Jazz guitar arpeggio drills

[targuit]

So whom did I offend now with the innocent and dare I say intelligent suggestion of practicing arpeggios in the context of actual songs?

[Longways to Go]

I'm working with arpeggios a lot recently. I'm getting more from connecting short 1357s in a progression than working all six strings across a position. I find it quite "musical", especially as I try to find connections from one short arpeggio to the next. and fun too!

I haven't quite figured out what to for dominant altered chords in the short arpeggio format. Also, I find myself altering certain arpeggio forms for increased musicality -- for instance, skipping over either the 7 or 1 that are next to each other in a major seven.

One other thing I find interesting about arpeggio study on guitar. Unlike piano, the notes of the arpeggio don't directly correspond to the way we play the chord -- making things quite a bit more complex, eh? I know this is obvious, but as a person with a piano background, I find myself thinking about the differences.

One thing for sure, arpeggios (and triads!) are definitely improving my playing

[fumblefingers]

So whom did I offend now with the innocent and dare I say intelligent suggestion of practicing arpeggios in the context of actual songs?

most people are not pros or music majors. most are beginners to high level intermediate - at best. they/we need "level appropriate" advice, much the same as for other subjects. (so do advanced players by the way, and they can get that in grad school, master classes, studying with a master teacher, etc.)

so the point would be, there is a problem when advanced players tell their lessers to just "do what i do", when they should be telling them "just do what i did, except perhaps do it smarter".

it is a fact that fundamental studies separate out technique, repertoire, improvisation and ensemble play. (and for that matter - theory, harmony, rhythm training, ear training, sight singing, transcribing, keyboard training, arranging, composition, conducting, etc.)

the more a person does all of those things, and the more advanced they become, the more those "separate" things become one. they should. they have to really, there are only so many hours in a day.

your advice was ok for some, but not for other, less advanced musicians.

IMO of course.

[targuit]

Fumblefingers - I appreciate your measured comment and less hysterical approach than some others. I studied classical guitar from the age of eleven or twelve for four years. My teacher was the founder and head of The RI Classical Guitar Society. A portly large white haired gentleman who, purposely or not, resembled Segovia. A grand gentleman.

Notation, exercises, technique, scales from Day One. Richard Pick classical method. Carcassi, Sor etudes. Not much Guilliani to be truthful. Everything one did initially was an assigned weekly lesson that for the beginner was centered on technique over theory. I enjoyed every bit of it.

Arpeggios on piano and guitar and certainly other instruments involve playing the fundamental notes and/or extensions of a chord one note at a time rather than strumming the chord rapidly. That is technically what an arpeggio is.

Now perhaps here we are talking more the 'study of arpeggios' as a form of scale work. Scales are integrals to arpeggios, especially the fundamental building of chords in thirds. Arps are ultimately a fundamental technique. Reg demonstrated some quite challenging examples in his last video up. No one would question that they can help develop dexterity and are an important musical tool. In the end it does not hurt to work on technique for its own sake.

But, I have to say, perhaps exaggerating a bit, that the first time I really felt 'empowered' by my classical practice as a kid was the first time I could play a real song that worked and touched me and others. Ritorno a Sorrento. A transcription of my teacher, that was really the first thing I learned that made me feel I could make music rather than just play an exercise. If I were teaching, I would try to orient every lesson around some concrete real music, even Nursery Rhymes for kids. Surely not an original idea, but important I think to motivate the student.

I would extend that to jazz related pedagogy. Even if it is just a cadence, or well known song that gives the student a sense of potential mastery of the instrument. It is very frustrating to me that I cannot upload my Sibelius transcriptions to illustrate musical points, but not only do I not know how to do that (other than through Sibelius' link - Scorch - or something that I have never used) but that may be illegal as regards copyright.

But in any case, speaking as someone with fifty years of experience, I think that the song vehicle itself presents the ideal context to learn anything relating to technique or theory. While I agree that one needs a solid technical foundation, I am not convinced that one has that much to gain beyond an adequate or hopefully superior technical dexterity with the major and minor diatonic scales. That and the demonstrated ability to play what you hear.

One can play various "drills" in isolation or one can play them in context of actual songs. You choose your mix. That is an individual choice. Or at least it used to be...

