On the importance of basic scales and arpeggios

[targuit]

Thanks, Jeff! In truth, the first time I heard Rose Room was last night. It may be surprising, but there are gaps in my knowledge even about Charlie Christian. Formidable as he is, I only had one or two albums of his recordings, which I know are relatively few to begin with given his tragically short life.

In terms of the Benny Goodman recording that intro in Ab is the longest "pickup" measure(s) I've ever heard. Still not a tune I really warm up to, though as is often the case Christian is pretty brilliant. As I said before, regardless of how he may have approached his solos - playing out of chord positions which to me is synonymous with how a melody is defined by the harmonic references in any case - he had that X-factor ability to raise his game to another level.

That I believe is something intrinsic to the few who become part of history.

Btw, Matt, although I was jesting a bit in answer to your questions, there is a kernel of truth in my responses. I actually don't think much about either scales or harmonic context when I solo so much as try to listen acutely and anticipate where the melody wants to go in the harmonic context. Unless you are playing an unadorned single note melody without any harmonic reference at all I think one is always playing off the harmonic reference, though I don't use chord forms as some kind of template, especially visually. Aurally perhaps. To me it is always about the musical intervals and about the ears.

[jasonc]

I'm not really interested in the semantics of the term pedagogy. The OP mentioned horn players getting this kind of technique before high school. The fact that people take lessons for guitar and don't really have any intentions of really learning is a major part of the problem. I really can't think of another instrument...well, except maybe voice...where serious study isn't expected and taught. Even if a kid wants to take trumpet lessons so she can play in a ska band I'd practically guarantee that she will spend time in the Arban book. We don't have that sort of thing for guitar. Maybe I'm just bitter watching my daughter learning viola and seeing how systematic the teaching of technique is and the fact that it is never questioned. After just a few years of playing she can read better than a lot of guitarists I know, she can play in an ensemble well, knows a bunch of scales and arpeggios and has good time (mainly because her teacher is always talking about subdividing). Guitarists who have had the same amount of instruction time can usually play a handful of Clapton licks or play some tunes off the radio but can do little else.

[mr. beaumont]

Thanks, Jeff! In truth, the first time I heard Rose Room was last night. It may be surprising, but there are gaps in my knowledge even about Charlie Christian. Formidable as he is, I only had one or two albums of his recordings, which I know are relatively few to begin with given his tragically short life.

In terms of the Benny Goodman recording that intro in Ab is the longest "pickup" measure(s) I've ever heard. Still not a tune I really warm up to, though as is often the case Christian is pretty brilliant. As I said before, regardless of how he may have approached his solos - playing out of chord positions which to me is synonymous with how a melody is defined by the harmonic references in any case - he had that X-factor ability to raise his game to another level.

That I believe is something intrinsic to the few who become part of history.

Btw, Matt, although I was jesting a bit in answer to your questions, there is a kernel of truth in my responses. I actually don't think much about either scales or harmonic context when I solo so much as try to listen acutely and anticipate where the melody wants to go in the harmonic context. Unless you are playing an unadorned single note melody without any harmonic reference at all I think one is always playing off the harmonic reference, though I don't use chord forms as some kind of template, especially visually. Aurally perhaps. To me it is always about the musical intervals and about the ears.

Yeah, I wouldn't really call it a pickup--it's an intro, it's part of an arrangement. Goodman sextet used 'em all the time.

By the way, for kicks I transcribed the first chorus of CC's solo this afternoon (hey, school's still open but my Seniors have graduated, gotta keep myself busy!) and there is a whole bunch of cool stuff. Pentatonics with chromatics and some very obvious chord shapes as well, and some great use of s p a c e.

[Vladan]

I'm not really interested in the semantics of the term pedagogy. .

1. My point was not in semantics but in apparent age of "aspiring" Jazz guitarists on this forum and elsewhere. The vast majority seem to come from the camp of self-taught blues rock noodlers, who after couple of decades gave up in those genres and now want to do something they think will be perceived as more serious and adequate to their age.

2. Do you know any kids of the same age as your daughter's studying guitar in real and proper music school (as opposed to arbitrarily organized courses and lessons of various kinds)? How those kids rank in scales and technique?

