Patterns/Techniques in Music

[mirth]

Something I’ve been noticing more and more of lately in others playing is the use of patterns or sort of techniques that create an individual’s sound. It seems to me that these players find what they’re good at (some kind of picking pattern, or legato thing or something) and exploit it for what it’s worth with the sort of lines they create. Then their sound, etc.. directly comes from what they’re good at, deliberately.

Maybe this is an obvious thing, but I’ve always found myself running away when I notice something I do is the same as something else, or if I’ve done something I try not to repeat it. The last couple months or so now, I’ve been trying to look at things differently.

I’m in particular talking about more technically advanced guitarists, in particular Shawn Lane, Tim Miller, Holdsworth, EJ, Mattias Eklundh, etc….

When you start analyzing these guys playing you’ll find they are very formulaic in their approaches. The lines Lane does at blazing speeds shows how he manipulates a musical phrase into a particular pattern to make it work. He found at some point he was really good at a certain kind of picking and legato thing and molded the music and ideas to fit that strength.

Tim Miller has this 2 1 2 1 2 1 (per string) idea and mentions how it sort of came easy to him, so now he’s manipulated the notes etc.. to fit this strength of his based on a physical limitation or excellence. The same goes for so many other great players.

I bring it up, because it’s interesting to me and not something I’ve ever really done (at least consciously) where all these guys worked on it consciously. They said at some point, “Hey I’m pretty good at (name some physicial thing on the guitar)” so I need to manipulate the music to fit my physical limitations.

I think this is particularly fascinating. The fact of the matter is we’re all good at different things on the guitar. I’ve never tried to manipulate to music to fit my technique (intentionally). I wonder what kind of path that opens up, and if that is a good way to go about it? It ends dictating music based on technique. Kind of backwards really.

Chris Crocco, at least from the lessons I took, would be vehemently opposed to this approach, as his whole thing is trying to break any kind of patterns and play from the music first. So I don’t imagine he would like me considering to explore this simply based on my perceived technical strengths.

I wonder though, maybe it is a good play to differentiate yourself. None of the guys mentioned would I say lose any “emotion” in their playing because of this approach, necessarily. And most early classical music, in general, is about repetition and sequences.

So I guess I’m curious what everyone thinks? Does molding your music to fit your technique make sense? Do you rearrange notes in a way that comes easy to you and base your music on your technical facilities, does this give preclude you from making good music? Or could it possibly open you up to something new, and uncharted territory instead of copying every other guitarists technique? Is it really better to learn to play something exactly like Vai? When maybe you have a different way of doing that suits your technical facilities?

Kind of fascinating really.

[mirth]

Oh and let's not forget Frank Gambale, his whole vocabulary is based on his technical preferences.

[Infinite Ego]

I do that all the time. However, for me, I keep developing new techniques so that I record a group of songs around a 'pattern' and then move on to develop new 'patterns'

I can't play the stuff I recorded 10 years ago and, in 10 more years, I will not be capable of playing what is easy to me today.

I agree, though, guys like Lane, B-head, etc., found their schtick early and just rode it out to the bitter end. I'm perpetually dissatisfied with everything i do and want to move on to new schticks that I get bored with

All the Bofatronics stuff was just what you describe....a set of patterns that I worked out and just recorded a bunch of. I got bored with it and moved on to tougher stuff (Egotronics) ... unfortunately, egotronics was so tough I never figured it out ... bummer

[dasein]

Feb 4, 2013 20:42:05 GMT -5 Infinite Ego said:

All the Bofatronics stuff was just what you describe....a set of patterns that I worked out and just recorded a bunch of. I got bored with it and moved on to tougher stuff (Egotronics) ... unfortunately, egotronics was so tough I never figured it out ... bummer

Man, I vaguely remember Egotronics, but I don't recall ever hearing anything using them... what did that consist of?

[Infinite Ego]

Well, egotronics was going to be this big thing but I didn't make a lot of headway so it ended up being a couple of licks. LOL

Although, I suppose any way I play is the current state of egotronics.

