-
Originally Posted by docbop
Anyway, I think in practice, Reg's two octave patterns are something different. At least they were for me. They have two distinctions which I think make them unique: First, they're literally two octaves, not "the full range of the pattern in position". Second, there is one for each scale degree.
For me, the unforeseen consequence of those two factors was rhythmic unity to each pattern, which is also present in left and right hand fingering/picking. You literally pick/fret almost exactly the same thing in each position in terms of numbers of fingers with the left hand and also the D-U picking pattern in the right hand.
These factors give them a Hannon-esque musical quality which was very different from my original "ALMOST 2 octaves" learning experience. Honestly, even William Leavitt had that same kind of drawback, to me personally, learning them as an adult 10 years ago or so, when I first learned some stretch fingerings.
I came to the full-on reg thing basically after being pissed at myself about melodic minor. I just couldn't get it together with CAGED, not with my work schedule and few hours to practice. Anyway, Reg's 2-octave thing really helped mentally with MM patterns. I found 7 to be much easier than 5, that way.
It also resulted in the unintended consequence of better right and left hand technique for me, something which I had honestly always found to be a grind. In fact, I was kind of compelled to go back and solidify major diatonic and really clean it up technically as well.
Other people may come to this stuff more naturally, any way they happen to do it, but I'm slow I guess. I ended up being able to get harmonic minor together a lot quicker after this process. It really helps me with a lot of mental aspects of fretboard, especially with reading etc.
Anyway, the last thing I'd say about it is that, for me, when you look at something like piano, it has an inherent organization before you touch it. Black-and-white keys don't require your hands really knowing anything. They are their own reference. With guitar, it's honestly like a blank slate. What you initially learn to play is basically the physical reference by default.
To me, starting each pattern from the same finger/same string is analogous to learning to play beginning five finger patterns on piano. They have a musical/rhythmic/physical unity, in that they all start on the same finger. To be fair, they aren't modal, but piano doesn't suffer from the "no Black Keys" physical problem that the guitar does.
Anyway, in short, I mostly agree with what you're getting at. It's different with beginners as well. I wouldn't throw two octaves at someone who'd never touched a guitar.
-
01-15-2018 06:45 PM
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
The two octave thing I'm talking about above and in another posts previously , is to me more of just the PHYSICAL reference pattern. You can apply actual MUSICAL patterns to them. Reg makes a philosophical distinction between "technical skills" and "performance skills". Very often MUSICAL pursuits point out technical problems that take me back to working on that physical/technical aspect. I like the distinction. For me, it keeps things philosophically "clean". There are a lot less "Matt, you suck " self-talk that way. :-)
Probably the result of my own idiosyncrasies.
-
My former teacher, Ted Dunbar put much emphasis on fingerboard knowledge.
One of several approaches that he put forward was the ability to weave multiple scale/arpeggio paths
connecting all octaves.
Below are all the A octave locations.
I know some here like 5 fingering systems, others 7. I trained in the school of too many fingerings.
While it may sound like a huge memorization project, in truth once the interval patterns are known,
each pathway is either the same or similar to the last, the variance mostly a consequence of G-B string
major third tuning.
------------|-----------------|-------------|---------------|------------|-------------|--------------|---------------|---------------|
------------|-----------------|-------------|---------------|------------|-------------|--------------|---------------|---------------|
------------|-----------------|-------------|-----------2---|------------|-------------|----------2--|---------------|---------14---|
------------|-----------------|---------7--|----------------|------------|--------7----|-------------|---7-----19---|--7-----------|
------------|----------12----|-------------|----------------|---0---12-|--0----------|---0---------|---------------|---------------|
--5---17--|------5----------|---5---------|----5----------|------------|-------------|--------------|---------------|---------------|
------------|----------5-----|-------------|---------------|--------5---|--------17--|---5----17---|--------
------10---|-----------------|-------------|---------10---|------------|--10--------|--------------|--------
------------|-----------------|---2---14--|---2-----------|--2---------|-------------|--------------|-------
---7-------|---7-------------|-------------|---------------|------------|-------------|--------------|-------
------------|-----------------|-------------|---------------|------------|-------------|--------------|------
------------|-----------------|-------------|---------------|------------|-------------|--------------|---
-
I know my 3 note-per-string scales in all 7 positions, which also means I am comfortable playing all diatonic modes. I understand how the patterns link and how the diatonic scale repeats every 7 strings (visualizing scales on a 7 string guitar makes a lot more sense, as a result, I think).
