The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary

View Poll Results: Shapes or notes? What, in your opinion, is more important?

Voters
226. You may not vote on this poll
  • Shapes

    37 16.37%
  • Notes

    32 14.16%
  • Both

    143 63.27%
  • I kind of just fiddle around and hope to hit the right notes.

    14 6.19%
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Posts 76 to 100 of 176
  1. #76

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by AmundLauritzen
    Many roads lead to the same goal..
    True, and on top of that, there's more than one goal. Some want to become a name player while others would be happy to play some Django or Wes or Pass solos note for note; some want to make a living (-teaching, gigging when they can, releasing CDs and hoping one catches fire); some are accomplished in other avenues of guitar playing and have taken up jazz as a challenge. Some want to be 'the best they can be' with no illusion that they are going to go down in jazz history as innovative players.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #77
    [quote=andihopkins;17444]Hey guys,

    I'm a Jazz guitarist from Perth, Australia.
    I started on piano at age 3, but moved to guitar at around 11. I've loved it ever since.

    Just recently I've had a few piano/theory lessons with an amazing local pianist. It's been great seeing things from a different perspective, and I must say that after a few weeks, I am frustrated to realize that I (think) I have been going about the guitar the wrong way ... possibly working backwards in a sense.

    I started (and have been) learning the way most guitarist's learn - shapes and patterns.
    All these educational and instructional books/dvds seem to be filled to the rim with a million different patterns & shapes. And like a good, eager student, I have tried my best to lap them all up.

    But since seeing music from a piano's perspective (which I think we all agree is probably the best perspective to view things from) I've realized that I actually don't know much about the music, scales, chords, etc that I am playing. They are merely just shapes that I have learnt, but don't understand!

    Sure, the shapes are important, but I feel it's working backwards.
    The note's are the ingredients that make up the music, not the shapes.
    And if one knows the notes, he can create a chord, arpeggio or scale anywhere on the fretboard... just as a pianist can.

    Anywho, I could talk about this forever. But it seems that the guitar world is more interested in shapes, diagrams and patterns (being that it is easier) than actually learning and understanding the fretboard.

    It appears the logical way to learn any instrument... Am I crazy? What do you guys think?

    Feel free to also throw in any personal techniques in learning the fretboard

    Cheers,
    Andy[/quote


    It's all about ears.

    Shapes are something we happen to notice, but not live by. Once we begin to glorify shapes, we lose the ear, even if we think we don't. The ear should design the shape and not vice versa, as a rule (when music is at stake, all rules can be broken).

    Shapes lose their mightiness when a player decides to play the shaped idea (in arppegiated tertian, quartal, or combination; phrase or chord form structured, etc) using all possible fingerings. Shapes go out the window then, unless one proceeds to become a shape collector. We still have to "hear" what's going on. It's best to work more on developing the ear (relative pitch and recording lifting and transcribing, which where anyone will see and hear all "shapes and sizes" surface anyhow.

    Develop the ear and you will never be 'out of shape'.

    TD

  4. #78

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet
    ...Conversely, nor is it wise to learn the mechanics of your instrument to the point where you let your fingers do all the playing. As guitarists we can be a little more obsessed with pattern based playing owing to the nature of the instrument, as well as the fact that there has never been any real pedagogy (oh, plus the fact that many of us started in rock, folk, country or blues. ) And further, we seem to like to look at our hands more than we really need to. All these reasons I believe conspire to make us lazy improvisors, happy to just noodle around some patterns and hope for the best...
    Thank you for that. I thought I was the only one...

