How to learn the jazz guitar craft, Mickey Baker and other things...

[Badge]

Hi All,

This site has to be one of the best I have come across on any topic. What a tremendous resource and what helpful and knowledgeable participants! Thank you!

I would be grateful for your constructive views on how I can best learn the craft of jazz guitar and views on my choices so far.

Background
I have a strong musical background in classical music (clarinet, piano, classical theory). I am a technician in many aspects of life and feel the need to ‘understand’ things. I am particularly interested in comping, chord melody and colour/ texture in chords.

Equipment
I have a MIA tele and an Epi Sheraton II. I love the former for blues/ playing RnR to the kids (I have dabbled in general guitar over the years) and the latter for my jazz and mellow stuff. I'd welcome views on these guitars too.

Boot Camp
This is what I’ve done to date:
“I'm a relative newbie to jazz guitar. I recently went on holiday and used the flying time to rote learn the relativities from this Guitar Notes Relationships on the Fretboard | Chord Components Chart and then all the basic 4note chord shapes over 6432, 5432, 5321 and 4321 strings noting the different relativities in each grip to those around it. I practiced the shapes on a shred neck to cement them and the relativities in my head (a real guitar being difficult to play on the plane). I then used an app called called fretwarrior to learn the notes. I then created my own chord book using qwikchord. I didn't map the altered chords because I now know the relativities and can work them out in my head as I go. “

This was enlightening as I now know the fretboard and the chord chemistry like the back of my hand. At my level this worked for me and i recommend this approach.

Now I need to work on my chops..."

I feel that has been a great start and given me a good grounding.

The Plan Now
Jazz guitar teachers are thin on the ground in this neck of the woods. So, this is what I am doing…
I am working my way through Mickey Baker – my ‘chops’ are getting significantly better and I’m enjoying the discipline. I worry though that the substantial time I am applying to Mickey Baker might be better spent on other methods? I am a book junkie and have most of the jazz methods. Is any other method a better way to go than with Mickey?
I am also working my way through Leavitt to get a handle on sight reading and to get some movement around the board.
I am also picking a couple of standards each week, and pulling them to pieces, trying to apply substitutions, extensions, voice leading principles and all the chords I’ve learned!
When I get bored, I dip into Arnie Berle’s books, the justinguitar website and a few other books. Right now I am trying to apply jazz principles to Stings’ “Fragilidad” and enjoying the sounds I am making.
I listen to as many artists as I can.

Your Views
I’d be grateful for your views, particularly about Mickey Baker and the other options available to me.

Thank you!

[Baltar Hornbeek]

um ok, here's a pat on the back and good luck to you!

[Banksia]

Good work. Your gear sounds fine. Even neck pickup on a Tele will give some very nice jazz tones.

If you could post a clip of you playing any standard, it might get you some more specific advice on your current status. If you feel uncomfortable about posting stuff, just listen to me playing the worst guitar solo in Rock history: Bass distortionz short progress report by farlow | iCompositions - Music

You can get a free account on icomp and post stuff there.

It does sound, with your work rate, that you might be ready to move on from Mickey.

[matt.guitarteacher]

I'm in similar shape in terms of jazz teachers. I don't think there's anything much better in terms of method books than what you're using.

I'm making a conscious effort this year to work on tunes more. Everything I learn from a method book or anywhere else will be applied to the tunes I'm working on. I've made it my goal to memorize a tune each week. I find that I work out problems and play the tune in my head when I'm away from my instrument. I wake up in the morning hearing the tune and can visualize playing it on the fretboard. All of this is harder to come by if the tune isn't memorized.

The online courses that are often mentioned on here might be a good way to go. I'm definitely going to take Bruno and some of the other inexpensive schools for a test drive when I get a little money together.

[Jazzpunk]

I utilize books, DVD's and online resources as well but there is still no substitute for a good teacher imo!

I've been taking lessons via skype off and on for the past year and it has been great. There are plenty of teachers doing lessons via skype these days so being limited by location is no longer a reality.

[Badge]

Thanks for your replies - I'll investigate skype and lessons.

But do you think Mickey B is the right outlet? If you stick to his stuff you would only be playing 6 chords (I think) for a couple of months...

Does anybody have any experience with the Berklee online courses?