[henryrobinett]

I have not read through the thread. Apologies. But in terms of a pro who utilizes and has internalized arpeggios long ago and still teaches them I will say this. I practiced them incessantly. I mapped them to all 7 of my scale patterns. Started with triads. These are the length of the scale pattern, not really paying attention to the order 1-3-5. If the last string of the scale pattern started with the 3rd or 5th, that's where I started. This is so I could SEE the arpeggio and apply it across the neck. Then I did the same with the 7th arpeggios. By and large I didn't practice bigger arps because I could stack triads and other arps to get the 9th, b9, 13, 11, +11, etc..

I practiced these in various exercises for years and years and then more years. Enclosures. I also APPLIED them to songs and improvisations. But one has to get a handle on them - for me this meant across every nook and cranny on the neck. But I haven't practiced them in many years. I'm that old.

When they became internalized, when I no longer had to think about them or their application - I could really make them my own and be creative with them. It takes work. No short cuts. You're on an expedition. Its an adventure. The journey is as great as the destination. Have fun with it. Every day.

[destinytot]

If you know a thousand songs but have poor technique, it's going to betray you when you play them.

As Nat 'King' Cole sang on his last 'jazz' album, "You're looking at me" (although, as Mr Waller put it,"Them is changes being made...").

There's a marvellous YouTube video (Minimizing Emotion - incredibly rich in content/information and an inspiring example of great teaching/coaching) in which, at around the 11-minute mark, Hal Galper talks about achieving 'control'.

He says "Everything involved with playing music is an internal process, not an external process." He continues with: "There are two ways to play a machine: you can use the instrument to manipulate sound, or you can use sound to manipulate the machine. The first approach is mechanical. The second approach is sonic."

I find that distinction to be a useful one in the context of this thread.

I also find it useful to put effort into understanding the rationale behind any 'mechanical' approach (and that doing so will enhance the effect of the 'sonic').

For me, with regard to arpeggios, it boils down to the questions (i) which fingers do I use? And, most importantly, (ii) why?

I believe that understanding the latter is essential to making the fretting/lead-hand response become intuitive.

But I believe that the only satisfactory - and compelling - answers to both questions will come from a well-developed understanding, i.e. from one's own reflection.

Also, I think it's terribly important to avoid developing fixed ideas/mindset with regard to mechanical matters. I made the mistake of ruling out 'stretch' arpeggio fingerings (without examining the 'whys'), but - having got a small hollow-body with a shorter scale - I no longer find those 'stretches' difficult at all.

Actually, I've stopped seeing those fingerings as 'stretches'; surprisingly, they now feel more natural (and sound better) on the long-scale neck of the other guitar.

[henryrobinett]

Fingering is crucially important. I had a teacher who taught me transcriptions of violin classical music. Bach, Paganini, etc.. He "fretted" over the fingerings and often corrected his transcriptions, explaining to me why he made the changes. This taught me a lot about fingering.

I base my arpeggio fingerings on a couple of things, but mainly where the arpeggios fall in the scale patterns. For me the arpeggios and scales form an ergonomic system. One explains the other. They're the same thing. So it makes it easy to see and play them.

Function vs structure.

[destinytot]

Fingering is crucially important.

I think that sums up nicely what I've gathered from two years' participation in that formidable concatenation known as the Benson Picking thread.

No regrets whatsover. Time well spent - it's crucially important to acknowledge its crucial importance!

[henryrobinett]

Lol. Well I've never even opened that thread. All I know is it appears to be epic by its size!

[fumblefingers]

Fumblefingers - I appreciate your measured comment and less hysterical approach than some others. I studied classical guitar from the age of eleven or twelve for four years. My teacher was the founder and head of The RI Classical Guitar Society. A portly large white haired gentleman who, purposely or not, resembled Segovia. A grand gentleman.

Notation, exercises, technique, scales from Day One. Richard Pick classical method. Carcassi, Sor etudes. Not much Guilliani to be truthful. Everything one did initially was an assigned weekly lesson that for the beginner was centered on technique over theory. I enjoyed every bit of it.

Arpeggios on piano and guitar and certainly other instruments involve playing the fundamental notes and/or extensions of a chord one note at a time rather than strumming the chord rapidly. That is technically what an arpeggio is.

Now perhaps here we are talking more the 'study of arpeggios' as a form of scale work. Scales are integrals to arpeggios, especially the fundamental building of chords in thirds. Arps are ultimately a fundamental technique. Reg demonstrated some quite challenging examples in his last video up. No one would question that they can help develop dexterity and are an important musical tool. In the end it does not hurt to work on technique for its own sake.