  5. #79

    User Info Menu

    I play off of the chord tones, substitutions and triads built off of those tones. I tend to play horizontally on 2 or 3 strings rather than across the board "in position". I don't think in terms of CST or CAGED; to me there are chord tones and notes in between chord tones. Sometimes they're diatonic, sometimes altered, sometimes sweet color - doesn't matter to me what the scale/mode "collection of notes" would be called. I know how chords are spelled and am well versed in playing all 4 inversions on multiple string sets up and down the board. I wish I could sometimes apply the CAGED principal of relying on all of these "shapes" that I know, especially on faster tunes. My problem is that while comping, I can grab these chords effortlessly (and I know what notes they contain) but when improvising I don't usually play melodies that cross 4 strings and so I disassociate from all the grips I know. I hope I'm describing this in a way that makes sense to you - I "know all the notes" but I can't seem to make them "light up" vertically. I welcome any suggestions.

  6. #80

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Gertrude Moser
    I play off of the chord tones, substitutions and triads built off of those tones. I tend to play horizontally on 2 or 3 strings rather than across the board "in position". I don't think in terms of CST or CAGED; to me there are chord tones and notes in between chord tones. Sometimes they're diatonic, sometimes altered, sometimes sweet color - doesn't matter to me what the scale/mode "collection of notes" would be called. I know how chords are spelled and am well versed in playing all 4 inversions on multiple string sets up and down the board. I wish I could sometimes apply the CAGED principal of relying on all of these "shapes" that I know, especially on faster tunes. My problem is that while comping, I can grab these chords effortlessly (and I know what notes they contain) but when improvising I don't usually play melodies that cross 4 strings and so I disassociate from all the grips I know. I hope I'm describing this in a way that makes sense to you - I "know all the notes" but I can't seem to make them "light up" vertically. I welcome any suggestions.
    So practice the 5 CAGED shapes for scales / modes. To make it more useful, practice maj and mixo bebop versions as well as pentatonic wirh passing note scales. But not just scales, play patterns and devices (check Jerry Coker). Associate every CAGED position to the chord shape in that position. After a few months the notes will "light up". At least you seem to be comfortable with the horizontal thing, I think it takes CAGED players longer to break out of their shapes and into horizontal lines.....

  7. #81

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet
    I think it takes CAGED players longer to break out of their shapes and into horizontal lines.....
    Yep, I've fallen into a vertical traps of sorts very naturally unfortunately. Working on it but it takes much more effort to work out what to play horizontally, I'd rather be in the inverse position, you're in a good place.

  8. #82

    User Info Menu

    When learning scales, I've used the CAGED method to order the shapes. But, once I've learned those shapes vertically, I then learn to play them in two string groups horizontally all the way up the neck and back. While doing that, it helps to recognize the CAGED reference points, but it is actually easier to hear to anticipate the next note in the scale.

    I am in the process of learning intervals and learning to hear intervals. I wish that I had paid more attention to intervals earlier in my learning process.
    Last edited by zigzag; 01-25-2013 at 06:11 PM.

  9. #83

    User Info Menu

    For me they are one in the same, the notes and the shapes. The nature of the guitar AND the piano are shapes. Piano is fairly easily laid out. 12 diatonic keys within the reach of one octave that repeats up and down the keyboard. Same thing either hand. It's just a technical difference in playing in either hand. But what you DO is visualize the shape of the scale, the chord, the arpeggio, the lick.

    For me on the guitar the notes are the shapes. But for me to THINK each chord in terms of calling out the note NAMES is just too slow. Maybe I'm too slow witted for that. But in jazz you have to improvise, which means you have to short circuit the thinking process. You have to see it and know it and spelling the notes as D-F#-A-C-E-G#-B is too long. It's quicker, for me, to simply KNOW the shape of D7+11, and KNOW that those are the notes, but it's not important when improvising over chords, only when reading, really. But for me they are one in the same thing.

    By KNOWING I mean to intuitively know. And to do this you have to spend many, many hours, maybe years, to ingest the fretboard to the point that seeing EbMa7+11 to A13b9 to Abm9 written on the page instantly translates to a visual fretboard from the top to the bottom. I tell all my students that there's no reason to EVER play a wrong note. You should be able to see ALL the notes on the fretboard. What you do with that is where the real playing/lessons begins.

