Mel Bay vs Leavitt

[cbarry85t]

First of all, since this is my first post I'd like to mention that I have referenced this forum many times over the years and always found it to be a reliable and high-quality resource, so thanks to everyone here for sharing your knowledge.

I've been playing for roughly 20 years and have had gigs as a teacher on and off. I've built up a very large library of guitar books over the years. I do read music and for a while was actually a passable sight reader (I worked out of books like Tom Bruner's Sight Reading for the Contemporary Guitarist, a really interesting and different approach that uses completely atonal etudes that fall in massvie 6 or 7-fret "regions" instead of position playing) but I was only good as long as there was no key signature and all sharps / flats were notated "on the fly".

I soon had to face up to my Achilles heel - I was very poor at recognizing common patterns like basic scalar motion, ascending / descending 3rds etc... and with any key sig with more than one or two accidentals, I was dead in the water. I had to accept that this was the result of never having worked through a complete guitar method (the Hal Leonard method I taught my mostly beginner students out of at the shop where I used to work was not a serious contender IMO) and decided it was time to take the plunge.

Since a method is such a massive time investment I bought both of the methods I've seen recommended here, so I could make the decision myself - all 7 volumes of Mel Bay Expanded, and the complete 3 volume Berklee Modern Method (along with the Melodic Rhythms and Reading Studies supplements). I ended up choosing the Mel Bay one and I'm currently finishing volume 2.

For those not familiar, the Mel Bay Expanded Edition is basically William Bay's take on his father's work. It is almost exactly double the length of the original Mel Bay series, and it's longer than the Berklee method by about 200 pages. As far as the amount of time spent reading and playing in each key it is excruciatingly thorough, which is exactly what I wanted. My thinking was that ultimately, there is no substitute for sheer volume of material when it comes to reading, and each key signature sort of needs to be studied as its own thing.

I found that the later volumes of the Leavitt method had digressed considerably from reading and instead focused on advanced harmony theory, chord substitution theory - valuable stuff for sure, but not my primary reason for studying a method: learning to read well in all keys. I was also skeptical of Leavitt's proprietary scale system - even though it's geared toward sight reading. They looked and felt unwieldy to me.

The Mel Bay books also seemed to contain a wider range of performance pieces, and because each volume comes with CD's you're able to "preview" what you'll be playing in the higher grades. I found the more advanced pieces to be really pleasing to the ear, beautiful stuff. It made me want to work toward it.

Anyway, I know many here have worked through both, so my question is - am I on the right path? As a player who primarily is using method books to become a more confident, employable reader and less so to acquire jazz-specific and technique-specific knowledge (for which I own a ton of other great books) is the Mel Bay Expanded the better choice, or do the Melodic Rhythms and Reading Studies supplements make up for the lack of drill material in the original Berklee Method? Thanks so much.

[fep]

I haven't used the Mel Bay expanded series although I do have some Mel Bay books that I think are very good.

One comparison I can make is price.

You can get Leavitt's 1, 2, and 3 all in one book for $23.

There are 7 books in the Leavitt's series at about $12 each.

[matt.guitarteacher]

You can't do enough reading I suppose. Why do you have to choose one? The reading studies really work each position in all keys. Mel Bay works specific keys pretty heavily. Apples and oranges I guess. You eventually would need to be good with both ways of thinking. I worked through Leavitt's vol. 1 and most of vol. 2 and would agree with your assessment. You somewhat have to get the fingerings together before you do the reading in much of vol. 2's material. I also did 2 volumes of Mel Bay, but that was years ago.

If I could go back and speak to my younger self, I would recommend Reg's 7-position base reference for reading and fretboard knowledge. Leavitt's 5 postions really kind of jump the shark at melodic minor. You lose some really great fingerings, and the gaps seem to get bigger. (Yes, I know eventually it's 12.) Reg goes around the circle of 5ths two more degrees and adds two more patterns to the default set. Yes, some are awkward for the fingers, but playing with shifts is more awkward on the brain for me. I'd rather my fingers not have to "think" so hard and maybe just work the sweet spots of each pattern. Plus you get a couple of really sweet melodic minor patterns you don't have otherwise.

