Emulate the pros who have practiced the least.

[Vladan]

a bit of a random thought ....

in quantum physics it turns out that
by observing a thing .... you affect the thing

Which is why some think quantum physics is one incomplete pile of ...
Whatever, it is not applicable outside of quantum level of things.

Which is why, to the contrary of ...

ie
we're not separate , disspassionate viewers
we cannot be 'objective'

might as well get on with it and just play man

... I choose to keep my self from rehearsing anything but the shortest possible term goals,
than noodle about with those, occasionally, when I force my self to pick up the guitar.

Thank you quantum physics for setting this thing straight!
Also, thank you God for not making me great and pro. I'd really hate to have to do the hard work,
let alone on regular basis.

[pamosmusic]

Lord a' mighty ....

I don't recall anyone saying that classical training made you a bad jazz player but that seems to be over and done with already so I'll let that one go.

It's just very very very different technically.

The demands on the left hand are very different. Playing polyphonic lines using open strings is a different animal than playing nimble single note lines and small chord voicings. Sure there's some overlap but they're just different. The right hands are worlds apart, obviously.

As for the reading you keep mentioning ... truth be told I don't think I've ever met a classical guitarist who was a good sight reader - I'm sure they're out there but classical guitarists are not required to sight read particularly often. Even when they are there's an entirely different set of demands. Simpler rhythms but denser more challenging textures.

This should be as simple as asking yourself if Ralph Towner is indicative of what's going on in the jazz world by and large... do most jazz guitarists just play solo? Do they play nylon strings most of the time? Do they play polyphonic music? Do they play arrangements? Then why is it so hard to accept that Ralph Towner probably possesses a different (not inferior) skill set than most other badass jazz guitarists?

[pamosmusic]

In college I put in about 2.5 hours a day on each ... the demands were very different. That was what it required.

[grahambop]

I was trained on classical guitar about 8 years before I got into jazz. I probably got some benefit from it for jazz, for example good independence of all 4 left hand fingers, useful for playing 'Donna Lee' and suchlike. Also it is of course handy if you want to do some Brazilian/bossa type stuff, or fingerstyle playing.

On the other hand, learning to use a pick for rapid single-note playing, and learning to swing, were a whole new world. I don't think classical guitar technique helped me much here (apart from the "left-hand 4 fingers" point noted above).

So I don't think there's anything wrong with learning classical guitar technique, but if someone only wants to play jazz electric guitar, then it's probably a very long-winded route to take to get there.

[henryrobinett]

I was also trained on classical guitar prior. Although I started out trying at also play jazz. Classical helped me very little in my pursuit of jazz. I seriously love Towner.

[fumblefingers]

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

yeah it's been said, but Joe was not a classical player, did not use classical right hand technique, and did not use Segovia scales. let's not distort matters for another agenda.

it would be funny to hear Joe himself respond to the notion that he was somehow a classical player or classical off shoot or whatever the heck is being suggested. too bad we can't. i have no doubt that he would have responded in his well known eloquent manner.

[fumblefingers]

Lord a' mighty ....

I don't recall anyone saying that classical training made you a bad jazz player but that seems to be over and done with already so I'll let that one go.

It's just very very very different technically.

The demands on the left hand are very different. Playing polyphonic lines using open strings is a different animal than playing nimble single note lines and small chord voicings. Sure there's some overlap but they're just different. The right hands are worlds apart, obviously.

As for the reading you keep mentioning ... truth be told I don't think I've ever met a classical guitarist who was a good sight reader - I'm sure they're out there but classical guitarists are not required to sight read particularly often. Even when they are there's an entirely different set of demands. Simpler rhythms but denser more challenging textures.

