Sign in to follow this  
Ramon

Eddie Vedder technique

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I don't see it as "this is bad" and "this is good"... either. Your really not listening to me... you hearing what you want to hear. As I said, It might be sincere, it might be cool, you might like it, sometimes I do too... but that does not excuse someone from being responsible for honing their craft on technique, which we already defined.

There never is any situation or circumstance that would justify anyone, in any discipline or art to not work on the techniques of that endeavor to improve themselves and expand their options for expression.

Stop making an argument for ignorance, its ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see it as "this is bad" and "this is good"... either. Your really not listening to me... you hearing what you want to hear. As I said, It might be sincere, it might be cool, you might like it, sometimes I do too... but that does not excuse someone from being responsible for honing their craft on technique, which we already defined.

There never is any situation or circumstance that would justify anyone, in any discipline or art to not work on the techniques of that endeavor to improve themselves and expand their options for expression.

Stop making an argument for ignorance, its ignorant.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Ignorance and education are equally valuable to me when it comes to art. It shapes perspective, and I don't think we can have enough perspectives in art. If everyone had the same education, it would hurt music. Why do you think singers sound different in every culture throughout history? Why does traditional African Music sound different than traditional western music, which sounds different from traditional Chinese Music or traditional middle eastern music? Why is their indigenous music period? People have identities, culture, education, all of these things. These are good things, and trying to be an imperialist 'you must learn my culture' about art isn't the best solution to helping people achieve their goals.

If you respect people's diversity, and help them achieve the goals they want to achieve rather than try to tell them the goals they should want to achieve, I feel that is best. If someone wants to be a tuvan throat singer like their cultural identity demands, we should help them achieve their goals if we can, rather than forcing a western voice on them because of some kind of notion of superior technique.

We should help people achieve what they want to achieve as healthily possible, not what our culture, our tastes, or our beliefs dictate. As a student, that's what I wanted from a teacher, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And then it is somehow distorted back to the previous argument of "value" outside techinique.

Outside an objective technical approach, it will fall into subjective argument trying to justify your personal taste for singers. There is no correlation between style, passion or "uniqueness" and technical trainning, not even "perfection" as you say.

Now, I am really curious:

What difference does this information makes?

Lets pretend that yes, Vedder was an opera tenor before Pearl Jam. So what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its important, as how people's identity shapes their artistic pursuits, Felipe. If you grew up in a small African community, living in that indigenous population, and you developed your own musical tastes and values along with your own technique, learning how to sing and play music as per your own intuition and culture, and when you came to say America, everyone told you that what you enjoyed was the 'improper way to make music? You sang wrong with your smaller octave voices, your non western tone, your 'weird drum beats that are not 4/4 time or start on the end of the beat.'

And your children went to school and were told that western classical tradition and scientific excellence was the proper way to make music, as this technique is 'technically superior to what you've always done' and you must learn it for those reasons alone? What would you make of this?

I think it destroys culture. It's already destroyed so much value in the world, where basically everything is the equivalent of a Mcdonald's expansion, encroaching on unique culture and identity for the sake of making a buck. I think we should fight to protect each other's identities and help each other achieve goals safely, even if they are not our own. Especially if they are not our own as those are the times to become even more excited about helping diversity survive and thrive in a homogeneous climate.

Getting aggressive about some cultural value of what is the 'proper' way to make music, is dangerous. In that sense, I'm totally fine with what Eddie is doing, but if I could help him in some way achieve more of his goals, I'd do that. He's finding meaning in what he does, and working as hard as he knows how to in creating the music he wants to make, just like those supposedly ignorant people in Africa, and that's good enough. That's what music is about to me and anything that can get someone to this point is exactly what they need.