[fumblefingers]

Baker's books are representative of an old (and obsolete) electric guitar approach, IMO: "learn rhythm guitar first, lead second". this runs counter to classical study. in classical guitar study, students learn melody playing right away.

So, I would say learn Leavitt's book 1 first, then go to MB's book 1. I don't know that you'll ever need MB's book 2, over other methods.

yes, i have used the Berklee online courses. i would say that after completing the above, take Basic Improv, and after Leavitt's book 2 try Jazz Guitar 101, and after Leavitt's book 3 (or at least part of it) try jazz guitar 201.

[monk]

Originally Posted by fumblefingers

Baker's books are representative of an old (and obsolete) electric guitar approach, IMO: "learn rhythm guitar first, lead second". this runs counter to classical study. in classical guitar study, students learn melody playing right away.

But he isn't studying classical guitar, he's studying jazz.

There's nothing "obsolete" about learning rhythm first. A guitarist spends 90%+ time on the bandstand as an accompanist. Better to spend time learning to do that well.

A good accompanist who solos O.K. will get a lot more work than a hot soloist who can't comp well.

Regards,
monk

[max_power]

Originally Posted by monk

A good accompanist who solos O.K. will get a lot more work than a hot soloist who can't comp well.

Amen. In jazz, the guitar is a rhythm instrument first and a lead instrument second.

[max_power]

Originally Posted by fumblefingers

Baker's books are representative of an old (and obsolete) electric guitar approach, IMO: "learn rhythm guitar first, lead second".

I'm not familiar with Baker's books, but I agree with you about this approach. I think it's most efficient for students to learn both at the same time, rather than starting with just one.

[Badge]

The problem with leavitt is that it is sooo dull. I don't think he even teaches a 7th chord for the first 50 pages. I know though that, if you stick at it, it would be beneficial. Bit like sit-ups!

[billkath]

Originally Posted by monk

But he isn't studying classical guitar, he's studying jazz.

There's nothing "obsolete" about learning rhythm first. A guitarist spends 90%+ time on the bandstand as an accompanist. Better to spend time learning to do that well.

A good accompanist who solos O.K. will get a lot more work than a hot soloist who can't comp well.

Regards,
monk

I agree. I've never met a working guitarist that didn't first learn chords and then move on to solo work. And I'm old. How are you going to get a young lady if you can't knock out brown eyed girl or American Pie at the after-gig party?

[Drumbler]

You can have the best of both worlds with Mickey Baker if you study both sections at the same time.

Spend half your practice time on each lesson.

It is a but much to wait 6 months to start improvisation.

You will have to decide if you have enough time available.

[Jazzpunk]

Originally Posted by Badge

The problem with leavitt is that it is sooo dull. I don't think he even teaches a 7th chord for the first 50 pages. I know though that, if you stick at it, it would be beneficial. Bit like sit-ups!

If you're bored, you can always augment your studies with video lessons like these:

JAZZ LESSONS

There is some very challenging material presented in many of his lessons. Truefire.com also has video lessons with intermediate and advanced materials:

http://truefire.com/jazz-guitar-lessons/

On top of that you should start transcribing asap! I have no idea why this was not stressed more by my initial instructors but it's such a key component imo.

[Banksia]

Do you have a jazz programme at Adelaide Uni? Is that an option for you?

[fumblefingers]

Originally Posted by Badge

The problem with leavitt is that it is sooo dull. I don't think he even teaches a 7th chord for the first 50 pages. I know though that, if you stick at it, it would be beneficial. Bit like sit-ups!

incorrect. its page 5, which is the second page of music.

but the point is - its not about "putting on the blinders" to other inputs/methods/books/tunes. its about having a primary 1 or 2 methods and other supplemental materials.

this notion of a "complete guitar method" is just BS designed to sell a book. the bottom line - no matter the style, no matter the age, there is no "complete" guitar method in one book by one author, in existence.

[fumblefingers]

Originally Posted by max_power

Amen. In jazz, the guitar is a rhythm instrument first and a lead instrument second.

tell that to Charlie Christian, Wes Montgomery, George Benson, John McLaughlin, Pat Metheny, etc.

do you want to know who can't play solos worth a damn? rhythm guitarists. that's who can't play solos worth a damn.

it depends on what you want to be. if you want to play "rhythm guitar" go ahead and practice that, if you want to play "lead guitar" practice that, if you want to do both exceptionally well, practice that. and muy pronto!

nobody (but us jazz guitar fans) knows who the great jazz rhythm guitar players are. (Freddie King, Bucky P, etc). and for that matter the "chord melody" guys (except Pass). but a lot of people have heard of the guys listed in paragraph one, above. why?

