Emulate the pros who have practiced the least.

[ecj]

I don't see anything wrong with targuit's advice if you're interested in learning to play finger style. Work through one of the many excellent beginner instruction books in classical guitar (shearer, etc.), then start learning standards. It'll save you a world of hurt.

I've done it, and I can see how excellent the path would be. I just can't deal with nails.

If you want to use a pick and play bebop, well, you're in for a tougher road. One of the problems is that no one has yet standardized a method for using a pick. Which is kind of mind-boggling, but there it is. I'm not even sure what I'd recommend other than getting a good teacher. The Leavitt books are great, but they don't tackle the question of how to use the pick at all, just what to do with your technique once you've got it.

[jzucker]

"getting a good teacher" is easier said than done. I lived in DC and had the ability to study with lots of great players. Most of them were terrible teachers. There's a theory that a good teacher isn't necessarily a good player but I found that the guys who were regarded as good teachers didn't have their playing together enough to guide me in the right direction.

Even later when I studied with Martino, Roberts, Pass, Kessel, Ellis, Andrew White...In the end 99% of what I learned was directly from the source. Copying the greats. Nothing can compare to that.

In today's world you can learn a lot from youtube and knowledge is everywhere but eventually it comes down to logging raw hours on your instrument. There's no substitute for that and if you think you're going to be a great player logging an hour a day....Well....It's just not likely to happen.

[ecj]

"getting a good teacher" is easier said than done.

I'm not sure I've ever had a great teacher. Sometimes it's worth it to just find someone who can play well so that you get some time each month to stare at their hands and try to figure out what they're doing.

[jordanklemons]

I don't really use any of the technique that I had to learn when studying classical anymore...and I didn't appreciate what a great education I got from that study when I was working at it...but looking back I'm very happy I went through it and got a ton out of it. Just not really technique.

The main thing I took away from it was the integrity of the music and the sound itself...specifically the melody...which is so often overlooked in jazz education...specifically jazz guitar education. We're so often worried about scales, arpeggios, big funky crazy chords, chops, ii V I's, this that...whatever...we often overlook the simplicity of playing one note with a nice tone...or a melody with a wonderful and musical phrasing.

I have heard sax players and trumpet players talk a lot about how much time they spend just working on getting a good sound out of their horn. And since they can't play chords...everything they do is really centered around creating melodic integrity. That often gets overlooked in jazz guitar education.

I remember once working with my classical teacher. I brought in a composition I'd written. I played it for him. He pointed out this one section and asked, "Why don't you play it like this? It will sound better and more melodic."

I essentially told him that I didn't care about that and just wanted to get these cool big chords into it. He looked at me with such disappointment. Which I didn't get at the time, but now I wish I could go back in time and smack myself upside the head for him.

Often times when I hear jazz guitar players play solo, it sounds mechanical to me. It sounds like the integrity of the melody gets sacrificed in order to squeeze lots of crazy chords and chops in. I'd personally prefer to hear a guitar player playing solo where they're just playing single notes, but phrasing the melody beautifully. Like a solo horn performance. Jim Hall was a master of that. He could sound better playing single notes than most guys can with big crazy chord arrangements. At least in my ear. Of course, the ideal is to be able to maintain that melodic integrity AND be able to employ beautiful harmonic ideas as well. That's what will grab and keep my attention.

And I feel like the seed of that idea and that way of thinking and listening, for me, came from studying classical guitar. It was my only guitar teacher (until I got into my masters program) that ever really wanted to talk about the integrity of the melody and the sound. All the other stuff is great and so important too, but for me, I had to be in the classical world to really get hit over the head with how important that stuff really is.

[jzucker]

I'm not sure I've ever had a great teacher. Sometimes it's worth it to just find someone who can play well so that you get some time each month to stare at their hands and try to figure out what they're doing.

not if they're not good. The problem is most students don't know enough to even know who is good or bad. A bad teacher can instill horrible habits. You can't go wrong copying the established greats IMO

[jasonc]

Ok, I'll say a little more and then I think I'm done with this thread. I think everybody here agrees that it boils down to hours in the shed and hours on the stand.
Jay, your point about using classical rep. and technique as a foundation is understood by everyone. However, what I am saying is that unless you plan on playing fingerstyle you aren't going to need Giuliani's 120 right hand excercises. Also, to be good at reading jazz it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to be spending time reading a lot of baroque or romantic literature. If you only have thirty minutes to practice reading and you want to learn to read jazz would it be more efficient to spend all that time on jazz (the goal) or spend time reading through Sor etudes? If you want to be good at playing and reading jazz then practice playing and reading jazz. And you can do that with good efficient technique without having to study a different style of music. Lastly, scale fingerings are important to a jazz musician because you need to be able to play everything wherever you happen to be. If all you know are Segovia's fingerings for scales you're going to be screwed. What happens when you need notes from G Major and you happen to be on the A string in 7th position? According to Segovia, notes from G Major don't live there. So now what? Just rely on your ear? Doesn't seem that efficient to me. That's why there is so much discussion about scale fingerings.

