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 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Posts 51 to 75 of 176
  1. #51

    User Info Menu

    I learned shapes while reading a theory book. it worked really well. If you know what notes are in a chord or scale theoretically, it's just a matter of thinking them as you practice.

    reading however, you just have to do it all the time, it's like working out, if you stop, you start to loose it.

    Both

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #52

    User Info Menu

    'Shapes' are just visual representations of 'notes'. All instruments have their limitations, even the 'well tempered klavier'. We play guitar for a more visceral reason, right?. We deal with its limitations gladly, sometimes less gladly. But its limitations beget its unique tonality and voice.

    Smitty posed a key point - playing other instruments (and I am assuming learning standard music notation here - not that difficult, and critical for basic musical communication) opens LOTS of doors. There is no 'one way' to learn guitar, as there is for piano. That's one of the special things about guitar. Learn the basics of music, they are readily available at your local library. But play the guitar with your heart in your hands. Play along with all your favorite music and with other musicians. Play ALL the scales as often as you can - they are the building blocks. But don't ever forget that you are playing because music is beautiful, and fun, and valuable.

  4. #53

    User Info Menu

    I voted for notes mostly because I think that there are far too many young guitarists these days who really don't have a handle (and in some cases, a clue) on what it is that they are actually playing.

    While shapes and patterns are very useful in approaching certain melodic ideas, I feel they are only effective when understood from the perspective of the notes included in them. Sure, it's impressive to hear someone fluidly playing 3 octave arpeggios, but only when those arpeggios are making some sort of melodic statement. Don't get me wrong, I feel that anything which helps us to express our musical ideas, especially when improvising, should be considered. Afterall, the fretboard can be a fairly complicated animal. But relying soley on training your hands to mechanically play patterns will not empower your musical creativity, it will inhibit it.

    Much like relying on Tab, I think that learning and memorizing shapes before learning to read and understanding the theory behind those patterns is a poor approach that will lead to redundant and limited playing.

  5. #54

    User Info Menu

    I have not carefully read this entire thread, please forgive
    if I repeat or omit

    Smitty seemed to touch on the missing bit of the equation: sounds.
    As in notes, patterns & sounds.

    I have some experience with clarinet & sax.
    Horsed around with the guitar for decades but never had a
    lesson or followed a plan until I signed on with Jimmy Bruno.

    I saw a youtube of an old Bruno instruction video where
    he notes that horn players really learn to associate a particular
    sound with a specific fingering. His '5 shapes' approach to the
    fretboard is intended to do this by repeating the intervallic
    relationships on the fretboard as consistently as possible.
    I found this easy to identify with from my horn days and
    'cause I often still don't hit the note I meant to.

    I'm using an internet site now to practice interval recognition.
    Maybe someday I'll be able to say "I hear it coming together."
    So far, my ears are as dumb as my fingers.

    My response here is about me figuring out that the ear must
    be served as much as the fingers in the study of guitar.

  6. #55

    User Info Menu

    I've said before, but I'll say it again: I throw my fingers against the strings. Some days I'm luckier than others...

  7. #56

    User Info Menu

    Guys, we talk about this all the time. It's whatever works for you. However, all string instruments have a completely different dynamic than that of piano of horns, in which one is more condusive to think of scales.On stringed instruments, one note can be found in more than one area on the instrument, which is condusive to learning "shapes" according to the tuning of the instrument. This is smiple technique, and should be considered when practicing, shapes are practical and fundemental for competant players. However, scales and modes which Martino calls "piano scales" are to be considered when studying simply because other instruments (non-stringed) think in terms of tones, intlvs and scales, not "shapes."

  8. #57

    User Info Menu

    I like shapes. It's good to know notes, but as Herb Ellis puts it in his book Rhythm Shapes, "It is significantly easier to reference melodic ideas using chord shapes instead of endless scale patterns, modes and arpeggios. This convenient and simple approach allows players to sound more natural and musical. Unfortunately, many aspiring guitarists devote too much time and energy practicing scales in all positions, including all the unnecessary, awkward and impractical fingerings. Not only is this an inefficient use of practice time, but it usually results in solos that sound like somebody playing scales."
    Charlie Christian played this way and many players influenced by him--including Herb Ellis--picked it up and expanded it as the style evolved. It's a great way to start improvising because the focus remains on musical lines rather than scales or arpeggios. (It's good to know scales and arpeggios, but it is bad to mistake them for solos!) If you learn a few of Charlie's solos--or Herb's-- and visualize the shapes while playing them, you *see* how to navigate the guitar when handling different kinds of changes (-blues, Rhythm, standards). It also makes it easier to transpose things.

