Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 1:45 pm Post subject: A musical discussion....
(I felt we were in need of a good discussion
So I was listening to Passion and Warfare on my way to work today and it got me thinking;
Does the fact that Vai plays the exact solo every night restrict his development in music and on the guitar?
I mean how many articles do we see on Vai’s “style or technique” and they bring up Passion and Warfare. Wow that was almost what, 20 years ago? And when we mention Vai we are still talking about Passion and Warfare. We aren’t talking about his current inventions?
So then I thought about someone like Scott Henderson, who is an improvising musician, who is able to add new things to his solos, new ideas and as his musical mind progresses he is able to improve on himself. And I don’t think many, if any, would argue that Scott has contantly improved and has even recently redefined himself and style, and in another 5 to 10 years he’ll probably do it again. Where Vai is still playing the solos he wrote 20 years ago.
So without further adieu, I ask what do you think? Would Vai be better if he would have improvised his solos? Or does maintaining what he wrote help him stay at a higher level? I realize he does improvise, I’ve seen him and he’s pretty good at it. But at his shows he does very little. And beyond Vai, would Henderson be better if he would just memorize the solos off the albums and play them note for note, even today?
So what do you think? What are the pros and cons? Let’s hear it….
Joined: 22 Feb 2005 Posts: 570 Location: gothenburg, sweden
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 2:09 pm Post subject:
vai and henderson are miles apart, as players, musicians, composers, hairstyle ...
vai is NOT into 'jazz improv'. the traditional western idioms of improv is something vai is not good at. he would need to fake it. but he's still a great and interesting improviser in a more free, non-jazz, european art tradition kind of way ... i guess. and well, he sure knows how to wail over a nice rock groove, and ... well ... he's kind of up there somewhere.
henderson is not your average jazz player either, he has left that behind, but has a relation to that idiom, and knows it.
and more importantly:
- the context within which you've seen vai tour has been about presenting a show, a spectacle, and deliver 'songs'. not about blowing over changes (or even vamps) or doing some kind of free improv stuff.
- tribal tech became increasingly free over the years. personally i feel they quit when at their peak. very loose, totally improvised, structured chaos. you never knew what was supposed to happen on those later gigs. and i saw tribal tech live six times between 1991 and their last tour european tour (don't remember what year exactly). scott's blues stuff (seen the blues band twice) is also about looseness and improvisation, structured with some great compositions.
BUT ... i kind of agree. i used to be the biggest vai fan, from flexable and roth eras and forward, and although i still go to the shows (been there for hom six times, plus a roth and a whitesnake gig), i would prefer if he did some less happy, more daring stuff in small clubs in a trio setting. i don't really care for laser beam gloves, costume changes or fans blowing hair around. those things become even more silly considering that his fans actually are not into that stuff at all. it's like vai has an idea about putting on agood (i.e.silly) show tha no one cares about than him (or has cared about since the first david lee roth tour). when keneally was in the band, he brought some good, musical sillyness to it though.
To me, it doesn’t matter whether it is “jazz” improv or not. I mean in regards to improving himself over time. I’ve played for about 15 years now. And wrote some instrumentals 10 years ago. When I think about the solos I wrote (in a rock context) they are way below my standard at this point. Not even technically really, but harmonically and phrasing. Because I have grown as a player, would it do me any good to go back and learn to play those old solos? Maybe? But if I continued to play them every night, would I advance as a musician? That is the question at hand.
I would love to see Vai’s takes on old solos, but in a new way, every night trying to do better. That would be cool, and I definitely think he would advance himself. But what does everyone else think? Do people like Vai and Satriani push themselves musically every night? Or Petrucci? Would they be pushing themselves more if they improvised their solos?
I can see what you're getting at, but I think some Vai solos are fairly timeless, y'know? For example, I felt that every note in Blue Powder was vital to the song. If he changed his solos, something would feel missing. Of course, I don't know that for sure, because he's never tried it before. It would depend on whether he's an interesting improviser, I guess.
P.S. I should really get some Scott Henderson, but I've blown all my cash on Primus and Meshuggah
Before going too far, let’s not make this too specific on Vai or Henderson. They just happened to be the people that came to mind. Mostly because I was listening to Passion and Warfare. Also I haven’t truly chosen sides here, but am more in an introspective place, where I’m trying to see the answer. If there is one?
Joined: 22 Feb 2005 Posts: 570 Location: gothenburg, sweden
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 8:49 pm Post subject:
Mirth wrote:
So I guess the more vague question is;
Does playing the same “solo” you wrote 20 years ago every night for 20 years hinder your musicianship? And if you had “improvised” the solo over 20 years would you have advanced more?
well, if the goal is to be an improviser, the answer is pretty obvious. if that's not your goal, the question is not important.
why should playing the same solo every night for twenty years hinder your musicianship, if that is your musicianship? (vai certaibly cannot be accused of this). and what does 'the same' solo mean? glenn gould recorded the goldberg variations again, many years after the first time ... and no one can say they're equivalent.
some players repeat their stuff note for note live, because that's what they want to do, since they might see the recorded solo as a crucial part of the composition (marty friedman). other players don't (yngwie).
i thibk there's a discussion somewhere here, but i don't think your question is productive the way u formulated it (although me answering it says the opposite )
I guess I would say. How does playing the same anything for 20 years not hinder your musicianship?