[christianm77]

I'm not really interested in the semantics of the term pedagogy. The OP mentioned horn players getting this kind of technique before high school. The fact that people take lessons for guitar and don't really have any intentions of really learning is a major part of the problem. I really can't think of another instrument...well, except maybe voice...where serious study isn't expected and taught. Even if a kid wants to take trumpet lessons so she can play in a ska band I'd practically guarantee that she will spend time in the Arban book. We don't have that sort of thing for guitar. Maybe I'm just bitter watching my daughter learning viola and seeing how systematic the teaching of technique is and the fact that it is never questioned. After just a few years of playing she can read better than a lot of guitarists I know, she can play in an ensemble well, knows a bunch of scales and arpeggios and has good time (mainly because her teacher is always talking about subdividing). Guitarists who have had the same amount of instruction time can usually play a handful of Clapton licks or play some tunes off the radio but can do little else.

Isn't that what Leavitt was trying to do with his books?

Thing is them books is dry. Kids don't want to learn guitar for the same reasons as they want to learn violin.

On the other hand, taking the guitar seriously as an instrument is a terrible idea for all sorts of reasons. Don't do it kids.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Btw, Matt, although I was jesting a bit in answer to your questions, there is a kernel of truth in my responses. I actually don't think much about either scales or harmonic context when I solo so much as try to listen acutely and anticipate where the melody wants to go in the harmonic context. Unless you are playing an unadorned single note melody without any harmonic reference at all I think one is always playing off the harmonic reference, though I don't use chord forms as some kind of template, especially visually. Aurally perhaps. To me it is always about the musical intervals and about the ears.

Sheesh. You are forever hung up on this idea of "not thinking while you play".

First of all, it's not helpful to keep harping on your miraculous ability to just play whatever you hear in your head, without any conscious thought. It offers nothing to the discussion, beyond just being able to talk about how smart you are, ......BECAUSE..... it doesn't give anyone else anything that can actually use.

Secondly, the "no-thought" idea just isn't true. It's semantics BS. When you say you're not thinking while you play, what you actually mean is that you're not thinking in LABELS as you play.That's fine but there's organization to how you hear and how you play. I mean, there are synapses firing. All human thought is not verbal/symbolic. To continue to talk about it in this way is tedious.

"There are only 12 notes"is just BS. We don't think and play in tone rows. not in most of the traditional jazz were talking about, anyway. I mean, the sounds we play are not literal tone rows. I don't hear YOU playing tone rows. That's not the organizational principle that your inner voice is going by apparently, whether you have a label for it or not. The labels are just how we talk to each other about this stuff. It's fine if you can hear all of the POSSIBILITIES, all 12 possibilities , but then, we actually do make a DECISION as to what to play . It's not all 12 notes, and it can actually be described by musicians who art articulate enough about it.

Your arguments about this kind of thing sound a lot like some snot in a grammar classroom saying , "I don't think about verbs or nouns. I just write down the words my inner voice speaks to me." At which point, the grammar teacher would promptly smack you upside the head, like you deserve, and put you in your place in front of the class.

That's fine if you don't THINK about it that way or don't HAVE to, but CAN you think that way about it? ....while describing to other educated musicians what you're actually doing? Are you, in fact, ARTICULATE enough to actually talk about your thought processes in a musically descriptive way, beyond "I just play what the inner voices tell me to"?

There's an assumption in what you say to people like Reg, that because they CAN actually articulate things in a descriptive way, that they are, in fact, operating on some lower level of "having to think harder" than yourself. Like they're actually thinking WORDS all of the time, while they play.

But then, I'm addressing all of this as if it's an actual rational discussion. In reality, this has more to do with your own snobbery and apparent NEED to look down on other people. You pretend to have some "higher process" than to think in the way in which NORMAL musicians (your supposed "friends" here) are talking about and, then, act is if you're better.

In reality, there are many fine players on this forum, far better than you or me, who:

1)have a vastly richer "inner voice", constantly playing, which they can "tap into" while they're playing, (with or WITHOUT thoughts of words or labels).

2) AND.... at the same time, they can actually TALK about it as well, if you ask them.

You're unjustified snobbery on this forum is the stuff of legend.