  9. #58

    User Info Menu

    Charlie Christian was a good one for the "shape system" of improvising...

    Just hold the chord and see what scale tones are a fret or two away from where you are at the present time...

    Time on the instrument...pierre

  10. #59

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pierre richard
    Charlie Christian was a good one for the "shape system" of improvising...Just hold the chord and see what scale tones are a fret or two away from where you are at the present time...
    Yeah, Pierre, that was CC's way. It made sense in his day too because for many rhythm tunes, the whole A section was treated (-for purposes of improv) as a I chord (-often a I6 chord). Charlie rarely played arpeggios, and when it did it was usually a triad used as pickup notes. The emphasis was on making the line swing, not outlining the passing harmony. Of course, Charlie could do that, but it wasn't his usual emphasis.

    Also, using a few simple shapes (-F, A, and D for major chords) allowed him to move up and down the neck during passages when 8 or 16 bars were treated as the I chord. (Hey, the dude was modal before his time!) The different shapes facilitated different lines, keeping one's playing from getting too same-y.

  11. #60

    User Info Menu

    I'm loving these last responses! I actually play this way...for lack of any real modal mastery. I would love to hear more or see some examples of moving shapes around.

    Thanks, Sailor

  12. #61

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Sailor
    I actually play this way...for lack of any real modal mastery. I would love to hear more or see some examples of moving shapes around.
    Sailor, Herb Ellis is the guy for you. Late in his career he put out three book/CD sets: Swing Blues, Rhythm Shapes, and All The Shapes You Are.

    The blues volume--which should be tackled first--introduces the chord shapes. You already know them, so don't expect a revelation. The wonder comes in visualizing the shapes while playing Herb's lines and internalizing the shapes so you can do your own thing with them. He plays 3 blues here (-C, F, and a slow Bb) with five or six choruses of each (except the slow blues, which is only 3). That's a lot of choruses to use in your own playing when you can't think of something!

    "Rhythm Shapes" is all about playing the rhythm changes. He plays a lot of "A" section and "B" section lines (-8 bar phrases), some sticking to one shape and others combining two or more. Lot of material there, and it ends with Herb playing to 32-bar choruses that you're supposed to master as a springboard to your own work.

    The last volume is "All The Shapes You Are," which is about the standard "All The Things You Are." You learn the changes and a slew of lines from Herb's "vamps" (-8 bars are so to each chord, in some cases a ii-V change) and finally another solo at the end for the novice to master.

    Not a lot of theory, but a whole lot of music. Herb was such a melodic player and hearing this, you learn how he conceived his lines.

  13. #62

    User Info Menu

    Thanks so much markerhodes! I will look into these books ASAP as I seem to have hit a wall in my playing.

    When I play 12 Bar Jazz/Blues, Swing, I totally see the chord shapes, and play off these...I hope this is playing the changes? (I don't just noodle around with blues and mixo scales...I outline the chords).

    The only trouble is, so far, it seems to all sound too much alike. I also seem to use Major Pentatonic a lot...when I analyze it!!

    Thanks, Sailor

  14. #63

    User Info Menu

    Well -I never cared about scales much- I care if I'm on the root third fifth, second etc. - THAT's the color/flavor for me.

    A ninth is a ninth regardless if you're playing a Dorian scale or a Plutonian Minor-

    But I am lazy - I use shapes and melodic cadences- melodic cadences are the common denominator of all improv- from Blues, to Bluegrass, from people who just play totally "by ear" to the most knowledgeable Coltrane/Stravinsky monster - got to have melodic cadences to "tie" the improv to the musical foundation- and most of the time it's not really the* SCALE it's the chord tone or extension that you rest on - hence - melodic cadence- the "stop" tones chord tones and possible extensions...........................

    I SHOULD know the notes instantly - but I really just "feel" them by where they are in the chord and just hear them in my mind as I go......................................lazy .

    *the SCALE isn't WHY it works - the scale only works 'cause it has the chord tones and extensions
    Last edited by Robertkoa; 01-04-2011 at 05:16 AM.