    This is why I love and value jazz so much - it's an intuitive art. It's all about cultivating intuition. But you have to KNOW the data first to play some of this stuff. I don't put stock in THINKING while playing. You have to know the possibilities however. And bottom rung of that knowing is seeing and understanding the fretboard.

    I don't know CST at all and don't use CADGE either. I never even knew what it was until I was teaching my system of chords - the 5 Zones - when a student said it seemed awfully similar to CADGE. LOL. But it's not the same thing. And my scale patterns have nothing to do with it. 7 notes in the scale, 7 scale patterns. It's just more direct and logical to me. No missing holes on the fretboard.

    But everything becomes a visual pattern. I don't play shapes like "here's the G Maj7 chord, so I'll play lines out of that shape." The whole fretboard becomes various deconstructions of shapes. That's how I believe one THNKS on the guitar - breaking the fretboard down into visual chunks, but COMPREHENSIVELY. I see each and every arpeggio mapped out all over the fretboard; not in terms of chords, but as part of the scale patterns. Therefore the scale patterns becomes useful and broken down or constructed to chords. Chords and scales become one thing, like on the piano.

    Piano players think in shapes and patterns. So do sax players. I'm not so sure about trumpet players and trombone players. They got something else going on. But those pattern and shapes are known notes. One serves the other and neither should supplant the other.
    Last edited by henryrobinett; 02-01-2013 at 07:15 PM.

  10. #84

    User Info Menu

    Hey newbie here,but I understand where you are coming from.I too started on the piano and switched.I find i have come to realize.Ive stopped trying to learn all these Jazz chord shapes.Now i try to focus on the 3 and 7,and it has simplified things in a way.But im stumbling in the dark here.Smiling though.

  11. #85

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by henryrobinett
    For me on the guitar the notes are the shapes. But for me to THINK each chord in terms of calling out the note NAMES is just too slow. Maybe I'm too slow witted for that. .
    I agree completely, Henry. In fact, it's hard enough (for me, anyway) to just say the ROOT of patterns I'm running through the cycle. (And it drives me nuts that all the roots aren't single syllables: "C" is one syllable but "Gb" or "Eb" is two, and if you add chord types such as "minor seven sharp five," or even "seven sharp nine" it takes too long and throws off the rhythm!) I don't think this has anything to do with you being slow-witted-----which I don't for a second believe you are!--but with the finding of neuroscience that conscious thought is slower than unconscious thought. SAYING something in addition to playing it is extra work and the saying takes more effort than the playing. (I still think it's good for beginners to say some things as they play them in order to learn them, like the way the cycle goes, or the names of the notes in a chord, but once you know them, saying them would truly be a drag on one's playing. But we're not talking about that now.)

    When Herb Ellis talked about shapes, he was thinking like you: not just what the names of the chord tones are but all the related notes in that position. Visual references work faster than verbal ones. He didn't have to recite the names anymore but he valued the shapes because they put a lot of information into convenient shorthand. It's funny sometimes when I come up with a song, play it a time or two, then think I should write it down and it takes so long to write it out, and I have to stop and really think 'what is the name of this note?' or 'what is the chord here?' I have songs that I've never written down and I've played them and never thought what the changes are because they're just the song to me. I'm glad I can write them down in case I need to show the music to someone else, but it's a reminder that 'knowing by the chart' isn't the only way to know a song inside and out!

  12. #86

    User Info Menu

    #5- pray.

  13. #87

    User Info Menu

    WOW!! This shit can be really confusing!! Remember the simplicity of . . . C - Am - F - G . . . then a simple modulation. Little Anthony and The Imperials . . . . "You don't remember me . . . but I remember you . . 'twas not so long ago . . . . " OK . . so, now I'm just messing with you all.

    But, for me. as I said earlier in this thread. . It's about playing in position .. . and about the intervals . . . and about being musical within that context. If your in position, understand the intervalic expression . . . utilize it . . . all that's left is your own capibility of creating musicality with in it. If you leave position . . . then, know whre you're going.

    Someone with more practile knowledge than myself . . . (which is probably most in this forum) . . .please let me know where I'm going wrong here. Thanks!!! Honestly . . . . thanks.