[grahambop]

Graham - What is your answer to the question? Did you like Towner's performance of that lovely standard? Or Waltz for Debby which I posted as well?

The OP asked what would be an efficient system to learn jazz guitar? I suggested acquiring a sound technical base in classical guitar for technique as well as to learn to read notation efficiently. I suggest learning diatonic scales and how to harmonize them. If there is much that is controversial in that concrete suggestion, I would like to know just what it is.

This thread meanders back and forth without providing a concrete scheme to improve one's playing. I offered one succinctly. Once you have a foundation, you turn your attention to learning standards as suggested by Joe Pass, who certainly knew something about jazz guitar. In my opinion this concrete plan will include learning more sophisticated jazz theory, chord construction, and hopefully playing with other musicians along the way.

I don't know of any other shortcuts, although those learning today have so many great tools at their disposal. Digital recording, Transcribe and related software, digital videos and YouTube.... much more than those of us who had a large Teac tape deck and turntables.

One more point regarding the ludicrous discussion of which version of diatonic scales is the key to the jazz kingdom. The answer is "none of them". No one goes to a concert to her an artist play scales. Scales are modes of transition on the fret board. And regardless of which style of scale fingering you prefer, the notes remain the same at each fret position on the fret board. And implied as well is that the chord fragments are there in each position as well. How you navigate the fret board and those chordal fragments as well as chromatic notes is up to each player.

Of course I like Ralph Towner and those clips - wonderful playing. I don't disagree that a classical guitar foundation is probably useful. As I've said, that's exactly what I did! I'm just not convinced it's the quickest way to learn jazz guitar.

[MarkRhodes]

Confirmed by Bird himself in an interview with Paul Desmond --11 to 15 hours a day, every day, for many years.

But what hat does he know, he's just Charlie Parker. Never been online, never accessed wifi, which apparently forms the new bedrock in Maslow's "Hierarchy of Needs".

I love that excerpt and have enjoyed it a few times. Charlie practiced relentlessly. Earl Hines---who hired a young Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie in one of his bands---said they brought their method books to gigs and would spend their set breaks trying to find bits from the books to fit in the tunes they had to play.

[jasonc]

Given that the composed repertoire that he played took him everywhere on the fret board, that's probably a misread of the intent of his scale studies.

Aaron Shearer was a later pedagogue who was of course "classical", so one could debate the applicability of classical guitar methods to jazz in a broader context, but in the end - what the heck are we debating at this point? (Shearer's scale pattern studies would be more useful to a jazzer, with the exception of the descending form of melodic minor).

we're supposed to be discussing the lazy man's way to jazz guitar playing capability, no?

Fair point Fumble. However, the Segovia scales came up as something a beginning jazz player should learn. I wasn't discussing their usefulness to a classical student even though I don't think they're of much use for anything other than fingering certain passages in the Rodrigro concertos. And I'm very familiar with Shearer and Noad and Tennant and all the other classical pedagogues. I and a few hundred others already addressed the OP.

[pamosmusic]

I will say when I was in college I did some jazz Segovia scales. Screw around and play three strings up before shifting positions or two strings then shift erg. Practice shifting in different places. I've mentioned before that I'm more inclined to jump positions than stretch far out of one... That'd be why

[pamosmusic]

Flip side of that is that I always did the same thing with classical guitar because I thought it was a little more thorough ... Can't always count on the position shift to come between the third and first fingers! Gotta keep the others sharp too!

[jasonc]

I will say when I was in college I did some jazz Segovia scales. Screw around and play three strings up before shifting positions or two strings then shift erg. Practice shifting in different places. I've mentioned before that I'm more inclined to jump positions than stretch far out of one... That'd be why

I did the same but with the five positions instead. That's what mapped the fretboard out for me and not the Segovia fingerings.

[pamosmusic]

I mean yea .... that's all it was haha ... that's just what I called them to myself. For example start an E major scale on the low E and play it up for two octaves with all the different position shifts I could muster. Then three octaves. Then whole range. Then do the same thing starting on F# etc etc ... then the key of A then D etc etc ... until you die.