Where my visualizations break down are on other scale types. I know harmonic minor and melodic minor only from the root in a single octave. I can extrapolate this into 2 or 3 octave runs by string the same pattern together, but I'm moving up the neck to do this instead of across it.
I've been meaning to learn 3 note-per-string scales in all 7 positions for melodic and harmonic minor for a couple years now, to cover that gap. However, it is much harder with less time and a brain that doesn't work as good as it did to memorize like when I memorized all of the diatonic modes at 19 years old.
Also need to chase learning 7th arpeggios in the CAGED format at some point too. Too much to learn!
-
This is how I do it: I learn the C major scale omitting F (fourth) and using two notes per string. This means that I often omitt other scale degrees too. It ensures even DU strategy for picking hand. Without F, C major scale sounds like C major. No ambiguity. But, I don't play scales in up down fashion. I play lines. They are ensuring best (better) pitch collection from this scale. Devise a line in 16th using these gibbering. Chart them if you need to.
Also consider this: you won't be playing C major scale just because, you'll play it over some chord or progression. So, for instance, play Dm9 dorian (use looper) and use all your C major lines over it for dori an sound or F major (without Bb) for aeolian sound . This ensures real world usage of those sounds and you practice your fingering & picking, application of scales in tunes and your ear. For me, this is musical way to learn scales.
Do the same with other scales too.
Hmmm, that could be explained in better way...
Sent from my SM-C7000 using TapatalkLast edited by mikostep; 01-16-2018 at 12:16 PM.
-
I like Reg's approach as systematic intro...
it covers all the basic bs all over the fretboard
it will be a good basis for whatever you do next..
-
Segovian scale are but technical scales eleborated for excersising linear runs in classical music and sight-reading.
Of course you also learn the fretboard when you learn them... so to some degree they can be importnat (anything can be))))
but I think it's misleading to emphasize its importance for jazz impro (with all respect to forum members who have different opinion).
Mostly they teach you long scalar runs and embelishments - parts of melodic line (mostly going step-wise) in positions in classical contex.
They also teach well some abstract fretboard knowledge and sight reading.. you begin to see where each not it.
But they give almost no relation neither to arps nor to chords
-
Originally Posted by bako
Seriously, it’s validating to know that this approach has been taught by respected educators.
-
Ted Dunbar totally ripped off my idea :-D
He did like to read esoteric mystical and philosophical books, who knows.
-
Originally Posted by bako
-
Yes... anything can work if you work at it long enough.
The system I use has no holes... because it's designed for the guitar. Scales, arpeggios chords... anything one wants to play is music by itself first... you learn to perform it on the guitar.
The advantage or the organization I use... it's a 12 fret repeating pattern system.
Scales, arpeggios chords everything is organized with the same fretboard organization.
What happens.... I can play anything anywhere, I can play cowboy chord fingering systems... and do so all the time.
I'm from a classical background... and can play most instrument... Disclaimer, not well, But I can sight read and perform. When I started guitar... the teaching methods were lousy... and when I got into jazz and started playing gigs..... I knew I needed to come up with something... long story short.... I don't need to stare at the guitar to perform etc... I have chops, not as many as I had back in the late 60's and 70's... But I can still cover.
Most guitarist... can't really sight read, need to stare at their fretboard while playing and can't comp. A lot of these problems are from not having a performance system designed for the guitar. Most memorize sections of the fretboard and then try and mix and match what they have memorized from different players and teachers... It's like trying to speak using words and understandings from ten languages... and actually have a discussion about something new.
When you take the time to learn the fretboard... you can easily play arpeggios to imply harmony for any melody or melodic line, or play chords below any line with out having to really think. It becomes technically mechanical.
Different players have different ways of expressing how they play, but generally the good players all want the same thing..... they want to play what they want... not what they're able to because of what the guitar allows them.
For the OP... the mental organization... personally I have all the scales, arpeggios and chords etc... already together. My mental thoughts and organization could be... I'm soloing over, say the Practical Standards tune this month, Take the A Train, So I might think when playing over the D7#11, (not D7b5, there is a natural 5), anyway the melody not is G#...
