On the importance of basic scales and arpeggios

[KirkP]

I hope we can keep the bickering out of this thread.

Edit: I meant to post this comment on the Girl Talk thread. I'm afraid it's too late for this one.

[targuit]

No bickering is necessary if individuals treat each other with respect. Sometimes that is sorely lacking.

[grahambop]

That is exactly what I did first, Graham - just scribble down the chords initially off Reg's version. But initially I actually thought there were no lyrics, and as I was trying to overdub a 'backing' track of piano or organ plus bass, I kept flubbing the number of repeats of the verses and 'chorus'. When I finally printed up lyrics, I had a better sense of the overall structure. That is all I'm saying. Something to hang the melody on. I still have not created a Sibelius version of the song. And by the way when I do so, it provides me with a backing track of music over which to rehearse plus a written out melody as well as sheet music to use as a guide when recording. A way of keeping place in the musical structure. Is "Sibelius" a dirty word or something?

As for engraving in Sibelius, especially when I don't have the sheet music as a lead sheet, I like to create my own transcriptions. If this violates some Jazz Police rule of law, be sure to report me. Of course I suspect you like many others may have iReal software or other digital Fakebooks to access. I unfortunately do not. My only Fakebook source is my tattered 1983 version or so of a small portable Hal Leonard RealBook. No lead sheets for Girl Talk.

Why not just record a couple of guitar tracks like you said you might? Easier than doing the whole Sibelius shebang if you ask me.

[Reg]

Yea Jay... BS is what it is....

I tend to like backing musicians who have books etc... I get bored playing same arrangements etc... of tunes. I know most tunes and can fake my way through the rest, but depending on gig. Charts are basically just an outline of the form, the spatial thing. Most working jazz players have no problem getting through performing in any situation.

Vocalist tend to want to make tunes their own etc... they have some type arrangement in their head. It's cool when they can punch out a chart. I know I've punched many charts for vocalist... for future wk etc...

The GT version above is the only way I know to post etc... without PDF's or notating something out. I mean GT shouldn't really need to be notated out, right. It's just a 12 bar blues.

[targuit]

Nothing wrong with posting the tab though I would think just the chord symbols (Bbmaj7) type thing would do the trick.

But listen, Reg, I am curious about that particular recording which I really enjoyed. Was that studio or at a gig? And all I was asking about charts was whether you and the others used them or just used eye contact to cue each other on the repeats. Basically, I'm curious about the recording process here.

And can I ask what type of amp you use to help realize that nice tone?

[targuit]

Graham, that is in fact exactly what I'm doing in a few minutes. Intended to do so last night but got sabotaged by family stuff.

Why are you so antagonistic to someone using charts or lyric sheets or lead sheets? In effect I'm just using a copy of the lyrics over which I penciled in the changes "Bma7b5" type thing. No lead sheet or specific arrangement.

Do you use Realbooks or iReal or other digital fakebooks? I have one Hal Leonard Real Fake Book from around 1983. That's it. GT was not in it. For me Girl Talk was a new tune that I had never really analyzed in detail before, though I was familiar with it. In fact I thought there was a Joe Pass version on YT, only to find a duo version of his with Ella. In any case after a day or two of playing it I'm just using the lyric sheet as I noted above.

[grahambop]

Nothing wrong with posting the tab though I would think just the chord symbols (Bbmaj7) type thing would do the trick.

But listen, Reg, I am curious about that particular recording which I really enjoyed. Was that studio or at a gig? And all I was asking about charts was whether you and the others used them or just used eye contact to cue each other on the repeats. Basically, I'm curious about the recording process here.

And can I ask what type of amp you use to help realize that nice tone?

I for one appreciate Reg including the 'tab' because I want to know the specific voicings he used, he makes them sound so good.

So thanks for that, Reg!

[grahambop]

Graham, that is in fact exactly what I'm doing in a few minutes. Intended to do so last night but got sabotaged by family stuff.

Why are you so antagonistic to someone using charts or lyric sheets or lead sheets? In effect I'm just using a copy of the lyrics over which I penciled in the changes "Bma7b5" type thing. No lead sheet or specific arrangement.

Do you use Realbooks or iReal or other digital fakebooks? I have one Hal Leonard Real Fake Book from around 1983. That's it. GT was not in it. For me Girl Talk was a new tune that I had never really analyzed in detail before, though I was familiar with it. In fact I thought there was a Joe Pass version on YT, only to find a duo version of his with Ella. In any case after a day or two of playing it I'm just using the lyric sheet as I noted above.

