Cross picking patterns

[John McGann]

What is the difference between alternate picking, crosspicking and a roll (like banjo).

So, if I want to use these techniques ad lib, which rule or pattern is there to follow ? Or do I simply improvise ?

http://www.johnmcgann.com/crosspicking.html

Jesse has some specific patterns on 3 strings that are basic- the forward roll and reverse roll. Most crosspicking is based from those foundations. I remember it took me a LONG time to get it going, because I had years of strict alternate picking ingrained in my playing. I think the best way in is to track down that Andy Statman Jesse McReynolds book, long out of print but floating around in .pdf format. It is truly a goldmine, and reveals things about ways to play that most mortals would never have dreamed of, in terms of combining notes up the neck with open strings. A lot of counter-intuitive note placement that works brilliantly.

I don't mean to harp on this, but it is a totally different approach to the instrument from 'normal' alternate picking. It is a different language as far as right hand technique goes, and I think it is stunningly inventive. Jesse is an unsung hero in my book.

[Jeroen]

@ JaHe
Many questions. Mostly about theory. Theory and crosspicking are a bees nest and there has been a some dispute about naming the aspects of the techniques and the techniques themselves.

“cross” refers to jumping from string to string for each note, and “picking” seems to refer to folk styles for plucked cordophones where plucking technique and instrument operation are a significant factor in the character of the music (flatpicking, fingerpicking, Travis picking..).

The best way to dive into it is indeed lots of tiresome right hand exercise, but also lots of fun listening to whatever inspires you (Jesse McReynolds, JS Bach, Andy Statman, Toumani Diabate, Steve Reich, Earl Scruggs, whatever).

At the risk (should I say guarantee?) of boring both starters and experts, I will throw in some theoretical remarks about the non-melody notes and the patterns:
- they give the melody a harmonic context. Which is weird, because the notes are not being picked simultaniously. Standard notation would drown in a mess of ties to prescribe or describe the effect. Since the notes are being picked on different strings, the sustain of several notes will overlap and add harmony.
- the pattern of notes gives a rhythmic context. Which is weird, because you will usually play a pretty constant stream of 16th notes. The rhythmic pattern is paradoxically a melodic one, but because of its more or less repetitive structure, it will add an (often syncopated) rhythmic effect.
- the physical playing pattern will usually shine through in a syncopation with subtle accents. The use of open strings and choice of position on the neck will have a tremendous influence on the effect. In a complex cross string picked phrase, standard notation will fall short to catch these aspects.
- the pattern and its effect often have priority over a strict representation of the melody.

The result is a spectacular mosaic of melody, harmony, repetition and syncopation where the the instrument and the right hand technique of the individual musician are such an integral part of the result, that western music theory and standard notation have big trouble to catch the gist of what is going on musically.

[John McGann]

Jeroen, that is very well, even poetically, spoken!

It would indeed be messy to notate the exact effect of note durations. A really interesting read is John Stropes transcriptions of Michael Hedges ("Rhythm Sonority Silence") with amazing attention to such details as note durations- he invented some ways of notating post-attack sustain with colored bars, as well as muting techniques, etc.

That's the most lovingly detailed set of transcriptions I've ever seen.

[Werner Jaekel]

Jeroen

Very good, I copied and printed your post and added this to my folder " tuition". Thank you.

Today I got Professor John McGanns' " developing melodic variations on fiddle tunes ..." and Mickey Cochrans' "crosspicking technique ".

Got a bit of work to do now...

Page 2 " what they are saying" -YES, very true.

The books recommended by Professor John McGann "Andy Statman Jesse McReynolds" and "Rhythm Sonority Silence" are not available in Germany.
Thank you , all the same.

[MandoSquirrel]

The "Andy Statman Jesse McReynolds" isn't readily available anywhere, except used copies that rarely are offered for hundreds of dollars, aside from the possible tracking down of that elusive PDF!

And, Professor McGann's stuff is very good, for those who can take the time to really work with it.

[Mandophyte]

The "Andy Statman Jesse McReynolds" is currently "available" at Amazon UK.

For mere £648, that's $1020 to you folks across the pond!

[John McGann]

Amazon USA has a copy for a mere $200, but if you dig around the interwebs enough...

