Emulate the pros who have practiced the least.

[ecj]

Again, here is the complete statement.

"The most efficient thing to do is to practice, any way you can. Playing songs, playing scales, playing rhythmic exercises, reading, transcribing. It really doesn't matter so much as it does playing long and often."

Just wrong on so many levels, from the basic misunderstanding of what the word "efficient" means, to the suggestion that what you practice "really doesn't matter".

S: So teacher, what should I practice to become a better Jazz guitarist?
T: It doesn't matter. Practice any way you can, long and often. Have you got my check?

It doesn't require much effort to find fault with the actual words.

There's a difference between making a general observation about what you've seen work for people and directly replying to the inquiry of a student.

And, again, you don't teach guitar. You don't appear to take guitar lessons from a teacher. You don't play guitar at a level where you feel comfortable sharing your music with anyone. But from this position of no experience you consider yourself to be capable of evaluating the quality of advice about pedagogy, and further, about judging what the most effective path to quality playing is.

Can you see something wrong with this situation? This is why your threads always end in flame wars. Drop the arrogance, man. If you're really interested in this stuff, go practice a ton and get good and then think about what did/didn't work. Go find a teacher that walks the walk and ask them to tell you what to do. You'll start to figure out what works and what doesn't for you pretty quickly.

My guess is that you'll find out that, like henry suggested, it was mostly about busting ass and less about the particular method.

[pamosmusic]

That's sort of what I was going for earlier ... Practicing to me implies focus.

Working on much of anything with a great deal of focus is good stuff. It bleeds over. If you're practicing focused on learning a bebop head in a bunch of positions and keys then the vocabulary will sink in. If you're practicing focused on chords and changes and subs then your lines will improve. Also ... you're being extremely intense about people specifically answering your question but you still seem to be resistant to the idea of clarifying what the goal of the practice should be. Maybe if you clarified that a little then people would be able to give better answers.

[targuit]

Efficient practice plan succinctly stated.

Beginner: Learn classical method including to read standard notation. Segovia's major and minor diatonic scales. Sors and Carcassi progressive etudes. Acquire a good technical base.

Intermediate: Study jazz standards. Become familiar with chord progressions and educate your ears to learn interval qualities. Transcribe. Chord study integrated with learning standards.

Advanced: Do whatever the hell you want. You don't need someone else's advice at this point.

[henryrobinett]

I am thinking that maybe you misspoke here, because I can't imagine any professional teacher really suggesting this.

Do you really believe this, Henry?

Of course I do. Many students worry about minutia. It depends upon the students goals. Now if he wanted to be a truly great jazz guitarist, no. He'd have to have a specific, highly targeted and organized daily plan. But most aren't like that. Most are just trying to find motivation to pick up the guitar everyday.

[henryrobinett]

Do you think maybe it's possible that Henry understands more about how to get good at the guitar than you do?

No he doesn't think that's possible. He knows it all already it appears. He's been there and done that. He's been teaching guitar since the mid 70s and had played with a lot of great players over the years. He had the breadth of experience to draw upon.

He also knows that the hardest students to teach, the hardest nuts to crack for a good teacher, are the ones who believe they know it all already. They just don't seem to learn. And you wonder why they keep coming back. They don't really practice what you give them and they spend their time arguing with you. And you KNOW that they don't know what they're talking about. So then you kick them out. It's not worth taking their money.

[Jonzo]

There's a difference between making a general observation about what you've seen work for people and directly replying to the inquiry of a student.

And, again, you don't teach guitar. You don't appear to take guitar lessons from a teacher. You don't play guitar at a level where you feel comfortable sharing your music with anyone. But from this position of no experience you consider yourself to be capable of evaluating the quality of advice about pedagogy, and further, about judging what the most effective path to quality playing is.

Can you see something wrong with this situation? This is why your threads always end in flame wars. Drop the arrogance, man. If you're really interested in this stuff, go practice a ton and get good and then think about what did/didn't work. Go find a teacher that walks the walk and ask them to tell you what to do. You'll start to figure out what works and what doesn't for you pretty quickly.