If let's say you learned Fur Elise on the piano and only played that and a few other pieces for 20 years. Would your musicianship increase? Never changing the notes, never rearranging the piece.
I'm really just wondering, not trying to pick sides. I see the value of a composition. I've just seen people like Clapton (even though a totally different thing) if anything progress backwards. Where Jeff Beck has only improved more and more.
Hmm, I'm trying to word this right (and at work where big brother is watching), Does it appear that the people who play pre arranged and written out solos are advancing as musicians. Does Vai come off as a better musician than he did after Passion and Warfare? Has Petrucci impressed you with his inventiveness?
I'm sorry to name drop, I happen to love all of the guitarists I'm naming. But I'm mostly wonder to myself, and now aloud, if restraining themselves to the song has hindered there musical development. And if so what would continue to push there musical development?
And I guess this all resolves around Guthrie for me as well. Because I believe he is constantly progressing, and if that is true, why is he? Instead of safely staying with written out parts, he seems to constantly transform himself.
Joined: 27 Feb 2007 Posts: 84 Location: Oklahoma, U.S.
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 9:26 pm Post subject: Awesome topic
When I think improv, I think Metheny and when I think of compositional player I think Gilmore. I know its weird.
I happen to be an improv solo'er, most of my best playing has come in those moments, sometimes I capture them and re-use them but for me to grow as a musician, I've had to really work on playing solo's as worthy compositions in themselves. That has required me to focus way more on improvised execution rather than composition. I've come to appreciate that the elements of improv go beyond the note selection. I still really suck at it but i'm working on it.
I think it comes down to each players comfort zone, to improve you gotta step out. _________________ It goes to eleven!
Before going too far, let’s not make this too specific on Vai or Henderson. They just happened to be the people that came to mind.
I don't think they "just" happen to come to mind. I'm not a fan of Vai, but he's had such an impact on the guitar scene and made such an impression on people that Vai will come to mind indeed, because of his compositional skills and individuality in his playing. That's probably exactly what Vai wants.
I like Guthrie because he's able to do both things. And that's probably what you mean to: Vai would indeed be more interesting if could ALSO improvise at a high level.
If i went to a Vai gig and he improvised a solo i would feel cheated. I can play quit a lot of the Vai stuff and many of the licks take some time to nail.
I cant believe that he improvised his solos initially and i cant believe that anybody could do a solo as good as Vai without any premeditation. I class Guthrie as good as Vai, but i dont think any of the insane things in his improv are made up on the spot, most of the licks will be pretrained and he will know overall where he wants to go with the solo.
Joined: 22 Feb 2005 Posts: 570 Location: gothenburg, sweden
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 3:19 pm Post subject:
a lot of vai's solos, especially the wilder stuff, are made up on the spot. for sure...
i don't want to edit my last post. but when i reread it it looked kind of silly. just to clarify: vai has defined soooo much of my own musical development, and regardless of the laser beam gloves, and the pretty singalongsongs, he's still someone with talent, musical intelligence and (duh!) chops, that goes beyond comprehension. he's one of those guys who has defined what we mean when we talk about electric guitar playing. my only gripe is that he in my opinion makes artistic choices these days that aren't always too my tastes. scott henderson's choices though ... another story.
just one thing: jamming over vamps, or running scales over grooves, isn't really improvisation in any interesting sense. if we're going to talk improv, lets talk derek bailey, wayne krantz, pat metheny, fred frith ...
basically: rock (even instrumental) isn't improvisational music, even if there might more or less loose parts or structures. yngwie wings most of his solos live, but i wouldn't call an yngwie gig "a night of improvisation". it's about performance, spectacle and delivering what the audience expects.
improvisation is not the only way to increase musicianship. interpretation is as an important aspect -- if it weren't 'classical' (stupid word!) musicians could be considered jukeboxes.
Well I agree, Vai is incredible, even to this day there aren't really anyone who compares, or only a few at most. I still love listening to Passion and Warfare, I think his control and phrasing are astounding. But also being a Lebron Fan, where the things he does are simply incredible, we always expect more, and more. And maybe that's unfair. But I'm always hoping to here Vai push himself a little more, and don't feel there has been a ton of progress in the last 15 years or whatever. And that's fine too, I still love going to see him play, he is the G3 that get's me every time. His control and sound and musicianship is stellar.
So what am I saying in my rambling... I'm not sure exactly. But I think at some point most people either decide they will be a improvising musician or a more written out musician. I wonder how either decision affects your playing in the end. Or even your musicianship?
I agree with the statements about the likes of Krantz being "real" improv. But even beyond that, does holding to a particular arrangement or solo from years past and never going back to rearrange what you've written likes perfect, is that a good philosophy overall?