Now I do essentially the same thing but I do an E major scale from lowest note possible to highest on one string at a time. Then on two, then three, then four until it's the whole range. Then A, then D etc etc ... melodic minor... until you die.

Breaking it down as many ways as possible and making yourself turn the neck from small pieces into a whole entity over and over again is great brain food.

[targuit]

Jason - "You CAN'T learn the entire fingerboard cold if all you use is the Segovia fingerings. Is it that hard to understand? I'm not an ace at grammar but I am typing in English, right?"

Jason -I learned the fret board cold when I was twelve and thirteen years old. That was about when the Beatles played the Ed Sullivan show in the Sixties. I have an MD and play classical and jazz and country. You asked me how to finger a G chord at the seventh fret. I simply answered a pointless question accurately, and now you suggest that I "missed the point" and that, paraphrasing, I could not learn the fret board notes using the Segovia scales, or some such nonsense.

PM me and I will send you a copy via e-mail of my transcription of Waltz For Debby, which I will be recording this weekend to win a bet with Henry and Reg, assuming they do not retract the slanderous comments for which they will no doubt be willing to put their money where their mouths are (assuming they can detach those mouths from the others' behind). I assume with your classical background that you can indeed read notation.

As for Reg and Henry - I can also send you a copy of my MD license if you like. It will cost you extra if you wish to bet on that, too.

[henryrobinett]

Talking about music is like dancing about architecture. Whoever said it was brilliant. I don't know. It seems somehow apropos. One either does or one talks about doing it. Some people can do, others just say they can.

[grahambop]

Talking about music is like dancing about architecture. Whoever said it was brilliant. I don't know. It seems somehow apropos. One either does or one talks about doing it. Some people can do, others just say they can.

I think it was Duke Ellington said it, at least I read that somewhere.

[christianm77]

I think it was Duke Ellington said it, at least I read that somewhere.

I've heard a few different people credited for this. It may be we'll never know. It's a great quote though...

[Reg]

What was this thread about... least amount of time to be able to play jazz. or least amount of time to get to the point of being able to play Jazz.

So you need to get to that point first, right, being able to play Jazz. Jazz usually isn't worked out arrangements , it being able to look at a chart or if you don't read... memorize a tune and them perform it live... you don't really know where it may go... I have no problems playing in that manor, that's what I do and have done for most of my life.

I just happen to sight read well, just woke up one morning and had the skill, don't know where it came from.

So fingerings and all the technical BS are all just skills that you need to develop on your way to being able to play Jazz, they all will work in the end, right, once you develop the skills.

I personally believe there are very physical reasons why some work better than others... but in the end generally they all work well enough.
So developing those skills takes time, As most have said and believe, you can't really get around putting in the time to develop the skills.

The other time detail... is how much time is needed to maintain those skills. Again I have my personal beliefs about how the organization of development of the musicianship skills... different approaches require more time to maintain.

I'm not sure which is more important... the organization of the development of the skills or just developing the skills anyway you can.

I do know most just don't develop the skills, which leads me to.... just get there. And worry about the time required to maintain later.

In a perfect world... or if one had or has the time.... develop the skills with organization. I can say from experience it saves lots of time later.

Jay sorry to get you worked up... really. It's just Im here to try and help Guitarist become better jazz musicians, even just better musicians in general. Many of your comments and views are not helpful. Jazz is not a one trick pony.

But please go ahead and post your versions of Waltz for Debby, after that I'll read through the tune and perform a jazz somewhat on the spot version. It won't be worked out... that's the point, I don't need to. I'm lazy.

What ever bet you want... if it will help I'll take it... I'm not a starving musician.

[grahambop]

This thread was started to identify people who achieved outstanding results in minimal time. Your sound clips are lovely, but irrelevant. If you can point me to examples of people who have learned jazz guitar more efficiently than there peers, I am interested in what you have to say.

I think the basic problem is that nobody is very sure who those people are. Even if we knew, we probably wouldn't know what their practice methods were. So the whole question, while of interest and worth discussing, is hampered by a lack of data.

[Jonzo]

That's a fair point. But a few players have been suggested.

I am just amused by how fearful some people are of even looking at the subject. Of course highly efficient learners exist, but people who have identified themselves as "experts" keep taking the thread elsewhere.

[grahambop]

That's a fair point. But a few players have been suggested.

I am just amused by how fearful some people are of even looking at the subject. Of course highly efficient learners exist, but people who have identified themselves as "experts" keep taking the thread elsewhere.

