-
That's great but I would not take it as a guideline. The next step would be to forget the note names if you already know them?Before I got into playing, I got to know someone who played sublime bebop on guitar and who had learned harmony by hanging out with pianist Bill Evans. That guitarist probably couldn't name the notes in a given scale, and I never heard him play one. He only ever played and/practised music.
People have different gifts, skills and abilities (and background, education, family, character, temper, physiology, souls)
If someone comes to the point where he askes himself (or a forum) if I should practice this or that... and decides not to do it only because some guitar player (great name or not) plays great jazz without ever (supposedly) practicing that... this is just wrong.
If something comes in the focus of personal practicig one should solve that problem himself...
Mostly those who do great without practicing 'this or that'... actually did not have any problem with 'this or that'. They did not go around asking should I play scales or not? They had they goals and they managed to achieve...
But if someone asks - be careful to answer
So my idea: if you have some problem - practice and resolve, if you don't - why asking then? Play ...
but since you ask don't drop it out just because someone managed to handle it without it, it's your mind, your hands playing, it's your music in your head (heart or whatever you religion allows to have)
-
12-29-2017 04:53 AM
-
Ultimately, yes.
Originally Posted by Jonah
For your information, I DID take care to answer responsibly.
The question I was answering was this:
I reiterate my original statement and withdraw from further debate.I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not.
You don't think Charlie Parker worked on scales?
Grant, Wes or George NEVER practiced scales? What?? I hear them use scale runs, Grant Green quite frequently. There's just no way these guys NEVER practiced scales, at least in my opinion. Where did you hear or read this?
.You are a product of what you practise. Practise scales & mechanics: that's what you play. Practise tunes & solos: that's what you play. Very simple.
Learn tunes & learn guys' solos off records.
If you want to learn to play 'jazz', don't work on scales at all. Don't waste your time.Last edited by destinytot; 12-29-2017 at 09:17 AM. Reason: 'debate' instead of 'discussion'
-
From transcription I don't think guitarists tend to play so many scales TBH.... Might be wrong though.
(OTOH my main aim personally right at this moment is not to play like a 'classic jazz guitarist' necessarily, but to master the language used by horn players, pianists and so on, as well as guitar players.)
I don't think there's one way of going about it. You are not going to play like Pasquale Grasso if you've never worked on a scale. (And probably not in any case lol) OTOH I'm quite open - and in fact inclined to agree - with destiny's claim that Grant Green, Wes, Charlie Christian etc weren't practicing scales. Scales do feature in their playing (even CC) although not to the extent you see them in Hank Mobley, for instance.
This make sense (I think) because sax and piano are linear instruments in that sense, and you practice scales as you learn. Guitar is about shapes, and most jazz players didn't have classical tuition, so they found their own solution.
As a teacher, I would tend to teach arpeggios before scales, but I would teach scales for sure. Students can go with whatever jives with them, and the music they are transcribing. Scales/arps etc are just a framework for understanding things and how they go on the fretboard and relate to chords and key centres.
Also, the way I used to practice scales in 2+ octave positions is not the most useful for improvising on changes. You want small units of a scale, 4 notes in a row, at the most an octave.
-
Here's another thought. Guitar has quite a big range, so big arpeggios fit quite nicely on the instrument if you get the technique together. I'm thinking here of Django, Wes and Lage Lund, for instance. Not every guitarist that uses chord tones plays that way (CC doesn't), but I thought I'd point it out. And GB plays those big sweepy things going across the strings...
In contrast, these types of sounds would not work so well on Sax with a relatively small active range. Most Parker solos fit to a compass of less than 2 octaves. Because of this, scales and elaborate enclosure patterns are very useful.
OTOH, they are a very common part of clarinet language (think Benny Goodman etc) because of that instrument's large range. Also the clarinet was to some extent a harmonic, comping, instrument in trad jazz line ups because of the way it played against the trumpet.
On piano we can hear both - arps (think Errol Garner) and sax-like lines (think Bud Powell.)
Also we tend to be harmony instruments, so even when we solo there's a tendency to express harmony rather than melody.
