Notifications
Clear all
11/03/2010 4:10 pm
Anyone watching,
Just to help the GN folks meet expenses, click on this link https://www.guitarnoise.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=41321 and then click on the sheetmusicplus link (2nd link, I think?) before making purchases. They get a small taste of the action.
thanks...
Roy
"I wonder if a composer ever intentionally composed a piece that was physically impossible to play and stuck it away to be found years later after his death, knowing it would forever drive perfectionist musicians crazy." - George Carlin
Topic starter
11/03/2010 4:35 pm
It's much the same with online tabs & transcriptions. Sometimes I'll look at several versions of the same song, then "triangulate" the correct version with my ears as the final judge.
You have to. Some are just pitiful. There is an "easy" version of My Sweet Lord that is uncapoed Am G instead of capoed (@2) Em A (F#m). The "easy" one just sounds off if you're at all familiar with the song.
I've done that too. I've got many versions of "Rainy Night In Georgia" floating around my hard drive. :?
I've been weeding out the chaff.
Anyone watching,
Just to help the GN folks meet expenses, click on this link https://www.guitarnoise.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=41321 and then click on the sheetmusicplus link (2nd link, I think?) before making purchases. They get a small taste of the action.
thanks...
I'll change my bookmark! :D
I didn't know about sheetmusicplus before this thread. Thanks!
Sitting around this morning with a 12-string tuned low to open C (CGCEGC), and "Could It Be Magic" seems to sit pretty well in that tuning. The chorus bassline is one of the most distinctive parts of the composition, and you can get melody & bassline together in open C. If I were arranging a solo, fingerstyle, instrumental version of the tune, I'd probably pursue it that way. Maybe I'll try it in DADGAD next....
I tried the intro last night, 6 string acoustic. I was shaky, but at least it sounded like the intro. Looking through the whole piece I know I've bitten off more than I can chew at this point, so I'll be taking small bites. If I try to delve into the whole thing I will only get discouraged. I'm not afraid to admit it's a daunting piece at first blush. But I am looking forward to playing it through. :D
It is difficult to answer when one does not understand the question.
11/03/2010 5:07 pm
I have not tried it on my Acoustic yet. My best efforts were on my cheapo electric starter with flatwounds strings on it. Then, of course, I have tone adjustments and effects that I can use through my m-fx unit. Even with all that, I find a certain right-hand technique must be employed that I do not understand enough of to describe effectively. That sheet music also doesn't give any hints for how agressive of slight any of the chord strikes should be, and that's regardless of instrument. It's not an easy, straightforward thing to do.
The guitar sitting beside me wasn't coming close to how I was doing yesterday. It got better. But now, thanks to you, I feel the urge to try it out on my acoustic instead of going and taking a post-lunch nap. :evil: :lol:
Roy
"I wonder if a composer ever intentionally composed a piece that was physically impossible to play and stuck it away to be found years later after his death, knowing it would forever drive perfectionist musicians crazy." - George Carlin
11/03/2010 5:27 pm
Even with all that, I find a certain right-hand technique must be employed that I do not understand enough of to describe effectively. That sheet music also doesn't give any hints for how agressive of slight any of the chord strikes should be, and that's regardless of instrument. It's not an easy, straightforward thing to do.
You got that right. The production on BM's version is so powerful & dynamic, it demands something extra on solo guitar, esp. acoustic. I just don't know what that something extra is. I thought open-tuned 12-string might give it more guts (and in the right hands, it might work).
If you can expound on that right-hand thing at all....
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whipped cream." - Frank Zappa
Topic starter
11/03/2010 5:28 pm
But now, thanks to you, I feel the urge to try it out on my acoustic instead of going and taking a post-lunch nap. :evil: :lol:
And after that, maybe some Bob Seger? bwahahahaha :twisted:
It is difficult to answer when one does not understand the question.
Topic starter
11/03/2010 5:30 pm
Well we know that 12-string hides a multitude of sins. :lol:
It is difficult to answer when one does not understand the question.
11/03/2010 5:43 pm
Well we know that 12-string hides a multitude of sins. :lol:
Whatever works, pardner. 8) (I do love the low-slung 12 -- it's like driving a semi.)
Re-hearing Manilow's single, I was struck by the dynamic range of the production. It's enormous. I thought, How do we keep this thing from just sounding... twee? There's the song, and there's the recording, and sometimes it's hard to separate the two. Is tis a good song or just a good record? That is, does the tune depend on the production? A good song will stand up to almost any imaginable treatment. A solo guitar version is the acid test, I think. Everything is so exposed -- no place for the composer to hide his sins. And this is why this particular project interests me (other than the previously mentioned OCD).
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whipped cream." - Frank Zappa
Topic starter
11/03/2010 6:18 pm
Is tis a good song or just a good record? That is, does the tune depend on the production? A good song will stand up to almost any imaginable treatment. A solo guitar version is the acid test, I think. Everything is so exposed -- no place for the composer to hide his sins. And this is why this particular project interests me (other than the previously mentioned OCD).
I vote for good song because it hits an emotional note (no pun intended), but otherwise tainted by the orchestration. It reminds me too much of Phil Spector's wall of sound, which I detest. I think you can take a good song and turn it to crap by the arrangement and treatment. Yesterday should never have had the strings added; I far prefer Let It Be Naked; but that's me. I like orchestration in a symphony or a suite, e.g. Holst's The Planets, or a single work, e.g. Bolero. But the strings and drums completely drown out the piano.
It is difficult to answer when one does not understand the question.
11/03/2010 6:54 pm
Well, I tried to describe....fergit it.
