An interesting take on MIDI guitar.

Hat tip to David Neale for showing me this:

I've got no idea if it makes any sense for what I'm trying to do, but I'm going to put it on the radar for a while and chew on the concept.

Brubeck, Take Five.

Stumbled across this YT of Dave Brubeck's quartet performing "Take Five" only a few years after it was first released.

Most interesting.  My first impression is that it's too fast to let the tune really breathe.  For me at least, one of the many brilliances of "Take Five" as originally recorded is that it is just at the edge of as-fast-as-possible, but distinctly under it.  Whenever I sit down with the piece myself, I tend to like it slower and slower, regardless of my ability to play it.  There are so many little ridiculously tasty nuances that Desmond puts into both the melody and the blowing...and they necessarily race past, here.

Now, that said:  I quite love this.  You can get a much greater appreciation for Morello by watching him, and he is on fine display here.  Desmond does a great job at handling the higher tempo, although to my ear he sounds like he feels rushed, even when blowing.  It's great to watch Brubeck play, even though this tune is not a vehicle for him.  I don't know much about Gene Wright;  from long listening I would pay him the compliment that I never really notice the bass in Brubeck's recordings.  (I tend to think of bass players in three simple categories:  the ones who grate on me, the ones I never "notice", and the ones that may not in fact be human.  That middle category may be the working definition of excellence in craft.)  As a group:  pretty solid, to be sure!

Anyway, I wanted the YT to be available here.

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.  :-)

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.

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:

• 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)

I guess we'll see what changes first!  :-)

PowerTab editor

PowerTab software (www.power-tab.net) is an editor and playback engine for stringed instrument tablature. It has several drawbacks but the price is right (it's free, or rather what is technically called "card-ware") and it is pretty easy to use. I've used it for years now, for the following purposes:

• Playback: I can control a PowerTab score to play some or all of its parts at appropriate volumes, in MIDI format. This is great for practicing exercises or learning a new part.
• Scoring/Arranging: I can use PowerTab to score up a progression or a song, writing in parts for multiple instruments, and then send the resultant file to partners; in this way we can work on a piece remotely, making our in-person meetings much more efficient.
• Composing: I've written a couple of pieces using PowerTab; having an editor is great for making on-the-fly changes (how would this sound?), and when writing for multiple parts, having the immediate playback option is nice.
  

(A mandolin exercise in the Editor)

The editor does have a couple of drawbacks. The biggest of these is that it is Windows-only. There are also a few editing options that are a bit clunky, and the score "checker", which checks your score for correctness in rhythm, musical direction symbols, etc., can seem a little heavy-handed on occasion. In some instances, the standard music notation (which it displays above the tablature staff) actually notates incorrectly; that is, there are times when that note really should be called D# and not Eb. And finally, there are some limitations and quirks that you might expect with any software, that can seem like they're slowing you down--however, you don't seem to notice those unless you're really using the software pretty fully, which isn't a bad thing!

Those drawbacks aside, PowerTab is quite helpful for personal use (I probably have created 100+ scores at the time of this writing, and I assure you I would not suffer it if it didn't work!), and as a common tool for working on ensemble pieces. For sharing with other musicians who know notation but not tablature, and for those of us who like to try and build our knowledge of notation, having the standard staff above the tablature staff really is nice. It imports from and exports to MIDI, and allows you to set up instruments from 3-7 strings with different MIDI playback patches (e.g., steel-string guitar, nylon guitar, violin, banjo, piano, etc.). You can set up your own chord diagrams and write in the rhythm slash bar rather than in the tablature staff, etc.

I'll try to link back to this post whenever I make reference to PowerTab (certainly if and when I post a score), so that anyone who is interested can get pointed in the right direction. I am starting to use other music software in addition to PowerTab, but it still fills a nice need, and you can't beat the price. :-)