[matt.guitarteacher]

I'm not really interested in the semantics of the term pedagogy. The OP mentioned horn players getting this kind of technique before high school. The fact that people take lessons for guitar and don't really have any intentions of really learning is a major part of the problem. I really can't think of another instrument...well, except maybe voice...where serious study isn't expected and taught. Even if a kid wants to take trumpet lessons so she can play in a ska band I'd practically guarantee that she will spend time in the Arban book. We don't have that sort of thing for guitar. Maybe I'm just bitter watching my daughter learning viola and seeing how systematic the teaching of technique is and the fact that it is never questioned. After just a few years of playing she can read better than a lot of guitarists I know, she can play in an ensemble well, knows a bunch of scales and arpeggios and has good time (mainly because her teacher is always talking about subdividing). Guitarists who have had the same amount of instruction time can usually play a handful of Clapton licks or play some tunes off the radio but can do little else.

+ 1. All of this.

I spent a week in a junior high band classroom a few years ago and was struck by this as well, especially as a choral music guy, myself, who also happens to teach some guitar. pedagogy is a light years ahead . It's all systematic, paced to hold interest level, and done at scale. I mean, the size of those band classes is overwhelming when you think about it. Guitar is basically a much simpler instrument to learn to play at the beginning, when you think about embouchure and all of that . The pedagogy is just generations behind.

[jasonc]

1. My point was not in semantics but in apparent age of "aspiring" Jazz guitarists on this forum and elsewhere. The vast majority seem to come from the camp of self-taught blues rock noodlers, who after couple of decades gave up in those genres and now want to do something they think will be perceived as more serious and adequate to their age.

2. Do you know any kids of the same age as your daughter's studying guitar in real and proper music school (as opposed to arbitrarily organized courses and lessons of various kinds)? How those kids rank in scales and technique?

That's fair enough but I thought the OP was talking about those starting out and not necessarily this forum's particular demographic. Although, I wouldn't think the stuff we are talking about (just nuts and bolts mechanics of playing the instrument) would be taught vastly different either way.

I don't know any kids that match that description. That's kind of my point. Guitarists don't have the same pedagogical resources most instruments have and in some cases have had for centuries. Just look at the differences between something like Arban's method or Klosé's method and what we have for guitar. The Segovia scales, which are usually the first thing trotted out as basic guitar pedagogy, are woefully inadequate for actually learning the fretboard. The Giuliani exercises are just for the right hand and while they could be adapted to play with a pick they wouldn't be terribly helpful. I can't think of a single text for guitar that covers as much technical territory as something like Arban's.

[John A.]

I'm not really interested in the semantics of the term pedagogy. The OP mentioned horn players getting this kind of technique before high school. The fact that people take lessons for guitar and don't really have any intentions of really learning is a major part of the problem.

I think there is plenty of this on other instruments. I know tons of people who had lessons on one instrument or another because their parents made them do it. Nothing stuck. No one really expected them to learn. Going through the motions of lessons was considered part of being cultured and educated, as opposed to actually becoming a musician. It still goes on, especially now that the education-reform idiots are trying to sell parents on the idea that kids should take music lessons cause it'll make 'em do better on their state tests.

I really can't think of another instrument...well, except maybe voice...where serious study isn't expected and taught. Even if a kid wants to take trumpet lessons so she can play in a ska band I'd practically guarantee that she will spend time in the Arban book.

I've seen plenty of non-serious study and expectations with piano. But I think with bowed, brass and reed instruments just to get a non-excruciating sound out of the instrument requires instruction of some kind, and to get to the point where you're actually playing something resembling music takes a lot of time and effort. That's much less so of piano or guitar. Horns and string instruments are also so frickin' expensive that people people don't buy them in first place if the kids aren't serious. [Although that seems to be changing a little. My son started clarinet lessons this year, and there are actually non-terrible clarinets available for not much money.]

We don't have that sort of thing for guitar.

There are method books. There's serious instruction, especially classical guitar. But it's also true that it's more possible to get to a level of making reasonably satisfying music without going through a system on guitar than many other instruments. You can accompany yourself with cowboy chords. There's no equivalent to that on the French horn.