I just did a tiny track and put it up on SoundClick. Two attempts, one file. Seperated by, well, you'll figure it out. I do like my second one better. It's tricky though, I'll say that much.
http://soundclick.com/share?songid=8871165
Roy
"I wonder if a composer ever intentionally composed a piece that was physically impossible to play and stuck it away to be found years later after his death, knowing it would forever drive perfectionist musicians crazy." - George Carlin
11/03/2010 7:15 pm
I vote for good song because it hits an emotional note (no pun intended), but otherwise tainted by the orchestration. It reminds me too much of Phil Spector's wall of sound, which I detest.
"You've Lost That Lovin' Feeling" would have stood up strong without the Wall. It's a great song....
I think you can take a good song and turn it to crap by the arrangement and treatment. Yesterday should never have had the strings added; I far prefer Let It Be Naked; but that's me.
"Yesterday" stands up strong without the strings. But...
I like orchestration in a symphony or a suite, e.g. Holst's The Planets, or a single work, e.g. Bolero.
...can you even imagine a solo-guitar or solo-piano reduction of either of those works? Not that there is anything wrong with either piece -- orchestration is intrinsic to what they are. But they aren't pop songs, either, or pop records. Holst and Ravel were writing orchestral concert music. Phil and Sir George Martin were making pop records to be listened to on Close-And-Play-quality turntables and crappy AM radios. Can you imagine a solo-guitar version of "I Am the Walrus"? (I actually tried that once, on a National Reso-phonic with fingerpicks & a Stevens bar; almost got away with it because the guitar was so raucous-sounding.) "Imagine" is a great song in any setting; Spector made it a great record with the strings, I think, because of that little bit of added drama.
Probably I'm nitpicking on these distinctions, but I think it's something good to be aware of when one is arranging. Sorry -- these issues have turned me on all my life, and I'll never grow out of it now. :oops:
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whipped cream." - Frank Zappa
Topic starter
11/03/2010 7:31 pm
Oh you haven't lived until you've heard Pictures At An Exhibition done on solo acoustic guitar (Kazuhito Yamashita) and on piano (Vladimir Ashkenazi). It was originally a piano piece. Ravel orchestrated it. I have Bolero on piano. And Charo on solo acoustic guitar. And they all really do work!
I see your point about what the songs were originally meant to be played on. Now with everything so high quality, you can hear every nuance and note stand on its own.
I love this version of Imagine, and it's almost exactly how I play it. I found this after I learned to play it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpdfP1hE8ic&feature=related
It is difficult to answer when one does not understand the question.
11/03/2010 7:47 pm
Oh you haven't lived until you've heard Pictures At An Exhibition done on solo acoustic guitar (Kazuhito Yamashita) and on piano (Vladimir Ashkenazi). It was originally a piano piece. Ravel orchestrated it.
And the orchestration doesn't sound "pianistic." Some piano works are terribly difficult to orchestrate because the piano is intrinsic to the composition.
I have Bolero on piano.
You have GOT to be kidding!?! Who's the artist? This I gotta hear! (Sounds like a Glenn Gould project -- I have an LP of Gould playing Beethovens Symphony No. 5 on piano. But musicians like Gould & Ravel can do anything they want & make it work. It's not fair.)
And Charo on solo acoustic guitar.
Playing Ravel's Bolero? That has to be cool. (Charo was no joke on guitar) But I bet it isn't 20-plus minutes long like the original. :)
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whipped cream." - Frank Zappa
Topic starter
11/03/2010 8:03 pm
Oh you haven't lived until you've heard Pictures At An Exhibition done on solo acoustic guitar (Kazuhito Yamashita) and on piano (Vladimir Ashkenazi). It was originally a piano piece. Ravel orchestrated it.
And the orchestration doesn't sound "pianistic." Some piano works are terribly difficult to orchestrate because the piano is intrinsic to the composition.
Ravel had a singular talent for orchestration and tonal color, so I guess it's not fair to use him as a gold standard.
I have Bolero on piano.
You have GOT to be kidding!?! Who's the artist? This I gotta hear! (Sounds like a Glenn Gould project -- I have an LP of Gould playing Beethovens Symphony No. 5 on piano. But musicians like Gould & Ravel can do anything they want & make it work. It's not fair.)
And Charo on solo acoustic guitar.
Playing Ravel's Bolero? That has to be cool. (Charo was no joke on guitar) But I bet it isn't 20-plus minutes long like the original. :)
I never kid about Bolero. :P
The Bolero piano version is Ruth Laredo and Jacques Rouvier. I believe they are playing counter to each other ala Ferrante & Teicher?
Charo's is a disappointing 4:08. Disappointing because it really could go on a few more minutes. There is minor orchestration that comes in at the end, but not enough to drown her out. Yes, she's quite an accomplished classical guitarist, not just the coochie comedienne (I love her either way :D).
It is difficult to answer when one does not understand the question.
11/03/2010 8:15 pm
I never kid about Bolero. :P
I can get kinda reverent about Ravel. Le tombeau de Couperin is another piano masterpiece that Ravel brought seamlessly to the orchestra -- but not the whole suite. Some of it was just... too pianistic.
The Bolero piano version is Ruth Laredo and Jacques Rouvier. I believe they are playing counter to each other ala Ferrante & Teicher?
That makes sense, because two pianos give you more opportunities to simulate Ravel's mysterious doublings of instruments.
Not to be a pest, Mino, but you have a PM.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whipped cream." - Frank Zappa
Topic starter
11/03/2010 8:24 pm
Cool! I love PMs. :lol:
Yep, Bolero is melody/countermelody and that hypnotic snare drum. I love when the kettledrums/timpani and violins come in.
It is difficult to answer when one does not understand the question.