-
01-05-2016, 07:53 AM #501destinytot Guest
Richie's course isn't content-driven - and it doesn't take a 'pendulum approach' to learning (from giving information to checking whether it's known and understood). I see this as a healthy shift from a focus on Content to a balanced focus on Content & Skills. (I have a special interest in this shift because of my day job as a language teacher.)
One of many things I like about the course is that his approach requires much more from students than in what's been called a 'jug-and-mug' approach (where a teacher pours knowledge from their full jug to the student's empty mug).
Richie's course requires 'dynamic learning - it begins with meaning and ends in student adaptation.
Regarding fingerings (and in another blinding flash of the obvious), what has clicked with me is that the positions relate to the fretboard but not to the fingers of my hand; the positions are 'fixed' - but the choice of which fingers to use isn't, so I'm free to practise by using either (or both) three or four fingers.Last edited by destinytot; 01-06-2016 at 09:55 AM. Reason: typo
-
01-05-2016 07:53 AM
-
If you think I should remove them I will I don't want to infringe on his copyright.
-
This is pretty important, as from my own experience....as well as all that I have read. That is, it's important to not play in pain. Example: Mick Goodrick states this quite clearly. Some solutions that were noted from a couple of professional players included shifting or moving to the next note, rather than stretching to it. Another solution is to start higher up on the neck where it is comfortable. Then slowly work your way down, as you get more comfortable. We are discussing scales here, but if it were chords....you could also break them up and play them in parts. This actually creates all sorts of interesting sounds. Example: Chordis in string set 1234. Break it up into string 1 followed by the rest of the chord.
Originally Posted by Drapte
-
I've been thinking about these fingerings. Especially implementing non diatonic arpeggios specifically derived from the melodic minor scale. Say for example you wanted to play a lydian dominant resolve to an aelion, an altered resolve to a dorian etc. It seems to me that these fingerings allow you to essentially never move out of position no matter the combination. I haven't been able to fault them yet. On page 61 of the scales & apreggios fingerings book he fingers a super locrian with the 3rd on the 5th string which forces you out of position and I'm not sure if it's a typo or not. He also uses 6 frets on page 66? I've tweaked the fingerings a little to always fit the mould. Maybe somebody can whack me out of this and tell me where I'm wrong? Otherwise thank you matt.guitarteacher for giving me that bit of extra push to learn them.
Andrew
-
No. As I said, they're just fingerings. And you've made your own charts. I was just surprised when I saw them, but quickly changed my mind. It's what we do with them that matters, and that's what his course is about. Originally Posted by Drapte
-
Personally, out of respect for the author, I would go ahead and email him to make sure its OK with him. That's probably the only way to be sure. Originally Posted by Rob MacKillop
I don't think it is a big deal, either - but he might. You never know what unintended consequences might exist the we might not be aware of.
-
Did you photocopy it straight from the book? Otherwise, I don't see how I could possibly be copyright infringement. Fretboard layout and scale degrees are not something you could own. Originally Posted by Drapte
-
+1 Originally Posted by srlank
When I was working out fingerings initially, I did all of the grunt work up the neck. Once your hands get used to it, you can do it more wherever. But it shouldn't hurt. Stretching between fingers before you start, making sure hands are warm, is all good stuff as well.
Also, it's not ONLYstretching. Watch Reg, Jack Zucker etc. There's some slight movement there , the kind of thumb pivot that Mark has talked about...or slight rocking of the thumb. It's a balance. You don't want to be moving all over the place, and you want to have a feeling of being IN POSITION. But it needs to fit the anatomy of your hands.
Watch some of the improvisation movie about Keith Jarrett on YouTube. He talks about stretching his hands, daily, when he was younger. He has pretty small hands as well , but he is a monster on the keyboard. Personally, I'm a little leery of hanging out too long at the first fret with stretches.
-
Originally Posted by odel
I can tell you that I'm on Module 5 and doing 2 hours a day and still working on Module 3 and 4...Like Richie states most people can't finish in a year unless you don't work. He also states these exercises are things you will work on well beyond 12 months.
Ken
-
I sent Richie an email with a link to this page. If he's okay with the fingerings as presented here, they'll stay. If he's not, I will edit them out of the post. Originally Posted by Drapte
Stay tuned!
-
I don't think anyone should post anything which lays out seven fingerings numbered exactly the way Richie does, photocopy straight from his book, or specifically address the way he actually teaches all of these things in great detail. Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
That being said, the above fingerings with scale degree numbers on them are determined by standardized music THEORY and the laws of PHYSICS for a standard-tuned guitar. They just aren't an infringement of anything. The order of the pitches up the fretboard stay the same because of these laws , not because of any method.Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 01-05-2016 at 11:04 AM.
-
One argument for not posting the fingerings is that Richie introduces them slowly over time. He intends for these to be practiced within the context of specific musical exercises, and over time, will introduce students to more concepts and more fingerings. Lacking context, seeing all of the fingerings laid out in a monstrous grid might give the wrong impression on how and why to practice these fingerings.
-
The 3 page comprehensive summary of permeations involving (a) chromatic and diatonic unprepared approaches, (b) diatonic enclosures, (c) chromatic enclosures and (d) mixed diatonic and chromatic enclosures associated with Modiule 3 has proved to be ridiculously invaluable.
Tons and tons and tons of melodic patterns once this is thoroughly absorbed, in the ear and in the fingers. I'm sure teachers have taught this, but has it ever been so succinctly posited in such a comprehensive way?