Well I'm happy to try to figure out how many hours I've put in. Of course I'm not a pro, and I don't know how I compare to others, but I'll have a go.

I started learning to play jazz guitar in 1981 (I had already been playing classical guitar and rock for about 8 years or so). I had some classical guitar lessons for a few years, but after that I was entirely self-taught. I had plenty of spare time until 1988 (when I met my future spouse!) so as an estimate let's say I practised 2 hours a day. (I was also playing in a rock band in my spare time, then I wasted a few years trying to play the saxophone, which I gave up, so overall 2 hours a day on guitar seems reasonable).

From 1988 until 2008 (when I started posting youtube videos, only by then was I happy enough with my jazz playing to "expose it to the world"), I estimate 1 hour a day practising, due to marriage, kids, job etc. To be honest I have always played more for fun rather than putting in loads of practice, I am quite lazy in that respect.

So let's say roughly 13,000 hours. Of course that's very approximate so maybe I should round up to 15,000 hours. That was to get me to the level you can see on my initial videos (I think Round Midnight was the first one I did).

I don't know how efficient that is. On the plus side, I didn't spend hours on scales etc. so I was able to concentrate on basically copying stuff off records, learning tunes etc. (I did do some technical exercises, but not much). On the minus side, there were probably technical areas I should have spent more time on which might have speeded things up. For example my arpeggios were a bit patchy, so I have worked on those a lot in recent years, and that has paid off. (e.g. really practising minor 7 flat 5 arps all over the place, they were a bit of a 'knowledge gap' for me).

[EarlBrother]

Lets all put together our own episode of the Voice.We make a video of our singing.Edit it so its on one video as a sing off and sit back and laugh our butts off.Maybe the moderators could be the judges.then they could do a sing off we can judge them.And then uh i uh uhmm i think my Gibson is calling me curfew is over.i have to go do my homework craap.I cant wait till i'm a grown up and just do what i want.

[matt.guitarteacher]

I find it interesting that the people who demand the demonstration of a certain level of expertise are the same ones who insist that there are no identifiable examples of efficient jazz guitar learners. This is a thread about efficiency, and the so-called experts insist that it does not exist, and efficient learners cannot be identified. Yet they identify themselves as experts on efficient practice, with the sole authority to speak on it.

If you can't prove to me that you learned faster than 90% of your peers, you are not qualified to comment on efficient practice. You are just another guy with an opinion.

Henry claims up to 30,000 hours of practice. The hard work and dedication are admirable, but hardly indicative of efficiency. Show me someone who is a crappy jazz guitarist after one hour, and you will have my attention.

This thread was started to identify people who achieved outstanding results in minimal time. Your sound clips are lovely, but irrelevant. If you can point me to examples of people who have learned jazz guitar more efficiently than there peers, I am interested in what you have to say.

The whole idea of proving something or shutting up seems to apply to everyone but you. The entire premise of this thread is to prove something which isn't quantifiable.

As much as I hate the idea of "consensus" and the way that the term is used to abuse everything which was once scientific...., in the absence of actual data or a real article from which to even start the conversation, CONSENSUS is about all you have.

Consensus, of course, comes from experts or those who actually know something about the subject. Most pros tend to say things like "look at the way Wes our Joe learned".

You seem to want to both discount the way Wes learned , the way he says he learned , while, at the same time, using him as an example of analyzing efficient learning because he learns in a shorter time than others?

Don't think the problem with confusion in this thread is EVERYBODY ELSE and their refusal to NOT say exactly what you want them to say.

The scientific thing would be to try some of the ideas which have been suggested, and after trying them , come back with your report on what didn't work and why. I, for example, am somewhat lax in the transcription department. So I'm not really qualified to comment on that . Be stupid for me to do so or dismiss it.

I can say, however, in a way that seems to somewhat defy logic, learning TUNES seems to have been the most helpful thing I've done in my own practice, far more helpful than any other exercise for drill.

[matt.guitarteacher]

It occurs to me that I've never heard a child prodigy with an original sound, so maybe that should tell us that imitation is the fastest road.

Nice!

Hey, there's actually still some thought going on in this thread.

[xiyangshen]

Maybe instead of looking at prodigies or iconic pros look at the practices of folks who started in middle age and attained some level of success. If you are starting in your 50s you don't really have 15000 hours to put in at 2 hours a day. Anybody EVER see someone who could really play who just started in middle age? Most pros who say they started late in life still started in their teens.
My apologies if anyone thinks this has anything to do with the op.