  15. #64

    User Info Menu

    Let's face it, everything on the guitar is a pattern. Playing melodic ideas along one string will still force you to imagine, see, find and play the pattern that creates the line you wish to play. In fact, every instrument forces you to think in patterns, you think Coltrane didn't think in patterns? McCoy?

    People like to say that the aim is to play what you hear, BUT YOU HEAR WHAT YOU KNOW! And you know what you know because you have committed it to muscle or aural memory, and what helped facilitate that was "patternizing" , that's what we do when we practice, right?

    Can you make Jazz without using known patterns? "Accidental" free jazz, maybe.... OK, so what about singers? Take Ella's scat singing. You could say she was not using any mechanical pattern, but was she hearing something that was "patterned" by somebody else (she was obviously influenced by instruments playing Jazz. )

    So maybe the aim is for your instrument to mimic the voice, pure and unmechanical (arguably), but consider this, could a language such as Jazz have been invented with no instruments? I mean, if we only had voices that made music, could we have evolved from Gregorian Chants to Bebop? Or did the mechanical nature of our instruments, and the patterned way of interfacing with them influence music from Bach to Keith Jarret?

    Just musings, FWIW, I think patterns are ok, on any instrument, just as long as you are playing them, and not the other way around....

  16. #65

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet
    Can you make Jazz without using known patterns? "Accidental" free jazz, maybe.... OK, so what about singers? Take Ella's scat singing. You could say she was not using any mechanical pattern, but was she hearing something that was "patterned" by somebody else (she was obviously influenced by instruments playing Jazz. )
    Great post. As for Ella, horn players were the biggest influence on her scat singing. (Satchmo's too, for that matter, though that's to be expected, as he was a horn player.)

    Some patterns derive from music itself (-triads, certain licks that 'everybody knows' such as the Honeysuckle Rose lick, the Cry Me A River lick and so on) and others rely upon the particulars of various instruments. (You can't play Wes-style octaves on a tenor sax.)

  17. #66

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by andihopkins
    Thanks for your input, Hot Ford Coupe.
    You make a good point.

    My thought is just that one single scale pattern can be quite restricting.
    Perhaps a better way to approach patterns would be to know shapes like intervals.
    This would give you freedom to create any fragment, in any way, of any scale, arpeggio or interval from any given note - without having to visualize the entire pattern across all 6 strings.

    I guess the idea is to enable freedom of creativity and imagination.
    Narrowing the gap between the melodies in your mind and the muscles in your fingers.

    After practicing scale's like a mad man, I'm after something a little more liberating, something that can be expressed in more ways than one.

    Perhaps the knowledge of intervals, scale degrees, keys and the notes on the fretboard is the way to go for me.

    (By the way, just been listening to a few MP3 lessons by Wayne Krantz... really worth listening to if your keen on a different approach to chords, scales and rhythm. He's got some extremely helpful ideas, and some great practice tips. Check it out: ++ waynekrantz.com ++)

    ^ This! Intervals rule man!

    edit . . . . Intervals and fingerings that will best represent those intervals. Then, associate a name for those fingerings . . . a 1st-6th fingering (1st finger 6th string) at the third fret for a G7 arp and spell out the interval . . . Root, M3rd, P5, m7, repeat an octave higher . . . rule 1 . . 2nd finger never moves out of position. . . with this fingering, you're also covering the representative G7 chord, as played on the 5th fret. The available tensions . . 2, P4 6, 9, 11, 13 are all available within the same fingering. If you adhere to these rules, 2nd finger never moves . . . and you spell out the intervals . . you could move the fingering to a 1st 5th at the 10th fret.
    Last edited by Patrick2; 10-30-2012 at 04:39 PM.

  18. #67

    User Info Menu

    "I stole everything I ever heard, but mostly I stole from the horns."-- Ella Fitzgerald

  19. #68

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by randalljazz
    "I stole everything I ever heard, but mostly I stole from the horns."-- Ella Fitzgerald
    Ella was the best. Period! (IMO) I used to think it was Sassy who had the edge. Different singers, different styles, I know that. But, for my taste . . and based upon pure natural talent and creativity . . . Ella was in a league by herself.

    Also, I ain't buying the statement by her that she stole her lines from the horn players she worked with. I'm sure those lines were the foundation . . . . . . but, when Ella was into an improvisational scat . . . she was creating and she was cooking!!! She was tonally and intervalically correct, almost 100% of the time.. . .and she had no keyboard or fret board to reference.

