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%
-
I'm not actually that interested in KNOWING about grips. LOL. I figure it's just another term for what I already know.
When I studied and took lessons for jazz guitar, many moons ago, the technology and nomenclature was quite different. The music's the same. So I went ahead and developed my own teaching methods. I would look at books but never bought any as I didn't find anything new or really useful from what I already did. That's why I never knew anything about the CADGE system. Or CST. Not interested either. I was never a Berklee student. I sent many guitar players there and Eastman and IU and New School, etc. I find guitar "systems" funny.
But thanks. I'll check it out later.
-
02-02-2013 01:43 PM
-
LOL! Thanks. Cool video. Grips.
-
Most people voted "both" here, I think that sums it up. (another good reference for this question is The Advancing Guitarist).
"Shapes" are how scales are laid out horizontally across the fretboard - but - even if the diagrams are rendered in "dots" they also imply fingerings. So shapes are really "horizontal fretboard scale fingering patterns".
And yes, fingering patterns are very important, but far from complete. Why would we ever think that learning these basics would approach "completeness" in terms of musicianship?
One more tidbit - a grip is not a chord, not exactly anyway. Rather, it is a specific chord voicing, played on a specific string set, with a specific fingering. Hence, a specific "grip".
-
Who defined grip then? Raney said, "It's what I call it" and mimicked playing various chord shapes of a chord up the neck. It sounded like he coined the term. I'd like to see a source for the actual definition.
-
Originally Posted by henryrobinett
I think it was a general term that was *in the air*, given that there was no Berklee/CST/Jamey A./North Texas back then. Everyone was pretty much self taught. And, according to a conversation I had with my teacher, everyone learned on the job, or after the job, on late night jam sessions, trading info here and there, a grip, a lick, what-have-you. This was in the mid 1950s, so I'm sure it was even more true before then and less true since then. Since that time, many of the gigs dried up, and formal programs in universities have replaced actual gigs.
It's hard to imagine where I live, Chicago, as a hotbed of nightlife and jazz gigs, as it was in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. Anyway.
I think that was a fantastic bit of wisdom by Jimmy--"what do you mean you're trying to be original, you can't play!" All music is aural/auditory, and the melody is always the best guide. Everyone I've seen or heard that I really respect says the same thing: at a recent Peter Bernstein master class, he said, you can lose or jettison many things, but always have the melody there as a compass.
-
Originally Posted by Gertrude Moser
-
fair enough but i don't think its a heavily theoretical, academic, Phd. term or anything like that. its an abbreviaton. its shorthand. its jazz guitar lingo/jargon.
you have to admit, its a lot easier to say "grip" than it is to say "specific chord voicing, played on a specific string set, with a specific fingering".
-
Yeah but grip doesn't seem to mean anything. It's a grip. And I started playing guitar in the late 60s - ok '69 and started with trying to play jazz, more or less right away. I studied with Howard Roberts and Warren Nunes and a lot of cats. I've never heard the term. Or I don't remember the term or it never seemed important enough to know.
-
no sir, it means what i said. its the other way around.
meaning, saying "chord" or even "chord voicing" does NOT imply all the "grips" that we have on the guitar.
a chord is a collection of tones. a voicing is a specific vertical arrangment of those tones, with or without doubling or tripling of one or more of those tones, etc, etc. you know all that.
for what its worth i think grip is kind of dorky. its kind of blue collar or something. but this is jazz and it works.
-
OK, but I'm jazz and I've never used the term. The concept? Sure. A box? I guess I can see it's usefulness as a term.
If it means what you said, where did the definition come from? I'm kind of big on words. Who defined it for you? Where can I see a source for the term? Otherwise it'll just be "fumblefingers said . . ." And that's not good for me.
-
i'm sorry but i don't really know its origin.
the first time i heard the term used was on Rick Peckham's DVD covering modal voicings. (those dang Berklee guys again)
Rick was saying (paraphrasing) "i hope you guys don't just learn these voicings as grips, but really learn their harmonic structure and use".
-
I've always tried not to be too guitaristic in my approach, so maybe that's why I'm rebelling against it.
-
yeah, i think that's where Peckham was coming from too. In other words, "don't just learn this material physically, like a monkey or unthinking robot, learn it like a musician".
which brings us back to the OP and the overwhelming "both" response that people replied with.
i have to go practice now or i'm going to (continue to) be one of those "players" you referred to above.
cheers.
-
Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
The first college paper I ever wrote was about this exact subject. This was about 1977' give or take and it was the first time since about 6th grade that I put any effort into school. It was a jazz theory course and the teacher didn't like my paper so I dropped out of college. I guess that's why I got worked up about this. What I have to say about this meant nothing in 1977 and it means nothing now so I'm off to another thread.