-
False comparison in that you can edit writing but not improv. But I like it anyway. Originally Posted by djg
you don't become a good writer by practicing your typing skills
A little unfair on Bream in that it makes him or to be a pure technician. I can’t imagine that’s what you meant by you post. But obviously classical and jazz are linked but separate musical languages.if you want to learn jazz, you need to study jazz. if your goal is to just learn the fretboard carry on. again it's like learning where each key on your typewriter is. if the deductive approach worked, how come that talented amateurs like dutchbopper or grahambop would totally wipe the floor with julian bream, playing a blues or rhythm changes?
I think what unites Bream and say Wes is a masterful and intuitive musicality that comes from concerning themselves primarily with music - and in some ways their physical approach to playing the guitar is closer then you might think.
Play scales or don’t, but never neglect the study of music for mere exercises.
-
This is smart but actually a bad comparison with jazz improvisation. Originally Posted by djg
you don't become a good writer by practicing your typing skills
You'd have to write live, in the same rhythm&tempo as you'd speak, with any mood/weather, always stay sharp, no stops, know each little grammar quirk by heart... etc. Then you could compare it with jazz.
-
haha thanks for the compliment, Julian Bream is one of my favourite musicians irrespective of genre or instrument. Actually there is an old black and white film clip of Bream having a reasonable stab at playing a solo on a Django tune, he did in fact start out playing in his dad’s swing band I believe. But I agree, you’ve got to study jazz to play jazz. Bream must have studied it enough in his younger days to pick something of the style up. Originally Posted by djg
you don't become a good writer by practicing your typing skills
if you want to learn jazz, you need to study jazz. if your goal is to just learn the fretboard carry on. again it's like learning where each key on your typewriter is. if the deductive approach worked, how come that talented amateurs like dutchbopper or grahambop would totally wipe the floor with julian bream, playing a blues or rhythm changes?
As for scales, I think you need to learn them at least the basics, but I must admit I have not really practised them much for years. But I did learn them when I was a teenager and had classical guitar lessons, so the knowledge is there.
-
Nowadays while my students do finger exercises, scales or basic reading, I run my scales quietly with unplugged guitar. That's just automatic, can always check if they sit correctly or miss a sharp. Can't do it consciously, not anymore. Makes my brain go numb - worst feeling ever
-
Many writers of the pulp era earned such poor rates they did have to be able to write as fast as they typed effectively, and most of them could type properly AFAIK. Originally Posted by emanresu
Obviously that's not a comment on the actual originality of the work. You'd have to suffer a lot of generic stuff for one Phillip K Dick or Raymond Chandler. But it does take craft, and physical craft too.
I'm reminded of the musicians of Mozart's era, where the composition took the same amount of time it would take an experienced copyist to copy out the parts. You can see the haste in Mozart's scores.
Anyway, I digress :-)
-
I suspect that - as with many forum posts (except examples of playing, or the movie clips which I'm so fond of posting) - a lot of editing and revision gets done intuitively and on-the-fly. Originally Posted by emanresu
-
What an excellent post. Originally Posted by djg
If it isn't (a) easy and (b) fun to do what Mr McPherson demonstrates (by which I mean 'maintaining musical integrity and coherence by means of one's phrasing'), one can make it so by practising the right things in the right doses. ('Compound interest' anyone?)
As one member posted recently (and I think they were quoting Mr Metheny), "Don't do what Wes did, do what Wes did."
Sorry if that quote isn't exact, but the inference (and I feel I can speak with connaissance de cause) is that mimicry is not the purpose of imitation.
On the subject of imitation, what seems to me to be a greater obstacle is unwillingness to 'think' (in the problem-solving sense) for oneself. As a teacher myself, I know that a teacher's greatest asset is restraint - the ability to pause, rather than intervening.
And, on the subject of teaching, I'm putting all teachers and self-promoters on 'ignore'.
-
There are basically two types of practice,
1) Working on technical skills... everything that gets your skills on your guitar together. scales, arps., all the notes on the guitar and how to play them. A fingering system, organizations of notes, chords... anything you and has been thought of. which leads to...
2) Performance Skills... how to play music using all those skills.