Maybe I'm just bitter watching my daughter learning viola and seeing how systematic the teaching of technique is and the fact that it is never questioned. After just a few years of playing she can read better than a lot of guitarists I know, she can play in an ensemble well, knows a bunch of scales and arpeggios and has good time (mainly because her teacher is always talking about subdividing). Guitarists who have had the same amount of instruction time can usually play a handful of Clapton licks or play some tunes off the radio but can do little else.

I think you're just bitter that your daughter is learning the viola and will be subjected to all those viola jokes. Look at it on the bright side -- at least it's not the banjo ...

I started out playing classical (albeit briefly, several thousand years ago), and I remember there being tons of instruction on technique, reading, etc. [As a kid, I actually could read pretty decently, but then I saw the error of my ways and started picking Clapton licks off records; can't sightread for shit anymore.] Yes, it's POSSIBLE to take a bunch of guitar lessons with someone who just gives you tabs of cowboy and barre chords and not be nearly as far along as a someone studying an orchestral instrument for a similar duration via serious method, but that's an apples to oranges comparison. It's also possible to follow a rigorous method and come out the other end with very solid reading and theory chops. I'd add that there are people out there teaching various kinds of fingerstyle guitar music (e.g., ragtime/Piedmont style blues) pretty seriously and methodically (albeit, more via tab and ear than notes on a staff)

John

[matt.guitarteacher]

I think there is plenty of this on other instruments. I know tons of people who had lessons on one instrument or another because their parents made them do it. Nothing stuck. No one really expected them to learn. Going through the motions of lessons was considered part of being cultured and educated, as opposed to actually becoming a musician. It still goes on, especially now that the education-reform idiots are trying to sell parents on the idea that kids should take music lessons cause it'll make 'em do better on their state tests.



I've seen plenty of non-serious study and expectations with piano. But I think with bowed, brass and reed instruments just to get a non-excruciating sound out of the instrument requires instruction of some kind, and to get to the point where you're actually playing something resembling music takes a lot of time and effort. That's much less so of piano or guitar. Horns and string instruments are also so frickin' expensive that people people don't buy them in first place if the kids aren't serious. [Although that seems to be changing a little. My son started clarinet lessons this year, and there are actually non-terrible clarinets available for not much money.]




There are method books. There's serious instruction, especially classical guitar. But it's also true that it's more possible to get to a level of making reasonably satisfying music without going through a system on guitar than many other instruments. You can accompany yourself with cowboy chords. There's no equivalent to that on the French horn.



I think you're just bitter that your daughter is learning the viola and will be subjected to all those viola jokes. Look at it on the bright side -- at least it's not the banjo ...

I started out playing classical (albeit briefly, several thousand years ago), and I remember there being tons of instruction on technique, reading, etc. [As a kid, I actually could read pretty decently, but then I saw the error of my ways and started picking Clapton licks off records; can't sightread for shit anymore.] Yes, it's POSSIBLE to take a bunch of guitar lessons with someone who just gives you tabs of cowboy and barre chords and not be nearly as far along as a someone studying an orchestral instrument for a similar duration via serious method, but that's an apples to oranges comparison. It's also possible to follow a rigorous method and come out the other end with very solid reading and theory chops. I'd add that there are people out there teaching various kinds of fingerstyle guitar music (e.g., ragtime/Piedmont style blues) pretty seriously and methodically (albeit, more via tab and ear than notes on a staff)

John

The fact that slackers play all kinds of instruments is really kind of beside the point. The real thing that was being discussed is that even guitar students who are serious about learning don't have the same resources in terms of fundamentals and technique etc.

I've taught piano lessons in different kinds of methods . The Bastian , Alfred, Faber and Faber methods are a couple of generations ahead of the old Thompson books that many of us would've learned to play out of few decades ago. I mean, as a teacher, everything is just so much easier: the pace at which students develop, student interest, the ease of learning the material etc. On guitar, honestly, we've never even approached something like that Thompson method though. It's not a slam against guitarists, that they're stupid or something, it's just the evolution of the pedagogy.

It's just a younger instrument, in terms of serious pedagogy. If you're talking about Segovia, that's just not that long ago, right? I mean there's plenty of material from before then, but I don't think it compares to the kind of development that's happened with Piano, violin, or wind instruments over several centuries.

Just my opinion.