-
Originally Posted by Stevebol
damn, sorry to hear that. i guess the the topic is more for guitar pedagogues than theory professors. and its a very fundamental question too. its a question that might be freshman worthy, but even that might be a stretch.
-
Absolutely both! It's a visualy laid out instrument so we'd be silly not to make use of that, but knowing the notes is super important too
Last edited by bondmorkret; 02-04-2013 at 10:50 AM. Reason: typo
-
I actually think pianists think more in shapes or pictures than they like to let on. Sure, a pianist while learning or teaching the instrument is going to approach it much more from the notes/theory approach than the guitar player who is more likely to approach it from the shapes approach right out of the gate.
The interesting thing, though, is what happens when one is actually playing. I grew up playing piano. When I tried to approach jazz chords on the piano, the theory was incredibly easy (it's right in front of you) but just because you know the notes, doesn't mean you can access them quickly and with ease. The guitar is just the opposite. The theory is a jumble, but the shapes fall so nicely. The shapes approach on guitar actually turned a light bulb on for me with regard to piano. One thing you will notice when you start working on different piano voicings, for example, is that they actually share some (somewhat) moveable shapes as well. Once I started to think think of piano chords as pictures, rather than notes, is when I was able to start to really PLAY them. Same goes for arps and scales. The blues scale, for example, has a shape of sorts on the piano. When I play the blues scale in whatever key, I am thinking more of the shape, not the notes.
That's what improvisation is. It's muscle memory and visualization. It's the ability to have a picture "light up" for you when you need it. Pianists never talk about shapes or pictures, but don't be fooled, they play them too. There is no way Bill Evans is thinking of each individual note when he is running through those rootless voicings. He just has certain chords locked into his muscle memory and they come out effortlessly.
So I think we all play shapes, guitarists are just the only ones who start with them. We are the only ones who teach the instrument that way. Pianists just let it happen.
-
Interesting
-
Shapes are very important to me. Shapes helped me learn the notes. Now, it is easy to see through the shapes to see the notes. Between the CAGED stuff, the 5 pentatonic box patterns, 3 notes per string and the various string pairs/groups its easy to understand what is going on and use whichever tool gets the desired sound. Realizing that sweeps are inbeded in these patterns has made them easier to learn (struggled with sweeps for years).
-
But both guitar and piano use shapes and notes. A scale is a shape. Even a partial chord is a shape. It's how we remember things.
We know spelling from reading and seeing written words; the way it's written is its shape. Your name is a certain shape. The word 'guitar' is a shape. You don't need to enunciate g-i-t-a-r like a young child.
Numbers are shapes. When you see 1,000 you know it means a thousand instantly, you don't have to analyse it. Same with any other number, like 99 or 1066.
Take a keypad entry. First you do the numbers. In a week it's become a shape, a finger pattern by memory, and you've forgotten what the numbers were!
Music is shapes, patterns, not one-by-one digits or units. We recognise a tune, not note by note, but because it's a shape, a pattern - like 'Happy Birthday To You'.
Etc. (and you didn't need to work that one out either!)
[Of course, all this doesn't apply right at the beginning. Then, obviously, you have to learn it]Last edited by ragman1; 11-18-2016 at 12:48 AM.
-
I'll not read something I can learn by ear. But, if I can't learn it by ear I need the score. I suck at reading but I can read well enough to decode the parts that give my ears trouble.
I don't see it as lazy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
My reply to this thread is simple: like Charlie Parker once said, learn everything you need to know about music and your instrument and then forget it all and just play. Learning the notes and shapes compliment each other. You cannot learn to play jazz (or any music that is improvised) if you don't know the notes. Seeing shapes and patterns help you organize things on the neck. Therefore, they are both important.
-
Originally Posted by smokinguit
"If I don't practice for a day, I know it... for two days, the critics know it... three days, the public knows it." -- Louis ArmstrongLast edited by ragman1; 11-07-2016 at 06:05 PM.
-
You need to know your scales, arpeggios and chords. These are going to be shapes.
Now when I finger a scale on the guitar the shape is second nature - you practice it into muscle memory and see it visually on the fretboard. I think you kind of have to do that.
But know what each degree of the scale is etc, both in relative (1 2 3 etc) and absolute (C D E etc.) But sharp and flat is easy right? Up and down.
On the other hand, you just play some times. Also as we know chromatic shapes moved around on the guitar can be really effective as can open strings and so on.
But it's a wilderness! I don't think I'll ever stop learning.
Henriksen Blu 6 w/ gig bag
Today, 03:29 PM in For Sale