop churning through is the genre Michael Hedges brought to the mainstream.
Wow!
- Andy McKee and Antoine Dufour are the standout composers. There is certainly some head music in there, but (like Michael Hedges) there is also some music in there.
- Andy McKee and Don Ross can set the groove like no one else.
- Antoine Dufour steals the show for the mind-boggling (and I do mean ridiculous) technique.
- Erik Mongrain is a mood master, and rates honorable mention on both some compositions and grooves. He also appears to be a comfortable improviser. His new "lap-tapping" direction should prove to be really interesting.
- Kaki King is the one most likely to throw in the sort of tongue-in-cheek tonal abuse that I love so much. I think she may be the premier improviser, at least in my sense of the word.
- Don Ross is the ambassador, the salesman. I think he's also been the one most encumbered with comparisons to Michael Hedges, which is unfair.
- Andy McKee is the Sam Bush of the genre. You just can not help but smile when you watch him play. He writes fantastic songs and he's just plain fun.
- Stephen Bennett is like the Jon Anderson of the genre--he's the spirit lifter. A beautiful aesthetic and apparently a heavy influence on several of the above.
- Preston Reed is the workhorse. He's been doing this for quite a while, he's solid and really fun to either watch or hear.
___________________
Of interest: I'm not yet aware of any fretless players in here. Yes, I know that frets give the percussive effects a great deal of their identity, but I can assure you that both fretless and nylon strings can produce similar effects. Kaki King aside, there also seems to be a great deal of room for melodic improvisation in here, and I am curious to see where my love of double-harmonic scales might lead--fretted or fretless.
It's a hell of a time for innovation on the basic instrument. Keep in mind that Pandora radio has also brought me to Dan Crary during this same time, and as astonishing as his work is (still can't believe I went this many years without noticing it--especially his 12-string work and some stellar compositions), what I just can't stop churning through is the genre Michael Hedges brought to the mainstream.
Wow!
Antoine Dufour
I think my brain just sprung a leak. HFS:
Among the heavy hitters operating today, Dufour stands out to me both for his absolutely mesmerising technical virtuosity, and also his compositional skills. Right now I'd give him top bill in composition along with Andy McKee.
Among the heavy hitters operating today, Dufour stands out to me both for his absolutely mesmerising technical virtuosity, and also his compositional skills. Right now I'd give him top bill in composition along with Andy McKee.
Erik Mongrain
Credit Pandora radio for getting Erik Mongrain in front of me. After the third or fourth "Man, what is this? I gotta know!" in which his name was the answer, I took a look on YouTube.
Wow.
I think we've got another heavy hitter out there. His voice is unique, and how's this for creating a mood:
Add to Antoine Dufour, Andy McKee, Don Ross, and of course Michael Hedges. Great innovators are at work now!
Wow.
I think we've got another heavy hitter out there. His voice is unique, and how's this for creating a mood:
Add to Antoine Dufour, Andy McKee, Don Ross, and of course Michael Hedges. Great innovators are at work now!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