Come to think of it, I'd help Geoff Tate with anything that achieved his goal too if he came here. But if he went to Africa and started telling everyone who didn't sing like him they were doing it wrong, I'd take issue. He knows his place and it's a very good place to be! He might even teach people who want to learn sing in his style or technique, some incredibly valuable things about voice while achieving this, but seeing as how I think he says David Bowie is one of his favorite singers, like myself, I think he's pretty happy the way things are and wouldn't feel like calling Bowie an ignorant, no technique slacker for singing how he does based on Bowie's entire lifetime acclimation of identity. That's just not what singing is about. If Bowie asked for help, he might try to help, and that's how I see the situation too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Killer, in a virtual sense, you seem to be "hearing" what you want to hear from my arguments... Ignorance has no value, unless it is your enemies that suffer from it.

trying to be an imperialist 'you must learn my culture' about art isn't the best solution to helping people achieve their goals.

LOL, you funny dude, I'm glad I'm not married to you... I feel like I'm arguing with my x-wife, just throw any darn thing out there that has "buzz" with sweeping exagerations and distorted context is a method of arguing that we all unfortunately have to contend with sometimes... Killer, stay on point.

The reason all these styles, music, cultures, etc... are all different and unique is something that we may want to leave up to Joseph Campbell to pontificate for us, but I do know one thing in my humble wisdom, its not because of ignorance.

I think we understand what you are trying to say... you're trying to say , "there is value in spontaneity, there is value in the innocence and random order of things if left to fall to the floor without process and prediction. Out of that, we can enjoy a sense of sincerity... similar to the joy of seeing the potential or glimmer of brilliance in a child's work of art... and yet, its primitive and needs technique and experience to develop further.

But this is not Ignorance. Ignorance is defined as:

Ignorance is a form of incompetence —Natsume Söseki

Ignorance is like a delicate exotic fruit; touch it and the bloom is gone —Oscar Wilde

Ignorance like a fire does burn —Bayard Taylor

Ignorant as dirt —Karl Shapiro

A man with little learning is like the frog who thinks its puddle a great sea —Burmese proverb (THATS EDDIE!!!)

There are a great multitude of individuals who are like blind mules, anxious enough to kick, but can’t tell where —Josh Billings

OK now... if ignorance is still valuable to you, then... cool bro... I wish you all the success with that... but I think you will fare better to hone your craft and pursue excellence in all you do, and do it very sincerely.

I hope this helps...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignorance is the lack of knowledge, awareness, or education.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignorance

When people lack certain knowledge, they might take a different path or form a different identity, attaching values to different things or feeling different things. Think of how a blind person creates art (Stevie Wonder) with his lack of knowledge of the visual world. This is generally bad in everything but art (well at least in political situations where decisions need to be made), but in art it has a huge plus side.

In the words of Johnny Cash and his band, 'we made the music we made because we didn't know how to make anything else.' That's valuable. It's just as valuable for the kids in Africa, or the kids in America, or the kids anywhere. It's not more valuable than education, but it is indeed an important component of art and having artists that meet the full spectrum is best, coming from all sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its important, as how people's identity shapes their artistic pursuits, Felipe. If you grew up in a small African community, living in that indigenous population, and you developed your own musical tastes and values along with your own technique, learning how to sing and play music as per your own intuition and culture, and when you came to say America, everyone told you that what you enjoyed was the 'improper way to make music? You sang wrong with your smaller octave voices, your non western tone, your 'weird drum beats that are not 4/4 time or start on the end of the beat.'

And your children went to school and were told that western classical tradition and scientific excellence was the proper way to make music, as this technique is 'technically superior to what you've always done' and you must learn it for those reasons alone? What would you make of this?

I think it destroys culture. It's already destroyed so much value in the world, where basically everything is the equivalent of a Mcdonald's expansion, encroaching on unique culture and identity for the sake of making a buck. I think we should fight to protect each other's identities and help each other achieve goals safely, even if they are not our own. Especially if they are not our own as those are the times to become even more excited about helping diversity survive and thrive in a homogeneous climate.

Getting aggressive about some cultural value of what is the 'proper' way to make music, is dangerous. In that sense, I'm totally fine with what Eddie is doing, but if I could help him in some way achieve more of his goals, I'd do that. He's finding meaning in what he does, and working as hard as he knows how to in creating the music he wants to make, just like those supposedly ignorant people in Africa, and that's good enough. That's what music is about to me and anything that can get someone to this point is exactly what they need.