[fumblefingers]

Originally Posted by monk

But he isn't studying classical guitar, he's studying jazz.

There's nothing "obsolete" about learning rhythm first. A guitarist spends 90%+ time on the bandstand as an accompanist. Better to spend time learning to do that well.

A good accompanist who solos O.K. will get a lot more work than a hot soloist who can't comp well.

Regards,
monk

uh-huh. so is that how they teach jazz piano? "no melodies please, only chords! keep that right hand under control! no fancy finger work!"

ok, just joshing.

here's the deal - i am not saying that the approach will always fail. just saying that there is a better way for a guitarist to develop his skills to the fullest. there is absolutely no need to put off simple melody playing.

[backliner]

Rhythm piano. Now there's a concept.

[max_power]

Originally Posted by fumblefingers

tell that to Charlie Christian, Wes Montgomery, George Benson, John McLaughlin, Pat Metheny, etc.

do you want to know who can't play solos worth a damn? rhythm guitarists. that's who can't play solos worth a damn.

it depends on what you want to be. if you want to play "rhythm guitar" go ahead and practice that, if you want to play "lead guitar" practice that, if you want to do both exceptionally well, practice that. and muy pronto!

nobody (but us jazz guitar fans) knows who the great jazz rhythm guitar players are. (Freddie King, Bucky P, etc). and for that matter the "chord melody" guys (except Pass). but a lot of people have heard of the guys listed in paragraph one, above. why?

I meant that, in practice, the primarily role of jazz guitarists is as a comper. As someone mentioned earlier, you'll get more gigs if you're a great comper and a decent soloist than if you're a great soloist but a decent comper. Obviously the guitarists playing jazz at the highest level, like those you mentioned, are known for their soloing abilities, but that's a whole other ball game. The vast majority of jazz guitarists will not reach this level of musical talent or popularity, and for this majority, being an excellent comper will get them further. I'm not suggesting that anyone play rhythm as opposed to playing lead, I'm just saying that when people use guitarists in jazz it's usually because they need a comping instrument.

[Jazzpunk]

Originally Posted by fumblefingers

do you want to know who can't play solos worth a damn? rhythm guitarists. that's who can't play solos worth a damn.

A lot of people who consider themselves lead guitar players can't play solos worth a damn either lol.

[Greco]

SPAM reported

[Drumbler]

I wish you guys would make up your minds so I know what to practice:

Rhythm guitar?

Lead guitar?

Heavy equipment operation?

Pharmaceuticals?

I'm confused.

[bretkills]

Berkeley modern guitar method. Its purpose is to teach you to read. Levin book is good, but the music example, the purpose is to play on the keyboard. They can be adapted for the guitar if you can see the beautiful well.there many contemporary guitarists guitar technique is not standardized symbols, so he developed them. "The article also gives credit Steve Vai's" Frank Zappa Guitar Book "in the rock guitar fingering an important step, the article also mentioned the" guitarist "little rock music magazine, if it does not, it is sheet music.

[Dad3353]

Originally Posted by bretkills

Berkeley modern guitar method. Its purpose is to teach you to read. Levin book is good, but the music example, the purpose is to play on the keyboard. They can be adapted for the guitar if you can see the beautiful well.there many contemporary guitarists guitar technique is not standardized symbols, so he developed them. "The article also gives credit Steve Vai's" Frank Zappa Guitar Book "in the rock guitar fingering an important step, the article also mentioned the" guitarist "little rock music magazine, if it does not, it is sheet music.

Off topic; apologies to the OP...
Am I alone in finding it somewhat worrying that some 'bots (example quoted...) can now compose 'spam' posts that are almost able to contribute to the topic..? I'm sure that I've seen in this very forum posts from 'real' members that are less coherent than those from this 'bot..!
Reported as 'spam' for removal, but a warning to some of us here, in the use of the English language.
(I'm quite willing to be counted amongst the guilty in this respect, of course ...)