The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 1 of 18 12311 ... LastLast
Posts 1 to 25 of 428
  1. #1

    User Info Menu

    What is the best way to learn to play jazz?

    Generally people will respond with "This is how I learned". But this really says nothing about whether their's is the best method. There has been no test against other methods. Did it take 100 hours, or 1000 hours, or 10,000 hours? Yes, you may have tried one way, and then another, and found something that you think worked best, but that is not a controlled experiment; it is an anecdote. There are studies that show that both teachers and students tend to choose methods that produce inferior long-term results in favor of superior immediate results, and it is very difficult to avoid this bias. So it is very possible that you fooled yourself, and got your result inefficiently. How then do we know what is the "best" method?

    I suggest that we should look at what the pros who have practiced the least do. While we are not getting a controlled experiment, we are getting a pool of talented people, who have all achieved similar results, with different time investments. I am suspicious of any advice from someone who had to practice obsessively to achieve the same results as someone who has practiced for three hours a day.

    There are great players who practice obsessively, and great players who say that more than three hours a day is a waste of time. Well, who are these efficient practicers, and how do they practice? Who is the laziest pro ever? I want to do what he or she does.
    Last edited by Jonzo; 05-31-2015 at 10:58 AM.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #2

    User Info Menu

    You haven't articulated the goal with any elaboration to speak of, so you have a very fuzzy target.

    also, it would be nice to see those studies that you referred to.

    Finally, is this really "jazz improvisation" that you're asking about? Or are you asking about instrumental skills? (Jazz guitar instruction frequently mixes the two to the point that they appear to be synonymous, when they are not.)
    Last edited by fumblefingers; 05-31-2015 at 11:06 AM.

  4. #3

    User Info Menu

    Here is a layman's article referencing UCLA's Robert Bjork:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/ma...hing.html?_r=0

    If you search out his research papers, you will find references to a lot of the primary research in this area.

    Read down in the article to the part about "fluency misperceptions". A common example would be repeating a phrase perfectly 100 times in a row. There will be a diminishing return on each repetition, but at the end of 100 repetitions you would feel like you had really learned it. So you might continue to use that method, even though it is not very efficient. It would be more efficient to play the phrase perfectly a few times, and then do some more valuable repetitions on something else, and then come back. At the end of a more varied session, you might not have completely mastered either phrase, but you would have made more total progress than you would have mastering just one phrase. I assume that there are some pros who do the 100 times in a row method, but still gain a high skill level by putting in more time than their more efficient counterparts.

    My question pertains to exactly what it says. What is the best way to learn to play Jazz? It is broad, not fuzzy. Specifically, it asks if it is reasonable to assume that the ratio of performance level to total work ("efficiency") is the best way we have available to determine the best method. Finally, it asks who those high performance/low work musicians are, and how do they practice.

    I would also be interested in hearing from high skill amateurs who have achieved their performance level with a minimal time investment (whatever you consider that to be).
    Last edited by Jonzo; 05-31-2015 at 01:56 PM.

  5. #4

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonzo
    I suggest that we should look at what the pros who have practiced the least do.
    Which pros are you talking about?

  6. #5

    User Info Menu

    For people who learn well practicing a ton, it doesn't matter that other people learn well without practicing a ton.

    If you're feeling like you've been squandering your precious practice-time, examine that and act on it. Conversely, if you're an efficient learner and wonder whether you'd be even happier practicing more, do that -- it's not like you'll be fired for dragging down the rest of the assembly-line.

    Because it's not a race, it's a process. If, by and large, you're not generally enjoying the process do something else. Nobody wants to win the prize for Best Burning But Sad Jazz Musician.

  7. #6

    User Info Menu

    Here's a list of great jazz guitar players who haven't practiced much:




  8. #7

    User Info Menu

    Practicing the instrument regularly will yield quicker results than spending that time looking for shortcuts.
    Last edited by monk; 05-31-2015 at 01:48 PM.

  9. #8

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Sam Sherry
    For people who learn well practicing a ton, it doesn't matter that other people learn well without practicing a ton.

    If you're feeling like you've been squandering your precious practice-time, examine that and act on it. Conversely, if you're an efficient learner and wonder whether you'd be even happier practicing more, do that -- it's not like you'll be fired for dragging down the rest of the assembly-line.

    Because it's not a race, it's a process. If, by and large, you're not generally enjoying the process do something else. Nobody wants to win the prize for Best Burning But Sad Jazz Musician.
    Sam,

    I understand what you are saying, Amigo, but unfortunately for some of us it is a "race" - against the Hellhounds of Time and Aging. Arthritis and tendonitis is creeping into the joints of our fingers, wrists, shoulders and back. Our memories are beginning to fail. And, a whole host of other things are going on that are detrimental to the process.