Come to think of it, I'd help Geoff Tate with anything that achieved his goal too if he came here. But if he went to Africa and started telling everyone who didn't sing like him they were doing it wrong, I'd take issue. He knows his place and it's a very good place to be! He might even teach people who want to learn sing in his style or technique, some incredibly valuable things about voice while achieving this, but seeing as how I think he says David Bowie is one of his favorite singers, like myself, I think he's pretty happy the way things are and wouldn't feel like calling Bowie an ignorant, no technique slacker for singing how he does based on Bowie's entire lifetime acclimation of identity. That's just not what singing is about. If Bowie asked for help, he might try to help, and that's how I see the situation too!

Again its implicit in your text that technical trainning changes identity, not true. Besides that, I dont see what it has to do with the thread. It was said that Vedder has no technique, just that. Should he train? Who cares? Really not my problem and I dont think he cares for my opinion on this matter :P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again its implicit in your text that technical trainning changes identity, not true. Besides that, I dont see what it has to do with the thread. It was said that Vedder has no technique, just that. Should he train? Who cares? Really not my problem and I dont think he cares for my opinion on this matter :P.

So are you saying if we classically trained every person's voice in a tribal community in Africa, they would end up with the same musical identity? Be honest, Felipe. They find their identity from their experiences, and it would shape them. They sing from their culture, their intuition, their traditions, their beliefs. Their ignorance of us. That's valuable.

When it comes to art, what we don't shape is just as important as what we do. I'm not criminalizing shaping but I believe it should be done responsibly without arrogance as to what is the best way. Because I don't honestly believe anyone here is a better singer objectively than someone else who is singing from what they really believe and trying to achieve this goal. We can help them achieve their goals or help steer towards something commercial, but other than that I just don't believe having a more scientifically mechanical method for achieving more notes makes anyone a better singer.

The singers I value the most, are the ones who succeed at expressing themselves to me, and part of why many of these singers succeed is sometimes ignorance of scientific methods of achieving greater pitch, range, control, etc, so they find their own way of getting there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Thats what I am saying, actually Ill make this statement:

Regardless of how one uses modal voice and falsetto, even if an attempt is made to mimic another person, the main parameters that allow identification are innaltered, thus indentity is preserved. No matter the ammount of trainning or how closely you try to match another voice, your voice is as unique as your fingerprint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of how one uses modal voice and falsetto, even if an attempt is made to mimic another person, the main parameters that allow identification are innaltered, thus indentity is preserved. No matter the ammount of trainning or how closely you try to match another voice, your voice is as unique as your fingerprint.

Maybe scientifically speaking a computer can detect it by similarities, but artistically it paints a different picture and habitually it paints a different picture. Think of language dialects, why do people in Asian countries speak with such a different tonality? People all around the world speak with different voice habits both innately and from cultural identities and this is uniquely identifiable.

I've already had experience westernizing my Malaysian friend's singing voice, because she expresses this as a goal she's happy with, but the way she sang prior to my instruction in how to achieve more western pronunciations is completely different. I can hear her habits changing, and this new instruction is adding new components to her identity that were not there.

Unfortunately, I have no knowledge in how to teach Malaysian singing (my ignorance), so for me it's no choice, but I still see the loss of her Malaysian dialect and cultural heritage that was present in her singing voice that she spent a lifetime building. I'm hoping she can keep enough of this to have some pizazz left and doesn't become bland and mechanically western by my instruction. My goal is to only change what might be a barrier for her, and leave some of the rest behind, not teach her mechanical perfection. They are different goals.

That's how I'd teach everyone I could. Give them as much as they want/need, while encroaching on their voice identity minimally and leaving as much behind of the original person as is possible and wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eddie Vedder and vocal TECHNIQUE?... Isn't Eddie Vedder and the whole grunge movement all about "technique isnt cool"? Isn't that the appeal to some people...? The "Eddie Vedder Technique" is to have no technique.

Now, Im not saying I don't enjoy his singing or he isnt a great song writer and has world-class merit... Im just saying, ... if you want to witness vocal technique, it would not be Eddie Vedder.

Yes, he is just shouting and frankly, as so often with Vedder, shouting flat.

