It's absolutely not comparable to jazz; but in one of the first replies in this thread Stardust wrote:
wonder if he trained that or just knows it in his fingers.
Well, thinking about training and then find the things in the fingers, this could be an example. It sounds like pure improvisation to me...
About the remastering, the original don't sound very good to me wherever I play it back: too bright in the mid high, and the low end has it main peaks above 100 Hz; and the vinyl is a bit scratchy. I tried to give it more linearity and to extend the low end. The compression was probably a bad choice; sound like it increased a bit the reverb levels.
I could post a dry version, but this thread is the wrong context for this...
Pat Martino is absolutely great, source of knowledge and inspiration for the greats.
I have to agree on what someone said about Metheny ....he's a great musician but I don''t enjoy particularly his music. It's not a style thing or a particular formal issue, but his music just doesn't resonate in my mind, I find it a bit emotionally flat.
I tend to dig less and less pure speed, I prefer musicians who make solos that contain emotions, no matter if they are absurd or extremely simple. It's a case that one of my favorite players is also one of the fastest players around, but what I really dig of him is the incredible harmonic concept and the absolute originality of his musical universe, like in this "contemporary madrigal": http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6iXQUr6R ... re=related
If you like some shredding, though, this is a nice tune of his that he played in the early seventies with Tony Williams, but here with one of his late 80's bands: http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=uJF5zB7Yc ... re=related
You said it better than I did. It's flat... He also comes off as not being at all modest which is fine if you think he is a genius but if you don't like his music, he seems pretentious.
Pat Martino's little lesson certainly opened my eyes to where Metheny comes from. The break in Third Wind on Metheny's Still Life(Talking) album is a good example of Martino's teachings.
alfonso wrote:Pat Martino is absolutely great, source of knowledge and inspiration for the greats.
I have to agree on what someone said about Metheny ....he's a great musician but I don''t enjoy particularly his music. It's not a style thing or a particular formal issue, but his music just doesn't resonate in my mind, I find it a bit emotionally flat.
I tend to dig less and less pure speed, I prefer musicians who make solos that contain emotions, no matter if they are absurd or extremely simple. It's a case that one of my favorite players is also one of the fastest players around, but what I really dig of him is the incredible harmonic concept and the absolute originality of his musical universe, like in this "contemporary madrigal": http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6iXQUr6R ... re=related
If you like some shredding, though, this is a nice tune of his that he played in the early seventies with Tony Williams, but here with one of his late 80's bands: http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=uJF5zB7Yc ... re=related
Holdsworth doesn't even shred - he flies! Yet another amazing player.
I'm not directly under influence by Martino.. I'm also not into substitutions just yet.. but I have a hard time grasping the concept of scales on chords tho. It's a tough thing to use, since it's such a powerful framework. I'm starting with simple improv with only major, and minor scales (mixed keys), but when the scale clashes with the note you WANT to play it's like... well, heck, why am I being bound the scales anyway?
Well, that's probably because I'm working with such a limited number of scales, and my compositional brain is already used to using other scales.. I do get the it's a practice exercise, and those are very important in a learning environment. (like doing pencil sketches, as a step to becoming a painter)
It just seems strange to me though, because the scale concept seems to exist only to automate and speed up the note selection process, and at the core, your inner ear most likelly doesn't move quite as fast. I dunno, maybe for some people it's just a byproduct of their inner ear, but for me it's not like that just yet. I mean, does it make sense to even train your inner ear to go THAT fast? I dunno. Even with what Martino is playing here.. it's fast and cool and stuff, but is that an emotionally packed melody full of message? I don't feel it at all. It doesn't seem like he means it that way either. It's like a difference between a modern dance solo, versus an olympic gymnist. Both are an art, but I wouldn't say an olympic gymnist is necessarily "expressing" something, other than "give me points for perfect execution".
I think jazz pedagogy has a lot to do with this tho. In lessons, it makes sense to try to think fast, and write continuous triplets and whatnot as a practice. But if you're scored and evaluated on that for an extended period of time.. you might think "well, I need to do that ALL the time!". I do get the very strong impression that slow, "vocal - like" melodies aren't studied in detail (because the faster ones superceed it), and so it sort of falls off the map.
I do admit though, after I've become used to super long 8th note sequences and triplets, I tend to become impatient during long note phrases. (like "do something!") But obviously, that's because of the over stimulation. Sort of like rock becoming louder from overdrive.
Intellectually the scales make sense. They are essential for the genre these musicians play; on the other hand, our brains are made for recognizing patterns and the scales are just a convenient way to quickly make music. In the end, musicians concentrate on what they can do best. It's possible that music is like a religion to them and they see this way above all others to be the ultimate method of creating music.
kensuguro wrote:I do admit though, after I've become used to super long 8th note sequences and triplets, I tend to become impatient during long note phrases. (like "do something!") But obviously, that's because of the over stimulation. Sort of like rock becoming louder from overdrive.
this is very close to the heart of the matter.....
braincell wrote:Intellectually the scales make sense. They are essential for the genre these musicians play; on the other hand, our brains are made for recognizing patterns and the scales are just a convenient way to quickly make music. In the end, musicians concentrate on what they can do best. It's possible that music is like a religion to them and they see this way above all others to be the ultimate method of creating music.
it just depends on what the point of the music is. a jam session is like a game. the music that this comes from was made by working musicians during the after hours(after the big shows let out and the musicians from those shows were chilllin out in the bar). of course, competitive guys are going to play "king of the mountain" and try to cut each other. some find this great fun as well as an intellectual exercise while other people become enamored with other things. me, it's fun for a minute to hear this stuff, then i get tired of it. that's probably why i'm such a crappy player... i have to look for hooks and emotional and rhythmic content. i'm not good enough to play that game. if i could do both, i'd rule you all!
There is two ways to view chord/scale relationship:
the harmony view, where this allows you to select chords for harmonizing a melodic line. The reverse being true either. As long as you follow the advises, there will be no clashing note. Problem is that it tend to sound flat and the melody is not emphasized as each notes "belongs" to the harmony.
The solist point of view, where through intensive training, your fingers will know what to play. The notes played will allways be correct according to the vertical harmony. At least this allows to solo in "auto pilot" when you're not in the mood ...
well, in detail I think the scales on a specific chord will not always be in direct harmony, as with the original video showing the use of scales of substitutions over chords. That's where the real complexity comes in I think. (and where it really becomes a puzzle) But yeah, either way, some parts definitely are autopilot. I don't think autopilot is a bad thing, just when the WHOLE thing sounds autopilot, it's very boring. A well thought 5 notes that converses well with the harmony is better than 20,000 autopilot notes that just "overwrite" the underlying harmony.
My teacher goes through this very clearly though. There are focal points, build ups, relaxed parts, different parts of with different functions. And as long as those parts are distinctively phrased and colorized, the solo is structured well. Continuous autopilot is definitely not that, though learning to autopilot I think is an essential tool.
I just started doing practice solo runs containing 3 scales (I major, IV major, IV harm min), and it's breaking my brains!!! And the results sound so bad! But it's so good to be able to know exactly what scale you are in, in relationship to the chord. I don't think I have even 5% of it down, but it's such a great exercise. Those that curious, it's the
I | I7 | IVmaj7 | IVm6 | I | I
loop. Can't nail it. Just can't yet... grrrr.
I think it's better to know a few scales really well rather than know all the scales not so well but if you want to play with others, I guess you need to know them all.
It sounds like pure improvisation to me... 