My guess is that you'll find out that, like henry suggested, it was mostly about busting ass and less about the particular method.

In general, the observation that hard work is the main thing that matters is false. Guitarists can and do needlessly work hard at banging their heads against a wall. Your job is to help them avoid that. Most current research, as has been posted here, indicates that how you practice is more important than how hard you practice. Do I really need to be Joe Pass to make this observation?

There are 41,288 forum members. The same five start these flame wars with the same lame attacks. I started a thread to discuss something that is interesting to me, and some other members have found it interesting too. I have not gone to Henry's website for his undiluted advice. If the topic bothers you, or if the fact that I have an opinion bothers you, remove your lips from Henry's butt and announce you are leaving like the other drama queens.

[henryrobinett]

The most efficient thing to do is to practice, any way you can. Playing songs, playing scales, playing rhythmic exercises, reading, transcribing. It really doesn't matter so much as it does playing long and often. I had and have my methodology which worked extremely efficiently for me. I think it's a system that would work for everybody IF they had the amount of concentration and determination required to get through the programs. But if not it wouldn't work for them. I have short cutted it for students often. It's hard. But to me it's the FASTEST MOST DIRECT WAY of getting to really master jazz and the guitar as a whole. But I know it's not for everybody. But it sure does kick ass more than anything else i know of.

But EVERYBODY does it in their own way. That's why there are so many methods.

But be organized. Meticulous. And comprehensively and consistently.

And since you multiple times quoted and said you quoted the entire passage and did not --And said you didn't take it out of context, which you did, here is the entire quote.

The FIRST step is to get the student WINNING on jazz guitar. That entails he/she play with it in anyway he or she can. PLAY!!! Not worry. Don't criticize themselves for doing it wrong. But the more one does it the more fun one has and also the more progress one sees. THEN the NEXT step would be getting more serious about attaining some goals.

You have to take one step at a time. One step followed by the next and the next. Don't look too far ahead or you'll get blistered. When and if the student is ready for the BIG ASS PROGRAM they're ready to face it. But it's way too daunting otherwise. And probably never will be ready for it. It's not for everybody. The teacher HAS TO ASSESS and help the student assess their goals to design the program that fits best for them. Otherwise both the student and teacher fail.

[Jonzo]

I wasn't trying to take you out of context. In your full post, you seemed to be contradicting yourself. I was going to address the contradiction, but I thought it would get too complicated. That is why I asked if you were really saying what I thought you were saying in the part that didn't make sense to me. Because normally you, and everyone else, have pretty strong opinions about what type of practice is most effective.

...and then everyone flipped out.

[smokinguit]

A lot of people have offered sound advice but it seems to me you are looking for a "cookie cutter" practice regimen that will speed up the learning process. To that I say don't worry about it. Just play a lot of tunes (with your kids and other musicians you can find) and have fun . Like people keep telling you above, you need to figure out what works for YOU. No one can do that for you. Once you find it, that will be the perfect practice regimen. Then as your goals are met with that regimen, you will have to find another. I have a feeling it will never end.

[wolflen]

little practice/application=A Team player---no such animal..it not even a discussion..(Mr Universe--never works out!! see how silly it sounds)

to me its my life..I learn something every day and "try" to apply it to my playing..

I watch vids of top players..if I can get an insight watching them..all the better..no Im not going to "practice everything they practiced"..that would be foolish..as I would not sound like them and I don't want to..it does not mean I don't practice..I know what I need to improve on in my playing..doing someone else' routine will not help me with mine..

are there some players that "get it" faster than others..of course..giving that..at some point "that magic" fades and its time to study..there are no free rides..

a friend told me about his wife in law school..."never cracked a book..always got A's" well that is nice to believe..but somewhere in that process a book was opened and read very well..

high IQ/talented folks may see through the maze faster..but they still have to go through it..