Scales are one of those skills.... CST is not a scale teaching tool or theory. Once you get past the basic organization of becoming aware of possible scale organization, it becomes a harmonic theory. Just as chords have patterns that imply harmonic function, the point of CST is to become aware of possible note collections, scales that represent harmonic choices which lead to possible different Harmonic Function choices.
Just like you have Diatonic chords that come from a tonal reference.... you also have scales that are Diatonic to a tonal reference. One of the big differences is... CST uses Modal concepts as part of defining Diatonic, expanding choices of diatonic function.
CST helps become aware of possible harmonic organization besides basic traditional Functional Harmony organization. CST is based on common jazz practice of the past 60+ years. And also gives a possible different approach for harmonic organization of older music.
One of the basic functions of learning scales... is to teach you fretboard organization and make you choose a fingering system that eventually makes the neck become a 12 fret repeating pattern. All six strings within that 12 fret repeating pattern. That is the big or macro reference... and also the many smaller or micro relationships within that 12 fret system.
I've always use the same fingerings for scales, arpeggios, chords... any note pattern or collection within that 12 fret pattern.
I've posted tons of material... if you want any hand outs let me know.
Generally start with Maj/min. or all the diatonic scales from the major scale, then the Harmonic Minor and all it's diatonic scales, then Melodic Minor and all its diatonic scales.
I generally relate harmonic minor to Natural Minor... and Melodic Minor to Dorian
-
A word to the wise: check out Mr McPherson's 'What, Where & When' @18:45 in the interview clip above.
-
Sorry about that Originally Posted by djg
-
Charles MacPherson video rocks BTW
-
It's aggravating, for sure. But it's also the internet. There is a weird logic to how it all works, and you have to spend some time getting to know who posts what and why. I can see why some really good players find it frustrating though and move on. Originally Posted by djg
As a fellow devotee of Barry, Peter B etc, I tend to be mostly interested in sticking down fundamentals in my playing (and others who I teach) rather than going into conceptual territory (believe it or not) - and I spent years interested in that stuff before I realised that it was all hoopla, basically.... At least for the relatively straightforward music I play most of the time.
I have respect for some players here whose posts I personally find utterly impenetrable and completely mystifying. I try hard not to be dismissive of it, but I don't think that way - others seem to find them useful.
-
typing skills are not compareble to mechanical technical skills required to play musical instrumentsyou don't become a good writer by practicing your typing skills
-
Ok, but all of that is pretty anecdotal. I've seen just as much frustration from the "learn everything through the music alone" promise as well. It's a great idea really. I adhered to it myself for quite a while. I mean, it's very logical and promises to kill 2 birds with one stone, but it isn't that simple. Originally Posted by djg
I found that basic fretboard knowledge, fingering organization, and technique got in the way of this pursuit. I started noticing things, like the fact that exercises described as "basic" on other instruments took a great deal of "working out" to simply BEGIN practicing on guitar. This was my personal experience and probably doesn't hold true for those with more natural talent than I possess.
I ignored the "get you technical/fretboard awareness together" advice for several years and personally feel that this was the biggest waste of time. I think that basic technical skills are what hold most guitarists back. We're largely self-taught. We don't know the basic rudiments of music that horn and keyboard players learn in middle school. We can't read music. We tend to approach everything from a perspective of dots on a grid.
We then make false-logic assumptions about the reasons that other musicians don't talk about basic musicianship in studying jazz, when in fact it's probably because other musicians already know all this crap from when they were kids.
I'd agree that you probably could get bogged down needlessly in technical to the detriment of musical, if you're not organized and don't have specific goals, but none of that changes the fact that it's very beneficial to be a BASIC musician by common standards BEFORE thinking about being a JAZZ musician.
I'm suspicious of those who dismiss technical basics, in the same way that I would be of anyone who might advocate someone dismissing musical considerations. It's a balance I'd say.
Better questions might be things like:
What percentage of time should you spend on technical vs musical considerations?
Is the answer to the above question different, depending on skill level or experience?
What perspectives do you gain by looking at other instrumentalists? There abilities when starting jazz? Knowledge etc?