Once you've got the basic fretboard geography laid out, I'd think it's easy to play them with shifts if you want, but how easy is it to do the opposite? I'm not any kind of real player at all. That's just my personal feeling on it after some years of back and forth. Good luck!

[ronjazz]

No reason not to utilize both; after vol. 1, the Leavitt books can be skipped around in, picking and choosing, it doesn't have to be linear at all (I studied with Leavitt, and he never objected to my way of working his method). Also, by Vol. 3, you're playing all scales in all keys in all positions.

Over my 50+ years of playing, I have amassed a large number of methods, from classical to flamenco to plectrum style, and non-methods like Mick Goodrick's. There is something of value in most every one, and the sheer amount of music for sight-reading is daunting.

For real sight-reading education, get some clarinet studies, and some violin as well, like Kreutzer.

[cbarry85t]

Thanks all. Wow Ron - lessons with Bill Leavitt himself. I'd have been nervous to say the least. I will get around to Leavitt eventually but I see Mel Bay Expanded taking me a solid 3 years, especially the last 3 grades. A couple of other points in MB's favor -

1) Leavitt, as you know, composed every note of music in the Modern Method himself so that students wouldn't encounter familiar melodies. Maybe it was a legitimate concern in the 60's but the thought of a student today being familiar with a tune like "Dark Eyes" is just laughable. In the Mel Bay method there's material from a wide range of composers, and you'll occasionally encounter stuff by the greats - Bach, Brahms, Chopin etc. Call me silly but I think there's a certain pedigree to those names. It feels good to be able to say "I learned a Bach piece today".

2) In the MB expanded method the review is built into the system - you do not have to turn back and rehash previous material unless you really feel it didn't stick, or if you just happen to like playing a particular piece. Leavitt may move faster but to me, replaying a song you've already learned and you partially remember the melody and have some muscle memory of playing it... that isn't true review because you're never completely reading it the second time around.

Matt - where can I find this 7-position base reference?

[matt.guitarteacher]

Matt - where can I find this 7-position base reference?

Pdf on post #1 here:
https://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/getting-started/44629-techniques-picking-fingerings-basics-speed-jazz.html#post548129

and Reg's video here:

Yeah, subscribe to that channel.

[ChrisDowning]

I have used all the books mentioned - but I also had very good feedback from a studen that used David Oakes book "Music Reading for Guitar". I think what chimed for him was the practical approach that you don't need to learn all the scales in all the positions as many work in a few positions, so just learn about half of all that is possible. I am pretty sure that's how pro musicians work.

[ajbusa]

As others have said here there's absolutely value in both. My teacher started me off with Mel Bay and we worked up through Volume 2, and then we switched over to Leavitt and I'm currently nearing the end of Volume 1. I've found the Chord etudes from Leavitt to be especially valuable not only for my reading but also for chord recognition. I also find the chord exercises to be really helpful for my ear and also to get new chord forms into my fingers.

[mbself]

I am working through both sets for the same reason as the OP, more or less. The MB books are excellent for teaching reading for performance (as in getting you trained to decode pieces for public performance). To me, the Leavitt books prepare you for "real world" guitar playing.

My reading has always been pretty bad. My real job takes considerable time so I am attacking these books in herks and jerks so to speak. I am almost done with Mel Bay book 3. Really valuable stuff in there. I'm about halfway through Leavitt's first volume. I'm just trying to keep the two in sync with degree of difficulty.

[cbarry85t]

OP here. Sorry to dig this thread up from the dead. A lot of life has happened since August of last year - job changes and a move to another state. I've only just recently started to dig my guitar books out of boxes to get back on the wagon again (I fell off somewhere in the middle of Mel Bay book 3).

In the process I ended up reevaluating the two methods for my goals and thumbing through each one for a few hours just to see how things progress. This time around I'm favoring Leavitt for a couple reasons (which I can get into if anyone's interested). I'm likely going to switch to his method, but my one point of reservation is still his major scale system, especially by volume 3 when it evolves to 12 fingerings.

