A Downstroke Dillema...

Stringswinger

If Gypsy picking works for you, use it. If not, Don't. It really is that simple. Comparing virtuoso players like Al Dimeola with Stochelo Rosenberg is useless. They are both great. And at the same time, very different (Thank God we don't all sound the same!).

If I want to execute a pre war "Django"idea and sound "Gypsy", I'll use Gypsy picking, if I want to execute a "Robin Nolan" idea or a modern bebop idea, I'll pick it differently.

This topic isn't worthy of people getting all worked up over. Put that same energy into playing a well constructed solo!

Be musical and tell your story. Do that well and how you pick will be completely irrelevant to the rest of the world.

Cheers,

Marc

www.hotclubpacific.com

Soref

This topic isn't worthy of people getting all worked up over. Put that same energy into playing a well constructed solo!

Be musical and tell your story. Do that well and how you pick will be completely irrelevant to the rest of the world.

AMEN!

Elliot

cantzon wrote:

Unless Wisconsin guy posts something nasty I'm out of here. You guys seem to have your way of doing things and you have made it clear that my input is not welcome. Best of luck with the guitar.

We'll miss ya, big guy.

So then, is it okay to rub the 'nasty' bottle once in a while, so you'll pop up, just for nostalgia's sake?

- Elliot

cantzon

We'll miss ya, big guy.


...

I'm actually a dwarf. I thought you would have known by the fact that I start all descending passages on an upstroke.

Jeremy

cantzon wrote:

Note that in classical all notes are struck with an upward motion.

The direction in which the notes are struck is not important, but it does matter that the string vibrates into the soundboard. When playing classical guitar, a rest stroke is similar to that in GP technique. The finger pushes the string towards the soundboard, and then releases it an comes to rest on the next string. Even when using a free stroke, the wise classical guitaist will attemt to make the string vibrate towards the soundboard as much as possible.

djangology

check this out:

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=59WNi75iiRM

scot

It sounds to me that we are talking here about technique mostly for the sake of technique. It's certainly true that much of what we call gypsy jazz today is totally technique- and riff-driven, and that usually comes at the expense of musicality and originality. I would remind everyone here that many modern players - even teenagers - have such formidable technique that they are able to execute things that Django himself couldn't have done. And to what end? There's not a one of these who has Django's musical sense (every note means something in Django's playing) and his capabilities as a jazz musician. Django could play any tune with anyone, and could play with considerable restraint when it was called for. In other words, Django was a genuine jazzman - who among the modern crop of players fits that description?

Here's what my old friend Francis Moerman, who knows more about this music than any of us ever will, had to say on the subject, back in 1991: "It's more important to have a certain approach to life, a particular sensibility that really has nothing to do with playing music. It's why learning this music by copying from the records means nothing. Even if we try to replay the solos note for note, the enterprise is doomed to fail. Those - and they are many - who learned to play "just like Django" in this manner, they wind up looking lifeless and caricature-ish at the same time. And in the end, they wrong the cause which they believe they serve." It's no wonder that this master musician has zero interest in the modern iteration of this music.

Take that for what it's worth, but there's more to playing music than technique. Today, it's rare for players to want to copy Django. It seems that now we must have idols who can play many more notes much faster than Django ever could. Where's the poetry in that?

I understand that a codified repertoire, and a fixed set of riffs and licks are what make up the biggest part of what we call "gypsy jazz" and I'm not one to find fault with that. I like and support all aspects of this music as I have said here many times. But we don't need to cast out those people who chose not to follow the exact same path so many others have followed. Each of us ought to be allowed to execute this "Django-inspired music" in whatever way we choose. Not to defend cantzon who is a frightful bore, but doesn't anyone recognize how religiously zealous and dogmatic many of the posts in this thread sound?

Teddy Dupont

I agree 100% with Scot.

Ken Bloom

My first exposure to Django's playing was in 1965 when a friend played me a cut and then played what I had just heard with two fingers. Having started as a horn player (sax and clarinet), it was Django's wonderful flow of melody that immediately struck me and continues to strike me to this day. He has all the chops he needs to say what he wants to say. What shines through to me is that he is emphasizing the meaning and sense rather than the vocabulary. Chops are swell. Wish I had more. I'm too old to really care. I just try to say what I have to say the best I can. Nuff said.

jmcgann

Right on, right on!

As I point out in my Django Lab at Berklee, Django 'chooses his spots like a boxer'. The storytelling aspect of true improvisation is a rare and beautiful thing, and has less to do with chops than musical intelligence.