This should be as simple as asking yourself if Ralph Towner is indicative of what's going on in the jazz world by and large... do most jazz guitarists just play solo? Do they play nylon strings most of the time? Do they play polyphonic music? Do they play arrangements? Then why is it so hard to accept that Ralph Towner probably possesses a different (not inferior) skill set than most other badass jazz guitarists?

i know classical guitarists who are great readers, and i know of classical guitarists who are great readers. (probably not chord charts though, that's not what they deal with). today's players are taught to play very advanced/difficult 20th century music, Latin, even some light jazzy stuff, in addition to all that Bach and classical, etc.

it's also counter intuitive - (don't you think?) - that players who don't make a sound without reading notation would not read as well as players who read only a portion of what they play, or not at all (like Wes for example). both are human after all.

[fumblefingers]

I just open the case once a week and throw in a Manny's pastrami.

Jay, I just think classical technique is so specific...and worth doing right...and pretty useless unless your student wants to be Gene Bertoncini.

I also think Segovia scales are lousy for jazz.

Segovia introduced two things in his scales that I think are helpful for jazz, if a bit indirectly.


1. Two octave scales from the 5th string, involving a shift to a higher position for the higher octave. The basic approach is useful for scales, modes, arpeggios.

2. Three octave scales. "Range work" is helpful for all instrumentalists. While I think that Berklee's "mirror/constant" fingerings are more useful for jazzers (less thinking required, which is better for improv), it is nevertheless useful to have some well established way to traverse the range of your instrument smoothly and confidentally.

[joe2758]

I was trained on classical guitar about 8 years before I got into jazz. I probably got some benefit from it for jazz, for example good independence of all 4 left hand fingers, useful for playing 'Donna Lee' and suchlike. Also it is of course handy if you want to do some Brazilian/bossa type stuff, or fingerstyle playing.

On the other hand, learning to use a pick for rapid single-note playing, and learning to swing, were a whole new world. I don't think classical guitar technique helped me much here (apart from the "left-hand 4 fingers" point noted above).

So I don't think there's anything wrong with learning classical guitar technique, but if someone only wants to play jazz electric guitar, then it's probably a very long-winded route to take to get there.

I just wanted to back up Graham on this. Out of highschool I attended a humble community college music performance associates program. They offered pickstyle (jazz concentration) or classical. I chose classical even though I was more interested in jazz at the time, because I thought I wanted to teach music at public schools. After two years my career plans changed, and I put down the guitar for a while (besides teaching at a music store). Once I finished school and started my new career, I was able to pick up the guitar and play whatever I felt like, which was jazz.

My point is, yes, I did develope good technique. Yes, I could read okay for a guitar player (but not any better than the guys playing jazz). However, in no way do I think I was put in any sort of advantage over the players who practiced jazz out of the gate and who put in the same amount of time (3-5 hours). If I could do it over (knowing that my career would not be in music) I would have entered the "pickstyle" program in order to learn:
1. sight reading. There's a difference between reading music for a piece you're working on for months vs reading chart after chart after chart.
2. playing with other Jazz musicians. pretty straight forward.
3. organizing the fretboard in a way more logical for improvising.
4. Learning dozens of tunes.
5. chords and harmony.
6. pick technique.

So, really, given my experience, I would recommend someone interested in jazz begin learning guitar with that goal in mind.

[Stevebol]

The obvious advantage of playing classical is being to play solo. It's tough to do if you're just a flat-picker.

[joe2758]

The obvious advantage of playing classical is being to play solo. It's tough to do if you're just a flat-picker.

Adopting some classical technique is smart, but starting out just playing classical for a year or two to prepare for jazz doesn't make sense. I'm strictly speaking about someone learning classical technique and repertoire with the intention of focusing on jazz. If you love playing classical or want to play a hybrid style, it's another story

if your goal is to play solo jazz guitar on an electric jazz guitar, I would say just do that from the beginning. One can still learn good fingerstyle technique, independence, voice leading, counterpoint etc

edit: a lot of guys in the so called "pickstyle" program still used their fingers for playing solo arrangements. The title was jsut to distinguish jazz focus and classical focus- don't know why

[jasonc]

