Play what they like, or play what you like?

[Barry Hyman]

They were recognized for their tone and their technique, not their creativity, and you know it.

[Charley Wilder]

I always played what I wanted BUT steel players were scarce where I was living back then and no one, singers or audience, ever complained. I didn't have an attitude about it. It's just the way it was. I did some recording with a Dobro on some demo tapes and had to play what was wanted but those were the only times I was ever told what to play. It wasn't a problem. I did it, they handed me the money and down the road I went.

[Rick Winfield]

Because of health/personal issues,I haven't played a gig in 12 years, but...I learned as a teenager,(under-age in bars) playing to the crowd is what you get paid for. Some gigs allowed a lot of room to improvise,and personally interpret the songs, others only wanted to hear whats played "on the radio".
These days, I play for my love of music,friends, etc, but I miss the cash
Rick

[basilh]

The best philosophy is to like what you play, whatever it is..

[Franklin]

Barry,

Why advocate learning to improvise steel or any instrument without studying other musicians improvisations and compositions?

All of the most influential improvisers of the past century in their perspective fields have admitted they were inspired by, and studied the great players before and after them.......They also shared one habit in common: when they heard something they loved or when they heard something they could not execute well, they did not rest until they could.........Seems like they all took the same path to creativity.





To anyone curious about the improvisational process,

Explaining where his improvisations come from, Michael Brecker, IMO one of our generations greatest soloists, stated his improvisations are 30% spontaneous and 70% memorization.......and 100% responsive to the cats in the band.......That's as honest and true as I have ever heard it explained.....

The memorization part is the licks, melodic studies, and phrasings gathered over a lifetime of in depth study....Serious improvisers are always studying how to play over/under/through changes to build a larger vocabulary........What better place is there to gather a rich vocabulary than by listening and learning from other master musicians brilliance.......Theory only dictates the right and wrong note choices. After those are acknowledged in the memory, the compositions that inspire curiosity, the heart, and expose the musical weaknesses have to be examined for any real depth in music to emerge......Licks or riffs are mini compositions......And recorded improvisations become compositional through study........So the only difference between learning the melody of a song and the solo a master improvised is the level of depth it takes the student to achieve both......

The spontaneous part happens in the random way the musician connects the dots between rehearsed structures/scales/intervallic tones, etc. He accomplishes this by inserting other connecting notes, also drawn from his harmonic knowledge. All of this spontaneous insertion happens while his ears are chopping complete rehearsed licks/scale patterns, into partials.

The inserted notes and the partials of rehearsed melodies prevents the listener from the slightest hint that the ad lib sounds like something he has played before. Its a deep mental process that his heart controls, which is where the responsive part comes in.

The responsive part is the most important part of any great improvised solo.........The musicians ears are constantly listening to everyone around him. Prepared for the call and response situation with the other instruments that are also improvising their parts during a solo....A great improvisation is also a great conversation between band mates...All band members are in tune with the emotion of the original composition........When they all have their ducks in a row, great music happens.


As a teacher, this post is a summary of some of the issues to consider, if your desire is to make sensical improvisations.........On the bandstand, the best improvisers are void of analysis, they are just listening and responding to their mates......Practice is the time to spend analyzing every process redundantly.

Paul

[Joe Miraglia]

Play what they want,play what you want,BUT--Watch out for your ego . If you play only what you like because,you don't like the music, the way, a band is playing , someone asking you what to play( even though they are the ones paying you),Say--I've been doing it my way for years,and not going to change, maybe it's best you don't play in a band or just with members that have the same ego.

I would like to clarify myself. As to playing what you want, I was talking about the type of music played--whether it be classic, new country, rock, etc. not so much as to how you play the songs. As for myself I try to play signature licks, intros as close as possible. While playing in a new country I so improvise a lot as many songs do not have steel in them. While playing the song "Mustang Sally" you might hear a Shot Jackson lick. When playing "Save the Horse, Ride the Cowboy" you might hear some of that Little Roy Wiggins ting-a-ling. Whatever comes to mind when I am playing the song. Things like that surprise the band whenever it happens--that is the fun of it. Oh yes, I do like to whistle at the girls! Make my steel whistle that is Joe

[basilh]

Paul's comments and advice are "Solid Gold" and I concur implicitly.
Reading "Between the Lines" of OTHER posts is see a lot of reasons and excuses for NOT playing the signature licks or significant definitive parts of tunes, none of which really address the listener/paying customer's wishes, or address the underlying problem of inability to duplicate some of the more difficult parts IMHO.

Most of us are "story tellers" not writers.. with very few exceptions.

It should be faced that there ARE hooks inserted into songs in the inception and recording stages that are as important as the lyrics and melody lines.