[Boston Joe]

It's just a younger instrument, in terms of serious pedagogy. If you're talking about Segovia, that's just not that long ago, right? I mean there's plenty of material from before then, but I don't think it compares to the kind of development that's happened with Piano, violin, or wind instruments over several centuries.

I wonder if that would be true for someone who started as a classical guitarist. Most guitarists aren't coming from the classical tradition, whereas wind instruments, for example, even if you want to play jazz, you're probably going to at least do a stint in the school marching band, right? What kind of pedagogy would a young kid who wanted to take up classical guitar be getting?

[John A.]

The fact that slackers play all kinds of instruments is really kind of beside the point. The real thing that was being discussed is that even guitar students who are serious about learning don't have the same resources in terms of fundamentals and technique etc.

I've taught piano lessons in different kinds of methods . The Bastian , Alfred, Faber and Faber methods are a couple of generations ahead of the old Thompson books that many of us would've learned to play out of few decades ago. I mean, as a teacher, everything is just so much easier: the pace at which students develop, student interest, the ease of learning the material etc. On guitar, honestly, we've never even approached something like that Thompson method though. It's not a slam against guitarists, that they're stupid or something, it's just the evolution of the pedagogy.

It's just a younger instrument, in terms of serious pedagogy. If you're talking about Segovia, that's just not that long ago, right? I mean there's plenty of material from before then, but I don't think it compares to the kind of development that's happened with Piano, violin, or wind instruments over several centuries.

Just my opinion.

The point of this conversation seems to be shifting around ... The point I was responding to was what seemed to be universal statement that guitarists don't learn via methods because their aren't any, and guitarists aren't as schooled in the basics of musicianship as other instrumentalists who universally do learn via methods. That strikes as comparing apples to oranges (or slackers to grinds). There are guitarists who learn by methods. OK, so maybe the guitar methods that do exist aren't as comprehensive and time tested as other instruments'. I'll take your word for it, though It think centuries old is hyperbole for many instruments' methods (e.g., sax is a recently invented instrument)


John

[Reg]

Just a note about Berklee and Bill's series.... they are designed to be used with a teacher that understands what the material is and how to approach teaching using the books along with much more material.

Most try and go through the series themselves or with a teacher that might not really be qualified.

I would have loved to see where guitar academia would be now if berklee didn't exist.

[matt.guitarteacher]

I'll take your word for it, though It think centuries old is hyperbole for many instruments' methods (e.g., sax is a recently invented instrument)

Saxophone? Hyperbole? Really? Do you think I was referring to the one younger instrument there? Putting aside the fact that I never said anything about "saxophone" specifically and "centuries", it's basically a clarinet, flute or any other woodwind in terms of fundamental technique and pedagogy, I'd think. 99% anyway. Woodwind, brass, strings, keyboards....you can't necessarily just bolt their pedagogy onto guitar.

[Vladan]

Unfortunately, I can not say anything first hand, because I never went to music school.

What I know and what I can say, in our elmentary (primary) music schools there are 3 types of programmes.

1. 6 years, available to enroll for kids not older than 9 years.
Instruments included are piano, violin, cello, guitar, accordion, harp, flute (maybe some more)

They all have exactly the same program regarding solfeggio, music theory, orchestral, choir and chamber music.
Also, they all have the same number of lessons per week in their main subject (instrument), but as I said, I have no idea how one instrument class compare to another. Whichever way it may be, I don't believe school could allow it self to let kids learning one instrument graduate the school with less knowledge and skill than kids learning some other instrument.

2. 4 years, for kids not older than 11 years.
Instruments: fagot, horn, oboe, clarinet, trumpet, trombone, percussion, contrabass

Obviously, for some reason, they think these instruments could be mastered in 2 years less than above, also it may be it's physically challenging for really small kids to play them. However, rules do not prevent younger than 9 years to enroll.

At first glance, as far as number of classes per week, their program is exactly the same as for those of 6 years, except it lasts two years less.

3. 2 years solo singing, for those OLDER than 14 years ...

Again, I can not imagine kids studying guitar, or whatever, will be less skilled and knowledgeable in playing scales all over their chosen instrument range based on their choice of instrument.