    Because of this, many of us who started Jazz late are looking for the greatest return on our time, maybe even a "shortcut" or two if there is one.

    I plan to be at a certain level of proficiency at some point, and to enjoy it for as long as I can before my hourglass is up. This forum has been a great, great help in setting realistic goals and understanding the best path for my particular way of thinking and talent level.

  10. #9

    User Info Menu

    There are different methods of practicing. The way some people practice is not what other people might call it. There are some who play tunes, and play and play and play. Others don't consider it practice unless you play hard scales and lines over and over again. I do three times in a row without making a mistake. This might take only three times or 175. Whatever gets you there.
    Last edited by henryrobinett; 05-31-2015 at 01:50 PM. Reason: typos

  11. #10

    User Info Menu



    Here's Andreas as a 12 year old ( he's a few years older now). Maybe he practiced for a good 5 years. My guess is probably around 5000 hours practice, with tiny fingers and a child's mind.

    How many of us were that good after 5000 hours? Prodigy? Or just efficient, well guided practice (Gypsy father/teacher)?

    If you want an efficient practice regimen, find a teacher who has proven they can produce advanced students in relatively little time. Stick with the program and sell all your other books as well as stay off the internet.


    Good luck!

  12. #11

    User Info Menu

    i seem to remember the theory that young minds are better at learning new material than old.

    it seems useful to distinguish between teaching methods for children vs. adults for this, among a number or other reasons.

  13. #12

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonzo
    What is the best way to learn to play jazz?....

    Who is the laziest pro ever? I want to do what he or she does
    .

    I agree that the goal of trying to sort out jazz learning folklore from stuff that is well-founded, scientifically, is worthwhile. But I'd be really careful about drawing firm conclusions, so much depends on prior knowledge base of that particular individual.

    E.g. Try to imagine the ideal place to learn jazz in the 20's or 30's. That place would be Kansas City, maybe New Orleans, Chicago, or New York, probably. Charlie Parker grew up in KC, listened to a lot of music....blues, swing, some country, church music (traditional and gospel), ragtime, maybe western swing, marching band stuff, some classical stuff. There was a LOT of music around....live clubs, etc., a school band, stuff on the radio, the "territory bands", bands being hired at resorts (this is how CP got hurt--car crash coming back from a resort gig, which led to morphine dosing, and then use of heroin), country club and private parties, etc.

    I've written before how the sharp 4 is found ALL the time in blues...no big deal to use it in a non-blues context--call it bebop dominant if you like....same with the sharp 2 sliding into the 3 from country stuff...and the sharp 5 found in a lot of ragtime stuff...so my point is....CP had a pretty good exposure to all types of music. Even he, though, had to woodshed intensively after the famous incident where he got bounced off the night club bandstand because he knew only a few keys really well. You could say...study scales/arpeggios backward and forward intensively for 2 years, and you will be CP...but that won't happen....too much other prior knowledge that he was bringing to the table....even then his style wasn't fully formed...until spending some time in NYC and working with a guitar-playing friend, supposedly, when he had his "breakthrough".

    Wes M. had a good ten yr. "incubation pd." between playing for Lionel Hampton (1948-50) and his later breakout period 1958-9 with Mel Rhyne, I think it was.

    Joe Pass played with Charlie Barnet in 1947 as an 18 yr. old. He came from a non-musical family but played Django stuff as a teen. I think he just played the stuffing out of the guitar...and figured out lead shapes, and chord movements, in a "bottoms up" manner--without a lot of heavy theory. Even so, it was another fifteen yrs. or so before he became known. Granted he had some demons to slay along the way....but I don't think he got to play the way he did without a lot of playing...to the pt. where the technique became 2nd nature, and fully internalized.

    So, I guess I have 2 points: (1) There are very few "instant" successes in jazz...there is too much to learn initially, at least on guitar...then there is the tradition and the history itself of the music, and (2) different individuals will learn in different manners---some guidance is helpful, but may or may not help any particular individual very much.

    (A lot of learning tasks are tricky---you may struggle for a while, feel you're not progressing, but if you stick with it, at some point...it falls into place---and you can't understand why you didn't "get it" before....like doing math problems, you either probably understand the concepts and application almost entirely--or you're just not going to be able to solve the problem at all....it's like an "on/off" switch...not a smooth gradation from ignorance to mastery but breakthrough steps along the way.)

  14. #13

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet
    How many of us were that good after 5000 hours? Prodigy? Or just efficient, well guided practice (Gypsy father/teacher)?