In my mind I think that to deviate from the norm to the extent of eliminating the RECOGNISABLE identifying phrases of a POPULAR song/tune is the same as attempting to re-write the lyrics. If you feel you MUST do that, may I suggest that you really need to start writing your OWN songs/tunes.
Or you could always join the studio 'A' team and be an originator like Paul, if you think you know better, just look at where you are and where he is, that answers all.

[Tony Prior]

and as a guitar player I can add two words...


JOE PASS


There is hardly a Jazz player today that at some point has not passed thru the listening study/adventure/entertainment, call it what ever you will..

of Joe Pass


And they will tell you so... I think it's an argument here that should not be an argument at all, if you are playing in a dance hall band that does covers, play it like the song, or close to the song .

Does the singer make up his own words ? Or does he sing the song ? Play the intro's and out takes like the song..if you want to dazzle it up somewhere in between..go for it..there is plenty of room for improv in any given song...

Steady working cover bands do not change the songs,they play the songs and they are recognizable. If they ask you for a request, and you honor it, do you play some version that is hardly recognizable ? Do you play an avant guard version of Together Again ? That would be interesting.

I can share this from my own 40 years of exploration..playing it like the record is NOT a simple task...I think some of us stray into ad lib because we may have trouble bringing the song phrases to the table, which requires study of the player on record. That's NOT a bad thing...

I also study diminished scales and phrasing on the 6 string which really allows for connecting some very interesting phrases for ad lib.

It's all good.

That's my take....

t

[Joe Miraglia]

If the band played cover songs just like the original and there is no steel guitar on it,is that when the steel player goes to the mens room? I would be spending most the night in the mens room or at the bar. Maybe thats why many steel players didn't play 50 and 60's rock. You have to know how to play the originals- into,breaks, turn arounds, and do some flying on your own. Joe
www.willowcreekband.com

[Joe Miraglia]

If the band played cover songs just like the original and there is no steel guitar on it,is that when the steel player goes to the mens room? I would be spending most the night in the mens room or at the bar drinking lots of beer. Maybe thats why many steel players didn't play 50 and 60's rock. You have to know how to play the originals- into,breaks, turn arounds, and do some flying on your own. Joe
www.willowcreekband.com

[Barry Hyman]

This is a very interesting conversation. Paul, to answer what you said: Of course I am (we all are) inspired by and educated by all the great music we have heard. I never advocated that anybody should fail to study what master musicians have created in the past -- that would be foolish, and it never even occurred to me. I am talking about the solos that I play, as an experienced musician, when I am paid to perform in public. I study all sorts of things, and I practice all sorts of things, and I listen to all sorts of things. But when I perform I prefer to improvise, not duplicate.

But you raise a question that is much more interesting to me, which is: What exactly is this thing called "improvisation?" And I think you answer it quite well, although this is a discussion that could go on and on at great length. For me, at least (because I don't really know what goes on in anybody else's head when they improvise) I agree with both Paul and Michael Brecker completely -- it is not a purely creative process. Nothing is created out of thin air. Newborn babies would not be good at improvisation. It is a process of cutting and pasting a lifetime of ideas and licks and tricks and snippets of melody together into something "new." So in that sense, my "improvisations" are a product of everything I have studied and everything I have heard and everything I have played, narrowed down to what is appropriate for the chord change and the song and the style, and what is happening in the band and the room at the moment.

This is complicated stuff, hard to put into words. The short version is that I agree with everything that Paul said.

When I said above that I would not play in a band where the band leader told me what notes to play, that does not mean that I don't listen to what the other people in the band are playing. That would be unthinkable -- the very definition of a bad player. What and how I "improvise" is totally and absolutely dependent on what I hear at any instant, and is completely interwoven with what my bandmates are doing at the moment. It's not that I don't listen to them -- of course not -- it's just that I don't want to play in a "tribute" band where I am told that I must play every note exactly like the record. I play mostly cover tunes, and I play them with the correct chords and the correct lyrics and the correct melody, in the appropriate style, with all due respect. But the pedal stel parts are my own. (That often means they are worse than what is on the record, but sometimes they are better.) I am influenced by the melody, and use it in my improvisation, and I am influenced by the instrumental parts that are on the recording. But I use those to improvise a stylistically appropriate part, rather than as something to slavishly duplicate note-for-note. Does that clear up some of the misunderstanding?

I agree that most audiences and most club owners prefer to hear familiar sounds, and that there is a preference for cover tunes over originals. And I agree that all musicians should study what great musicians have played in the past. What I disagree with is the notion that we have an obligation to perform the same pedal steel parts that are on the record. No one has trouble recognizing the cover tunes that my band plays. No one feels that we play them wrong or that we disrespect the style in which they were recorded. But people come to see us play precisely because they want to hear what we are going to add to these familiar songs. They would be disappointed, not pleased, if we played them exactly like the record! They know we are improvising our solos, and they enjoy the challenge along with us, wondering how well we will rise to the occasion on any given night.