[Nabil B]

high IQ/talented folks may see through the maze faster..but they still have to go through it..

I like that analogy, well said. Let's now open a thread about the fastest way to go through the maze. Maybe the lazy *and* successful players go over it by helicopter, who knows !

[pushkar000]

I want to mention, Jonzo, that I actually answered your exact specific original question in the first page of the thread itself.
Play only bebop. If Mike Moreno is anything to judge by, you'll get good real fast, with the caveat that we do not know whether this was always Mike Moreno's routine or just his current one.

So you have received your answer 10 pages ago. As far as I can make out, I am the only one so far in 275 posts who hasactually answered your exact query, keeping my personal opinion of your query out of the matter. But this was 10 pages and one week ago. Can I now ask whether my post and Mike Moreno's example has helped? Have you been playing only bebop?

Implication here is that you are refuting everybody else's answer for 10 pages now. That's fine, nobody's really bothered to answer your exact question. But for the one person that has, that seems to be your best lead so far right? If you disregard even that, then I must ask - what exactly are you looking for?

Over the past 275 posts, I can read pretty much all the important things that a jazz guitar player would ever need to hear. This thread has become some kind of repository for great advice, whether it was asked for or not, that's a different matter. But some of the advice is wonderful and comes from the best possible sources. You don't get to talk to cats like Henry every day for example. Many cats know what they're doing and their advice should be considered seriously.

It seems to me that you are looking for a method that will guarantee you success, and that you have this guarantee from the outset. I think you will be hard-pressed to find such a routine. Maybe we can all help in other ways. Why don't you start a new thread listing your current routine, your maximum time, specific goals, music you like and everyone will answer in an exact format giving you an example schedule?
___________________________________

So in summary :
1) I have given you what you asked for. Has it helped?
2) This thread already has everything in terms of advice.
3) Why don't you start a new thread and ask us to build a practice routine for you?

[Reg]

So is the discussion about how to practice or what to practice... Most players and students who use the... play it enough and you'll get it... approach, obviously need to practice lots... and then they need to practice lots to maintain all that they're trying to memorize.

I just got back in town and am going to try and post a bunch of vids about comping, Chord Scale Theory ... and use of subs over jazz standards... and probable some other things I've forgot about... I'm lazy, but I need to cover what I said I would try and do.

Now here is the part that make being lazy easier... I don't need to practice or put anything together. I understand what the subjects that I'm going to make playing teaching examples of. Most of my time is spent on what to practice... teach myself to understand what the subject is... and use my technique to perform.

Granted if I spent time practicing I'm sure I would improve and become a much better player. But I did put in the time when I was young.... If something new comes up.... I always learn or understand what it is before I practice the realization of. Before I perform whatever it is...The other detail... I can sight read well. If you don't understand what that means... and your looking to spend the least amount of time becoming a good player, Sight Reading and understanding music will by far save you the most amount of physical Time.

I can and do show up to gigs,sessions, all types and don't need to practice if there are charts. So if your looking for the real time saver.... there it is. To become a good sight reader it takes about six months of long days. This is after you already have the performance thing, your fretboard etc.... together. The understanding of music could probable be accomplished in two years... but no more than four.

Chops are the only thing that needs to be kept up. The same thing applies to being in the pocket, groove, magical moment etc, what ever you want to call that feeling of being locked in to the music. I don't need to practice that... I understand what it is and that always happens. When my chops are up... I just have more to work with... of course I'm one of those thinking pros... you know, no feel etc... I just had to learn how to have those strong facial expressions of struggle and strain while performing.

[targuit]

Jeff - the purpose of learning 'classical methodology' is to learn a good technical base as well as to learn to read notation. If you wish to argue that learning haphazard style is better, that may be your opinion. Not only as a classically trained musician but also as a physician, I would advocate the former. I see a lot of bad fretting technique, at least from my point of view. The most blatant example is Pat Metheny. I know you will argue that criticizing his technique is blasphemy. Too bad. I would never teach his fretting style in particular to an aspiring student. I do acknowledge that having good technique is not the same as being a brilliant player. But the potential for muscle strains and repetitive muscle injury is significant. Or would you argue that learning to read notation and gaining mastery of the fret board is an undesirable goal?