Add different rhythms to the same and create even more vocabulary, as Richie says. BOOM!
-
Not in my experience. One of those "ah ha" moments that really opened up my thinking. Originally Posted by NSJ
I even went back to my old notes and course materials from way back when while studying with some very accomplished players/teachers - including a year in music school. Lots of concepts and we also studied the zone approach - which largely amounted to presenting the chromatic fingerings for each zone and instructions to go figure it out. But, nothing that tied everything together so elegantly.
Granted, this was over 20 years ago and time/maturity play a role but seeing the material presented this way really pulled the blinders off for me.
-
Hey guys, if you are members of the Bebop forum, you may want to respond to Richie’s two surveys. He posted one on Rhythm Templates and the other one on Ear Training. He stresses the importance of not shying away from writing original etudes and welcomes feedback. I’m surprised he finds that many students don’t want to do it. Many students also neglect ET and he’s hesitant to post more ET videos. I think we should encourage Richie to share with us as much as he’s willing to. Both surveys are in the ‘Other’ subforum.
-
Well, it wouldn't be such an issue if we were having this conversation over in Richie's Forum, instead of here. Why does this discussion keep coming back here anyway? The only people really interested are those who are students of Richie's and who are working on the material. And there are many more of them over at his Forum. And, even if there weren't, I'm sure Richie would appreciate that we use his Forum for detailed discussions about his methods, rather do it on an open forum. I get that a certain amount of info might interest some people to subscribe to his method but I think we've passed that time point a long time ago. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
I would again suggest that, out of respect for Richie's work, and his role as our teacher, we move this conversation to his Forum, this time permanently. Other folks here have been exposed to enough (way more than we were) already to make a decision of whether to subscribe or not. The other benefit is that we can discuss these matters more freely in a closed environment accessible to only Richie's paying students, PLUS he will likely partake in that discussion over there and NOT over here. And many of the questions concern why he does things the way he does. Wouldn't it be nice to invite the teacher into the conversation?
Off soapbox now but I hope I've made the point.Last edited by jasaco; 01-06-2016 at 06:38 PM.
-
Right on Jasaco! Maybe this time around people will get the message. The only reason why I posted about Richie's surveys here is because there is little activity over there and that's where high activity should be - over at Richie's forum. You won't see me posting in this thread any more.
Last edited by Jazzy Beatle; 01-06-2016 at 06:44 PM.
-
Thanks for the heads up! I'll go over there and see what I can see. Originally Posted by Jazzy Beatle
-
I think for two reasons. First, we all come here more than we go there. I love what Richie teaches but his Forums aren't very active. It seems that everyone posting there posts here! So that's the first reason: we're all here more than we are there. The second reason is that all of us who are studying with Richie now learned about him here---so, it makes sense that other people might learn about Richie here and there needs to be someone around to answer their questions just as there were some people here to answer ours when we took up an interest in this. Originally Posted by jasaco
-
Originally Posted by jasaco
Better yet invite Richie to come here, he's probably lurking anyway a lot of name people do.
-
Richie knows about this place, that's certain. Originally Posted by docbop
-
I wouldn't have signed up if not for this thread.
I find the forum on Richie's site kinda, well, dull, and a little more difficult to navigate.
Also, members here are less reluctant to question, challenge, criticize.
All of these things are, IMO, necessary in a learning environment.
When I was a member of Jimmy Bruno's school a few years ago, I stopped going to the forum because it became a "Praise Jimmy" site.
If you challenged any idea or concept, the students would pounce... if they got there before JB did.
Him, even more so.
YMMV
-
I'm a nerd. I like talking methodology and comparing different approaches etc. That's most of what I've done in talking about the course. Another factor is that a few of us have the book only, and not the full-site access. I may get around to it, but Richie's getting a lot of good press here. This thread is good for business. Honestly, if it can stand up to scrutiny here, you know it's substantial.
BTW, I don't think anyone in Richie's position is helping themselves by participating in the forum here. I don't think that Joe Pass or Wes Montgomery, themselves, could hold up, participating here. It's not a climate for just coming in and sharing, as a pro, and being respected as such; not from anything I've ever seen. I wish I didn't feel that way about it, but that's just my take. We have rare exceptions here, who are thick-skinned, and just blow off the trolling and disrespectful comments. But they're exceptional, and it's not a coincidence that they're mostly not selling something. I don't see how you could in this climate.
-
I looked at the charts on the previous page and am quite sure how they fit in with Richie's system. I'm not sure I understand the grid -- personally speaking, I hate grids and tab. In fact, I could probably read standard notation better than I can read tab. Maybe because I didn't play guitar as a kid, and, coming late to the game, had to learn it like a proper musician does. At least that was the expectation when I was taking lessons . No Van Halen, no Metallica, no Stairway, except that which led to the Stars. ��
now, on Richies forum, I did create a thread on a "unified system of fingering", lining up each diatonic note in the scale and associating it with one of Richies fingering numbers. It's a very simple but extremely elegant concept, when you think about it for a bit . I won't disclose anything further, it's there on Richie's forum.
-
Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
Used to see pro's posting at the old Usenet groups, but the Usenet group have turned into such a cesspool of trolls only a few post gig announcements. Some lurk and if something off-based about them they might post a comment. Jimmy Bruno posts there once or twice a year. I know others lurk sites because I've talked to them about their frustration being mis-interpreted.
Reply With Quote
Grant Green, What is This Thing
Today, 01:59 PM in Ear Training, Transcribing & Reading