[lawson-stone]

The point of this conversation seems to be shifting around ... The point I was responding to was what seemed to be universal statement that guitarists don't learn via methods because their aren't any, and guitarists aren't as schooled in the basics of musicianship as other instrumentalists who universally do learn via methods. That strikes as comparing apples to oranges (or slackers to grinds). There are guitarists who learn by methods. OK, so maybe the guitar methods that do exist aren't as comprehensive and time tested as other instruments'. I'll take your word for it, though It think centuries old is hyperbole for many instruments' methods (e.g., sax is a recently invented instrument)


John

Actually I think the opposite. When you talk about horns, it seems only a very small number of method books get named. On Piano, I hear 3 or 4 method books talked about.

But for beginning guitar, you can walk into a music store and be buried alive under all the basic method books. It's really astonishing. Admittedly, the pedagogy is sketchy, the syllabus of subjects covered varies, but there are lots of starting method books.

But once you start, the resources for building on the foundation seem slim.

Strange as it sounds, I went back and looked at the old Mel Bay series of guitar books, and realized if I'd stuck with going through the Mel Bay books, I'd have a formidable grasp of the instrument. But most folks starting on the guitar want a "quick kill" that is they want to be playing familiar songs right now. Nobody starting on the trumpet or viola is thinking that way.

I'm not sure where I was going with this...

[christianm77]

Just a note about Berklee and Bill's series.... they are designed to be used with a teacher that understands what the material is and how to approach teaching using the books along with much more material.

Most try and go through the series themselves or with a teacher that might not really be qualified.

I would have loved to see where guitar academia would be now if berklee didn't exist.

Would there be a guitar academia?

I know I have a pop at the Berklee thang from time to time - but without Berklee, there wouldn't be anything - let alone anything to disagree with.

Anyway, I should probably spend some more time with Leavitt. A bit of Leavitt and a bit of Rockschool/Trinity Rock & Pop syllabus/whatever would probably cover a lot of ground.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Unfortunately, I can not say anything first hand, because I never went to music school.

What I know and what I can say, in our elmentary (primary) music schools there are 3 types of programmes.

1. 6 years, available to enroll for kids not older than 9 years.
Instruments included are piano, violin, cello, guitar, accordion, harp, flute (maybe some more)

They all have exactly the same program regarding solfeggio, music theory, orchestral, choir and chamber music.
Also, they all have the same number of lessons per week in their main subject (instrument), but as I said, I have no idea how one instrument class compare to another. Whichever way it may be, I don't believe school could allow it self to let kids learning one instrument graduate the school with less knowledge and skill than kids learning some other instrument.

2. 4 years, for kids not older than 11 years.
Instruments: fagot, horn, oboe, clarinet, trumpet, trombone, percussion, contrabass

Obviously, for some reason, they think these instruments could be mastered in 2 years less than above, also it may be it's physically challenging for really small kids to play them. However, rules do not prevent younger than 9 years to enroll.

At first glance, as far as number of classes per week, their program is exactly the same as for those of 6 years, except it lasts two years less.

3. 2 years solo singing, for those OLDER than 14 years ...

Again, I can not imagine kids studying guitar, or whatever, will be less skilled and knowledgeable in playing scales all over their chosen instrument range based on their choice of instrument.

Sounds cool. I don't think we have anything like that around these parts. Strings programs in schools are almost completely dead, if you're not at a huge school. Choral programs are available a lot of places but not at all of them. Band is still going strong I guess. School guitar programs with that kind of multi-year curriculum are the exception, but as of a few years ago, are a growing trend.

In the states, the top multi-year guitar programs in schools for kids like that all write their own curriculum basically. I did a lot of research on this when I was teaching in schools and had a program, myself, of about 60 kids. It's not like school band. There are a small number of band methods which most schools are using, but they definitely don't have to come up with one from scratch. The publishers are completely into it as well.

As a band director, you teach out of one of the popular method books, and then you can select your concert music based on what level your kids are at. The publishers have mountains of first year, second year etc. concert music ready for you to pull of the shelf. You don't have to wonder if it's going to be on your kids level, because it's geared to a codified curriculum model which covers the entire industry that is school band programs.

When you're ready to do a guitar concert, you have to arrange something or find something. If you use one of the big school's curriculum to start, it's easier, because you've got their stuff which probably has concert music as well. I'm interested in what they do in Europe and elsewhere.

