I have recently been looking at, or revisiting, a number of areas of my playing when practicing. After one particular session, I began to think about the characteristics of typical lead playing found in a variety of musical styles, and about any on which emphasis or priority might be placed.
*I’ll add here that the wondering driving this train of thought was as to whether firstly) those new at playing in a particular style gave the above any thought before attempting it, and secondly) why people seem to find it easier to play in one style than another, even with the same technical/theoretical starting point. Ultimately) I wondered if there was a style which offered an equal balance of all the characteristics mentioned (which would be equally relevant or ‘important’) and thus provided the ideal starting point for someone to begin their study of lead playing.
The first two that came to mind were (perhaps unsurprisingly) phrasing and note choice. It occurred to me that whilst we would expect these to be fundamental aspects of lead-playing in the vast majority of guitar-related music, there are others to consider. For example, rhythm and melodic movement.
At this point I decided I should try to define these terms, and in doing so found myself considering a number of questions, as given below:
*NB. I wanted to add headings to the following to prevent it from becoming too rambling, but it was difficult to determine where a heading should go and what it should say. Also, some assumptions are made and I fully expect some people to disagree with these on principal. Hopefully the rest of you will bare with me.
-We probably typically think of blues playing as a starting point for discussing phrasing, but this is usually at a relatively sedate pace; and phrases tend to be quite short.
-Within these short phrases, we presumably rely on varying the rhythm of the constituent notes and upon emphasising the ones we think sound particularly pleasing.
-This emphasis will often be in the form of sustaining the chosen note for a longer period of time than for other ‘supporting’ notes, or by playing the note at a greater/lesser velocity etc.
-If we take the above assumptions to be true, then we have a definition of a phrase as a group of notes to which we’ve applied a particular combination of other characteristics. But why these particular characteristics in this particular context?
What if we consider other scenarios:
-If we increase the speed of the piece (so our guitarist plays faster), do we increase the size of each phrase?
-Does the length have an effect on the ‘validity’ or effectiveness of the phrase? *Do we define validity in terms of what we are personally familiar with/favour, in terms of conventions of a musical style, or both?
-If we’re still concerned with the idea of phrases being short ‘snippets’ of musical information, then does the decreased amount of space separating each phrase affect each phrase also?
-If we are faced with a long succession of notes of equal value – perhaps a solo in a piece of extreme metal, or in some jazz – then do we look at a long phrase or one endless ‘stream of notes’?
-Aside from the usual requirement to remain diatonic to the key (or the particular scale chosen), does the choice of notes become less important?
-If the rhythm or value of the notes is constant, then there are fewer ways to emphasise one note over another.
-If this is the case, does the general melodic shape of the lead line become of greater importance?
-And consider the contrary: when we focus on note choice, do we become less interested in the melodic shape or direction of a solo?
-Can the same be said of phrasing using wider, strongly intervallic ideas?
-Do scalic ideas lend themselves more readily to creating a sense of melodic direction? If so, is this at the expense of melodic and/or rhythmic interest?
When people have difficulty playing in a given style (technical considerations aside), to what extent can the ideas discussed above be cited as contributing factors?
How about when people have difficulty in listening to or appreciating playing in a given style? Do people new to jazz find it un-listenable because of the tendency to emphasise less-familiar notes? Are those who dislike ‘fast’ playing disorientated by the way in which speed affects our concept of phrasing or the lesser influence placed on rhythmic variation? Or those who find blues playing boring used to music with more emphasis on the general melodic shape of a piece?
I don’t know the answer to these questions, by the way, but I’m sure it’d make for an interesting discussion if anyone’s game. What has become apparent is how great a role personal familiarity with a given style would seem to influence our opinions both regarding that style and others, although there is no doubt this could work in a positive way just as much as a negative (the inspiration that comes as a result of discovering something previously completely alien to us, for example).
Time for a cuppa.