  14. #88

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Gertrude Moser
    I play off of the chord tones, substitutions and triads built off of those tones. I tend to play horizontally on 2 or 3 strings rather than across the board "in position". I don't think in terms of CST or CAGED; to me there are chord tones and notes in between chord tones. Sometimes they're diatonic, sometimes altered, sometimes sweet color - doesn't matter to me what the scale/mode "collection of notes" would be called. I know how chords are spelled and am well versed in playing all 4 inversions on multiple string sets up and down the board. I wish I could sometimes apply the CAGED principal of relying on all of these "shapes" that I know, especially on faster tunes. My problem is that while comping, I can grab these chords effortlessly (and I know what notes they contain) but when improvising I don't usually play melodies that cross 4 strings and so I disassociate from all the grips I know. I hope I'm describing this in a way that makes sense to you - I "know all the notes" but I can't seem to make them "light up" vertically. I welcome any suggestions.
    Not sure what you're getting at. You know your chords, but you disassociate from the 'grips' you know when improvising? Not sure what 'grips' are.

  15. #89

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevebol
    Not sure what you're getting at. You know your chords, but you disassociate from the 'grips' you know when improvising? Not sure what 'grips' are.
    I've always hate the word "grip" and have only started using it in the last year or so because so many people use the term.
    A grip is just a chord "shape"- one finger on each string; if you know 4 inversions of Cmaj7 across 3 string sets, then you know 12 grips for Cmaj7.

  16. #90

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Gertrude Moser
    I've always hate the word "grip" and have only started using it in the last year or so because so many people use the term.
    A grip is just a chord "shape"- one finger on each string; if you know 4 inversions of Cmaj7 across 3 string sets, then you know 12 grips for Cmaj7.
    Heh, me too.

    I see a chord as a pool of notes. And I never see a chord name as written in stone. Cmaj7 means C6, Cmaj7#11, Cmaj9, C6/9, Cmaj13, and a bunch of other possibilities to me

  17. #91

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Gertrude Moser
    I've always hate the word "grip" and have only started using it in the last year or so because so many people use the term.
    A grip is just a chord "shape"- one finger on each string; if you know 4 inversions of Cmaj7 across 3 string sets, then you know 12 grips for Cmaj7.
    Yep, very well and concisely stated. Grip is one of those words like *chord-melody*, Guitar-specific. I was talking to a friend of mine who his getting her PhD in Music from Boston U in baroque piano/harpsichord, and I made the mistake of using the term *chord-melody*, thinking it must be a common musical term. She pretty much laughed at me (in a friendly way, of course) when I tried to explain what *chord melody* meant, basically saying, "wait, I think that's called playing the piano*.

    I think *grip* is part of the DIY tradition or guitar lore, when musicians learned by the apprentice system. I heard Jimmy Raney talk, in a very unpretentious way, about how most of them learned music, in a very piecemeal sort of way, "learning a new grip here and there after, after a gig".

    I'm convinced most of the bebop players played off chord tones, connecting one with another, meticulously, with proper voice leading, but in a very musical way. When I try it, it sounds like an academic exercise. The saxophonist Greg Fishman once published his transcription of his hero Stan Getz's solo from *Pennies From Heaven*. From that transcription, he plotted out the beats where the chords change, and not only were their proper chord notes at those precise moments, if you extrapolated just the chord tones played on the chord changes, you would also get very smooth voice-leading--no jarring intervals/jumps or leaps. And yet, it was all done in a very musical way.

  18. #92

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
    Heh, me too.

    I see a chord as a pool of notes. And I never see a chord name as written in stone. Cmaj7 means C6, Cmaj7#11, Cmaj9, C6/9, Cmaj13, and a bunch of other possibilities to me

    that's the way I was taught, always look at the vanilla chord--why make it more complicated than it is--there are only 3 chord qualities that matter: M/m/dom. Everything falls into these three fundamental qualities.