To sum all this up, go ahead and study the greats, read the tab or whatever, and learn whatever you want to learn note for note, when you study. But if that's all you ever do when you perform, then I think that both you and your audiences are missing out on something wonderful. Improvisation may not be 100% spontaneous, and it may not be 100% creative, and it is always a product of one's past influences. But it is still one of the greatest thrills in life, and those who don't try it because they think they are not supposed to are sadly mistaken.

[Clyde Mattocks]

I think that those of us who play a lot have ample opportunities to do both. I know I do. I have played long enough that I feel I have a style that is my own musical personality, but I do enjoy quoting my heroes. Everyone is different in what they aspire to get out of their music. If you like to play everything like the record and enjoy doing it, fine. If you like to totally wing it and don't mind not working as much, that's fine, too.

[Charley Wilder]

I stated that I always played the way I wanted to but certainly didn't want to imply that I just jammed my way through every song! I had the disadvantage if you will, to be playing a non pedal whereas every cover we did featured a pedal. So I couldn't duplicate their leads and fills. But that having been said I always attempted to establish the melody in any solo at least the first time around. I almost always took two solos as I played in dance bands and was usually the only lead. I had ample opportunity to improvise. Even then I improvised around a melody. I've always believed in the integrity of the song!

[Franklin]

Barry,

Thanks for answering my question and the clarification about copying other players....... I always read your posts with interest.....You speak as a teacher which always prompts my curiosity............Thanks, I think I understand, and we seem to agree in part about improvisation...........I believe improvisation is very rewarding, its a chance to freely express.

Looking back, it was trying to copy players like Buddy, Anderson, and Jernigan that helped me with technique....My opinion..It would have been defeating to bypass learning those Emmons solos, or anything I could not play, at any given stage of my development. I wanted to fly across the strings, cleanly, like they were doing.....They sounded more like guitarists than steel guitarists.

To me, copying parts allows a different type of freedom to emerge..... I use those occasions to focus in on the tiny nuances of the specific part.......I'm not trying to change your mind, nor am I trying to say what is right.........Just pointing out, depending on the frame of mind, there is musical freedom everywhere.....if Improvisations are infinitely free? .........Those that enjoy continually perfecting the nuance of the smallest elements of a copied part are also experiencing freedom in the molecular world..........

When you think about it, Can a musical performance be exactly duplicated?
If its impossible, and I believe it is, than there is a lot of emotional and technical improvisation everywhere from everyone within a performances structure.

Paul

[David Mason]

Maybe that's why many steel players didn't play 50 and 60's rock. You have to know how to play the originals- into,breaks, turn arounds, and do some flying on your own. Joe

I've spent a lot of the past decade learning to play 60's and 70's guitar songs on a pedal steel, and it's starting to come together - I love rock 'n'roll!

It would have been defeating to bypass learning those Emmons solos, or anything I could not play, at any given stage of my development. I wanted to fly across the strings, cleanly, like they were doing.....They sounded more like guitarists than steel guitarists.

- franklin

Right-O! I've spent a lot of time on Duane, Jerry & Jimmy for sure... There are some things like the guitar parts from the song "Hotel California" that are easier to play on (C6th) steel than on guitar!

I found a couple of sites with transcriptions of Cannonball Adderley & Miles solos (and recently bought the gem-like "The Music of Miles Davis"), I'll never get then right but golly, I'm learning how someone else chose notes - and that's certainly a valid way to get better. Thinking about, and learning, the systems that go into generating melodies is a passion of mine, and other people have 'em for sure.

The best improvisers, in my experience, are the ones who worked very hard off the bandstand and captured some passion when they stepped off the cliff into the Great Unknown. Barry, have you ever listened to a small band who took long solos, but the players didn't have many resources to draw on? Call them "construction techniques" or "vocabulary" but I collect them like treasure... and it still thrills me when an instrumentalist can tell me a story.

http://www.cannonball-adderley.com/part2.htm

http://www.jazztrumpetsolos.com/solo.as ... olo=SoWhat

http://www.music.sc.edu/ea/Jazz/Transcr ... raight.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/Music-Miles-Davis ... 935&sr=1-1

[Barry Hyman]

David -- that's why I always take short solos!

Paul -- (Mr. Franklin!) It is an honor to converse with you, and I should make it clear that I appreciate the honor more than I deserve it. Yes, I am a music teacher, but that has always been 90% guitar lessons and 10% other instruments. I have only had four pedal steel students in decades of teaching, and all I am qualified to teach on psg is beginner, maybe intermediate. I don't claim that I am a pedal steel teacher, just a music teacher.

