Robert Conti's jazz guitar method (no scales, no modes)

There has been a lot of posts about Conti's "no-scale, no-mode" method.

Believe me I'm not a shill for Conti. I've never bought any of his stuff. I think he's a wonderful guitarist though. A "P-R-O". He is a pro with a capital "P".

He's got a free lesson about beginning improv on his site right here so you can get an idea about how he teaches improv. How? He teaches you jazz lines. It's the same way Mickey Baker's book teaches. Lines. You learn lines.

Can you do this? Sure. You can even do it yourself. Just get a jazz CD of your favorite player and transcribe a solo over a standard. Conti even tells you that's how to learn. He's not hiding anything.

I made this post because I'm reading so much confusion over what he is doing. So much confusion over the scale/mode thing. Transcribe solos over changes. Do it.

If you want to run scales do that too. Is it necessary? No. Can you run scales up and down over chords? Yes.

Jersey guitarist Joe Cinderella used a similar method. He'd give you a run to play over a Gmi7 for example , and it would contain a 9th or so . Lot's of people studied with him.

I think part of the problem of having a meaningful discussion on this is stating what the Conti method is, whether there is anything unique there, and whether that is "better" than some other method.

In my experience this type of discussion often involves exaggerating the supposed problems of the "other" school's theory. For example, I understand what you mean by "so much confusion over the scale/mode thing." And I don't buy the argument I heard Conti make that studiying theory is, well, whatever it is he said around 4:00 minutes in.

IMO, to become a jazz instrumentalist, there about twelve things you have to practice and master. Whether you do that all at once or one at a time - whatever works for you. We know that people learn differently.

I don't think there's anything unique to Conti's method, but the gist is clear: "you learn to play jazz by playing jazz." (In much the same way that one learns to sing by singing, not by studying voice, though some people with good voices take up study of the voice to develop the gift.)

With CST, the goal is to understand jazz first, then play it. Which is why so many people know a lot of theory but can't play well. (Of course, some know much theory and play beautifully.) It's true that each side may exaggerate the faults of the other, but I think there's a real difference here.

As Aristotle said, "we know that people learn differently." Unfortunately, if you go to a school to learn to play jazz, you're going to have one option: CST. (I think CST is largely an outgrowth of making jazz a subject taught in schools. It's certainly not how Louis Armstrong, Charlie Christian, and Charlie Parker learned to play jazz.) I think 'the old fashioned way' of learning tunes, solos, nicking licks, and experimenting alone (and with like-minded others) has much to commend it.

Pardon my igronace, but what exactly is CST?

I heard somebody explain it one time by saying that theory is very important to understand what has been done after the fact, but you still have to "do it" in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jeffstritt

Pardon my igronace, but what exactly is CST

---

It's forum shorthand for chord / scale theory. (As in, 'Over this chord you have the following scale options...')

I think all teachers of CST expect their students to be playing tunes too, though I took lessons from a New York pro who moved to sunny South Florida and for a year, he never mentioned playing tunes to me. I mean, it wasn't part of the lesson plan, or even chitchat. It was all, "okay, you have to learn these fingerings of the major scale all over the neck", then it was "these arpeggios all over the neck" and then it was "chord inversions all over the neck." The only 'jazz' I learned from him was a bunch of Pat Martino lines, which I can damn sure play all over the neck, though I rarely feel the urge.

He was one teacher and I was one student--statistically insignificant. But I think I would have come further faster with a tune / line approach. (Learn some tunes, learn some lines, work theory into the discussion where appropriate--'why does this work?' 'why does that NOT work?'--and become someone who is actually *playing jazz* every day instead of scales and arpeggios.)
It was like being on a plane on the runway for a year: "Hey, this thing ever gonna get up in the air?"

Conti is a great player, but he only really teaches lines, not how to think

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guitarplayer007

Conti is a great player, but he only really teaches lines, not how to think

---

That's a good observation -- though he sometimes shows you certain moves that are possible alternatives to the given line he shows, and occasionally he mentions sounds that he "really likes", which upon analysis has a theoretical explanation such as tritone subs or whatever. He learned the "street way"; according to him, this is the way most learned back in the day (including his childhood friend Pat Martino, a claim w/c suprised me). This is the way I learned to play blues; it seems to work for me in learning bebop.

But for stuff like quartal harmony, pentatonics, and other more advanced stuff, it seems harder to make the claim that theory is not indispensible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orasnon

He learned the "street way"; according to him, this is the way most learned back in the day (including his childhood friend Pat Martino, a claim w/c suprised me).

---

The "street way" involves using I Ching sticks?!