4th position starting on 4th string.......G# A /C / E / G# B............A- ma7 9
7th position starting on 4th string.......B C / E / G#/ B D ............Cma9#5
11th position same.........................D E / G# /B / D F#...........E9
all from A mm scale... I'm probably hearing that D7#11...as a A-9 to D9#11 chord pattern... the point is I'm not mentally thing about how to play what I'm hearing... the scales, arpeggios, chords etc... the physical playing is already worked out.
I can still use different fingering to create different feels, different articulations... different phrasings .... again the fretboard is already worked out... I don't need to think about that.
Someone said they practiced Harmonic maj. scales... where to use that scale. Listen to David Hazeltine's Barbados... it's a cool blues tune. It's and Blueslike are two tunes I made charts... and play ocassionally at gigs. Anyway Barbados use Hmaj.
-
Originally Posted by Reg
What does its diatonic equivalent look like? (I mean I would imagine that melodic minor is more symmetrical in the first place and usually geared around VII and III?) For diatonic I would assume similar but using extended diatonic relationships up and down a third? Then on to other chords which are used more to target the chord of the moment?
Anyway, I'd love the chance to look at anything you have with this kind of thing written down, regardless of the state it's in. I know you want it to be organized, and I can appreciate that. Very interested in your notion of "a performance system designed for guitar". Compelling...
-
Originally Posted by Reg
Right there is the key, select a system and commit to it. You want something that you internalize and you use with little or no thought works for you.
-
Regarding sight reading, the reason many guitarists suck at it isn’t so much that they don’t use whatever system that someone feels is the best but because they don’t practice it. They might practice reading but if they don’t practice sight reading then they will not get good at it and will not learn to assign sounds in their head with what they are seeing on the page before they play it and how to associate it with fingerings and intervals on the fretboard, which is a key element of sight reading. The good news is that you just have to do it, and unlike comping you can practice it most efficiently in your own home. But for some reason people don’t, or they think that half assing is good enough so they don’t push their sight reading to the point that they can read really well the first time through.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
-
Originally Posted by Reg
-
Yea Matt... I use extended Diatonic approach... (up and down diatonic 3rd relationships), just like I use subs, function subs, tritone subs etc...
Context always organizes the application... meaning the approach, extended diatonic relationships, is a micro concept, the big picture or macro concept(s) generally control how much I can develop the relationship.
Generally I use MM and different technical applications to help me frame Blue notes, or Blue note feels. Or create different harmonic backgrounds for simple jazz language.
And yes I use Target moments as references for harmonic relationships.
And the simple way I organized how I perform on the guitar... which is just a fingering system where all aspects of performance are based on same basic fingering system, everything is tied together, completely mechanical.... anyway when I mentally hear or want to try and develop something... say extending a lick with a lead line or melody on top...I already have a fingering reference.
I can change it, use a different stylistic fingering, but again those are already organized.
Like I've always said, and docbop agreed above... pick a system and finish the learning and understanding of the organization, which will lead to less wasted mental process. ( I stretched the commit comment )
And yea rio... if you don't practice sight reading, it will never happen. I generally try and push guitarist to become aware of rhythmic and melodic patterns... which will speed up the process of being able to get ahead of the music. Instead of recognizing notes, you recognize longer patterns, which allows you to relax by being ahead. You can then also actually work on the performance aspect and hear what else is going on. And this is always easier when one already has a fingering system together which doesn't require taking your eyes off the chart and being able to look around when you do.
-
I darsesay the answer is in the Reg thread somewhere, but I'm not sure if I yet appreciate how the example Reg posted translates to fretboard mapping... I'm intrigued though...
-
hey Christian... who knows, I get lost in the moment etc...
But the Hazeldine vid was just example of using Harmonic Maj... with a blues tune... and I always like that group of musicians
the Lick going up in 3rds was example or result of fret mapping organization for playing
the vid of me was ? Matt putting together fret mapping and altered subs from MM licks. More of how everything is the same with most of my playing.... I'm way too simple...
Ibanez archtop with 0.010 Thomastik strings and...
Today, 05:27 AM in The Builder's Bench