To put it bluntly: those extra Type 4 fingerings with the pinky stretches ain't gonna happen. I have average size hands and have dealt with on-and-off repetitive stress issues from playing. A couple practice runs in thirds, using the evolved Type 4 fingerings (4A, 4B, 4C, 4D) from the beginning of book 3, were enough to tell me that my left hand was getting the wrong kind of sore. 1st finger stretches don't bother me much, but the 4th finger ones were too much even in 8th position. I can't imagine working them at length in 2nd and 3rd position as Leavitt does in the book.

I have heard people say that the 5 CAGED fingerings can take you to the end of volume 2, but I've not heard anyone propose any way other than Leavitt's to play all 12 keys from one position. Does anyone have an alternative? (I did learn Reg's 7-position major scale and think it's great, FWIW). It seems like you'd have a hard time working through a lot of the drill material in volume 3 without using Leavitt's fingerings. I don't want to work up to volume 3 only to hit a wall!

[matt.guitarteacher]

I have heard people say that the 5 CAGED fingerings can take you to the end of volume 2, but I've not heard anyone propose any way other than Leavitt's to play all 12 keys from one position. Does anyone have an alternative? (I did learn Reg's 7-position major scale and think it's great, FWIW). It seems like you'd have a hard time working through a lot of the drill material in volume 3 without using Leavitt's fingerings. I don't want to work up to volume 3 only to hit a wall!

You would definitely have a hard time working through the drill material in that book, which is specifically written to help you learn to play 12 keys in one position, but that's BECAUSE it's designed with that specifically in mind. If you use seven positions you can cover everything from two positions. That's going to cover most real music which isn't written for that specific purpose.

Most do with fewer than 7.

[Guitarzen]

I use the generic 5 box major scale system with the generic fingering that goes with them and I can fluidly sight read up the entire neck. I'd say there is no need for any fancy scale system or 12 different fingerings. It sounds like Leavitt had his own little peculiar system, and that's fine for him, but it doesn't mean it's the best system for all of us. As you pointed out hand size and repetitive stress injuries are a factor. As long as you have a system for playing the major scales up the entire neck in any key, and you can find and use a consistent fingering system for them, you will be fine. 12 fingerings not needed. Ridiculous stretches not needed. I have small hands btw (and have had bad tendonitis) and it hasn't stopped me from learning to play fluidly up the neck and sight read at a high level.

[ChrisDowning]

Jimmy Bruno wrote a little book on scales way back before he got into teaching online and went back to the CAGED system. I had a lot of success teaching those six scale patterns as they make a lot of sense - i.e. start a minor scale from the 6th note of the major pattern rather than leaning a whole new set of six patterns, etc..

They are basically like the CAGED system with a few tweaks.

Also its worth looking out a copy of a notation reading book called - "Music Reading for Guitar" by David Oakes. Here you'll find he talks about not needing to know every key in every position and plays out a way of practically covering all the keys in positions where they are not a pain to play. (Its what pro sessions players have been doing for ever.) No audience member is ever going to know you don't know how to play everything in every possible key - that stuff for music school tests and bloody minded music conservatory teachers.

[mbself]

In my experience, needing to play all keys in one position is more of an academic exercise. And it's an important one. But real world playing isn't academic. I can stay within one position up or down if my center and get to everything comfortably.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[matt.guitarteacher]

Beyond all this conversation, have you actually worked through books 1 and two? It's super heavy duty stuff in my opinion. I got past the halfway point book two before my eyes kind of rolled up in my head. I ought to finish out just for the reading aspects, but there are human limits to things like attention span for us very part-time students.

But book 3 is hard-core and kind of assumes you have other stuff together. I wouldn't worry about three until the others are covered. If the one position stuff is hard on your hands, focus onall the other stuff that's there.There's a lot of good chord melody approach and other advanced stuff in that book doesn't have anything to do with 12 key, one position etc. one thing that is probably not understood in conversations like this, from those who don't have the books, is that most of volumes one and two are in ONLY FIVE POSITIONS. This says something about the importance of 12 positions, in terms of priority, even for William Leavitt himself. Keep it in mind.

I would advise anyone looking at these books to purchase one volume at a time , unless you can't help yourself in terms of curiosity . You're not going to work through three volumes in a few months. Probably not in a year or three either If you're not studying full-time. If you're progressing much faster than that , doing it part-time, you're probably not playing any tunes at all.