Guitar pedagogy is still in it's infancy IMO. If there were the kind of $$ involved in school band programs, I'm sure it would accelerate the process of development. When it's done at that kind of scale, it happens a lot faster.

[Vladan]

If I did not make it clear enough, music schools are completely separate entities from regular schools. In other words, kids go parallel to both. The real Regular primary school starts (not counting some preparation and pre-preparation years) at age of 7 and lasts for 8 years, so in the end both primary and music elementary schools got finished at about the same time.

In regular primary schools there are some music classes, but that's really a joke, although that much I can read music I've learned back then.

[jasonc]

The Art Of Playing On The Violin by Geminiani was printed in 1751. I'm saying that GENERALLY guitarists are not as educated in basic musicianship and technique precisely because the "guitar methods that do exist aren't as comprehensive and time tested as other instruments'". That's all. I'm not saying guitarists can't play at the level of other musicians but rather they have a much harder time of it because of the pedagogy available.

Vladan, I don't know where you are but that sounds great. I would love to have my kids in a school like that. In that scenario I'm sure the guitarists are at the same level as their peers because they are being taught the same things as the other musicians which is not how it is most of the time (around here anyway). Again, I'm not saying that guitarists can't learn these things. What I am saying, however, is that most guitarists aren't learning these things when other instrumentalists are and that is why guitarists tend to not have the technical command that other instruments have.

[grahambop]

Yeah, I wouldn't really call it a pickup--it's an intro, it's part of an arrangement. Goodman sextet used 'em all the time.

By the way, for kicks I transcribed the first chorus of CC's solo this afternoon (hey, school's still open but my Seniors have graduated, gotta keep myself busy!) and there is a whole bunch of cool stuff. Pentatonics with chromatics and some very obvious chord shapes as well, and some great use of s p a c e.

I've just played through CC's Rose Room solo (it's in Stan Ayeroff's book, also I listened to the recording a couple of times first to get the feel). What a great solo, I love all those chromatic runs he does, and the bluesy slurred phrases. Ayeroff's fingering uses the first three fingers only, and shifts up and down the same string a lot. I suspect this is what CC probably did, as it gives it that punchy kind of rhythm which I hear on the records, and which you get from Grant Green too.

[targuit]

Sheesh. You are forever hung up on this idea of "not thinking while you play".

First of all, it's not helpful to keep harping on your miraculous ability to just play whatever you hear in your head, without any conscious thought. It offers nothing to the discussion, beyond just being able to talk about how smart you are, ......BECAUSE..... it doesn't give anyone else anything that can actually use.

Secondly, the "no-thought" idea just isn't true. It's semantics BS. When you say you're not thinking while you play, what you actually mean is that you're not thinking in LABELS as you play.That's fine but there's organization to how you hear and how you play. I mean, there are synapses firing. All human thought is not verbal/symbolic. To continue to talk about it in this way is tedious.

"There are only 12 notes"is just BS. We don't think and play in tone rows. not in most of the traditional jazz were talking about, anyway. I mean, the sounds we play are not literal tone rows. I don't hear YOU playing tone rows. That's not the organizational principle that your inner voice is going by apparently, whether you have a label for it or not. The labels are just how we talk to each other about this stuff. It's fine if you can hear all of the POSSIBILITIES, all 12 possibilities , but then, we actually do make a DECISION as to what to play . It's not all 12 notes, and it can actually be described by musicians who art articulate enough about it.

Your arguments about this kind of thing sound a lot like some snot in a grammar classroom saying , "I don't think about verbs or nouns. I just write down the words my inner voice speaks to me." At which point, the grammar teacher would promptly smack you upside the head, like you deserve, and put you in your place in front of the class.

That's fine if you don't THINK about it that way or don't HAVE to, but CAN you think that way about it? ....while describing to other educated musicians what you're actually doing? Are you, in fact, ARTICULATE enough to actually talk about your thought processes in a musically descriptive way, beyond "I just play what the inner voices tell me to"?

There's an assumption in what you say to people like Reg, that because they CAN actually articulate things in a descriptive way, that they are, in fact, operating on some lower level of "having to think harder" than yourself. Like they're actually thinking WORDS all of the time, while they play.