Looking at what other instrumentalists work on as "basic" sent me back to the shed to get basic together more, and I'm glad I did. I think we don't know where the notes are like horn players. We don't know basic harmony like pianists. I also think that we need to spend a higher percentage of time on technical in the beginning than we do later. Eventually, it ends up being probably 100% musical.
But end game is end game.
-
Great points. I've been playing 54 years this month and I'm still dealing with these issues. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
I think that the only skill you need to play a jazz solo is the ability to make up a melody in your mind that fits a song's harmony, and make it come out of your instrument.
As far as I know, everybody scat sing something.
There are lots of approaches to learning how to make your scat singing come out of the instrument and, as long as you have the guitar in your hands a lot, they will all work.
After that, if you bored with your scat sung melodies, you can try to broaden your musical mind by listening and copying or, less effective IMO, trying to find new things via theory- although it can work.
And then, after that, if you want to play with other people, there are a whole bunch of other things to work on.
But, the fundamental issue is to be able to make up a melody and play it. There are great players who know absolutely no theory (Andres Varady made the cover of GP, plays great and didn't know any theory whatsoever - it's in the interview). There are great players who do know theory.
Do you need theory? It depends on who you are and what you're trying to do.
Do you need to master all scales modes and arps before you try to play jazz? If you could stand it, it would probably help, but the usual way to do this stuff is one song at a time. Learn what you need, transpose it to 12 keys. Try to internalize the sounds and move on to the next song.
-
I think not... )) Originally Posted by djg
i think in a way they are.
mechanical skills are the least important ones when it comes to making art. (plz don't quote this as "non important", "least important" it is)
yet there is this school (quite prominent on this forum) that says you have to aquire those mechanical skills *first* in order to play jazz, aka the deductive approach. this is especially problematic for adult beginners coming here for help.
they get told to learn all their scales and modes, preferably in several positions, arpeggiate the changes in eight-notes, learn to read, work through the leavitt books, etc. mostly they do underestimate the time it takes and motivation dwindles due to them not making any music at all. eventually they come back here with posts like "i got all the arps and modes down, i still don't sound like jazz. help".
the theory threads often suffer from the same deductive approach, resulting in discussions that would make coltrane's head spin.
and all this while we have more access than ever to the masters of our art. we learn that their approach is overwhelmingly an inductive one. perfect examples of the inductive approach would be pete bernstein's masterclass on mymasterclass or basically any of his workshops on YT, the well-known bill evans interview with his brother, the galper videos, the mcpherson interview, the fantastic rodney jones masterclass that was on mucony, the monk notes as preserved by lacy, dizzy's book and one-liners, etc.
the inductive approach let's the music be the teacher, problems are solved as they occur and not pre-emptively. all the good players i was fortunate to meet over the years only ever talked in terms of *music*.
of course with live music dying out, on-the-job training becomes less available so it's a lot harder to hone your craft in the old-school way up to a top-professional level. the deductive approach is much easier to academize (and monetize). there's a lot of type-writing lessons out there.
Typing skills can be comared with Sibilius or Finale notating app skills)))
You can write with a pen and then it's the same thing as writing down music with a pen.
Don't forget that it's performance art we speak about)))
(Leterature is not performance art)
Performance arts require speacial skills to perform.Technical musical skills can be compared with technical skills acticng or dancing skills...
you need muscles to make some support for a partner in dance... it's nothing about art, just gym work.
You need ability to pronounce correctly sounds to perform any part as a nactor... and it's just logopedic excercises - no acting art int.
-
That's sobering elephant. I thought I'd be playing fine solos 4 years ago... Now they don't suck anymore but ain't much to listen. Inching towards acceptable.. year by year Originally Posted by djg
-
Just have to put this in, can't help myself..
Imo, giving suggestions to beginning players can be tricky. I remember getting advice that didn't make much sense to me the old days. Now, when I say something about how to practice something, there is such a big gap between what I know and the other knows. I remember hazily how hard was to memorize 20 melodies for a test. But I often forget this and the slowness of my students boggles me instead.. Eh, all I'm saying, the advice tends to come from advisers current base. I mean, It's not always easy to connect you know.. I think when people get upset about technicality vs. musicality, such things - they just speak about themselves. About their own current state.. Maybe.