    If you want an efficient practice regimen, find a teacher who has proven they can produce advanced students in relatively little time. Stick with the program and sell all your other books as well as stay off the internet
    That makes sense, especially if one's goal is to become very good (proficient) in a specific way (-say, mastering Django or Charlie Christian solos). I think for many of us, the goal is more diffuse: certainly, we want to know some great tunes, also be able to play a nice chord melody, then there's burnin' through jam session mainstays, and of course being able to comp with a walking bass line and a good swing feel, not to mention lots of voicings on the top strings for a more contemporary sound when comping, then there's essential bebop vocab, and also more modern sounds which come from a different approach, though there's always room for jazzy blues heads and improv too, and then there's swing / groove itself, o, and one's own sound. That's not just one thing, or even three things. (Was even Wes a master of all those things?)
    Last edited by MarkRhodes; 05-31-2015 at 02:14 PM. Reason: spelling

  15. #14

    User Info Menu

    The laziest players must have at least done focused listening. Maybe you can add more of that to your routine - trade it from time on scales or something. Listening and ear training is half the battle.

    To answer your exact question with one example :
    Mike Moreno said somewhere that he has never practiced more than 5 hours a day. This doesn't mean Mike is lazy, but at the very least we can assume that he practices guitar less than most of his peers. Probably spends lots of time practicing writing since his tunes are so beautiful. He also said the only thing he ever works on is bebop because "everything else is so much easier after that." Easy to see where that got him. But on the other hand its worth noting that he probably worked on many other areas before settling on a bebop-only routine.
    Last edited by pushkar000; 05-31-2015 at 02:20 PM.

  16. #15

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonzo
    Here is a layman's article referencing UCLA's Robert Bjork:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/ma...hing.html?_r=0

    If you search out his research papers, you will find references to a lot of the primary research in this area.

    Read down in the article to the part about "fluency misperceptions". A common example would be repeating a phrase perfectly 100 times in a row. There will be a diminishing return on each repetition, but at the end of 100 repetitions you would feel like you had really learned it. So you might continue to use that method, even though it is not very efficient. It would be more efficient to play the phrase perfectly a few times, and then do some more valuable repetitions on something else, and then come back. At the end of a more varied session, you might not have completely mastered either phrase, but you would have made more total progress than you would have mastering just one phrase. I assume that there are some pros who do the 100 times in a row method, but still gain a high skill level by putting in more time than their more efficient counterparts.

    My question pertains to exactly what it says. What is the best way to learn to play Jazz? It is broad, not fuzzy. Specifically, it asks if it is reasonable to assume that the ratio of performance level to total work ("efficiency") is the best way we have available to determine the best method. Finally, it asks who those high performance/low work musicians are, and how do they practice.

    I would also be interested in hearing from high skill amateurs who have achieved their performance level with a minimal time investment (whatever you consider that to be).

    firstly, yeah that 100 times thing is more excessive than I've ever been instructed or even heard about in either classical or jazz education.


    but regarding the rest, let me 'splain.

    Chris Standring for one, helps people articulate their goals along lines similar to the following:

    a. I want to be a world class, master musician, recording artist
    b. I want to be good enough to be a gigging pro
    c. I want to be able to play for my friends and family
    d. I want to play well enough to enjoy a little music making at home


    1. So - which are you referring to? (it matters, just go along with me on this one for a sec).

    2. What assumptions are we to make about musicianship skill levels going in? For example:

    a. Can the player already play all the standard scales, chords, arpeggios, intervals, and patterns that people learn when developing mature, intermediate level instrumental facility?

    b. Can the player play intermediate level tunes/repertoire in a convincing, artistically expressive, and style/period consistent manner?

    Universal practice advise across all levels of goal setting and pre-existing musicianship facility can only be responsibly dispensed at an abstract level of detail. In other words, not knowing the answers to the above while simultaneously attempting to give specific, useful, detailed advice causes us to scatter-shoot all over the map.

    In other words, causes us to have a typical internet discussion.

  17. #16

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by goldenwave77
    I agree that the goal of trying to sort out jazz learning folklore from stuff that is well-founded, scientifically, is worthwhile. But I'd be really careful about drawing firm conclusions, so much depends on prior knowledge base of that particular individual.

    E.g. Try to imagine the ideal place to learn jazz in the 20's or 30's. That place would be Kansas City, maybe New Orleans, Chicago, or New York, probably. Charlie Parker grew up in KC, listened to a lot of music....blues, swing, some country, church music (traditional and gospel), ragtime, maybe western swing, marching band stuff, some classical stuff. There was a LOT of music around....live clubs, etc., a school band, stuff on the radio, the "territory bands", bands being hired at resorts (this is how CP got hurt--car crash coming back from a resort gig, which led to morphine dosing, and then use of heroin), country club and private parties, etc.