Also, let's not forget that whole genres are based on technical patterns. My god, can you imagine country guitar or bluegrass music w/o a handful of picking patterns?

[brucestevens]

I am not at all like the players you mentioned - not nearly as technical (or skilled). That being said, I recognize patterns in my playing that I do fairly often (e.g. root-flat five-root arpeggios, lots of open string pull-offs). I try to break myself of them, but many times end up creating new patterns instead. Constant struggle, especially with improv.

[mirth]

Yeah for the most part (except recently) I've really fought against playing patterns, even sequences I have stayed away with, unless they permutate into something completely.

My ideal has always been to have this sort evolving sound that makes sense but is constantly modifying itself as it's happening. So patterns could exist, but they would change constantly but musically. It's been in my head for some years, but I really have make sense of it all yet, probably never will.

I'm curious now, though, about playing towards my strengths instead of constantly fighting it. I've never actually done the, morph what I'm playing, towards my technique (intentionally). I've always been the kind of guy that does stuff in my head, then maybe paper, then to my instrument. Not generally the other way around (at least in terms of concept).

I think what it takes is a thorough evaluation of your talent and skills. For instance I know there are certain tapping things I can do, and understand, that most don't. And there are certain 4 note per string kind of things I've always found easier than other things.

I think whatever kind of thing I would come up with, would probably revolve around those things. Hmm...Pretty fascinating in a lot of ways.

BTW, I'm not really talking licks, but more a whole style, like Tim Miller and the 212121 approach, for instance (though that's not his entire library of stuff) it's a good foundation for his playing as a general rule. Just like Gambale is always playing an odd number of notes on strings (unless he's turning the phrase around).Etc...etc...

[Infinite Ego]

Well, in general, we can't get too down on 'pattern' in music. Hell, w/o pattern there is no music anyway.

[chrissh]

There's only so much any one person can do with the body they have, including the brain, with the time they have that body to do anything with. Are you going to work with it at the most satisfying level or reject it in favor of a dogmatic ideal? Can the two extremes continually renegotiate? Is that a false dichotomy?

Being able to perform everything thrown at you (aka concert level performer) demands an early start, unerring determination and support, and the good fortune to have the correct physiology. Even then, there's a shelf life (see Liona Boyd). None of the exceptional guitar players you mentioned would pass the muster of formal scrutiny.

As for patterns, all comprehension = patterns. If you didn't recognize patterns, you would project them until something became comprehensible. That is what humans do. Some people like abstract art, higher math, weird music, challenging languages, NY Times crossword puzzles, difficult philosophies, yelling at clouds. It's all essentially playing with patterns. Better for everyone if they illuminate meaning or tangible benefit, perhaps, but that's never been mandatory.

Of course you play to your strengths. You also have the power to change your guitar tuning to facilitate your playing. I say, understand and honor the ideas you most truly resonate with by responding to them as only you can. Then learn to articulate with least resistance, knowing not all learning curves are equal. But don't expect to reinvent your conception of music wholecloth. It's always you +/- others +/- sound +/- silence. And imho, half the fun is starting with an intention but accomodating chance as the process unfolds. Would you dismiss a breakthrough because it didn't conform to an original design?

Maybe: crowd source inspiration and abandon the burden of contrivance when it starts smelling like narcissism. Aspire to lots of extraordinary things as a process but respect the occasional excellent thing that actually comes into being. Loop the feedback before it loops you.

[aliensporebomb]

Fascinating thread. I sometimes beat a pattern to death only to internalize that pattern, then start doing variations.

After a while I get sick of what I'm doing so move onto other fingering patterns. The whole modular legato thing was just "a systematic set of fingering patterns that I could use anywhere".

As I've aged I find I play melody more and seem to drastically be veering dangerously into the "white collar middle aged guitar player" mold so I need to come out with my mid-life crisis weird avant concept album to shatter barriers and scare people (and all my fans) away.