Feedback & demo - instrumental arrangements of popular songs; advice & feedback sought

willo

Hi

So I've been trying to stretch my knowledge and playing recently, particularly inspired by players like Bill Frisell and Julian Lage, who both do incredible and, at times challenging, things yet always retain a keen sense of melody. This is particularly true where they are interpreting a pop or folk song.

I tried to do this recently as a first attempt with the The Shirelles/Carole King/Amy Winehouse song, 'Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow'. I played this last night at an open mic and reception was good, playing was OK, but a few people I spoke to said they didn't hear what song I was playing. I can 100% hear the original song within my arrangement but I don't know if that's my brain filling in the blanks, if you will.

I've uploaded the main passage below. I'd love to hear both:

1. Your thoughts on if you see how this relates to the original recorded versions, or not
2. Tips and advice for this type of arrangement for pop/folk songs - how to use interesting substitutions, chromatics, dissonance yet still retain the identifiable melodic hook of the original.

Thanks in advance, the recording is here: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/x5xdqkagxst2lt8i6whay/wyslmt-middle-bit-18-12-2023-14.54.mp4?rlkey=0k5oujah2yf79ojkwc41ncd7v&dl=0

Brad

Nice approach, I can definitely hear the Frisell/Lage influence.

1. I can hear the original but it does get lost, so I can understand why the ''untrained'' ear (for lack of a better term) can't hear the song in your arrangement.    

2. I wouldn't worry about substitutions, chromatics or dissonance yet. I think there needs to be a better sense of pulse for starters. Frisell and Lage obviously play solo arrangements rubato, but they have such an amazing sense of time that everything still sounds together when they play solo.

Really learn the melody as this is the key to the arrangement. Do this in one area of the neck you feel comfortable in and play it in time. Start to add bass notes of the chords to the melody and finally flesh it out with the chords once you've got melody and bass notes. But the melody should 'pop' out still, it shouldn't get buried by everything else that you're playing.

I'm not the greatest at arranging for solo guitar by any stretch, but here's my rendition of This Is Yesterday by the Manics. Kind of a similar vibe to what you're going for I think. 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CxyrFKds96r/?igshid=ODhhZWM5NmIwOQ==

digitalkettle

 @Brad ;'s advice nails it.

I found I was working hard to keep it together in my mind.

This is not my forte but I'm very interested in it...so: subscribed!

Thinking of Julian Lage on his 'Love Hurts' album (which, as an aside, didn't blow me away like 'Arclight' did)...but especially the 'pop' tunes: title track and 'Crying'...he treads so gently and simply while he establishes the melody. Obviously, he's got a great rhythm section keeping him honest

Solo guitar is a brave thing to do!

willo

Excellent, thank you guys. I think the rhythm/pulse thing is exactly what I'm filling out in my head, but then if that's not coming through then I need to find a way to better bring that out. I suspect my very basic limitations with fingerstyle are part of the problem here, in a solo guitar spot.

And yes @digitalkettle , it really surprised me how much playing on my own threw me at first. I'd just the minute before wrapped up a mini set with my band which was all good, then being on my own was an interesting experience.

guitars4you

Nice playing, but as you say/imply above, you loose the melody - It is fine when playing on your own, if you are trying to 'show off' or add more complex parts - But the more you play to the public, then less is more - As @brad states above - Nail the tune - It is the heart of any song 

You can imply the melody over chords and bass lines for an introduction, and/or even for a verse as an alternative to just the melody itself - But the melody has to be the heart of the song - I don't mean in the 'Hank Marvin' obvious way, as that is almost melody only - But don't loose it either 

allen

I couldn't hear it very well. Did catch the main motif in the chorus though.

I think the chorus of the delay was a bit too overdone and made it harder to latch onto the melody.

Concur with the previous points on timing.

For context I often get lost listening to fairly serious jazz. I went to a Tedeschi Trucks gig and they did an improv jazz thing and I had no idea of what the hell the melody/harmony was doing.

willo

So I was thinking back over this arrangement and thanks for all the feedback guys.

I actually found the stem of Amy Winehouse singing this acapella and checked my arrangement alongside it. Both sit together well and there's some interesting tonal contrasts.

BUT

What was most interesting to me was that my parts shift between lead and accompaniment quite frequently, and I think that's another area where the sense of the song is being lost, i.e.