One of my favorite newer bands that probably no one has heard is this band "Cleric" from philly. I've known all the guys in the band for awhile, but one of the best things about them is they are never satisfied with songs they've written. They've been together for like 7 years, but sound completely different then in the beginning. As their musicianship increased there songs evolved. Some of the songs they still have are from 7 years ago, but sound nothing like the original compositions. Some people might not like that, but they are without a doubt better than before musically.
I agree that much of Vai's music is timeless and many would be upset to not hear the songs note for note. And you always see a thousand guys watching to see if Vai will "screw" up the written solos. I'm just not sure if that helps the music more than it hurts it, in the end. Also at this point do you think anything on Passion and Warfare, for example, is even remotely difficult for Steve. I hardly doubt it, he could probably do it in his sleep after all this time.
Besides improvising would you be upset to go to a Vai show where he completely rearranged all the songs we love so much. If Tender Surrender was reharmonized and rearranged, and the solo was rewritten. Would you encourage that? or are the songs timeless and no need to tweak them? And in the end does Vai suffer from it musically?
Maybe not, I agree that learning solos note for note and playing them, or songs, helps you to be a better musician. Trying to get the most out of written notes is a great skill. So again I don't know. I know my tastes are constantly changing, but I don't know if there is a correct side.
I've chosen improv, some chose more written out. How does it affect us in the end?
Joined: 27 Feb 2007 Posts: 84 Location: Oklahoma, U.S.
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 9:05 pm Post subject: On second thought
The more I've thought about it, the more I think there's really a false dichotomy between iprov and compositional integrity. When i'm trying to be faithful to a solo, i'm following the song in my head and executing as i play. At my very best, and rarely, I improv in the same way but i'm composing and executing as I go.
On the other hand, what I generally call improv is me winging runs together on the fly. In every case, i'm following my inner ear and trying to be faithful to it in my execution. I'm not sure one improves me more than the other as a player and i'm not sure one demonstrates greater skill than the other as a musician, all things being technically equal. Of course this is contrary to everything i have ever said and believed. _________________ It goes to eleven!
I couldn’t agree more with the above statements. In fact, many of the greatest composers ever were amazing improvisers; Mozart, Bach, Liszt, etc… There is this false notion in music today that Jazz is the only improv. I remember taking classical guitar lessons with the great Steve Aron, and telling him how I was disenchanted seeing the great guitarists at the GFA competition and performance inability to improvise when they messed up. And from one of the grad students I heard about how in “classical” music you just don’t improvise, you’d be ruining the piece. When I told Steve, he said” that’s his opinion” “there is definitely the need from improvisation in classical guitar, but it has to be appropriate for the styles” you can’t play Bach and just swing into jazz, (well you can ) you need to be appropriate to what’s going on.
When I went I figured that the guys I was seeing (Barreuco, Cobo, and many more) would have been able to screw up improvise something to seem like there was no mistake and keep going with it and come back around and fix the whole thing. (of course this is naive on my part) He also made mention that a lot of these guys can only read music, they spend their whole lives perfecting a couple pieces and gaining their niche. It was enlightening to say the least. I would love to go and study more classical, and would hope to be able to improvise with the context of the pieces if the off chance something did happen. Of course, even if I could, and was good at it, more “classical” people would hate me then like me, because as some of you may know the “classical” world is very about perfection, and how songs don’t need changed. To them it is better to make a mistake then to think to change the piece.
Anyways, so I agree that there is a “false dichotomy” in the music world. Improvisation is composition, it doesn’t have to “jazz”, it doesn’t have to be “jammy” it can be classical or rock, or whatever. It doesn’t just pertain to solos either.
I guess why I brought this up is that the people that tend to improvise their playing, one way or another tend to get better all the time (Henderson, Krantz, Govan,Holdsworth, Metheny, Beck, Scofield, just to name a few, or Liebman, in other instruments) Where the rest, those who stick to their guns and original stuff Petrucci, gilbert,).. I’m not so sure they do indeed improve as fast.
Chopin loved to improvise. You can hear it in his music very well in my opinion. That kind of stuff just doesn't come from composing alone. And I've read that Mozart as a kid went to friendly improvisation competitions against other wonder kids.
There are probably more examples. It seems that in the past...the far past, improvisation was actually more common in classical music then it is now. And why not? You can have a classical theme and improvise on it. Or keep the main melody the same, then go to a improvisation part and back to the main melody again, etc.
I think that if the classical sector wouldn't be filled with so many stuck up people who are not open to change, then there would be more room for exciting new things in classical music and more exciting performances... and perhaps some new endings to the pieces too (wouldn't that be great). I personally think classical music could be way more interesting that way.
If the old great composers would suddenly be in our time right now, perhaps they'd experiment with new methods and technology, like in that movie Bill and Tedd's bogus yourney... or something. I don't remember exactly but in the movie they brought Mozart into our time with a time machine. Mozart was having a blast in a music store playing on the modern keyboards/synths. The store-owner was having a blast too, because Mozart drew a big crowd to the store with his performance Or was it Beethoven???
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
)