And as a pedal steel player, I am barely qualified to wipe the dust off of your instrument after you have finished playing it! While I talk a lot of fancy talk about improvisation, the truth is that I have never done ANY of that homework you talk about. Not on guitar, not on steel, not in rock, country, or jazz. I decided in the sixties that I would study the intent of the musicians I admired, and the phrasing, and the spirit, and the style. But I usually didn't have the patience or persistence to actually learn exactly what they were doing, even though I knew music theory and how to read music. So I just spent thousands of hours learning how to improvise something similar, in the style (rock, folk, blues, country, R&B, reggae, funk, bluegrass, Celtic, Afropop, whatever) and often just as good, but never exactly the same. Kind of an ass-backwards way of going about it, but that's the kind of person I am -- stupid and stubborn and contrary.

So I barely belong on the same page as you. What I do seems to be very different from what most of the Forumites are into. When I talk about improvisation -- I've done improvisational voice and improvisational dance and improvisational theatre and improvisational poetry and improvisational comedy, as well as improvisational music. I know something about that stuff, and I've been to Paradise many a time, and taken quite a few people with me. But when it comes to playing either traditional country or especially jazz pedal steel classics, and keeping up with the greats of pedal steel such as yourself, I'm number 8,283 on this list...

[Les Anderson]

I must say that I am a bit surprised by some of the replies to this thread. I must also question the validity of some of those who have replied that in a band setting they play what they want to play. I really do wonder if they actually play in a band and if they do, how long do they last if they demand that they do their own thing.

I have played in various bands for some 50 years and it has been my experience that the musicians play as per the band's genre or according to the employees wants. Those who venture off into their own world of music that is outside of the band's genre are usually out of the band very quickly.

If the band has been hired to do a dance, then yes, many genres of music are covered; that's where the musician can spread his/her wings and play his/her style. For a country gig, rattling off jazz licks is rarely acceptable. You don't play hardcore rock at a Hawaiian themed gig.

[b0b]

I must also question the validity of some of those who have replied that in a band setting they play what they want to play. I really do wonder if they actually play in a band and if they do, how long do they last if they demand that they do their own thing.

What *I* want to play is what makes the song sound right. It's not unusual. Most musicians like playing parts that sound right for the genre of music that the band is playing. That, in fact, is what "doing your own thing" means for a large percentage of us.

[basilh]

I'm wondering about the terminology in use here regarding, in particular the word "improvise."
Could it not be that extemporise is the more accurate descriptive 'verb nominative' of what's generally meant ?

Another thought strikes me, and that's when building a solo part and extemporising/improvising it live, how many of you see the need to be able to repeat that exact solo again, I ask this because I feel it's necessary to be able to do so.

[Joe Miraglia]

How many of you steel guitar players play the "STEEL GUITAR RAG" ?
Do you play it like the original?Who's Original, Jerry Byrd, Jimmy Day,take it away Leon . How many play it the same everytime,I don't.I learned something from all of them that recorded It. Joe

[Les Anderson]

b0b, that was what my post was about. When the band is playing classic country I am expected to play the fills, bridges or intros as per the classic country sound. I do not go off on my own tangent and rock up my part or do my bit with a heavy jazz sound.

As you stated, what makes the song sound right. I would call it musician protocol.

[Larry Bell]

Two step process:
1. Learn to like what is appropriate for the song.
2. Play what you like.

[Twayn Williams]

Disclaimer: I've never played in a pop/rock/country cover band nor do I ever intend to.

When I play in a band and the band leader asks me to play a part a particular way, I throw out some ideas that are what I perceive they are requesting and they choose the one they want.

If I'm coming into a project after another player and there is a signature lick in the tune, I try to play some sort of recognizable version of it.

If I really dislike what the leader is asking for, then obviously I'm not a good fit for the project and we go our separate ways.

Life is too short to be playing music you don't like

[Barry Hyman]

I would never play a solo in the wrong style -- if it is a traditional country song, then I play traditional country intro, fills and leads, as best I can. If it is blues, then I try to play real blues, not country, not rock. If it is folk, then I try to play in a way that is appropriate to the folk song. When I talk about playing what I like, I just mean that I choose my own notes, not that I violate or rupture the spirit of the song.

The word "improvisation" has such a bad reputation among some of you guys that you assume it means a 200 decibel distorted screaming 40-minute Hendrix-type solo to a quiet pretty country ballad. The first criteria of improvisation for me is tastefulness. I consider myself a stylist -- I play many very different styles of music, more than most players, but I always try to come up with parts that are appropriate to the song and the style. Maybe that's why I can't understand all you guys who think that playing what you like will mean you get less work. I get all the gigs I can handle precisely because I try to find what everybody would like to hear on that song, not just me. Time after time, when I finally get it sounding the way I want it, if I look around the room, it is obvious that that is the way everybody else wanted it as well, including the club owner as well as the patrons...