'Tonight you're mine...' - this melody is played note for note in my parts
'...Completely...' - Chords, vocal melody is implied but not stated clearly
'You give your love...' - played as a counter melody on the guitar
'...So sweetly' - I play a clashy chord which works but is 100% accompaniment

Then into the bridge ('Tonight, the light, of love is in your eyes') - playing-wise this mixes between chords and small lead runs but it is all based around the chords of the accompaniment rather than the lead, vocal melody.

So to come back around on all of this, I think I need to be more intentional, and more direct in my playing of the lead vocal melody.

It's not really a surprise to me after decades of being a sideman, that I go into accompaniment-mode, but I think that, where doing so comes at the cost of not playing a lead vocal melody, that's where the song is getting lost.

digitalkettle

willo said:

...
So to come back around on all of this, I think I need to be more intentional, and more direct in my playing of the lead vocal melody.
...

Doesn't mean you can't get more abstract...just not on the first pass...so that the listener gets time to grasp where you're coming from.

Here's an in-depth analysis of the following styles:

• Jazz - play 'head'...everyone gets to solo over the progression for 15 minutes...repeat 'head'...done
• Classical - play melody...play slightly more elaborate melody...play variations...repeat melody...done

hollywoodrox

I couldn’t hear it , I’m used to the Shirelles version as I had it on the quadrophonic soundtrack so familiar with the song . I’m sure it’s been used on a few adverts too 

ahh found the ad , lovely 

https://youtu.be/8uSLYcsHrGU?si=8K6Z3sgLPNvklSaO

viz

I really liked it but also didn’t recognise it at first, then halfway through I thought - hey, that reminds me of Will you still love me tomorrow! I hadn’t read your intro before listening. 

There are a couple of things I think you’d need to imply the song more strongly. There’s quite an important thing going on in the harmony in the first couple of lines; the first progresion is a 1-4 progression, followed by a 5 to finish off; the second progression is directly to a 1-5 progression. Going directly to the 5 gives it the song a sense of development. 

What you do is:

'Tonight you're mine, com…...' - that’s fine,

”plete” - that “should” really be a 4 chord before going to the 5 chord on “ly”, but you have a strong 5 chord on both. I’d put an F underneath the tune not a G, just for that one syllable. It’ll make the world of difference in terms of calling to mind that particular song. 

Then on “sweet” you do that Bb, which tricks the listener to thinking it’s a C7, which would resolve to F, the 4 chord; and you emphasise that with your diagonal chord, which is a C7 with a 13 on top, so it’s really pulling towards the F; however the song goes to the 5 chord at that point. You could play a G or a B in the harmony to emphasise the 5 chord, and definitely steer clear of the Bb. 

So you’re basically doing the progressions the other way round. Both those things disguise the song. 

Then there’s an important secondary dominant resolving up a 4th to the relative minor. In C, that means an E7 going to Am. You’d need strong notes in those chords for people to know that’s what you’re doing. Over the E you could play an E or a G#. Over A you could play the A.

There’s some really simple sparse notes, in bold, to invoke and evoke the song more. 

The second time round you’re more faithful in the first line, which is when I recognised it (but then you go totally off piste lol so I thought that recognition was just a coincidence)

I still liked it though. 

willo

Excellent, thank you for all the feedback everyone. @viz ; you are spot on regarding the chord changes being the wrong way round - I should have studied the song a bit more closely. I am going to hopefully have some time to work on it between now and New Year as I think there's a germ of something good in here to pull from before trying something new. I also love the idea from a songwriting POV of going straight I-V rather than I-IV-V so that it builds momentum. That era of songwriting really was something.

Just a couple of quick questions as I learn - what do you mean by 'diagonal chord'?

Interestingly, on the '...the light, of love is in your eyes', I do play both E7 and Am arpeggios but there's some widdly stuff in there that might mean that's getting lost. As you say, simpler note choices might help make the song come through more.

I've found this whole process of sharing and feedback really rewarding, so thank you everyone for contributing.

digitalkettle

willo said:

Just a couple of quick questions as I learn - what do you mean by 'diagonal chord'?

At 0:27, (8)-x-8-9-10-x (diagonal frettagement) ?

viz

Ja them diagonals - you can hear them a mile off