Jay, nobody said that playing classical is going to make you an inferior jazz player. However, playing classical isn't necessarily going to make you a good jazz player either. If you want to learn jazz efficiently, like the OP is asking about, than starting with a different style of music and technique is not the most efficient way to do it. Just as a person training to become a welder wouldn't necessarily need to learn to become a machinist first. Sure they both work with metals but they work with them differently. Here's an example: When I started building amplifiers I wanted to build an old Gibson amp because I couldn't find/afford an original. A lot of people told me to build a Fender Champ first as a foundation. Well that costs money and time and I had no interest in having a Champ. I just built the amp I wanted first. It maybe took a little longer to build it than if I had built the Champ first but in the end I wound up with the amp I wanted in less time and less money spent than if I had built both the Champ and the amp I wanted.

None of the classical guitarists I went to school with were very good readers. I was one of the best readers and I'm really not that good but I was in Jazz Band at the time so I was reading more complicated rhythms and having to do it in real time with a bunch of horn players. My classical peers were not.

[targuit]

All interesting comments and valid opinions, some of which differ radically on the skill of classical players at sight reading, for example. Well, I would suggest that broad generalizations are just that - broad and very general. Individual players of whatever technical background will vary as to their particular skills, strengths and weaknesses. I think we should accept that fact.

I find it counterintuitive to suggest that those guitarists who are trained to read polyphonic music including counterpoint and contemporary classic music suddenly fall apart at the sight of single note melodies, apart from difficult 'sheets of notes" like Coltrane or Parker melodies. But each to his own opinion. And certainly not all guitarists devoted to classical music are jazz enthusiasts.

I use Sibelius to write arrangements and transcriptions virtually every day. I learned to sight read vocal music in grade school. Learned classical guitar and then played rock and other styles by ear by sixteen years old. So that was a long time ago. This morning before work I rearranged notation of Polka Dots and Moonbeams as well as Smoke Gets In Your Eyes as solo guitar tunes after transposing. (If you transpose down a minor third, for example, you often have to eliminate certain bass notes and add more treble notes in your chords.) For me this is a piece of cake, but it's not my first rodeo.

Back to a question I asked that went unanswered. If classical training is so unhelpful to playing jazz guitar, the question I asked was how many of you would reply in the affirmative here. Can you play an arrangement identical or similar to Ralph Towner's versions of Waltz for Debby and I Fall In Love Too Easily without breaking too much of a sweat? A simple yes or no, plus explanation if you like. In addition, how many of you would feel comfortable reading the sheet music which is more like a classical arrangement, off which you can improvise, of course? How many of you feel comfortable playing Pavane pour une enfante defunte by Ravel as a jazz tune?

[targuit]

BTW, Ralph Towner came for a very musical family. He started playing piano at four. Trumpet at a very young age. Majored in classical composition at the university level. Took up guitar late in his college career. Went to Austria to study with Karl Scheit. Returned and did another year of classical music composition and then returned to Austria for a second year of classical training with Scheit. Ralph is a major composer and player with Grammy Awards if I recall and nominations. Recorded over one hundred of his compositions with Oregon and other bands.

Not exactly a patzer....

[targuit]

I suggested that learning to play classical guitar gives a BEGINNER a good technical foundation to rise above the Guitar Center on a Saturday afternoon cacophony. If you are Pat Metheny, you can play with your toes and that would be fine.

I disagree strongly that Joe Pass's initial training - he did have lessons from local Italian guitarists in his native city for years - was not likely classical grounded. When I play along with Joe on videos of him performing, I find his positional playing to be quite true to classical training and use of the fret board with some hybridization. Like the fingering of an A7#5(b9) at the fifth fret - not much of that type of chord in classical music. Of course, after playing as much as six hours a day in grade and middle school, Joe's talent was such that he began to set the bar before his lost decades of drug abuse.