Forgot to add in this thread what helped me and keeps helping - minding the relevant scales and playing simple pop tunes on them(not too much modulation - just for getting to know a scale/pattern). I can swear on me mum - this is just great way to get some life into them. Very enjoyable, very musical. Can play them in intervals, or triads/inversions, even 7th chords also - then it's gonna help develop some technics as a bonus. For extra fun - if the tune is easy enough, play bass notes also.
----
emanresu the green.
-
I went the scale path for quite a while and it just was not fun and I really couldn't play a tune, which in my opinion is the goal of music to play, improvise and create tunes. Check this thread where I talk to OP about resources. I recommend learning songs.
Looking for Late Beginning/Early Intermediate Chord Melody Books
-
I recently started teaching some high schoolers -- I hadn't taught guitar since LBJ was in the White House.
The students are serious about wanting to improve. Several already have some chops.
They have heard that learning (fill in the theory/technique here) will make them better players and they'll put in the work.
They're all in jazz band at school and they want to shine.
But, none of that will be sufficient to allow them to play a good jazz solo. And, in fact, none of it is necessary either.
What they have to be able to do is to hear a good jazz solo in their minds and then play those notes on the guitar.
I doubt that any of them are listening to what a guy my age might think of as classic jazz. So where is the vocabulary coming from?
At present, from what I can tell, it's finger wiggling in a pentatonic box shape.
So, given that as a starting point, do these kids need to work on scales/modes/arps?
Maybe they should spend their precious practice time doing other things.
I'm still thinking about how to approach the problem.
My current plan is to teach them to read - and, they all want to learn. I figure this is a skill that's best acquired early. I know a lot of older guitarists who wish they could read, but, somehow, can't quite bring themselves to learn.
At the same time, the band teacher asks me to help them play the band charts, so I'm writing out chord voicings and talking about voice leading, 3 note chords, rhythm issues and good sound.
Eventually, I'll have to help them develop a solo -- and my idea is to go with the scat singing approach. If all goes well, they might be able to write down, in standard notation, their solo ideas and then play them at the recital.
-
Really happy that you're kicking ass, djg, however you're doing it. Feel free to share whatever. Originally Posted by djg
As for myself, my playing on this forum illustrates that I am the hobbyist I've always claimed to be, in regards to jazz anyway. Never claimed to be an expert. As for my "hobby" part, jazz has been very generous to me, far beyond simply the jazz part itself, and much more than the small amount of time I've put in.
I still remain an "expert" at my own opinion and take on things. As for seven years on the forum, I've read my share of Internet BS, much of it well-intentioned hyperbole, to illustrate a point.
"No one ever learned to play jazz playing scales" and such... the statement is true in the sense in which it was intended when posted, but so is the seemingly OPPOSITE: "you need to get basic musicianship together first". It's easy to read these 2 and assume that one must choose a side or something. So which one are you? Are you a flat Earth, anti-theory type or a 100% technical guy - opposed to contextual musical learning? I don't think it matters, because you're just trolling anyway. Neither of these stereotype exist in reality, at least not among people who actually play music. Again, I'd imagine it's more like a percentage, but you never said which. You never answered any of my questions.
As to the topic at hand, I'm actually about 2 years into the task of working on technical skills as an increased percentage of my practice time, compared to what I ever did before that time period. Again, it's been very beneficial to me personally.
For the other part of those years, a couple of which I wasn't really active, I went the other way, and it was slower going, again just for me personally. Over that time. I've had the opportunity to read a lot of opinions, from no-name members and professional players alike. You come to recognize some patterns. Among the guys who can really play and who have posted examples of their own work, like Henry R, Christian, Jordan, Reg and many others, I've noticed one consistent pattern. Each of these guys at different points have gone into great detail on their processes , the hours spent learning the fundamentals, within specific musical contexts and without.
They been very generous with their time and I've taken all of it in . I'm certainly not going to discount all of that for the sake of drive-by trolling posts like yours. If you have something to share, I'm sure we'd be glad to hear it. I don't get the idea that you care though.
I would just hate for someone new to come along and think that what you have to say means something.
Reply With Quote
Playing live and getting the best sound from the...
Yesterday, 02:08 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos