A Modern Method for Guitar Vol 1 Pages 53 to 55

[Will Glen]

Will, I thought you did a fine job on these. I heard a couple missteps and a slide, but Dynamic was, at least for me, a rather difficult endeavor. Way to go.

It was for me as well Oldhead, very challenging.

[ten left thumbs]

Sight-Reading Leavitt

So it struck me last night that maybe I'm not doing it the way the rest of you are -- maybe I have a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNG way to go with reading music, and my never having had a teacher has caught up with me in a bad way.

In other words, it seems I'm taking a long, long time to get these duets (and other stuff) recorded and uploaded. So I'm wondering now (duh) whether the rest of you are relying on the notation, and not memorizing the pieces.

Everybody groaning now?

Do you actually read that well? Can you read from the page, first or second time through, and make it sound as good as you do? I suspect you can, now that I've thought about it. That would be what "sight-reading" is... but I'm not that good at it. I can read and stumble along at a fair pace - but to play it and record it, I have to have memorized it.

You guys aren't doing that, are you?

kj

Hi Kojo, It's good you brought this up. If I may:

There is 'sight-reading' and then there is 'reading' - they are not the same thing. Sightreading is reading something for the first time - Leavitt does not tackle this skill until the second part. To sightread, you need to set yourself the task of reading something several notches *below* your level - to maintain a steady beat *at all costs* and to ignore the inevitable mistakes (inevitable, at least, in my case). This is a specific skill which helps in those situations where someone just pulls out music and asks you to play.

Reading is when you've had a chance to practice, but also an important skill. Some of us memorize easier than others - but what I notice is when someone memorizes *if* mistake creep in, they don't notice them, if they've stopped looking at the music.

So if you want to tackle reading skills specifically, then that's what you've got to do - and mm by itself probably isn't enough. Leavitt also has the reading studies, but you can read anything (like the Realbook, as fep mentions). ABRSM has just come out with a sightreading course (Bullard, Alan / Wright, Richard - Joining the Dots for Guitar, Grade 1) though it's classical at heart, I'm sure it would still be relevant for us.

My honest disclaimer is that I find the reading the easiest part of this. The only bits that challenge me are the bits that you never see in piano music, like insane ledger lines below treble (give me a bass clef any day) and the wild leaps in pitch.

I'll repeat what I said back in the first thread: for reading skills, it helps to write a little. When you put pencil to paper you somehow make those little dots your own. So stick a little ditty down on scrap, then read it, and practice it up good.

There are really annoying things about reading (like that business with the lines and spaces) but when you write you encounter the, well, how *do* I get this down? question, and while it doesn't make the lines and spaces go away, it does perhaps make them a little more friendly.

This reminds me, I was going to write a little theory about music writing...

[ten left thumbs]

As we have gone along, I have dotted a little theory in here and there and so far, no one has complained, so here's some more.

Especially for those of us learning to read music from Modern Method, it's worth pointing out that Leavitt breaks a few conventions in his style. If you ever happen to be writing for a theory exam, or a violinist, it's worth remembering:

It is not OK to begin a line of music without specifying the clef used (or tab, or percussion symbol, or whatever). Leavitt puts a treble clef at the beginning of the tune only - it should be repeated at the beginning of each line. It may look superfluous, but if you also happen to play bass, or viola, the brain can get quite confused. Besides, it costs nothing to write it out.

It is not OK to begin a line of music without restating the key signature (the F# and C# that tell you you're in D). One can get mightily confused in the middle of a piece (at least, I can) and it should always be possible to glance at the beginning of any line to find the key signature - you shouldn't need to cast your eye all the way to the beginning.

It is OK to state the time signature at the beginning only, and then only repeat it if it changes, or perhaps at the start of a new page.

The business with the lack of clefs and lack of key signatures drives me up the wall! OK, I've said it now, it's off my chest.

[Kojo27]

Hi Kojo, It's good you brought this up. If I may:

There is 'sight-reading' and then there is 'reading' - they are not the same thing. Sightreading is reading something for the first time - Leavitt does not tackle this skill until the second part. To sightread, you need to set yourself the task of reading something several notches *below* your level - to maintain a steady beat *at all costs* and to ignore the inevitable mistakes (inevitable, at least, in my case). This is a specific skill which helps in those situations where someone just pulls out music and asks you to play.

Reading is when you've had a chance to practice, but also an important skill. Some of us memorize easier than others - but what I notice is when someone memorizes *if* mistake creep in, they don't notice them, if they've stopped looking at the music.

So if you want to tackle reading skills specifically, then that's what you've got to do - and mm by itself probably isn't enough. Leavitt also has the reading studies, but you can read anything (like the Realbook, as fep mentions). ABRSM has just come out with a sightreading course (Bullard, Alan / Wright, Richard - Joining the Dots for Guitar, Grade 1) though it's classical at heart, I'm sure it would still be relevant for us.

My honest disclaimer is that I find the reading the easiest part of this. The only bits that challenge me are the bits that you never see in piano music, like insane ledger lines below treble (give me a bass clef any day) and the wild leaps in pitch.

I'll repeat what I said back in the first thread: for reading skills, it helps to write a little. When you put pencil to paper you somehow make those little dots your own. So stick a little ditty down on scrap, then read it, and practice it up good.

There are really annoying things about reading (like that business with the lines and spaces) but when you write you encounter the, well, how *do* I get this down? question, and while it doesn't make the lines and spaces go away, it does perhaps make them a little more friendly.

This reminds me, I was going to write a little theory about music writing...

Thanks, Laura! I usually trim parts of the post to which I'm responding, but could find nothing here to trim away! Great stuff, very helpful to me. I'd already started a "YourName" file, a Word document, of your theory wisdom, MM comments, Leavitt criticisms, etc. - and this will all go right in there.

I'll try to pick up the sight reading course... I have a good book (was my dad's) called _Sight to Sound_, which teaches sight reading for guitar, via position playing/reading, similar to how Leavitt teaches. This is an old Leon White book, still available at Alibris.com, and probably at abebooks.com.

By your definitions, I suppose I'm pretty good at "reading" -- but not much at sight reading. At least, now, I know what to practice toward. Mucho thanks.

KJ/Loren

[fep]

It is not OK to begin a line of music without specifying the clef used (or tab, or percussion symbol, or whatever). Leavitt puts a treble clef at the beginning of the tune only - it should be repeated at the beginning of each line. It may look superfluous, but if you also happen to play bass, or viola, the brain can get quite confused. Besides, it costs nothing to write it out.

It is not OK to begin a line of music without restating the key signature (the F# and C# that tell you you're in D). One can get mightily confused in the middle of a piece (at least, I can) and it should always be possible to glance at the beginning of any line to find the key signature - you shouldn't need to cast your eye all the way to the beginning.

It is OK to state the time signature at the beginning only, and then only repeat it if it changes, or perhaps at the start of a new page.

The business with the lack of clefs and lack of key signatures drives me up the wall! OK, I've said it now, it's off my chest.

Placing clefs and key signatures only at the first stave of a system is the convention for jazz lead sheets. Look at The Real Book 1, The Real Book 2, The New Real Book, The New Real Book Volume Two, The New Real Book Volume Three, The Omnibook.

That represents three different publishers of some of the most popular jazz music books.

Either way is okay for jazz I suppose, but the convention is to only place the key signature and clef sign at the first system.

[Kojo27]

I haven't tried to memorize anything.

If I can change "error-free" to " well enough" then:

Page 53, I can sight read that. I did read through this weeks lessons a couple of times during the week. That was a lot less than normal as I got myself spread a bit thin during the week.

Page 54, I can read that too, but not without mistakes.

Duet in D, I recorded each part in one take.

Dynamic Duet. When I recorded that, I read through it once and then started recording. The 1st guitar I did in one take. The 2nd guitar... I lost count. That may have been 10 takes? I was having problems with the last 5 measures.

Thanks, Fep. This is exactly what I was needing. I need work, but not an overwhelming amount of it. I'll continue going back to the beginning of MM Vol. 1, using the Sight-to-Sound book I have, along with others (Melodic Rhythms) - and work with them with the goal of "sight-reading" (as Laura defines it) in mind. It's no wonder I'm dragging a bit. Really, though, most of this tarry-time has been about my trying to come up with a way to record and overdub and all that. I'm pretty sure I have that now with an older version of Audacity and an older laptop, yada yada... (I have about twenty guitars, but the world's oldest, cheapest computer.)

Thanks much!

While I don't have pieces memorized, I'm very familiar with them because of all the practice I've put into them. This is the only way I can do it, because when I started MM1 I couldn't read and didn't know the notes on the fretboard. That was my whole purpose in joining this study group. Most of my recordings are certainly not error-free, but there are no overdubs, splicing "cheating". That would kind of defeat the purpose.

Agreed, oldhead. No cheating. I think Frank's dictum that recordings are good, but videos are better - is true. You've made wonderful progress, btw. If you didn't read at all and now you're reading "Pretty Pickin'" and so on, that's great. Keep up the good work.

I'd like to add that last year I "sight read" Real Book 1, Real Book 2, and The New Real Book 1. I'd spend a little bit of time each day and read those books from cover to cover. Tons of mistakes while reading through, sometimes at super slow tempos for the hard tunes. But the whole point was to practice sight reading.

And on my way, I did find a bunch of tunes that I put on my list to learn for my repertoire.

WORKAHOLIC OVER-ACHIEVER!!!!

[Kojo27]

It is not OK to begin a line of music without specifying the clef used (or tab, or percussion symbol, or whatever). Leavitt puts a treble clef at the beginning of the tune only - it should be repeated at the beginning of each line. It may look superfluous, but if you also happen to play bass, or viola, the brain can get quite confused. Besides, it costs nothing to write it out.

It is not OK to begin a line of music without restating the key signature (the F# and C# that tell you you're in D). One can get mightily confused in the middle of a piece (at least, I can) and it should always be possible to glance at the beginning of any line to find the key signature - you shouldn't need to cast your eye all the way to the beginning.

Ah! I'd wondered about this. A lead sheet, I thought, is a quick, half-ass, thrown-together "basics" thing, to get you by. But with a method book --a more serious affair, I'd think -- hmm... sometimes there's a need for that convention of the repeated clef and key signature -- for example, I wonder sometimes whether the 'F' note is still natural, or whether it has returned to its normal "sharp"....

Leavitt rarely if ever does it differently even in Volume 3 of the course.

I wonder why he does this.

[ronjazz]

In response to a PM from Will Glen about reading, here's the thing: it's hard on the guitar. The world's best guitarists are only fair readers compared to any pro violinist or orchestra player. Because of the guitar's tuning, it's rather large size, and the fact that it's polyphonic, it's a tough instrument to read on. Having said that, there are several things I can recommend to make it easier. The first is Solfege, the practice of sight-singing, especially rhythms. Pasquale Bona's Rhythmical Articulation is a great book for this kind of study. When one can internalize rhythmic and melodic lines, the physical act of playing them becomes much, much easier.

Another idea is to put aside a segment of your practicing for sight-reading fairly simple material, such as clarinet or violin studies of an easy grade. Find some books with lots of studies in them, so that you don't have a chance to memorize. Use the metronome! Also, practice playing in cut time, with a 2 feel, so that 16th-note passages will seem easier when you get to them. But keep in mind that reading needs to be done regularly, or you lose the connection. I always do a little reviewing before a reading gig.

For example, today I had a recording session with rather difficult Latin rhythms to read, both notation and chord symbols, then this evening a dress rehearsal for the show "Bye Bye Birdie". Both of these assignments demanded very quick sussing out of rhythmic phraseology, and the Broadway shows are chock full of changing time signatures and key signatures. To prepare, I did sight-singing every day for the previous week, and I read through some Bach violin music and some jazz arrangements from collections I've amassed over the years. This got me back into proper counting as well as recognizing written-out chords, which enabled me to grab chords similar enough to the written ones to make it all work. many arrangers write poorly for the guitar, and sometimes it's better to "translate" their notation into more playable voicings, always leaving the top note as written. If you have an opportunity, join a guitar or mandolin orchestra, or get together with others to play through written music, such as string quartets. The only way to become a good reader on guitar is to do a lot of it, consistently.