[smokinguit]

Another thing about these method books is that you got to keep working through them over and over to where you can run through them without breaking a sweat. You can even jazz things up a bit. After you've mastered them it's a good idea to run through them periodically over the course of a few months (a few page at a time). I'm running through Melbay books 1, 2, and & 3 at the moment. I've been doing this for the last 3 months. I'm almost done with book 3. I've also mastered Leavitt's book 1 and 2. I haven't cracked open 3 yet; I might do so a few months down the road. It's really great when you can pick up your axe and just read through this stuff easily.

[cbarry85t]

12 fingerings not needed. Ridiculous stretches not needed. I have small hands btw (and have had bad tendonitis) and it hasn't stopped me from learning to play fluidly up the neck and sight read at a high level.

That's great to hear, thanks.

If the one position stuff is hard on your hands, focus onall the other stuff that's there.There's a lot of good chord melody approach and other advanced stuff in that book doesn't have anything to do with 12 key, one position etc. one thing that is probably not understood in conversations like this, from those who don't have the books, is that most of volumes one and two are in ONLY FIVE POSITIONS. This says something about the importance of 12 positions, in terms of priority, even for William Leavitt himself. Keep it in mind.

Good perspective here, thanks. It's hard to speak to Leavitt's priorities - I remember reading that he once told a student book 3 was the one he really wanted to write and the first two were just sort of laying the ground work. Either way, he spends some 30-odd pages of book 3 working the 12 position majors and their companion 9 minor fingerings all over the neck, so he must have seen some value in it.

In general I have mixed feelings about cutting that much material out of a method even though that's likely what I'll end up doing (and as you point out, this is all a ways down the road anyway). I've heard many say that Leavitt's system is still the best for real-world sight reading because of how well it deals with out-of-position notes. I've also heard that his Reading Studies supplements are designed to trip you up if you don't have a handle on his scale fingerings (please correct me if I'm wrong on that one). So if I can't woodshed that stuff without wrecking my hands, some of the appeal of his method is lost on me.

Thanks all for the great responses so far - part of why I'm weighing this so much is precisely because methods are such a huge time investment.

[matt.guitarteacher]

That's great to hear, thanks.



Good perspective here, thanks. It's hard to speak to Leavitt's priorities - I remember reading that he once told a student book 3 was the one he really wanted to write and the first two were just sort of laying the ground work. Either way, he spends some 30-odd pages of book 3 working the 12 position majors and their companion 9 minor fingerings all over the neck, so he must have seen some value in it.

In general I have mixed feelings about cutting that much material out of a method even though that's likely what I'll end up doing (and as you point out, this is all a ways down the road anyway). I've heard many say that Leavitt's system is still the best for real-world sight reading because of how well it deals with out-of-position notes. I've also heard that his Reading Studies supplements are designed to trip you up if you don't have a handle on his scale fingerings (please correct me if I'm wrong on that one). So if I can't woodshed that stuff without wrecking my hands, some of the appeal of his method is lost on me.

Thanks all for the great responses so far - part of why I'm weighing this so much is precisely because methods are such a huge time investment.

Just remember as well that is really only a piece. We had a member who's a professional and graduated from Berkeley comment on the fact that it wasn't really designed to be used without a teacher, as a standalone piece. The assumption was that you were playing with others, doing ear training, learning tunes, transcribing etc. etc.

[JakeAcci]

I have played through all 7 Mel Bay Books as a more 'advanced' player. I had dabbled a bit with Leavitt and have never been a stellar sight reader but it's all relative. I like Mel Bay more for myself but I especially like Mel Bay better for students, young students in particular. Both books are probably boring to the average 10 year old, but the Leavitt stuff seems like you might as well be wearing a powdered wig.

I tell my students (well, the ones who want to read) to work with Mel Bay but I acknowledge it's biggest weaknesses:

Rhythms - the rhythms in Mel Bay are very straightforward. So work with Modern Reading Text in 4/4. in addition.

Position: Mel Bay spends possibly a bit too long in first position, so go ahead and try reading some of those early examples in 5th or 8th position as well.