But, I have to say, perhaps exaggerating a bit, that the first time I really felt 'empowered' by my classical practice as a kid was the first time I could play a real song that worked and touched me and others. Ritorno a Sorrento. A transcription of my teacher, that was really the first thing I learned that made me feel I could make music rather than just play an exercise. If I were teaching, I would try to orient every lesson around some concrete real music, even Nursery Rhymes for kids. Surely not an original idea, but important I think to motivate the student.

I would extend that to jazz related pedagogy. Even if it is just a cadence, or well known song that gives the student a sense of potential mastery of the instrument. It is very frustrating to me that I cannot upload my Sibelius transcriptions to illustrate musical points, but not only do I not know how to do that (other than through Sibelius' link - Scorch - or something that I have never used) but that may be illegal as regards copyright.

But in any case, speaking as someone with fifty years of experience, I think that the song vehicle itself presents the ideal context to learn anything relating to technique or theory. While I agree that one needs a solid technical foundation, I am not convinced that one has that much to gain beyond an adequate or hopefully superior technical dexterity with the major and minor diatonic scales. That and the demonstrated ability to play what you hear.

One can play various "drills" in isolation or one can play them in context of actual songs. You choose your mix. That is an individual choice. Or at least it used to be...

playing scales and arpeggios in context of a tune is a very standard thing to do, a necessary thing to do at some level.

and i am an off and on again classical guitar student as well. i have known music major colleagues in classical and jazz college who played every instrument in the band.

with classical studies things are similar to jazz, but not the same - you practice your technique, your etudes, and your performance pieces. your teacher may require you to demonstrate all 3 in every lesson. in the end though, it's all about that last one - the performance pieces. when you are a classical guy, you may tend to look at the first one (technique) as a pain in the butt, and the second one (etudes) as a necessary evil, sometimes fair, sometimes good, and sometimes great. the first two support the last one. so there is a tendency to divide up your focus and your practice time in a manner that is heavily allocated to the performance pieces. 20 minutes on technique, 40 minutes on etudes, and 2-4 hours on the pieces. makes sense - those are what you will perform for other humans beyond your teach.

but with jazz, you are the "composer" of your solo. only thing is, you need to compose extemporaneously (gulp).
OK, OK, so we already know that, blah, blah, blah.

a jazz soloist is required to have a very deep well of musical resourcefulness to play almost anything, and to play it ad-lib, off the cuff, extemporaneously, impulsively (OK I'll stop). and of course its supposed to be genuinely artful. that is a heavy requirement for anybody.

so arpeggio skill - with arpeggio drills you can cover all qualities from all starting notes, strings, fingers, ranges, keys, and in different cycles/orders, etc. with smart drills this all can be done very efficiently, time wise. but to cover all of that using tunes, you may have to set aside 100 tunes in your practice routine! that would be the antithesis of efficiency.

so the type of technique practice being discussed here is necessary for a developing jazz soloist.

i remember attending a casual jazz show a few years ago and made a request for a couple of tunes, and the band leader accepted them. one of the tunes was Star Eyes. i watched the band members react - they had never heard of it. Angel Eyes? they asked me. No, Star Eyes. they looked over their fake book quietly for about 45 seconds and all then looked at each other and nodded. then they launched into it and played it like it was in their regular rotation - with good solos too.

playing those solos comes from that deep well, and that well is full of technique, harmonic knowledge, knowledge of form etc.

improvisational building blocks have to be built through extensive, and thus time efficient, practice.

[henryrobinett]

I would like to make a distinction between what I'M calling arpeggios and what someone else might interpret. I'm NOT referring to playing a chord and playing that chord as single notes. That IS an arpeggio and it does have its usefulness, but in jazz it tends to be very limited in scope and application.

One has to be able to see and apply notes, patterns, scales as they lay across the fretboard. One has to KNOW what those notes and frets mean in any given moment for any given chord, harmony or mode. Arpeggios laid against and on top of the scales, whatever scales, is essential to understanding these things. Much more so than playing chords one note at a time.

[fumblefingers]

right.

i was focusing on a level below that. the rudimentary level where one is just getting these under their fingers and theoretical conception, with application to jazz vocab/improv being the next rung on the ladder, and more involved/advanced...