    Similar to Mel Torme.
    Last edited by Patrick2; 10-30-2012 at 09:16 PM.

  20. #69

    User Info Menu

    OK, so a fully formed Jazz musician in the purest sense, like Ella, hears perfect lines in their head. People will have you believe that 90% of what you need in Jazz is right there, in your head. So Ella sings a capella for 5 mins, lets say, line after perfect line of pure bop genius to the imaginary chords of Lady Be Good. Now show her the piano. There ya go Ella, here's middle C, and the 12 notes before C repeats, etc. Simple, all ya gotta do now is simply play the notes you hear in your head on the piano. Shouldn't be too hard, I mean, you hear the intervals perfectly in your head, shouldn't take long to figure out what the intervals look like on the piano, right?

    Oh, and once you've figured that out, here's a guitar, shouldn't take you too much longer, it's pretty simple really, all the strings are tuned a 4th apart, except the G and B string which is a third apart.

    I'll come back in half an hour and see how you're coming along.......
    Last edited by princeplanet; 10-31-2012 at 09:26 AM.

  21. #70

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet
    OK, so a fully formed Jazz musician in the purest sense, like Ella, hears perfect lines in their head. People will have you believe that 90% of what you need in Jazz is right there, in your head. So Ella sings a capella for 5 mins, lets say, line after perfect line of pure bop genius to the imaginary chords of Lady Be Good. Now show her the piano. There ya go Ella, here's middle C, and the 12 notes before C repeats, etc. Simple, all ya gotta do now is simply play the notes you hear in your head on the piano. Shouldn't be too hard, I mean, you hear the intervals perfectly in your head, shouldn't take long to figure out what the intervals look like on the piano, right?

    Oh, and once you've figured that out, here's a guitar, shouldn't take you too much longer, it's pretty simple really, all the strings are tuned a 5th apart, except the G and B string which is a third apart.

    I'll come back in half an hour and see how you're coming along.......
    OK . . . quite a nice rant. But, what the heck are you trying to say?? Ella's instrument was her voice. She didn't need to have an understanding of the chordal structure of a piano keyboard or a guitar fret board. That was Mel Torme man. He was always on pitch for that very reason.. Ella just felt the scat within key. She wasn't always pitch perfect. But, she was there 99% of the time. I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here.?.? Help me with that.

  22. #71

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick2
    OK . . . quite a nice rant. But, what the heck are you trying to say?? Ella's instrument was her voice. She didn't need to have an understanding of the chordal structure of a piano keyboard or a guitar fret board. That was Mel Torme man. He was always on pitch for that very reason.. Ella just felt the scat within key. She wasn't always pitch perfect. But, she was there 99% of the time. I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here.?.? Help me with that.
    Fair enough, maybe I was off on a tangent.... It's just that whenever there's mention of whether or not music emanates from the mind or fingered patterns, it's seems to be becoming more and more fashionable to refer to what Hal Galper calls "The illusion of the instrument"ie, the instrument is not important, music is all in the mind. I get his point, once you have chops, you should turn off the part of the brain that was used n training, and do as Parker urged, "just blow".

    But Bird practiced PATTERNS, to the point they were 2nd nature. If you wanted to play like Bird, there was never a way around it, you had to shed the figures, motifs, licks, lines, devices, cells, whatever you wanna call them (notice I didn't say "scales" or "arps"). Maybe Hal has forgotten how he got his chops. It is not good advice to suggest that you simply need to train your ear, then simply find the notes you're hearing on your instrument, not if you wanna blow over Cherokee at 300 bpm at least anyway....

    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.

    That's why most of us agree that you need both, muscle memory as well as the aural/mind conception, which takes me back to the original question. It's not 90% ear and 10% fingers (patterns shapes etc), unless you wanna be a great singer! No, it's gotta be closer to 50/50. Patterns, like all mnemonics, are aids in acquiring vast material for our expression at call.

    I think of it like this: You can spend half a lifetime memorizing the script for all the great Shakespeare Kings using all the memory tricks you can, but if you wanna perform them, then you gotta spend (hopefully concurrently) the other half of your time learning to express these great scripts. Just knowing the words wont cut it.
    Last edited by princeplanet; 10-31-2012 at 08:09 AM.