I actually had email communication, back around 2005, with someone from the company that now owns the Oak Publications rights, and he said they'd consider republishing it if there was enough demand...so if someone wants to organize a petition to get it back in print, I'd imagine with the poor state that publishing houses are in, they'd maybe do a run of 300-500 books...it would be worth the effort for any curious mandolinists, because that book is a gold mine, and will open your mind to undreamed-of possibilities on the instrument!

Jesse is a unique and unsung genius.

[Werner Jaekel]

All for it, depending on the price and availability via amazon.de

[pefjr]

deleted

[MandoSquirrel]

Amazon USA has a copy for a mere $200, but if you dig around the interwebs enough...

I actually had email communication, back around 2005, with someone from the company that now owns the Oak Publications rights, and he said they'd consider republishing it if there was enough demand...so if someone wants to organize a petition to get it back in print, I'd imagine with the poor state that publishing houses are in, they'd maybe do a run of 300-500 books...it would be worth the effort for any curious mandolinists, because that book is a gold mine, and will open your mind to undreamed-of possibilities on the instrument!

Jesse is a unique and unsung genius.

So, who's going to take charge of the petition?!

[mandocrucian]

Out of curiousity, what are the other books in the Oak Bluegrass Masters selling for these days?

Vassar Clements - fiddle
Kenny Baker - fiddle
Clarence White - guitar

[blueridgemandolin]

Is the book still under Copyright, just wondering if some one could get a copy and scan it and give it away to the people who want to take a look at it or play with and see what it is all about.
Dan

[EdSherry]

Yes, it's still under copyright. In the US, copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. Andy Statman is still alive and kicking (and picking).

[journeybear]

Please forgive me if I am asking something which is well-known or obvious, but I would like to know how it is that the cross-picking patterns described earlier are so narrowly defined. When I was introduced to cross-picking some three decades or more ago, I was told it was a matter of picking notes on the several strings while holding the hand still, rather than picking notes on a single string (or two) while moving the hand. Either way notes are moving up and down the scale, but they are being produced differently, with distinctly different sounds and effects. After fooling around with this for a while it dawned on me that this is the mandolin equivalent of not only banjo rolls, but chord arpeggiations - that is, unless "arpeggiating a chord" is also narrowly defined to be only playing the notes in ascending or descending order.

Granting that I may have misunderstood the term "cross-picking" from the start, I am having trouble understanding how it is defined as limited to a 3-3-2 rhythmic pattern. This syncopation is not very common in bluegrass (in my admittedly limited experience I have rarely heard it), where the technique originated (other than in banjo rolls), dominated by 4/4, 2/4, and 3/4 time signatures, apart from occasional added or dropped beats, measures, and half-measures. As such, it plays off the rhythm the rest of the band is playing, rather than flowing with it. It seems to me this technique should be called "McReynolds-style cross-picking," much as "Scruggs-style" has been applied to banjo picking - that is, a specific style of cross-picking rather than the main thing itself.

I am going on about this because I use a straight 4/4 16th note cross-picking technique now and then as a different flavoring in certain songs. I like the way this makes the notes of chords ring while still adding the motion of successive notes (as eloquently depicted by John McGann in his description of the John Stropes transcriptions in Post #28), which enables longer-lasting chords without just strumming them. Also it makes a very pleasant tinkling sound, adding some variety to the ensemble sound. I have always thought of this as cross-picking, and have never really standardized my technique into a strict pattern or patterns. I tend to play all strings as equally as possible, though I tend to exclude the G string (I am most interested in handling the high end of a band 's audio spectrum), and also change positions/fingerings occasionally within a chord's duration in the song's chord structure. More often than not I am doing this for backup, not lead, though I may well incorporate this into a lead if I take one in that song - thematic continuity, so to speak. If this is not cross-picking, could someone please tell me what it is?

[pickloser]

If I may presume to paraphrase earlier posts, the "narrowly-defined cross-picking patterns" you note, are the patterns originally developed by Jesse McReynolds to emulate banjo rolls. The patterns did not use strict alternating pick directions; they used consecutive downstrokes or upstrokes followed by a stroke in the other direction, I believe. A string was also "jumped" to complete the pattern. Other stringed instrument players, apparently mostly guitarists, copied this sound from McReynolds or possibly from banjos. These patterns jumped a string too, but used strictly alternating pick strokes. They misappropriated the term cross-picking, and should have more accurately referred to it as "across string picking," reserving the crosspicking term for the McReynolds pattern. Although a few mandolin players may have caved in to this broadening of the term to any roll type pattern that jumps a string (for example, Mike Marshall has exercises in Improvisational Concepts for both type patterns termed "cross picking patterns"), the alternating picking patterns and the double pick in the same direction pattern create quite different rhythmic impressions. Thus, the term cross picking should be reserved for the pattern as originally developed by Mr. McReynolds.