I like the idea of getting some of the jazz language in my ears and hands by learing transcriptions of solos. This is what I believe Mr. Conti is doing. The next step though, is learning from the transriptions and making parts of them your own by applying them in other situations and understanding why they work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guitarplayer007

Conti is a great player, but he only really teaches lines, not how to think

---

Yes and no. He doesn't teach the theory behind the lines, but many players 'think' in terms of lines---which they hear in their head and then play on their instrument, so in *that* sense one could argue---I wouldn't go to the mattresses for this thesis--that learning tunes and lines *is* learning how to 'think jazz.'

Paradoxically, it was Duke Ellington who said that to play jazz you needed to learn all the licks you could. (One doesn't expect a composer to think of it that way, but apparently he did. Obviously, he had 'theory chops' too.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gramps

The next step though, is learning from the transriptions and making parts of them your own by applying them in other situations and understanding why they work.

---

Yeah, I agree. I watched part of a Conti video on "Autumn Leaves" and he was making that point. Indeed, he said you didn't have to learn his solo note-for-note, but rather, get the idea of it, work out the tricky parts, and then add your own touches, make it your own. That process teaches so much--articulation, timing, your own sense of groove and how to use space.

In the book "Thinking in Jazz"--which I read years ago, so I invite more recent readers to double-check me here---there is talk of "crips," lines you know that work in various situations (-a blues, the rhythm changes, unusual bridges, what have you.) Players have things they *know* and use them when they have no fresh ideas on the bandstand. Gradually, one's playing involves more original stuff and fewer "crips" but even the greatest players have things they do over and over (-as Lester Young said, "Bird has his licks, I have my licks.")

In the Jimmy Raney video someone recently posted, he talked about a student wanting to "be original" but, as Raney said, "you can't even play." I think it's good to get on your musical feet by having some real jazz lines that you can execute, refine, and build on as a stepping stone to discovering what, if any, originality you have. (We place so much emphasis on "originality" that we forget most *professional* jazz musicians down through the ages were not original, just good at handling their parts in the bands they played in.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles

The "street way" involves using I Ching sticks?!

---

That's funny. My teacher had some "sessions" with Pat back in--I guess--the '70s. They weren't conventional lessons at all. Instead, he met with Pat and Pat talked about the guitar, music, consciousness. (I heard parts of a cassette recording of one such session.) My teacher thought Pat infinitely deep but I thought this was closer to bullsh*t. (Obviously, I could be wrong. And *I* *KNOW* Pat is a great player.) My teacher mentioned some I Ching stuff that Pat had mentioned but I got a look on my face like someone farted and he dropped the subject.

Looking back, I wish I had a teacher who was more into Charlie Christian or Herb Ellis. I think it would be easier to move from that to Pat-land than to start in Pat-land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orasnon

TThis is the way I learned to play blues; it seems to work for me in learning bebop.

---

You know, Sid Jacobs calls bebop an "uncomplicated" language in his book "The Changes." (Maybe it's "Making the Changes.") He thinks--for what it's worth--that much discussion of how to play bebop is more complicated than the music itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markerhodes

In the Jimmy Raney video someone recently posted, he talked about a student wanting to "be original" but, as Raney said, "you can't even play."

---

I posted that, and one of the main reasons was because I laughed for an hour after I heard that come out of his mouth. Everyone wants everything now but can't find middle C on a kazoo. Of course if I say it I'm some old man ranting (what the f--k does he know?) but if someone hears it from Jimmy, of course its right. Which it was when I said it, or any decent player says it. You just need that credibility to get the point across to young, hard-headed kids who think they know everything.

Which is one of the reasons I feel Bob is a good teacher; you get some of that instant gratification but you're still learning about the instrument and some core concepts. I'm about to watch the Autumn Leaves video; in another one I watched he talks about the fact that "no one is going to listen if you get on stage and talk about chords and scales" or something along those lines. Certainly true. I'm a fan of CST for certain things but I rarely think about it when improvising.

Robert Conti is a great player who is also a great businessman. He realizes that when people see him play like the axe is on fire they're going to be impressed, and then he offers a manageable system that allows you to get some jazz under your fingers. I can't find it on his website now, but I recall at one point that he had a DVD about music as a business and his approach to that. I thought to myself "what an outstanding idea". He left music for a while and worked in securities, made money, then came back to music. He realizes that it's a business. Not that it can't be art, but it's a business.

He's also an autodidact, which would explain an unorthodox teaching approach, though I don't feel it's all that unorthodox.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markerhodes

You know, Sid Jacobs calls bebop an "uncomplicated" language in his book "The Changes." (Maybe it's "Making the Changes.") He thinks--for what it's worth--that much discussion of how to play bebop is more complicated than the music itself.

---

Right on markerhodes...I really like your thinking around this topic. It seems to me that there is way to much effort (on this forum and in general) to make jazz a complicated endeavor. I don't know what motivates this. Most of the pro workshops I have attended emphasize the simple concepts as being the most effective. The illusion of complexity comes from the application of these simple concepts in a proficient manner. The more you can apply the better.