Just to be contrary, I would add that sometimes there is an assumption that knowing classical technique is some impediment or somehow inadequate to achieve mastery of jazz guitar. I would point out to you that Joe Pass' technique is far more akin to 'classical technique' than Metheny's. By a country mile. And Joe is the better jazz player as well in my humble opinion.

[pamosmusic]

Jeff - the purpose of learning 'classical methodology' is to learn a good technical base as well as to learn to read notation. If you wish to argue that learning haphazard style is better, that may be your opinion. Not only as a classically trained musician but also as a physician, I would advocate the former. I see a lot of bad fretting technique, at least from my point of view.

Well the options aren't "classical technique" or "bad technique" ... there's a whole world of "good" electric guitar technique out there.

I might add that this is probably an exceptionally efficient way to start out for someone like yourself who wants to play fingerstyle on a nylon string guitar and play arrangements and live in that whole (very cool) part of the jazz world. For someone who's doing something else it's not really the most practical route ... which is why I said that this was "case in point" for the whole 'depends on your goals' answer to the OP

[targuit]

I have no idea why classical technique is not applicable to jazz and the issue of the fingering of scales is ludicrous to me. A scale fingering is to provide a smooth transition. But the idea of specific fingerings being the Holy Grail to jazz mastery is absurd. I watched a Jimmy Bruno video on YT regarding scales and technique. Jimmy has his notions of the best form of scales to practice. But what counts is the music you make. The fact is that you play the transitions you are comfortable with. There are myriad ways to finger the same melody and even harmony on the finger board. Jimmy has an opinion, as do you and I. They are common - like a certain anatomical orifice. Everyone has one.

The same melody can be played in different fret positions. It is a matter of style, not reciting the Bible.

But of course, one is entitled to think whatever trims your jib. There even exists a Flat Earth Club.....

[targuit]

Gene Bertoncini, Ralph Towner, Joe Pass....lousy company to be in....

[targuit]

By the way, talk about efficiency in learning. Towner was originally a pianist who took up guitar in his late teens. Fast learner, I guess. Too bad he wasted his time learning those Segovia scales....

[jasonc]

Learn classical if that speaks to you but it's not always directly applicable to jazz. I've also seen plenty of classical guitarists with questionable technique so learning Carcassi and Sor isn't going to automatically give you good technique. You can play jazz with good technique and you can learn to read by reading jazz tunes. I've just never seen classical music as an in to jazz. That said if you do study classical music it will pretty much ruin listening to guitarists play chord melody for you. I can't stand listening to the grab-a-grip while playing the melody style players. It usually sounds disjointed and unmusical to me. The Segovia scales don't do much for anybody (yes, I had to learn them all in order to pass my strings juries).

[pamosmusic]

The Segovia scales don't do much for anybody (yes, I had to learn them all in order to pass my strings juries).

Played one in an actual piece once ... senior recital in the last movement of a Rodrigo concerto (yes a Rodrigo concerto not THE Rodrigo concerto )

[Bluedawg]

That said if you do study classical music it will pretty much ruin listening to guitarists play chord melody for you. I can't stand listening to the grab-a-grip while playing the melody style players. It usually sounds disjointed and unmusical to me.

I thought I was the only who felt that way ....

I spent a few years studying classical .....

thanks to that even some of the jazz greats can be hard to listen to when they do chord solo work


Maybe that's why I have always had a hard time developing my chord solo repertoire

[targuit]

The reason it is hard to play chord melody style solo work convincingly is that it is truly polyphonic which is harder in some ways to play than single or double note melody lines. Degree of difficulty.