JB, if you are using alternating pick strokes, and you are crossing a non-played string while doing so, you are doing cross string picking or across string picking, but you are not crosspicking.

[journeybear]

JB, if you are using alternating pick strokes, and you are crossing a non-played string while doing so, you are doing cross string picking or across string picking, but you are not crosspicking.

The problem I am having with the way these terms have been defined here stems from this analysis by John McGann, in which he says: "There are two basic patterns (imagine strings 4 3 2)- a reverse roll is DUUDUUDU strings 42342343. A forward roll would be DDUDDUDU strings 43243243 ... Applying alternate picking patterns to the above crosspicking pattern does NOT make it crosspicking. True crosspicking is based on DDUDDUDU or DUUDUUDU patterns across the strings-not alternate picking." He defines alternate picking as "the art of plectrum (pick) playing which places a downstroke on the downbeat and the upstroke on the upbeat, so the pattern would look like DUDUDUDU for 8 eighth notes in a 4/4 measure."

I understand the meaning of "alternate picking" defined this way, and that this is not crosspicking, nor even how I would define crosspicking. This is alternating downstrokes and uostrokes on one string, while crosspicking involves more than one string. However, the way he has defined crosspicking necessitates crossing a non-played string twice in each eight-note pattern, each time there is a 4-2 or 2-4 played, so I can't agree with that part of your statement. He does say McReynolds developed crosspicking to emulate Scruggs' banjo rolls -which I totally get - but limiting this kind of playing to just these two forms doesn't make sense to me. There are more ways to pick in this fashion than those two specified, and to my line of thinking that is crosspicking - with these specific patterns being "McReynolds-style" or "original" or "classic," incorporating the 3-3-2 rhythmic pattern, but not the only way to do it.

If I understand such things correctly (necessary disclaimer ), terminology protocol sets forth general characteristics, and then specific examples are named. If it were up to me (all these years later), I would call the general technique "crosspicking," and name these two variants as above. If Mike Marshall or Andy Statman comes up with a different pattern, unique to him, the fist one to do it, that should be named after him. If I could reproduce what I do on a consistent basis, I should be able to do the same. Personally, I would call it "nitpicking" and have done with it, because it kind of coincides with my theory. But if Jesse were the only one playing this way, and there were no other way to play the instrument in a way like this, the point would be moot. But that is not the case.

[margora]

"Jesse has some specific patterns on 3 strings that are basic- the forward roll and reverse roll. Most crosspicking is based from those foundations. I remember it took me a LONG time to get it going, because I had years of strict alternate picking ingrained in my playing."

I agree with Mr. McGann on the above as well as his specific definition of JMR cross-picking (which is narrowly but correctly defined).

However, if one is trained in classical mandolin rh methods, as I am -- by which I mean starting with baroque (Leone) through Calace through modern German -- there is nothing at all difficult about JMR cross-picking. I have no practical bluegrass or fiddle tune experience (other than reading standard notation of the same) but I have no problem whatsoever executing JMR forward or backward rolls or whatever at very fast tempos. The issue, as Mr. McGann implies in his post, is modern-American-popular-mandolin-strict-alternate-picking technique, which is too narrow, in my view, to encompass useful skills on the mandolin, regardless of the genre of music one plays.

[blueridgemandolin]

It seems like I remember someone on here a while back had a link to a pdf copy of the book, best I can remember it did not stay on here long. Guess that explains why, since the copyright is still in effect.
Dan

[EdSherry]

To add to the terminological debate: In Dan Crary's "The Flatpickers' Guide," he uses the term "cross-picking" to refer to a syncopated string-crossing pattern using alternating (DUDU) picking. I acknowledge the distinction between DDUDDUDU (or DUUDUUDU) and alternating picking, and they really do sound different, but to say that the term "cross-picking" has to be reserved for McReynolds-style DUUDUUDU playing (or its guitaristic DDUDDUDU counterpart) seems to suggest that what Crary does isn't cross-picking. I don't know about you, but IMHO Crary does a pretty darn good job of it, whatever you want to call it.

[mandocrucian]

OY VEY!!!