[ten left thumbs]

Placing clefs and key signatures only at the first stave of a system is the convention for jazz lead sheets. Look at The Real Book 1, The Real Book 2, The New Real Book, The New Real Book Volume Two, The New Real Book Volume Three, The Omnibook.

That represents three different publishers of some of the most popular jazz music books.

Either way is okay for jazz I suppose, but the convention is to only place the key signature and clef sign at the first system.

This is true, and worth pointing out. Maybe this is even why Leavitt does it. I don't know.

However the point of a lead sheet is not to give an accurate picture of what should be played, but an overall impression with as little ink as possible and - this is crucial - a lead sheet is written for the initiated expert in jazz. It is not meant as a learning tool. It is for those who internalise quickly which key of 12 they are in. Lots of folks who read realbook aren't even reading the staff, just the chords, anyway.

But modern method is written as a book, intended partly to teach those who couldn't read at the start, to read!

Leavitt is at least consistent in how he notates, and it is logical, you can learn it and follow. But anyone using this as their primary source of 'how to read' needs to know, that's just not how it's normally done. So, if I look up my through-and-through jazz books (Mark Levine, Halberstadt, Bert Ligon), I see clefs and key signatures in every line.

[matt.guitarteacher]

This is true, and worth pointing out. Maybe this is even why Leavitt does it. I don't know.

However the point of a lead sheet is not to give an accurate picture of what should be played, but an overall impression with as little ink as possible and - this is crucial - a lead sheet is written for the initiated expert in jazz. It is not meant as a learning tool. It is for those who internalise quickly which key of 12 they are in. Lots of folks who read realbook aren't even reading the staff, just the chords, anyway.

But modern method is written as a book, intended partly to teach those who couldn't read at the start, to read!

Leavitt is at least consistent in how he notates, and it is logical, you can learn it and follow. But anyone using this as their primary source of 'how to read' needs to know, that's just not how it's normally done. So, if I look up my through-and-through jazz books (Mark Levine, Halberstadt, Bert Ligon), I see clefs and key signatures in every line.

This annoys the crap out of me as well. When you learn to read on another instrument with the standard convention of displaying the key signature at the beginning of each line, you essentially "learn" to see that blank beginning staff as "No sharps/flats". If every other piece of music wasn't notated that way I suppose it wouldn't be a problem.

Anytime you have to "unlearn" the standard form just to be able to read someone else's music...

...just seems like a waste of time and brain power. What's the supposed argument for notating jazz this way?

[TOMMO]

Hi - interesting reads all around here.

Hasn't anybody noticed that in the "Dynamic Etude" on page 55, measure 23, there's someting missing? Either a note or a rest on beat 4...?

...or am I missing something here?

[Kojo27]

Hi - interesting reads all around here.

Hasn't anybody noticed that in the "Dynamic Etude" on page 55, measure 23, there's someting missing? Either a note or a rest on beat 4...?

...or am I missing something here?

Yes - that's a typo. I finally broke over and bought the version of Vol. 1 with the DVD, and when Larry Baione comes to this part, there's a VERY obvious bit of "splicing" in the video, right at bar 23!!! With digital video, I don't understand how this could have happened, but the video sort of 'stutters' and goes merrily on.

Anyway, it's played, I'm pretty sure, as two half notes. The C gets two beats, the G gets two. This is how Larry plays it, as far as I can tell, given the wobbling.


Are you working fairly steadily through the book, or skipping about, or ... just curious. I'm trying to memorize the duets and chord solos. I worked hastily through Vol. 1 & 2 many years ago, got the gist of it, but should have studied these etudes with much more commitment. They're beautiful.

Hope this helps.

K.J.

[TOMMO]

Are you working fairly steadily through the book, or skipping about, or ... just curious. I'm trying to memorize the duets and chord solos. I worked hastily through Vol. 1 & 2 many years ago, got the gist of it, but should have studied these etudes with much more commitment. They're beautiful.

Hope this helps.

K.J.

Thanks for your reply.

I purchased the book (actually I got the one with all three volumes in one edition) with the goal to learn to read standard notation. Plus to advance my technical playing skills which are more informed by playing (old school classic) blues for more than 40 years...