[henryrobinett]

right.

i was focusing on a level below that. the rudimentary level where one is just getting these under their fingers and theoretical conception, with application to jazz vocab/improv being the next rung on the ladder, and more involved/advanced...

Lol. I think this explains why I don't have a lot of students. My shit is hard! I find the arpeggios laid across the fretboard in all scale patterns as very basic and rudimentary. Lol.

[matt.guitarteacher]

One can play various "drills" in isolation or one can play them in context of actual songs. You choose your mix. That is an individual choice. Or at least it used to be...

Playing drills in isolation is common practice for professional musicians and teachers of EVERY musical discipline, including jazz and classical. Marginalize yourself if you must, but you're not in the minority ONLY in THIS forum.

[smokinguit]

The reason for practicing arpeggios a lot (in the beginning) is so that you know them the way you know your social security number. Also, you need to understand the meaning of each note with your ears. The fastest way to learn them is by doing drills, aural and physical. This doesn't mean that you do them until you are blue in the face... little by little you will master them. After you've master them you can run through a lot of Arpeggio drills in a few minutes to maintain your technique.

[targuit]

Playing drills in isolation is common practice for professional musicians and teachers of EVERY musical discipline, including jazz and classical. Marginalize yourself if you must, but you're not in the minority ONLY in THIS forum.

True. I can actually sing and play. (Sorry, Matt - you set it up and I could not resist...)

[targuit]

Exactly what type of arpeggio "drill" is recommended by the elite? Please be specific as to execution and criteria or approach. And for sure don't spell out those ridiculous XX5333 things....

[matt.guitarteacher]

Just every method for piano, violin, flute, everything...oh yeah. You're not being serious....

[targuit]

Is that an answer? Rather vague, if you ask me. At one point in the last video that Reg posted he was playing some type of arpeggio study that was rather interesting, but one does realize that if that is written out, it is a pattern to learn. Frankly, I have yet to see a definition of 'arpeggio study' - weren't you as a docent about to clarify that?

I going to presume you are not talking about actually playing arpeggios of common chords including diminished and flat fifths. There must be something more difficult and irrelevant to master. Beyond the common scales, of course.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Is that an answer? Rather vague, if you ask me. At one point in the last video that Reg posted he was playing some type of arpeggio study that was rather interesting, but one does realize that if that is written out, it is a pattern to learn. Frankly, I have yet to see a definition of 'arpeggio study' - weren't you as a docent about to clarify that?

I going to presume you are not talking about actually playing arpeggios of common chords including diminished and flat fifths. There must be something more difficult and irrelevant to master. Beyond the common scales, of course.

Go, take a piano lesson, Jay. It's not up to me to prove to you that the sky is blue or whatever. If you're the one contending that these type of drills or etudes are silly, YOU'RE going against convention, not anyone else.

When you say the world is flat, it's on YOU to prove that, not everyone else to prove something...

I'm contending that arpeggio and scale drills, IN ISOLATION, without regard to actual tunes, are, in fact, the norm, at least in the beginning. It's up to you as a flat-earther to prove otherwise. The fact that they are taught to facilitate the eventual playing of real music is beside the point. Continue to mock everyone else who's ever studied music if you like.

BTW, why do you come here and "talk" music in abstraction, anyway? What has talking to do with playing? How is your bloviating about "wasting time" with wrongful drills any LESS wasteful than just playing some arpeggio drills?

No...I don't believe you're sincere.

[Jonah]

Don't be too harch, guys.. I know I develope the off-top.. but just to try to make some peace on two opinions...

obviously one has to work over technical problems... and top pros today are almost athlets - the requirements are so high that it seems you haver to start to plat at 2 to have time to cover it all (especially viokine and piano)...
(But I am not sure it's a good tendency though...)

But for me also it is obvious that there are methods that avoid pure techical drill...

I think it is very important moment of teaching process in music... to teach music all the time through from the beginning... even when you teach technical issues you should turn it in a way it is musical and fun...

I think it's important because I see many classical player -top players - who (at least for me) come out on the stage and keep playing drills (very sophisticated highest -level drills - but still drills).. they were told all their life: you should first make your drill and then play music.. so they end up in continuous drill...
I can see: oh this guy really worked hard... but is it what the music is for?

I also see many guitarists who were told to drill scales and arpeggios and then do not know what to do with it.. becasue nobody told then that it would not be music yet...