Sure, you need to know the neck, the chords, the progressions etc, but this is easy to learn from a host of different approaches. In fact, most of this information is preserved in the tunes themselves.

Basically, if someone wants to play jazz, and sound like jazz, they quite simply need to take one simple concept at a time and try to make them sing in a jazz voice. This is where the time should be spent, on the instrument, not combing the various theories surrounding the name of a mode or the origin of a chord (very popular on the forum these days.:) )

I always hold out hope that this forum will become an non-threatening venue where guitarists could share these simple concepts... but unfortunately, most attempts at this are dismissed out of hand as a "small m" musician's approach, even though many are encouraged by "BIG M" Musicians. Go figure.:)

The glaring problem, for me at least, with the Conti DVD method is that once you've learned the solo the Conti provides, what's next? (Conti only provided one solo on the one I got - Cherokee).....Well, you going to wish you internalized dozens more solos for the same tune. You're going to find yourself quoting the same solo over and over again. How to break out of this is the hard part, and whenver I jam on Cherokee, I STILL sound like conti. Its great that i learned the solo - but obviously the next step, aside from learning and transcribing other solos - is to start THINKING about how to negotiate the changes....

But you gotta love Conti's "street" vibe on his lessons (why are so many great jazz guitarists Italian-American? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orasnon

But you gotta love Conti's "street" vibe on his lessons (why are so many great jazz guitarists Italian-American? :)

---

LOL. I"m not saying I'm great, but hell, we definitely have a way with it! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orasnon

The glaring problem, for me at least, with the Conti DVD method is that once you've learned the solo the Conti provides, what's next? (Conti only provided one solo on the one I got - Cherokee).....Well, you going to wish you internalized dozens more solos for the same tune. You're going to find yourself quoting the same solo over and over again. How to break out of this is the hard part, and whenver I jam on Cherokee, I STILL sound like conti. Its great that i learned the solo - but obviously the next step, aside from learning and transcribing other solos - is to start THINKING about how to negotiate the changes....

---

That's not really his "method". That's his solo on Cherokee. He has other books/dvds that are more about how he puts lines together to make solos. His 'how to' stuff is the 'source code' series.

I think conti's biggest obstacle to respect on these boards is the fact that he publishes standards arrangements AND "how to" products. Every negative comment i've ever seen on him has to do with his arrangements not constituting a real method. Well, of course they don't.

I've got his two chord melody "how to" books, but most of the comments I read have to do with his standards arrangements books. Learning to play someone else's arrangement of misty isn't a method.

I just don't see many posts on the DANGER of learning a lester young solo. How is learning a conti solo any more stifling?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orasnon

The glaring problem, for me at least, with the Conti DVD method is that once you've learned the solo the Conti provides, what's next?

---

I don't follow the Conti method exclusively, but I did buy his books and sifted through them looking for things i could apply easily within my own style.

I agree with you that learning his solos is not very productive ... but I did find several simple concepts in his approach that I could integrated into my playing.

One such concept is a fretboard logic trick he uses to quickly visualize and extract an altered sound over a dominant chord, by using a Maj7 arp a half step up from the dominant. He demonstrates how to apply this with some licks, which I don't particularly like, but through experimentation, I was able to creates many phrases that i do like.

I love collecting these little tricks. They free the brain from the math, open the ears and lead to some nice surprises.

You know, I see Robert Conti's method of teaching as a great place to get some licks under your fingers. He's actually transcribing his solo for you. That being said, it's also important to be able to figure out where these licks are coming from. That's why, in my opinion, theory is so important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher

I just don't see many posts on the DANGER of learning a lester young solo. How is learning a conti solo any more stifling?

---

Exactly! Well put. Traditionally, up and coming players learned solos by masters, however they could. (You figure out part, a friend picks out another part, you find a lick transcribed in "downbeat," whatever.) In playing that over and over you learn a ton about feel, timing, articulation, swing, dynamics. (Getting a solo down so well you can sing it is a great boon to one's playing. It's the only way to learn what it *really* means to play a "singing solo". Knowing that, one can set about making them.)

Matt, thanks for the info on Conti's "Source Code". I'm going to order the book. Love Conti's playing!!

I like Rich Severson's material a lot too because his lines sound melodic to me and sound like something I'd like to and am capable of playing.

I'm a long-time country blues player, moving into jazz. I've been concentrating on Jim Ferguson's books, (they're great), but REALLY liked what I saw in Conti's complimentary videos. I'm all for learning theory, but I want lines, licks, improv and comping skills that I can enjoy NOW.

So, I'm understanding that his 'Ticket to Improv' videos would be the place to start, and maybe his 'Source Code' videos later on?