I'm working my way through the book in a steady way and I'm not even skipping lessons on stuff I'm familiar with (the chord and rhythm lessons that is e.g.) and going back and reviewing everything on a steady basis.

Made it through section one so far which doesn't mean I'd be able to sightread but I can figure out the tunes and get them from notation to audible music which I wouldn't have been able to do a couple of months ago when I started working with the book.

It's frustrating at times when you make the same mistakes over and over again, it's rewarding when you realize you have learned something new ( I actually enjoy learning) and overall it's fun.

TOMMO

[Kojo27]

Thanks for your reply.

I purchased the book (actually I got the one with all three volumes in one edition) with the goal to learn to read standard notation. Plus to advance my technical playing skills which are more informed by playing (old school classic) blues for more than 40 years...

I'm working my way through the book in a steady way and I'm not even skipping lessons on stuff I'm familiar with (the chord and rhythm lessons that is e.g.) and going back and reviewing everything on a steady basis.

Made it through section one so far which doesn't mean I'd be able to sightread but I can figure out the tunes and get them from notation to audible music which I wouldn't have been able to do a couple of months ago when I started working with the book.

It's frustrating at times when you make the same mistakes over and over again, it's rewarding when you realize you have learned something new ( I actually enjoy learning) and overall it's fun.

TOMMO

That's great, Tom - as you probably know, your reviewing of the material is the thing that will guarantee that you excel. I studied some education in college, and the thing they kept beating into our heads was how REVIEW is the essential part of any approach to teaching or learning. So true.

Unless I'm mistaken, the material in Section One isn't intended to be sight-read. Seems the strict-time reading begins with section two. That's where I am - I can decipher about anything, but I fumble at reading in real time. I've had my eyes opened (on this very forum) about what a boon sight-reading is. I now believe that one could learn 10x more pieces, in the same amount of time, if he's sight-reading and not plodding along, three steps up, two back, which is how most of us guitar players do it, I suspect.

Keep going - good to meet you.

kj

[TOMMO]

Keep going - good to meet you.
kj

I will - and Likewise! I'm sure we'll meet again somewhere around here!

[Langs]

p53 Key of D major:


I'm finding this book to be a great school for technique as wel. Playing this things painfully slow like 44Bpm exposes some funny twitches in my left had. Especially in the first position when you are fretting a note after open string with 2nd or 3rd finger.

Edit: adding the rest:

p54 - 55 Dynamic Etude
Wow. Been frustrated with this piece tot the point of severe anger. Especially because I never made the same mistake twice really. There was always something else throwing me of. I attempted this at 60Bpm in an effort to move a little closer to play musically. Leavitt can say don't try to be perfect right away. Then you hear someone like oldhead's recordings and how he says he is a beginner. I didn't kill myself though.

[Kojo27]

p53 Key of D major:


I'm finding this book to be a great school for technique as wel. Playing this things painfully slow like 44Bpm exposes some funny twitches in my left had. Especially in the first position when you are fretting a note after open string with 2nd or 3rd finger.

Edit: adding the rest:

p53 Duet in D
Bit mechanical, and many times unwillingly muting the string with my right hand. Really hard to hold still at slow tempos

p54 - 55 Dynamic Etude
Wow. Been frustrated with this piece tot the point of severe anger. Especially because I never made the same mistake twice really. There was always something else throwing me of. I attempted this at 60Bpm in an effort to move a little closer to play musically. Leavitt can say don't try to be perfect right away. Then you hear someone like oldhead's recordings and how he says he is a beginner. I didn't kill myself though.

Hey Langs!

I didn't see your post - sorry! Good work here - keep it going. I agree: playing super slow can be really tricky. I think it's good, though, for building a solid sense of groove. When I was young a obsessive-compulsive (joke) I used to put the metronome on 40 and play one note every FOUR beats, doing major scale fingerings, or fiddle tunes. Would speed it up just a bit every five minutes or so, and do this sometimes for a couple of hours. Nuts, I was. I don't recommend this - hah.

You're about halfway through the book now! Here comes the sight-reading!

KJ