    I've written before how the sharp 4 is found ALL the time in blues...no big deal to use it in a non-blues context--call it bebop dominant if you like....same with the sharp 2 sliding into the 3 from country stuff...and the sharp 5 found in a lot of ragtime stuff...so my point is....CP had a pretty good exposure to all types of music. Even he, though, had to woodshed intensively after the famous incident where he got bounced off the night club bandstand because he knew only a few keys really well. You could say...study scales/arpeggios backward and forward intensively for 2 years, and you will be CP...but that won't happen....too much other prior knowledge that he was bringing to the table....even then his style wasn't fully formed...until spending some time in NYC and working with a guitar-playing friend, supposedly, when he had his "breakthrough".

    Wes M. had a good ten yr. "incubation pd." between playing for Lionel Hampton (1948-50) and his later breakout period 1958-9 with Mel Rhyne, I think it was.

    Joe Pass played with Charlie Barnet in 1947 as an 18 yr. old. He came from a non-musical family but played Django stuff as a teen. I think he just played the stuffing out of the guitar...and figured out lead shapes, and chord movements, in a "bottoms up" manner--without a lot of heavy theory. Even so, it was another fifteen yrs. or so before he became known. Granted he had some demons to slay along the way....but I don't think he got to play the way he did without a lot of playing...to the pt. where the technique became 2nd nature, and fully internalized.

    So, I guess I have 2 points: (1) There are very few "instant" successes in jazz...there is too much to learn initially, at least on guitar...then there is the tradition and the history itself of the music, and (2) different individuals will learn in different manners---some guidance is helpful, but may or may not help any particular individual very much.

    (A lot of learning tasks are tricky---you may struggle for a while, feel you're not progressing, but if you stick with it, at some point...it falls into place---and you can't understand why you didn't "get it" before....like doing math problems, you either probably understand the concepts and application almost entirely--or you're just not going to be able to solve the problem at all....it's like an "on/off" switch...not a smooth gradation from ignorance to mastery but breakthrough steps along the way.)
    On the contrary regarding Joe Pass. He told a story of a relative quizzing him on "all" his scales at 14, and he promptly gave a demonstration. maybe he was light on theory, but not on instrumental facility homework.

  18. #17

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pushkar000
    The laziest players must have at least done focused listening. Maybe you can add more of that to your routine - trade it from time on scales or something. Listening and ear training is half the battle.

    To answer your exact question with one example :
    Mike Moreno said somewhere that he has never practiced more than 5 hours a day. This doesn't mean Mike is lazy, but at the very least we can assume that he practices guitar less than most of his peers. Probably spends lots of time practicing writing since his tunes are so beautiful. He also said the only thing he ever works on is bebop because "everything else is so much easier after that." Easy to see where that got him. But on the other hand its worth noting that he probably worked on many other areas before settling on a bebop-only routine.
    who could be called "lazy" if they practiced 5 hours per day?

  19. #18

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
    That makes sense, especially if one's goal is to become very good (proficient) in a specific way (-say, mastering Django or Charlie Christian solos). I think for many of us, the goal is more diffuse: certainly, we want to know some great tunes, also be able to play a nice chord melody, then there's burnin' through jam session mainstays, and of course being able to comp with a walking bass line and a good swing feel, not to mention lots of voicings on the top strings for a more contemporary sound when comping, then there's essential bebop vocab, and also more modern sounds which come from a different approach, though there's always room for jazzy blues heads and improv too, and then there's swing / groove itself, o, and one's own sound. That's not just one thing, or even three things. (Was even Wes a master of all those things?)
    Sure, to get proficient fast, then you'll probably be focussing on narrower goals, to the exclusion of the many other facets of Jazz composition / performance that will get neglected. No one can be good at all of it, not even Wes or GB

    I remember Bill Evans told the story of how he came to play with Scott Lefaro. Scott was "on the scene" but people thought he was just an "average" bass player, including Bill. But he insisted that a miraculous transition took place within only months, where Scott had obviously holed up somewhere for some serious shedding and emerged the fully formed virtuoso/genius that we hear in the trio recordings, going on to inspire countless bassists after his untimely demise.

    That along with the Bird or Wes story, or even the Robert Johnson story, continues to inspire either awe, and/or humility in us mere mortals. Again I'd ask- is it genius, or powerfully applied methodology? My guess it's both.