  23. #72

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet
    Fair enough, maybe I was off on a tangent.... It's just that whenever there's mention of whether or not music emanates from the mind or fingered patterns, it's seems to be becoming more and more fashionable to refer to what Hal Galper calls "The illusion of the instrument"ie, the instrument is not important, music is all in the mind. I get his point, once you have chops, you should turn off the part of the brain that was used n training, and do as Parker urged, "just blow".

    But Bird practiced PATTERNS, to the point they were 2nd nature. If you wanted to play like Bird, there was never a way around it, you had to shed the figures, motifs, licks, lines, devices, cells, whatever you wanna call them (notice I didn't say "scales" or "arps"). Maybe Hal has forgotten how he got his chops. It is not good advice to suggest that you simply need to train your ear, then simply find the notes you're hearing on your instrument, not if you wanna blow over Cherokee at 300 bpm at least anyway....

    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.

    That's why most of us agree that you need both, muscle memory as well as the aural/mind conception, which takes me back to the original question. It's not 90% ear and 10% fingers (patterns shapes etc), unless you wanna be a great singer! No, it's gotta be closer to 50/50. Patterns, like all mnemonics, are aids in acquiring vast material for our expression at call.

    I think of it like this: You can spend half a lifetime memorizing the script for all the great Shakespeare Kings using all the memory tricks you can, but if you wanna perform them, then you gotta spend (hopefully concurrently) the other half of your time learning to express these great scripts. Just knowing the words wont cut it.
    I've got no problem with anything you just stated in this post. In fact, I totally agree with it all. With our instrument, more so that others, "patterns" as you seem to want to call them, are essential to playing without rambling. I also agree that everyone seems to think that Bird "just blew" hoping he was playing correct notes. A quick study of some of his lines will dispell that concept rather quickly.

    However, there seems to be a resentment of certain terms to define patterns. Although I know why that resentment exists, I disagree with it. Scales, modes, arp . . . etc., are all patterns. I prefer to refer to them as fingerings. But, what ever you want to call them . . . they are indeed patterns. It's up to the player how he/she chooses to employ those patterns or fingerings. It could be in boring diatonic scale fashion or boring modal fashion . . . or in a more melodic, intervalic and musical way. But, it's got to be a point of reference, even for those players who know their fingerboard well enough to go outside a specific fingering or pattern. People can even choose chromatisism within a pattern. Currently, I'm a big believer in blowing within a certain fingering. The fingering starts out as an arp fingering, but I can then superimpose the available tensions within that same fingering. If I choose to leave that specific fingering whether for a chord change or not . . . I look to move with leading notes to the next fingering . . . always know where I am and never lost . . (at least that's the intent). For me, it's all about knowing the intervals. If I know the intervals, and I choose to play a 9 or a flatted 5 . . I know where to go . . even without knowing the specific note.

    I think we're on the same page here.

  24. #73

    User Info Menu

    Cool. yeah, we're both probably preaching to the choir here, I just sometimes go out to bat for these ideas sometimes in case inexperienced or impressionable people hear peeps espousing stuff like " it's all about what you hear". It's not, it's the dynamic symbiosis of the cognitive and the autonomic parts of the brain that makes for the complete musician. The mind influences the hands, and in turn the hands influence the mind which in turn influences the hands etc etc ad nauseum......

  25. #74

    User Info Menu

    I think people are talking about two different things in this thread... melodic/scale patterns, which is one thing, and fretboard positions (CAGED shapes, scale fingerings, etc.) which is something else.

    To learn guitar I don't think you can really get around learning the positions/patterns... this is basically how you learn how the tuning works, so in relation to any keynote/root note you can find and see all of the intervals...
    but eventually you have to transcend positions and just see the fretboard as one big position.

  26. #75

    User Info Menu

    Many roads lead to the same goal.

    Some of the best jazz musicians of all time didn't know theory.
    Bireli Lagrene, who is at the top of my list allegedly doesn't know theory. In my opinion he is the most smokin' in-the-changes players of all time. He learned the old school way. He didn't know what it was called, but figured out how to play Djangos music by listening to the records and finding the phrases on the guitar.

    Then you have Pat Martino who knows theory, but from a different angle than most folks.

    Then you have Kurt Rosenwinkel who is from a heavily theoretical CST school of playing.


    In my opinion, the best way to go about it is to learn it from all these directions. Once you see the same thing from a different point of view, you learn it deeper and it sticks better.

    Learning the notes on the guitar is good, because when you know theory you can instantly locate whatever concept you're working on and play it. It'll also allow you to transpose in real time.