Of course lots of us are adult people who are reasonable enough to separate one thing from another and spend some time over pure technical problems understanding at the same time taht it's not music yet..

but if we speak about novices or kids.. or sometimes adults who maybe see it a bit like kids.. whatever.. I think we should consider this point when we give an advice...

We always try to systemize things... to put them in step by step regular method.. it's ok.. it's the way people learn.. but we shold not also forget that we deal with very subtle subject...

We often say: final goal is to play music... I want to say:no... there's no final goal in that business.... you go hundreds of miles and then you suddely see: of it seems I am at the beginning now..

and to play music is what every student should start from - from the first day and moment he takes up an instrument...

[MarkRhodes]

At one point in the last video that Reg posted he was playing some type of arpeggio study that was rather interesting, but one does realize that if that is written out, it is a pattern to learn. Frankly, I have yet to see a definition of 'arpeggio study' - weren't you as a docent about to clarify that?

Normally, 'arpeggio study' refers to playing the arpeggios of a particular progression. For example, Mimi Fox wrote a book called "Arpeggio Studies on Jazz Standards." It's quite good and contains studies on the changes of Summertime, Night and Day, All the Things You Are, and Autumn Leaves.

http://www.amazon.com/Arpeggio-Studi...jazz+standards

But this thread is about arpeggio drills, which are not the same thing as arpeggio studies. Reg was quite clear on the drills he described as ways to build one's technique and to master the arpeggios. (He also pointed that he doesn't do them much now---he doesn't need to---but that he did when he was young and they helped him develop his fabulous technique.)

[targuit]

Matt - Did you ever study the classical guitar? I don't recall you ever mentioning it. I did at the age of twelve for four years. So I certainly know what arpeggio studies are intended to develop in the beginner and intermediate level player. Am I to presume that you studied Sor or Carcassi? Regardless of your experience why do you misquote me to then mow down your strawman? Find me the quote where I said it was "a waste of time" or retract that from your post.

All I suggested was that playing arpeggio studies in and of themselves is boring to some of us who actually did them for years. That does not make them useless or a waste. I believe that making musical pedagogy about actually making real music is more inspiring to students.

Perhaps you could politely explain why one should not use the study of actual jazz standards as the harmonic context for doing your arpeggio studies? In other words what is wrong with that notion? For your information the reknowned Martin Taylor suggests playing through tunes that are new to you in precisely that fashion. Need a citation of that fact? Watch some of his teaching videos on YTube. I don't recall the numerous occasions, but I can say for sure that it is on his DVD of Jimmy Van Heusen songs.

I am perfectly well aware that learning new songs is not the purpose explicitly of doing 'arpeggio studies' but why not "kill two birds with one stone" as it were?

Btw I like Reg's video on his version of arpeggio studies. I would have to rewatch that video (last one) to see if one can understand what type it was. But, while you like to isolate me as being a dissenter from the Party Line, you really do me a disservice with your petty "I really don't believe you are sincere." Rubbish....

[targuit]

Matt - Here is a quote from my post that, unlike your assertions, is factual -

"But in any case, speaking as someone with fifty years of experience, I think that the song vehicle itself presents the ideal context to learn anything relating to technique or theory. While I agree that one needs a solid technical foundation, I am not convinced that one has that much to gain beyond an adequate or hopefully superior technical dexterity with the major and minor diatonic scales. That and the demonstrated ability to play what you hear."

Apparently a radical statement in some quarters. If you are going to malign me, Matt, at least have the decency to quote me accurately.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Regardless of your experience why do you misquote me to then mow down your strawman? Find me the quote where I said it was "a waste of time" or retract that from your post.

ok. The use of quotation marks is varied in general grammar usage, and relies somewhat on common sense. I certainly didn't intend it as a direct quote, and I don't think most would assume that.

I am perfectly well aware that learning new songs is not the purpose explicitly of doing 'arpeggio studies' but why not "kill two birds with one stone" as it were?

I'll remove mine when you remove the bird accusation . ;-)

All I suggested was that playing arpeggio studies in and of themselves is boring to some of us who actually did them for years. That does not make them useless or a waste. I believe that making musical pedagogy about actually making real music is more inspiring to students.

Okay, but that's not "all you said" in the rest of the thread. You're retroactively changing your tone . That's fine. You usually backpedal at some point. The only person who said anything about not ever actually using any tunes was yourself.

I am very happy that , 74 posts into the thread, you are finally amiable to the topic and on board 100%. Welcome to the thread.