But then, I'm addressing all of this as if it's an actual rational discussion. In reality, this has more to do with your own snobbery and apparent NEED to look down on other people. You pretend to have some "higher process" than to think in the way in which NORMAL musicians (your supposed "friends" here) are talking about and, then, act is if you're better.

In reality, there are many fine players on this forum, far better than you or me, who:

1)have a vastly richer "inner voice", constantly playing, which they can "tap into" while they're playing, (with or WITHOUT thoughts of words or labels).

2) AND.... at the same time, they can actually TALK about it as well, if you ask them.

You're unjustified snobbery on this forum is the stuff of legend.

Matt - Don't get your panties in a twist! RELAX, Man!

First of all, this is not about snobbery or legendary nonsense. From an evolutionary point of view, we have three brains - the hind brain, the mid brain, the cerebral cortex. If you wish to think of consciousness and the brain in terms of systems, start with your breathing. Do you think about taking each individual breath? Of course not. (There is a terrible rare neurological disease in which the automaticity of this function is lost - like Ondine's curse.) You can, of course, think about taking a deep breath or slowing your rate of breathing, but normally the regulation of your breathing frequency is on a "lower" level - you don't have to 'think about' it.

Next consider your responses to 'fight or flight' situations. If the car in front of you suddenly stops while you are driving sixty miles an hour on a busy highway (happened to me once for real), your brain processes the situation and takes the necessary evasive action before you are actually conscious of the threat with time to evaluate your response. In other words the brain takes a kind of instinctive action.

Finally, there are the daily types of frontal cortex evaluation of situations that may require more conscious deliberation or evaluation. Problem solving where you address the issue in a deliberate manner, projecting potential solutions or complications.

This is just a simplistic representation of varied levels of consciousness. By the way, don't take my word for how to improvise from the subconscious. On YouTube you can access several great interviews with the brilliant Sonny Rollins. Please take the opportunity to research his thoughts on improvisation and his views of the 'subconscious'.

The subconscious is tremendously undervalued in the Western world view. Yet there are myriad examples of brilliant problem solving when the conscious mind is not active. One such example is the chemist who first envisioned the structure of the carbon ring during a dream where he envisioned a snake engulfing his own tail in a circular ring form. Forgot his name. Or the times that intelligent people work on a difficult problem only to wake up one morning with a solution that seems to just come to them. Or Samuel Coleridge who conceived a famous poem purportedly as a dream.

On a neurological basis research on improvisation using special keyboards played by pro pianists while undergoing an MRI shows activity of the brain areas associated with dreaming and 'telling a story'. Check the Internet for these links.

Never undervalue the subconscious. It plays a tremendous role in your every day functioning.

Or to put it simply, if you can sing well, do you 'think about' hitting the notes properly or do you "listen" to yourself and adjust? Is it easier to sing a melody or to play it on the guitar? At a certain point the two voices intersect and ideally become one. That is entirely what I have pursued for decades and I know that I play what I hear because I record myself scatting improvisations as I play. And it all is based upon uniting my physical voice with the jukebox in my head and the motor functions of my hands. They become one ideally. I specifically cite the example of watching CNBC financial news and attending to complex discussions with my "conscious" mind while playing solo guitar chord melody tunes. My conscious mind is listening to Janet Yellin (Fed Reserve chair) while playing a Jimmy Van Heusen song. How can that be? Truth is, your subconscious mind is better than your conscious one. Unerring.

I truly resent your hissy fits and presumptuous declarations about my experience. As for how my approach can be developed and be of benefit to others, that is precisely why I talk about it. Because with many years of playing certain things become like your breathing. Nearly automatic. The trick is to learn how to access that level of flow. And one key is distraction of the conscious mind which by nature is critical and self-conscious. You want to access a deeper more instinctual level.

Don't take my word for it. Listen to Sonny Rollins. If you can't find the interviews by searching on YT, I know I can link them and have in the past. But save your venom for your lucky life partner.

[targuit]

Here you go, Matt - Sonny Rollins . You may have heard of him.

[KirkP]

(...Yawning...)

[matt.guitarteacher]

Yeah, Jay. Sonny probably never talks music with anyone. Can't describe it. Probably calls everything "something something". Real musicicians never use words. Let me just get back to playing the "thingy".