Interesting to learn that Jazz Music is a different entity from Classical Music. Someone should explain that to Keith Jarrett, Chick Corea, and all the classically trained bassists, pianists, wind players, violinists, and percussionists playing jazz today and in the past. Maybe they should all just quit playing right now, once they get the heads up that they cannot really play. Maybe they are using a different and secret twelve tone scale....

Or let's put it another way - I posted two Ralph Towner videos - one live - playing jazz standards. I Fall In Love Too Easily and Waltz For Debby. Who on this discussion thread can play those as a solo guitar performance. Besides Ralph..... the Pretender?

I have to admit that Sunday morning I was working on Waltz For Debby coincidentally. I created an arrangement which I transposed down to the key of D as a solo chord melody - because I like the transitions on the fret board. I also play in F or Eb.

[targuit]

A question for Jason, Peter, and some of the others here who, like me, have some classical training in their background. Please explain why jazz is such a different music from classical, and why if someone can play both classical and jazz, that somehow makes them inferior jazz players.

A simple example. One of my favorite pieces I learned after playing classical guitar for years is Julian Bream's version of
Pavane pour une Enfante Defunte. The song is a rather somber piece composed by Maurice Ravel for piano. But I would often play around with the rhythm and syncopation to play it in a jazzy style. It plays perfectly well.

That identifies one of the things that distinguishes jazz from classical music. The rhythms and syncopation. The same notes in a piece can sound different in terms of style.

To return to scales for a moment. I don't believe that anyone goes to a Chris Botti concert to hear him play scales, and I think the same applies to Martin Taylor. Both of them can play jazz. Chris has a classical background, while I believe Martin is self taught.

And Jeff - Joe Pass' technique is quite similar to classical. All players have a unique approach. For example, even Ralph Towner who studied classical in his early twenties under Karl Sheit, does not use the typical arch in the right hand wrist that is often taught in classical, but his left hand is classical all the way. Joe Pass also did not play with an arched right hand, but his fingerings are very classical with a touch of hybrid approach. Joe Pass was taught originally by some older Italian guitarists in his home town in PA. They were likely classically influenced. What is important in the end is the music you make. Pat Metheny is a glaring example of that. His fretting hand from a classical point of view is a wreck. But he seems to get by...

[pushkar000]

Sometimes its good to remember that its all music, regardless of how different the presentation of it may be.

[nick1994]

A question for Jason, Peter, and some of the others here who, like me, have some classical training in their background. Please explain why jazz is such a different music from classical, and why if someone can play both classical and jazz, that somehow makes them inferior jazz players.

A simple example. One of my favorite pieces I learned after playing classical guitar for years is Julian Bream's version of
Pavane pour une Enfante Defunte. The song is a rather somber piece composed by Maurice Ravel for piano. But I would often play around with the rhythm and syncopation to play it in a jazzy style. It plays perfectly well.

That identifies one of the things that distinguishes jazz from classical music. The rhythms and syncopation. The same notes in a piece can sound different in terms of style.

To return to scales for a moment. I don't believe that anyone goes to a Chris Botti concert to hear him play scales, and I think the same applies to Martin Taylor. Both of them can play jazz. Chris has a classical background, while I believe Martin is self taught.

And Jeff - Joe Pass' technique is quite similar to classical. All players have a unique approach. For example, even Ralph Towner who studied classical in his early twenties under Karl Sheit, does not use the typical arch in the right hand wrist that is often taught in classical, but his left hand is classical all the way. Joe Pass also did not play with an arched right hand, but his fingerings are very classical with a touch of hybrid approach. Joe Pass was taught originally by some older Italian guitarists in his home town in PA. They were likely classically influenced. What is important in the end is the music you make. Pat Metheny is a glaring example of that. His fretting hand from a classical point of view is a wreck. But he seems to get by...

Metheny may not fret up against the frets, keep his thumb behind the neck or even keep his fingers arched but his slurs are really strong so his left hand trchnique seems to be working for him