For sure. I have NEVER understood the Vedder Appeal. Same with Cobain. No offense to the original poster, but yeah, flat a good lot of the time. There are singers that sing technically well, or with technique, and there are vocalists that vocalize and the sounds they make are all about feel. They're just different. I am an older guy too, so, what do I know? I have the same impression of the Red Hot Chilli Peppers guy. The guy's pitch is all over the place and these 3 singers to me kind of seem to be the "anti technique" poster guys. I DID hear Eddie do a great rendition of "Love Reign O'er Me" for the Who's Mtv thing. I was surprised by that performance from Vedder. So, it seem that he's got it in him. I find with a lot of these guys, they're not great singers but decent songwriters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've already had experience westernizing my Malaysian friend's singing voice, because she expresses this as a goal she's happy with, but the way she sang prior to my instruction in how to achieve more western pronunciations is completely different. I can hear her habits changing, and this new instruction is adding new components to her identity that were not there.

Please tell me this is a joke.

Since no reply was made:

Stop tampering with other peoples voice. You dont have a clue of what your doing and the damage you could cause in the long term can be just as serious as the one you did to yourself, or worse. Messing with the voice of someone that is from your country and where you can somewhat relate to how this person speaks would be bad enough, doing that with someone that speaks completely different from you is insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually she's already made tremendous progress with a free, natural vibrato, open, and unconstricted tone. She says for the first time in her life she can sing without hoarseness and has thanked me.

But you have a bone to pick with me because your elitist attitude can imagine nothing else, so you'd prefer to believe that because someone injures their voice they'd never be able to offer even some basic help ever again to another person. In what ways does beginning of a yawn, open throat, diaphragm breath support, vowel work to open up the narrowest (E) and add de-emphasis on the "ng" speech habit, onset control, gentle crescendo control, small sirens, or gentle scales hurt someone?

Do you think I'm just as ignorant as I was when I injured my voice from bad advice? What do you think I've been doing for the past 3 years? I've looked all over for explanations as to what went wrong and learned a thing or two that can help her sing with less strain. But I'm not going to teach her how to sing 4 octaves, if she's only comfortable with 1 chest or 2 counting falsetto, its fine. She can get a real teacher if she has trouble with range. Above all, I've told her the most important thing is relaxation and controlled breath flow and if any time she feels strain when going up, she can feel free to switch to falsetto.

Yeah, real damaging, not like I'm having her gug (glottal attack) for an indefinite amount of time with no clear goal. I cleared up her vocal fry onsets, rather than make her do them in scales. I taught her to stop squeezing her throat, rather than 'zip up her vocal cords.' Basically I taught her the anti SLS method, the best anti constriction method I know, and she can tell too, she says she no longer feels 'pinched' off and the voice feels 'free' for the first time.

Why you think that is bad, I have no idea. But you can just eat one, cause this is exactly what I needed for a healthy voice, not some collection of random sound effects to execute for an indefinite amount of time or some promised magical 4 octave range if I just cried and creaked gugged like a mofo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree. I just love the genuine sincerity of Geoff Tate on "The Warning" album and I love the sincerity of Rob Halford on "Sad Wings of Destiny" and how about James LeBrie on "Images & Words"... the sincerity and true, to the core artistic "gut" on those vocal performances are legendary... Such abandonment, to the heart, so sincere... LOVE IT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Killer - I understand what you are trying to say. But the notion that trying to improve one's technique is going to make that person less of an artist and more of a technician is pretty abrasive - especially on a forum topic named TECHNIQUE. Most of the people that frequent this forum are trying to improve their technical skills. We do this so that our technical barriers don't GET IN THE WAY of our artistic expression. Nobody is forcing anyone to come here and improve themselves. But I hope that you can imagine how debating the merits of improving one's technique or not, on a forum designed to help people improve themselves is kind of out of place, and can lead to people getting a little negative.