Key signatures: MB also spends way too long in the key of C and then just C and G. Solution, imo? The Real Book. A beginning reader won't be able to read jazz heads in time, but supplementing MB with trtying to work through standard heads even at a painfully slow tempo gives the beginning reader the opportunity to get over keysignaturaphobia AND have to read some very syncopated rhythms.

Also, I think to learn to read that a variety of material is important. We need to be prepared for the unexpected, right? Each book or even genre is going to get a little predictable after a while and it diminished the challenge. For example, i was reading out of the omnibook a lot (not at full tempo, of course) but as complex as Charlie parker's playing is, it is also very patterns and you start to notice the same things coming up. So, that's great, to recognize patterns, but it can create false confidence.

[ronjazz]

Leavitt was not writing a jazz method. I studied with him, and was tasked with proof-reading Vol. 2 and 3 before they were published. The 12 keys in one position/1 key in 12 positions was particularly aimed at high-lever sight-reading, and are certainly not necessary for jazz playing.
Leavitt was a brilliant sight-reader, spent his time in pit bands doing shows and backing up stars in supper clubs and concert halls. He rarely played jazz gigs, although his grasp of harmony gave him all the tools he needed. His hero was Johnny smith, and he took those principles and codified them into the Modern Method For Guitar. Studying with him enabled me to do national tours of Broadway shows, studio work, arranging and accompanying for many singing stars.

When playing jazz, the technique gained from Leavitt's books was very helpful, but not really necessary. Still, Vol. 1 will give any plectrum player a strong fundamental basis on which to build, and the various chord/scale relationship sections in Vol. 2 and 3 speak directly to the harmonic tools needed to play jazz standards. His other books are also very well-thought-out ways to apply his technical principles, from the Duets to the Sight-reading to the Classical Studies.

I still miss his owlish humor and his Epi Emperor shaking the walls when he demonstrated rhythm guitar styles.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Leavitt was not writing a jazz method. I studied with him, and was tasked with proof-reading Vol. 2 and 3 before they were published. The 12 keys in one position/1 key in 12 positions was particularly aimed at high-lever sight-reading, and are certainly not necessary for jazz playing.

Ron thanks so much for that entire post. I'm copying for future reference. There seems to always be this idea from people that one might just block out all else else and just focus on those books til the end, and then you'd come out the other side complete jazz player or something.

It's particularly frustrating for those of us who are actually fans of the books. I think they are an excellent supplement to any jazz study, on multiple levels. I personally think that the order he introduces chords for rhythm playing, for example, is nearly perfectly sequenced, in terms of priority for playing real music, voice leading etc.

I would appreciate any other insights into where Leavitt was coming from with any of these books, as they are mostly in mystery to those who didn't study at berklee.

[ronjazz]

Well, he admitted, as referenced above, that he really expected incoming Berklee students to already have mastered the techniques and knowledge in Volume 1 even if they didn't own it; he was disappointed to find that guitar players, in general, suck, and Vol. 1 became remedial for most incoming freshmen. I had studied classical guitar for several years, so my reading was a little better than most, but he put me through Vol. 1 in a few weeks just to fill in holes in my knowledge and technique. As much as I enjoyed the guitar aspect of the lessons with him, he really opened my eyes to arranging concepts on the guitar, and once I left those lessons, I found myself able to create and play arrangements of reasonably familiar tunes on the fly, which landed me lots of nice work in the high-end Boston hotels, and which also put me in some demand as an accompanist for singers and horn-players, which I loved and still love to this day, and which led me to adopt the 7-string early on, at the urging of Bucky Pizzarelli.

The most interesting aspect of my work with Leavitt was that he was strictly plectrum technique, and when I reverted to finger-style for most of my work, he got very upset and thought I was dissing his work and teaching, but I told him that all of his principles of harmony and voice-leading and arranging for the guitar were actually put to better use with the use of right-hand classical technique. He was also a fan of Van Eps, as you can see in his chord approach, and I pointed out that Van Eps had abandoned the pick by the early 60s.

Bill was an old-school guy, and the Berklee Modern Method for Guitar is an old-school compendium, but still, in my opinion, the most efficient method ever written for mastering the basics of playing the guitar as a small orchestra.