[wolflen]

there is a vid of ted greene at a seminar at GIT/MIT he is playing some bach chorales(on a telecaster) while he is talking to the students..and he says..to paraphrase...."I don't play classical..because I cant play it.." now I'm sure that threw the audience a wide curve ball..ted knew many of the bach chorales..even has some lessons on his site..but he knew that classical is a different discipline/style than jazz..and yes if he were required to play a Sor piece by sight reading vs a cole porter standard chord melody style..porter would win

he studied the chorales to learn moving voices(which he is a master of) as they formed "chords" at every point of movement..while he did not play "classical technique" he did use the underlying harmonic and melodic foundations and applied them to jazz chord melody style playing

[joe2758]

Back to a question I asked that went unanswered. If classical training is so unhelpful to playing jazz guitar, the question I asked was how many of you would reply in the affirmative here. Can you play an arrangement identical or similar to Ralph Towner's versions of Waltz for Debby and I Fall In Love Too Easily without breaking too much of a sweat? A simple yes or no, plus explanation if you like. In addition, how many of you would feel comfortable reading the sheet music which is more like a classical arrangement, off which you can improvise, of course? How many of you feel comfortable playing Pavane pour une enfante defunte by Ravel as a jazz tune?

This sort of brings me back to when I said "I'm strictly speaking about someone learning classical technique and repertoire with the intention of focusing on jazz. If you love playing classical or want to play a hybrid style, it's another story."

Learning something like I Fall in Love to Easily as performed above, in my classical peak (I only studied 2 years) 10 years ago, would have taken at least a month to perform polished if I had the sheet music. It obviously wouldn't sound that good because I'm not him. I reached maybe an intermediate level. But you're right, a legit classical guitarist could have that performance ready in a week if they had the sheet music. There are lots of classical guitar arrangements in a jazz style, especially bossas. So, again if that's your goal classical totally makes sense

[henryrobinett]

Well I didn't listen to Towners version of Waltz For Debbie. I play that tune from time to time myself, but I'm not at all interested in playing RT version. Obviously I couldn't play it like Ralph. As wonderful a player as I think he is, I'm not interested in playing it like him.

[jasonc]

All interesting comments and valid opinions, some of which differ radically on the skill of classical players at sight reading, for example. Well, I would suggest that broad generalizations are just that - broad and very general. Individual players of whatever technical background will vary as to their particular skills, strengths and weaknesses. I think we should accept that fact.

I find it counterintuitive to suggest that those guitarists who are trained to read polyphonic music including counterpoint and contemporary classic music suddenly fall apart at the sight of single note melodies, apart from difficult 'sheets of notes" like Coltrane or Parker melodies. But each to his own opinion. And certainly not all guitarists devoted to classical music are jazz enthusiasts.

I use Sibelius to write arrangements and transcriptions virtually every day. I learned to sight read vocal music in grade school. Learned classical guitar and then played rock and other styles by ear by sixteen years old. So that was a long time ago. This morning before work I rearranged notation of Polka Dots and Moonbeams as well as Smoke Gets In Your Eyes as solo guitar tunes after transposing. (If you transpose down a minor third, for example, you often have to eliminate certain bass notes and add more treble notes in your chords.) For me this is a piece of cake, but it's not my first rodeo.

Back to a question I asked that went unanswered. If classical training is so unhelpful to playing jazz guitar, the question I asked was how many of you would reply in the affirmative here. Can you play an arrangement identical or similar to Ralph Towner's versions of Waltz for Debby and I Fall In Love Too Easily without breaking too much of a sweat? A simple yes or no, plus explanation if you like. In addition, how many of you would feel comfortable reading the sheet music which is more like a classical arrangement, off which you can improvise, of course? How many of you feel comfortable playing Pavane pour une enfante defunte by Ravel as a jazz tune?

I'm giving my opinion in the context of this thread which is about learning JAZZ as efficiently as possible. I do think studying classical technique is beneficial but that's not what the OP is asking about. The most efficient way to learn jazz, in my opinion, is to play on stage with players that are better than you and do it A LOT while studying the language (records). I don't see how studying Carcassi and Sor factors in to that.