Again - I understand exactly what you're saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For sure. I have NEVER understood the Vedder Appeal. Same with Cobain. No offense to the original poster, but yeah, flat a good lot of the time. There are singers that sing technically well, or with technique, and there are vocalists that vocalize and the sounds they make are all about feel. They're just different. I am an older guy too, so, what do I know? I have the same impression of the Red Hot Chilli Peppers guy. The guy's pitch is all over the place and these 3 singers to me kind of seem to be the "anti technique" poster guys. I DID hear Eddie do a great rendition of "Love Reign O'er Me" for the Who's Mtv thing. I was surprised by that performance from Vedder. So, it seem that he's got it in him. I find with a lot of these guys, they're not great singers but decent songwriters.

Thanks, that is essentially my point... and I totally agree with you on Cobain... he is awful. I'm sorry... he may be a great song writer and very "sincere"... yes, but my god... he sings like ass and other then "smells like team spirit" which was kinda trendy cool for about four weeks... I just don't get the appeal with Nirvana, other then song writing I suppose, but even then... to be honest... Its lame for me... if I want to listen to song writing, Ill dial into Jim Croce or Rush or Metallica... Nirvana has little merit for me and I would most certainly take Vedder over Cobain, but even then, you still can't polish a turd when your choices are bad or real bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guitartrek, it doesn't make someone more of an artist, but it often tends to make them a different artist. That's good, variety is the spice and it's ok for people to grow, but the innate, the unique culture, the preference, ideals, circumstance, and lack of universal knowledge is also important.

Rob, I saw Queensryche in concert, really enjoyed myself. It was on a triple bill with Dream Theater and Fates Warning, but I would have been just as happy to see Pearl Jam, Al Green, Neil Young, Stevie Wonder, McCartney, or especially David Bowie, all for different reasons but not really because of technique. It's just not why I listen to music, I like emotion and composition. Tension and release (imperfect tuning over autotune, etc), technique is only a means to an end, and not really the end. Strangely enough, neither my brother nor I like "The Warning" album from Queensryche, though he has it and we've both given it a chance. It sounds more like high pitched notes for their own sake than a composition or emotional expression that we really enjoyed.

Me, most of my favorite musicians are dead, but many of them on this list of my favorite singers as people who were good, partially because, well they were ignorant and just found 'their sounds that they expressed more intuitively by listening and feeling it out' that I relate especially too, rather than because they became extremely educated and happened to pick something from 1000s of possibilities that specifically appealed to me. Being in touch with this more primal intuitive part of things, is important to me. I think it's important that Johnny Cash couldn't sing head voice notes notes, and his guitarist couldn't sweep pick, personally. That's not to take away, from these techniques, when properly applied by artists who wish to use them. Every artist doesn't need them, and often the temptation there, is just not the same as someone feeling something out intuitively maybe in a rougher or less educated/trained manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry - Thanks Killer for the post - I felt mine was more appropriate on the perspective post - thus moved it there ....

We can discuss there - but have you tried malasian dialect - i.e. if she can happily say Bila without discomfort (which I hope she could), then use that vowel instead ... Maybe .... And this is where this may actually help you too - Let her teach you the relevant vowel(s) in Malay (all of them). Thus you have the learning curve too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Killer - Like I said - I totally understand what you are saying, you don't have to repeat it. My point is that promoting the merits of totally raw untrained singing, and the lack of desire to improve on a technical level, on a forum with a bunch of people that DO want to improve is going against the very essence of this forum. Yes - I think Vedder expresses himself well and is an artist. So is Dylan. I think his music is cool. He is an artist and he does represent an innate culture. But this kind of talk makes people that are putting a lot of effort in to improve, feel negative. Surely you can understand this? It's like I'm putting in all these hours in, and for what? Well the people that are putting in this effort are trying to reach an audience that appreciates those efforts. They surely aren't trying to reach an audience that only likes the raw untrained talent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Killer - Like I said - I totally understand what you are saying, you don't have to repeat it. My point is that promoting the merits of totally raw untrained singing, and the lack of desire to improve on a technical level, on a forum with a bunch of people that DO want to improve is going against the very essence of this forum. Yes - I think Vedder expresses himself well and is an artist. So is Dylan. I think his music is cool. He is an artist and he does represent an innate culture. But this kind of talk makes people that are putting a lot of effort in to improve, feel negative. Surely you can understand this? It's like I'm putting in all these hours in, and for what? Well the people that are putting in this effort are trying to reach an audience that appreciates those efforts. They surely aren't trying to reach an audience that only likes the raw untrained talent.