"Someone's had to much to think! Case of the punks!"
- Captain Beefheart ("Ash Tray Heart")

This one can only be resolved by calling in (drumroll please).... the "Terminator" (makin' copies....)

[journeybear]

Now you're just being silly! But if it's time for comic relief, that "too much to think" line reminded me of this psychedelic classic ...



Remarkable how they reproduced the studio recording note for note, complete with fuzz effects and that backward tape sound for the lead guitar. Plus it's amazing that they were able to do this without plugging in their instruments, and that the singer didn't use a mike, and played an autoharp that wasn't on the recording. Very impressive. Ain't technology grand?

And now, we return you to your previously scheduled programming, already in progress ...

[John McGann]

Of course Dan Crary, Mike Marshall, Chris Thile are exemplary musicians, and they can call whatever they do whatever they want.
So can anybody who just bought their first Morgan Monroe.

Tony Rice doesn't alternate pick, he doesn't "call" it anything other than "common sense". Alternate picking will not get you into the Tony Rice zone, even if you play his lines note for note. His phrasing, timing and feel are connected with how he picks.

The only reason I present that there is a distinction between alternate picking and crosspicking is that it yields different articulations. Articulation is a word that most plectrum players don't think about, but wind and bowed string players live there. It's the way the notes speak, and the rhythmic effect that the articulation has on the musical line being played.

I am not only a musician, but also a teacher, and function, in Matt Glaser's words "as a clearing house for ideas". When someone is asking me, as a teacher, if it 'really makes a difference', it would be irresponsible for me to say 'whatever works, man...' The truth is obvious in the differences in the sound. Play the bridge of "Stoney Creek" with DUU style picking a la Jesse, and then with alternate picking. It is not the same.

Someone usually rises at this point and says something like "well, if you were such a hot shot, you could put accents on the upstrokes to get the same effect". Theoretically-sure. In reality- downstrokes and upstrokes sound different, especially if you use rest strokes (one of the important factors in the DDU phrasing).

Specific sounds sometimes require specific techniques. Anything else is an approximation. Life is short, so either 'close enough' is OK, or life is too short for 'close enough'.

Is it micro-dweeby, micro-nerdy to be so (pun intended) picky? I don't know, is it micro-nerdy when your carpenter, plumber, car mechanic, dentist, surgeon really pays attention to the fine points and details? Is Jackson Pollack the same as Magritte?

Whether you agree or think I'm just a windbag, I wish everyone great fun and great music.

[mandocrucian]

Articulation is a word that most plectrum players don't think about, but wind and bowed string players live there. It's the way the notes speak, and the rhythmic effect that the articulation has on the musical line being played.

ABSOLUTELY!
And add all the most expressive electric guitar players: Knopfler, Thompson, Santana, Hendrix, Green, Gilmour, BB..................

Will the wind ever remember
The names it has blown in the past?
And with his crutch, it’s old age, and it's wisdom
It whispers "No, this will be the last"
And the wind cries Mary

[margora]

"The only reason I present that there is a distinction between alternate picking and crosspicking is that it yields different articulations. Articulation is a word that most plectrum players don't think about, but wind and bowed string players live there. It's the way the notes speak, and the rhythmic effect that the articulation has on the musical line being played."

As earlier, I agree with Mr. McGann. JMR cross-picking + the many other rh patterns that are common in classical mandolin (but not in popular American mandolin) give distinct articulations to the music in question. In the classical mandolin literature these things are the way they are -- for example, in Calace -- because the composer intends them. Ignoring such in favor of some other rh technique is a musical error.

[journeybear]

I don't think anyone was talking about ignoring one technique in favor of another. I have often thought and sometimes spoken of using a musical palette analogous to a painter's, which contains all manner of techniques, styles, genres, what have you, in order to incorporate whatever is deemed fit into a performance. Thus I tend toward inclusion, not exclusion, and choice, rather than interdiction. My issue in this discussion has not been of usage, but terminology.

I am with John McGann in his desire for precision and clarity, and a wish for those learning an instrument to strive for excellence, rather than compromise and rationalization of shortcomings. "Good enough" may not actually be good enough. To be clear, whenever I say "whatever works, works" (which I haven't here, by the way, nor will), I don't mean I have settled for something less than what I wished to achieve, but that I have found a way that works, even if it may not be perfect. But I think I have wandered afield from the topic ... Well, it's close enough to what I meant. I think ...