I'm not sure I get the point of your last paragraph. I've played Bach fugues and partitas and it doesn't get a whole lot more challenging than that. But I sure as hell wouldn't say I did it without breaking a sweat. I don't think anyone would. I also don't know any classical guitarist who could sight read that Towner stuff either. I also don't know any classical guitarist that could sight read a bebop head at even a medium tempo. Classical guitarists are rarely called on to sight read. So what? Also, I have zero interest in playing chord melody arrangements. If I wanted to play music where the notes are already laid out I'll play some Bach because the notes don't get laid out any better than that.

[targuit]

Jasonc. - I also don't know any classical guitarist who could sight read that Towner stuff either.

You do now. The point is that if one has studied classical guitar and jazz, that the arrangement of those two songs is not intimidating. Sight reading is based upon pattern recognition. Polyphonic music is a classic example of the value of experience reading notation. The very ability to play Bach sonatas and partitas is what making reading Towner's arrangement of Waltz for Debby relatively easy. It is functional harmony. I'm not saying one could approach it cold and play a perfect rendition, but it ain't brain surgery either. Nor is it George Crumb.

Achieving a sound technique base is not always easy nor systematized. I learned long ago from the Richard Pick method which was popular when Hector and I were pups. Learning notation, diatonic scales, the fret board, proper fretting and picking technique. All quite basic and worthwhile from my experience. Just my opinion. Yours may vary. Beyond that, transcribe and learn songs, as Joe Pass advised continuously.
Or you can waste a decade of your life trying to chant the modes as you play your scales....Dorian, no...wait...Lydian...or is it, Mixo, or ......

[jzucker]

which non practicing pros are you referring to? You realize there are plenty of "pros" out there making money but who generally are not regarded very highly. Is that what you want to aspire to?

Maybe I don't want to know the answer, lol.

[grahambop]

But Henry, you did not answer the question which is whether you can cover that style solo arrangement without breaking a sweat or not. Yes or no?

Listen to the Ralph Towner performance. It isn't that difficult.

As Ralph Towner plays jazz using a classical guitar technique, it follows that learning classical guitar technique would make it easier to play jazz guitar solo arrangements like the ones Ralph Towner plays. Seems a rather circular argument to me!

[targuit]

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.

[pamosmusic]

There's nothing controversial other than some people (yes myself included) suggesting that your plan would be highly effective for some goals and not for others. Obviously a plan that focuses on pick and hybrid picking early wouldn't get you real far in the classical guitar world. Not sure why suggesting the reverse is controversial at all.

And to answer your question: no. I could not play that without breaking a sweat. Even in the peak of my classical practice I did rather a lot of sweating in the practice room. My follow up would be - why is that relevant?

[targuit]

Peter, I play with a pick and hybrid picking as well as pure fingerstyle. Depends on the context. Those who declare themselves complete jazz players should be able to handle Towner's arrangement. It is not difficult to read, nor to play. And it is not a matter of reading the dots. It is about chord solo mastery. I mean if you can only handle playing standards in the context of a trio or quartet, playing single notes and comping chords, well I don't think you are as complete a jazz musician as Joe Pass or Martin Taylor. Just my opinion, of course. And it does depend upon what level of mastery to which you aspire. I for example will never play Giant Steps - hate the tune to the bone. Too bad, huh?

I just jumped into the discussion to offer concrete suggestions. This thread is going nowhere fast.

So, Henry - Ok, you have a point there. So what key do you play Waltz in? Ralph plays it in F. I transposed it down to the key of D, because I like how the tune lies on the fretboard in D, plus it fits my vocal range better if I decide to sing it. I will be putting it up on my YT site soon as I get the time and quiet to record it.

I have been listening a lot to the Evans / Bennett recordings lately. Last night I was playing through Tony Bennett's 85th Birthday celebration performance at the Paladium in London. The choice of songs emphasized tunes that appealed to the public, but what I enjoyed especially was the level of performance of his pianist, bassist, and the drummer - Harold Jones, who played with Count Basie. And I should not neglect to add Grey Sargent, Bennett's longtime guitarist. The pianist was fabulous, too.