I'm not saying that to make people feel bad or discredit people's efforts. It's just in praise of diversity, man. People were crapping on my man Vedder, so I was just speaking up for the other side and explaining some of the merits!

I can praise technical skills too. Stevie Wonder is a technical marvel to me. He's my technical benchmark when I practice and I see some of him in you, Geno. I mean, piano, harmonica, drums, bass, multi octave range, song writing talent so good it makes me want to give up. I love the guy to pieces, my overall 'musician' with technical skills to copy is that guy. He's so melodic and has incredible compositional skills, and can do so much. But I like John Lennon and David Bowie just as much. So it's cool, but it's not 'what' makes him good.

You guys really misunderstand raw talent too. I've been telling you repeatedly a lot of it is just approaching music from hmmm... A different perspective. Maybe more like an innocent child than an educated adult, and trying to express yourself emotionally with your ears almost desperately seeking the sound without a premade formula or technique that clinically fits the bill. I actually trained to get in touch with this side of myself as I found myself getting overly analytical to the point where I was just this lame whiney guitar player that was like 'I could do that hmmph' whenever I heard something. When I realized, well, I didn't do that, it was like a lightbulb went off in my head! I was like, wow, I'm a douchebag.

Anyway, it's not an us vs them kind of situation. I'm trying to tell you guys that these people work hard too, it's just not always on technical skills. You all can be fantastic artists, and extremely good technique and education is good too. But maybe next time you write a song, Geno, remember that obsessive childlike guy, that was desperate to express something. It's not like you guys can't have some of this, it just needs to be nurtured. Part of it is just letting go of this overly analytical stuff, and 'feeling and hearing things' without so much judgment on a technical level, being open to something that feels right, but maybe on a technical level isn't perfect. I think most people have more raw talent in this way than they admit, or understand, but honestly all of the technical details and logical 'criticism' makes this so much harder to maintain as a mindset. I had to learn to stop criticizing before I allowed myself to feel and once I realized a good feeling was there in music for me, I praise that music to no end regardless of technical details. If I feel it's pleasing, then it's good.

Nobody here needs to be Lou Reed, but if you could learn just a little bit, .1 percent, it's not too late! People aren't born with raw talent, they just develop it, some earlier when the brain is developing which makes it easier, some later by obsessive childlike devotion to sound and feeling. Just remember, when you mess up the timing by a millisecond on your guitar solo, I'm the guy that is like, man that rocked, I can feel the humanity! Or if I hear your pitch wobble with emotion, or is even a little out of tune, I'm telling you guys, judging by what some of you say, I love flat singers or pitchy singers. It's just a feeling, it's not about being right or wrong, or technically correct. It's just about sounding emotional to people. You guys can do that with your killer techniques too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally get what you're saying. But you just said "You guys misunderstand raw talent too". How do you know that? I truly appreciate the talent of Lou, Vedder, Dylan, Lennon, Hendrix - none of these people were technically advanced. I'm getting the feeling that because I put technique into my productions, you've lumped me into those that don't like or appreciate sheer raw talent. I must be someone that is all about technique and no feeling. That can't be further from the truth. Believe it or not I've come full circle on this stuff. When I was younger I discounted Hendrix because he really didn't have much technique. But in the past couple decades I've come to appreciate him - greatly. These guys are truly great artists. I also spent a lot of my life as a jazz musician where spontaneity is the ONLY thing that counts - with all the mistakes and mis-timings.

Again - I totally understand where you're coming from - I'm all over it - been there - done that - appreciate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah Geno, I'm not lumping you in with anyone. I'm not even generalizing about people's tastes or none of that. People like what they like and there is nothing wrong with that.

What I'm saying is you guys still have the potential to tap into something resembling raw talent. Somewhere in our minds is this crazy ape that wants to express sounds emotionally but he's just a little less competent intellectually! Just nurture him and try to make sure he grows as much as you can, it's not too late for anyone. It may never be exactly the same, but you've got some of that.