  19. #93

    User Info Menu

    PS, I think I'm gong to formally start to write out a specific chord tone blowing exercise on tunes, as a way of working on blowing on chord tones. Write out the chord symbols, and place specific target notes at each chord change, ensuring that these are (1) chord tones associated with the applicable change; and (2) smoothly transition from one note to another, only a small distance apart--semi-tone or whole step, if possible. So, each measure may only have 1 or 2 notes specifically written out before hand, the voice-lead chord tones. Everything else shall be improvised.

  20. #94

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevebol
    Why can't people just learn the old way? It so much easier. Learn your first postion chords first. Then learn bar chords, then jazz chords which are commonly 3-4 voiced. I tried to watch some videos about CAGED and it was painful. I call the same chord that's voiced differently, inversions.

    Does anyone actually learn to play with CAGED? I would have quit long ago if I started with that.

    Should I grip my shapes or shape my grips? I need to get hip to this stuff I guess.
    The very first thing I learned about chords is that I learned various chords with roots on the 5th and 6th strings first. That takes care of your basic progressions, starting with -ii-V-I. Much later on, I discovered that these were all drop 2 and drop 3 shapes.

    Then I learned the various ways to construct 6h chords on 1st 4 strings (stringset 1; inner strings is stringset 2; last 4 strings is string set 3). Eg. 4 different ways to make a C6 on stringset 1. Transfer the same voicings to string set 2, and then two string set 3. (e.g., 1573 transference or dispersal of voices across all 3 string sets). Then I learned how to change these same C6 *grips* into Cm6, CM7, Cm7, C7, Cm7b5, C dim. Following some very basic rules for each string sets and across string sets.

    When internalizing a chord quality in one string set, play it systematically: from the nut to the 12th fret (e.g, play 4 different C6 grips). Then transfer the same voicing to other string sets--same C6 inversion (e.g., 1573) played on string set 1, set 2, and set 3.

    Systematically. Start with C. Go up circle of 4ths til you cover all 12 keys. Start with chord closest to nut, work up the neck.

  21. #95

    User Info Menu

    Last post of the night. This is getting agrivating.

    I read the OP carefully. I don't know what a 'shape' is. I thought a grip was some rock thing but it's an old jazz guitar thing meaning chord.
    Last edited by Stevebol; 02-02-2013 at 02:25 AM.

  22. #96

    User Info Menu

    One more. The OP only has 13 posts and he's taking a poll about 'shapes'? There's no such thing as a damn 'shape'. It sounds like some BS rockers came up with do describe jazz guitar.

  23. #97

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevebol
    One more. The OP only has 13 posts and he's taking a poll about 'shapes'? There's no such thing as a damn 'shape'. It sounds like some BS rockers came up with do describe jazz guitar.
    Steve,
    Why the anger? You were not familiar with some very common terms (shapes, grips) but question the OP's status based on his post count. George Benson could join this forum today and he'd have 1 post after saying hello to us. And what is BS rock? Please don't divide lovers of music.
    A "shape" is a "grip" and some folks play fantastic music knowing little more than mastery of those shapes (Herb Ellis and many more). The OP's thread starter was an interesting and intelligent question and observation about the different paths used by all sorts of players to get to the point where they can communicate the music they want to play, using differing devices and levels of knowlege. There's room for everybody. It doesn't matter how you arrive at the ability to play good music; whether you can talk about it like Pat Martino or if you play (very well) completely by ear. What it sounds like is what is important, not what you used to get it there.

  24. #98

    User Info Menu

    Well, here's my beef...i see a ton of beginners learning all their drop 2 and drop 3 inversions systematically, and they can't even play a song...but they know 16 cute ways to play a Cmaj7...I say better to know three or four ways really well and how to get more colorful notes on top of them, and use them in a tune. Learning shapes is useless if you can't voice a melodic line on top of em...

  25. #99

    User Info Menu

    I've never heard of the term grip until this thread.

  26. #100

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by henryrobinett
    I've never heard of the term grip until this thread.