[matt.guitarteacher]

As much as I enjoyed the guitar aspect of the lessons with him, he really opened my eyes to arranging concepts on the guitar, and once I left those lessons, I found myself able to create and play arrangements of reasonably familiar tunes on the fly, which landed me lots of nice work in the high-end Boston hotels, and which also put me in some demand as an accompanist for singers and horn-players, which I loved and still love to this day, and which led me to adopt the 7-string early on, at the urging of Bucky Pizzarelli.

Cool. Are you mainly talking about the CM voicing guidelines, like what's worked out in volume 3?

I've been doing a good bit of non-jazz CM lately, and his guidelines are really helpful.

The most interesting aspect of my work with Leavitt was that he was strictly plectrum technique, and when I reverted to finger-style for most of my work, he got very upset and thought I was dissing his work and teaching, but I told him that all of his principles of harmony and voice-leading and arranging for the guitar were actually put to better use with the use of right-hand classical technique. He was also a fan of Van Eps, as you can see in his chord approach, and I pointed out that Van Eps had abandoned the pick by the early 60s.

Thanks for that sorry. Love that you pulled the Van Epps argument. Shrewd dude.

Thanks again for the stories!

[ronjazz]

The chord-melody voicing guidelines are the obviously helpful ones, but the way that harmony in general is handled in Vol. 2 and 3 are gems worth digging for. The duets in the books can be played as solos finger-style, and create some really great contrary motion among the voices, inside and out. Again, it's not a jazz method, but a very practical and complete plectrum-style method for playing the entire instrument.

My disagreements with Bill never colored my complete respect for him as a person or my lifelong awe of the depth of his knowledge and generosity of his teaching. Bucky Pizzarelli was likewise open and generous, Joe Pass spent 5 hours with me one night working out CM voicings, Barney Kessell and I met many times and talked jazz life and guitar philosophy for many hours. It seems top me that the jazz guitar world is full of great people at the top, which is really nice. I have met many of the top greats, having been the producer at two major jazz clubs in the 80s, and virtually every guitarist I met, from Hall, to Scofield to Burrell, etc, on and on were warm and considerate, with only a couple of exceptions, and those I chalk up to having a bad day. If you get a chance to meet your favorite player, be not afraid to do so, and ask some salient questions, not what kind of strings they use.

[cbarry85t]

There seems to always be this idea from people that one might just block out all else else and just focus on those books til the end, and then you'd come out the other side complete jazz player or something.

Perhaps the conversation got off on a bit of a tangent re: whether or not these methods are primers for jazz. As I mentioned in the OP, whatever jazz-specific knowledge I pick up, whether from Leavitt or Bay, is more icing on the cake than anything. My number one reason for doing this is to get over my fear of reading - mainly to get better gigs, but also to "unlock" the rest of my book library which is largely written in standard notation.

Leavitt was not writing a jazz method. I studied with him, and was tasked with proof-reading Vol. 2 and 3 before they were published. The 12 keys in one position/1 key in 12 positions was particularly aimed at high-lever sight-reading, and are certainly not necessary for jazz playing.
Leavitt was a brilliant sight-reader, spent his time in pit bands doing shows and backing up stars in supper clubs and concert halls.

This is awesome stuff Ron, thank you. There's so little info about Leavitt out there, so I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say the anecdotes mean a lot. You're also not the first to mention how great his rhythm playing sounded! It is a bit disheartening to hear that the 12 position stuff is mostly for sight reading, since I can't play it without potentially injuring my hands, and improving my reading is my main reason for working through a method. I have found the same thing with a lot of the arpeggio work in Modern Method - Leavitt really does not shy away from big stretches and it may be enough to render the book a non-option for a small-handed player who suffers from tendonitis even though it's probably the best fit for my needs.

I tell my students (well, the ones who want to read) to work with Mel Bay but I acknowledge it's biggest weaknesses:

Rhythms - the rhythms in Mel Bay are very straightforward. So work with Modern Reading Text in 4/4. in addition.

Yes, I agree here - it seems even coming out of grade 7 a Mel Bay student could be blindsided by heavily syncopated material - there is certainly nothing in Bay comparable to the melodic rhythms exercises in Leavitt's method (but then, why not just supplement Mel Bay with the Melodic Rhythms book?)