  20. #19

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by fumblefingers
    On the contrary regarding Joe Pass. He told a story of a relative quizzing him on "all" his scales at 14, and he promptly gave a demonstration. maybe he was light on theory, but not on instrumental facility homework.
    I think we're saying the same thing....he did some Carcassi studies but left off doing them, so his fingerstyle approach he described as "any old way"...he was pretty famously anti-CST...thought of chords as minor/major/dominant....and could play a ton of stuff without necessarily explaining it ...theoretically...I don't get the sense he thought in those terms, but rather had really "big ears" both in learning and listening to music, and in playing it.

    (Caveat....I never met Joe P., and others here have...so maybe I'm off base...but I get the sense that for him, the "rubber meeting the road" was to always play what he was hearing...and to work on tunes and licks to the point where he could, in real time, compose in the moment)

  21. #20

    User Info Menu

    I want to be clear that I am fine with research. Science does not scare me. I do not fear it will kill the magic. Yet I am also aware that whom one studies makes a vast difference to the outcome one obtains.

    To keep it simple: if you divide a large pool of randomly selected players into small groups that approach the same task in different ways, you might find that 'the randomly selected player learned task X most quickly when using approach Y.' That could be useful to the average player who wanted to make the most efficient use of limited practice time. (Of course, that approach may not work for HIM, in which case he will have to try something else. Perhaps in THIS respect, he is not average....)

    But if your pool of subjects is great players then this is of course not a random sample and it is unclear what the non-great player should make of the results obtained.

    (There is the separate question of how great players practice now---say, a decade or two into their greatness--as opposed to how they practiced when they started out, or how they practiced five years later when they were clearly above average but not yet world-class.
    Last edited by MarkRhodes; 05-31-2015 at 03:02 PM. Reason: grammar

  22. #21

    User Info Menu

    A couple of comments...

    Some have mentioned that some players will practice a lot, regardless. Others have mentioned that you have to practice a lot to be a pro. These statements are true, but irrelevant to the OP. Certainly even people who practice many hours want to make the best use of their time.

    Regarding specificity of goals, it is true that we can set different goals within Jazz, but they can also be seen as among a continuum of skills that pros have mastered. Thus their experiences are relevant.

    Finally, it is true that we are not identical to pros, but they were more like us than not when they started.
    Last edited by Jonzo; 05-31-2015 at 04:27 PM.

  23. #22

    User Info Menu

    Jonzo, in all seriousness, in the several years now you've been posting about and searching for the most efficient way to learn to play jazz...how many tunes have you learned?

  24. #23

    User Info Menu

    Good one! Although i would like to talk to Berili Lagrene or hear from someone who has.I bet his Dad made Joe Passes dad look like a softy.

  25. #24

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
    Jonzo, in all seriousness, in the several years now you've been posting about and searching for the most efficient way to learn to play jazz...how many tunes have you learned?
    This is a good example of the flawed way that people think about learning.

    How many tunes do you think I should have learned? Do you know how many minutes a day I have to practice? Do you know my age or when I took up guitar? Do you know whether I have any physical limitations? If not, how would you judge whether I have learned "enough"?

    I don't spend as much time as you posting on the forum, so why would you assume that I am wasting my time, or that I am not practicing effectively while continuing to look for ways to improve my practice?

    My OP is pretty straight forward. Why are you so intent on avoiding a straight forward answer? Is there something about the question that makes you feel insecure about your own methods?

    I'm serious, because why not just engage with the OP instead of derailing it with implied insults? Is there something wrong with examining the effectiveness of learning methods in a forum about learning methods?
    Last edited by Jonzo; 05-31-2015 at 04:16 PM.

  26. #25

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonzo
    This is a good example of the flawed way that people think about learning.

    How many tunes do you think I should have learned? Do you know how many minutes a day I have to practice? Do you know my age or when I took up guitar? Do you know whether I have any physical limitations? If not, how would you judge whether I have learned "enough"?

    I don't spend as much time as you posting on the forum, so why would you assume that I am wasting my time, or that I am not practicing effectively while continuing to look for ways to improve my practice?

    My OP is pretty straight forward. Why are you so intent on avoiding a straight forward answer? Is there something about the question that makes you feel insecure about your own methods?

    I'm serious, because why not just engage with the OP instead of derailing it with implied insults? Is there something wrong with examining the effectiveness of learning methods in a forum about learning methods?
    So none?

    Because you've been looking for the most efficient way for years. I think it's a futile quest, because as a teacher, I've never met a foolproof method that works for everybody. What are you doing now? Are you seeing progress or not?