I like jazz myself, but my ears can't hear the chord changes accurately enough. If you have any tips on that, harmonic ear training, let me know man. That stuff eats away at me in my sleep because the primitive monkey man wants access to some of these sounds intuitively! He can do single note stuff and basic chords alright by ear and the seat of his pants, but throw him a half diminished 7th chord with an inversion somewhere and he wants to cry! :D I mean, I 'feel' that, but that's not really part of the repository of intuition to reproduce!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like anything, one thing is built upon another. Jazz started out as blues, which is like the primative form. There is some basic music theory involved with blues, and once you've got it down, you can play without thinking so it is all feel and emotion. Same with Jazz - the chord structures get a little more (or a lot more) intense, but when you get it down, you can play without thinking. When I play guitar solos I'm pretty bad about knowing what notes I'm actually playing. It's all feel. Neal Schon once said he frankly doesn't know what he's doing - "just let me go" he says. The guy is a technical monster but he's on automatic pilot - pure emotion. That's my goal in guitar and voice.

Instead of the blues, which is basically 3 chords, jazz has tonic, subdominant and dominant chords, and then chord substitutions. It takes a lot of work to get this stuff to be "automatic pilot" like blues. But guys like mingus, parker, davis - those guys put in the time and they played with raw feel. You can learn basic blues or rock on guitar within a couple months. Jazz takes literally years. It's a long term commitment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ill believe it when I hear it. The only sound files Ive heard from you show someone who needed trainning, a lot, not someone who could coach. And thats all there is to it. Results. I can talk about how vowels are important, the importance of the EE vowel PROPERLY placed and how attempting to sing in complete relaxed state will eventually lead to problems too. But its much easier to just hear the results.

Your "anti-sls" thing is no different than the other 100 self-discovered methods you can find on youtube. Still, the wheel has been around for quite a while, and hardly your new triangular one will work better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My brother and I used to jam a lot, we've probably improvised for thousands of hours. For the longest time we'd just play by theory, chords, scales, patterns, etc, but then I got the 'feel/ear' bug.

I wanted us to train each other, like one of us plays one thing, and the other one has to figure it out blind? That way we could slow everything down, and break chord down to single notes if we get stuck. Then we'd harmonize counterpoint? I figured if we did this, I mean there is no way we couldn't get fantastic, but as soon as I suggested that idea, it's like he just stopped jamming with me at all!

I think having someone there to feed off of, helps a lot, especially if it's not just done with theory/scales/chords etc. I think my brother is still faster than I am on guitar, but I wanted us to get really, really good and to me this was part of the process, just this woodshedding hard work on the sounds and feelings but his heart isn't in it like mine and I wish I had met someone to work on this with.

When I try to play an Elvin Jones inspired beat (admittedly not fantastically) my brother would just give me this look like.... :| And then comes the boom smack and he starts playing again. :D But he's way more disciplined at composition than I am and is the bigger prog metal fan between us. There are so many different sides of music, I guess all you can do is just appreciate it all rather than measure things or worry about them. In the end, however you make something, all that matters is our experiences with it. Maybe in that extent, all of the mindless noodling wasn't so bad, cause we had a lot of fun.

Music is such a multifaceted and interesting thing. I think there is room for everyone. Before I lost my friend to suicide, we'd jam too, and she was really not a great guitar player, but it's just the bonding experience and it means so many things to different people. Her favorite was the version of Mary Had a Little Lamb. We could tear that one up! Often when I play guitar, Ill think of her, how she said 'scales are boring' and I was like.... Are you sure... Cause? But nope, they were! So she played in her own way and had a blast. She wouldn't take any other teachers, cause I was the only one that would teach her the 'good stuff' without all of the boring stuff. I just feel like music is for everyone. If people are enjoying the sounds and the experiences, great, but if not, I hope it was fun.

Singing, bare minimum I hope you are healthy. That's the only wild card. Other than that, it's just like the guitar I suppose. People have karaoke for a reason, same reason I'd jam with my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this