I'm not against charts, I just ran through Girl Talk myself using the current Hal Leonard real book. Hey it doesn't really matter anyway, please carry on with your recording however you intend to do it, it's always good to have a go at a new tune. Personally I'd rather hear your guitar playing on 2 guitar tracks, than with some kind of midi organ and bass backing.

[jasonc]

I went back and reread this thread and I think I know where the problem lies. I think we are arguing about two different things. The OP was talking about what Reg would refer to as the technical practice as opposed to the performance practice. Jay, has essentially been talking about the performance practice i.e. the practicing of actual music making. However, I (and others apparently) feel that Jay takes a pretty dismissive tone about the technical practice. Maybe that's not how Jay means it but that's the way it came across, to me at least. Bottom line is that you have to be able to physically play the instrument and have a good command of your technique before you can get to the practicing performance. Technical practice is just like an athlete doing conditioning training and running drills. No, it's not actually playing the sport but it's necessary to play at any decent level any no pro athlete would advocate only playing the sport to be good at it. An example in this thread is where Jay says practicing scales is just a ploy by the universities to get money and that no serious jazz musician uses scales and I give an example of Sonny Stitt playing scales in an actual solo. Then Jay asks me where the videos of me playing are so I post one. You guys can watch the video of me and decide for yourselves how much weight to give my opinion. I'm no real musician and have never passed myself off as such but for me the players whose advise I try to follow and the guys whose advice I try to pass along are the players I respect as musicians because they have proven that what they do/did has worked. Anyway, you guys talk amongst yourselves. I'm going to go practice because I'm tired of sucking.

[targuit]

Two guitar tracks it is, Graham. I abandoned the idea of overdubbing organ and bass, mainly because my Yamaha synth - a cheapo version - has a very annoying and primitively inadequate recording system. You get what you pay for.

[targuit]

.....Jason - ".... An example in this thread is where Jay says practicing scales is just a ploy by the universities to get money and that no serious jazz musician uses scales and I give an example of Sonny Stitt playing scales in an actual solo. Then Jay asks me where the videos of me playing are so I post one. You guys can watch the video of me and decide for yourselves how much weight to give my opinion. I'm no real musician and have never passed myself off as such but for me the players whose advise I try to follow and the guys whose advice I try to pass along are the players I respect as musicians because they have proven that what they do/did has worked."

Part of the problem on this thread is that people don't actually read the posts and with all the shit that is thrown around in a straw dog manner (Matt, Lawson) I don't blame them.

I NEVER said that playing scales was a ploy by music schools for money. I was referring to CST. But that is my OPINION. I have played scales since I learned the classical guitar starting at the age of eleven or twelve. In fact, if you actually took the pains to reread the thread from the beginning (painful, I know), you will quite clearly see that I endorse playing scales to attain roundness of tone, finger strength and flexibility, and fluency with the keys and the fret board. In this notion that Segovia's edition of the major and minor diatonic scales are sufficient is actually ridiculed by several members here who insist incredibly that jazz players have no use for Segovia's version because they somehow are inadequate for jazz, which is one of the most stupid things I've read on this forum in my opinion. As if a jazz player or a classical player for that matter are playing jazz or Bach according to some dictate fingering. The whole notion is absolutely absurd and ignorant. But it is not me who attacks others for their different opinions and starts pissing contests. Of course, all such objectivity is swept away in the grade school paradigm of the alpha individual and his or her circle of parasitic sycophants who support bullying and stay mum to avoid being the object of the bully himself and to ingratiate themselves with said individual. Remember that while bullying is damaging to its victims, the bully himself has severe psychological problems (Matt and others including the dearly departed Henry).

I actually did appreciate your playing and I have no problem reading through the Sonny Stitt transcription you posted. But I hope you will do me the courtesy of actually skimming this miserable thread with attention to Matt's posts in particular. Perhaps some individuals are so insecure that they feel my posts are 'threatening" to their self esteem. Not my intention in the least. But I refuse to be bullied by anyone. And I am not one of the sheep who sit silent and tolerate the bully to curry favor. Sorry.

[Reg]

Yea if you look at the...tabs? I just tried, I wasn't really worried about the chords, I tried to show the lead line I would basically start with. You can call them guide tones or tonal targets. Tonal target would be better direction. I didn't write with guitar in hand... and I never just play straight chords, right... I'm trying to create a feel, both rhythmically and harmonically that would support the lead line.

Don't take that last line wrong.... both the melodic and harmonic references are just as important, and I generally use rhythm to support whatever feel I'm trying to create.

[jasonc]

.....Jason - ".... An example in this thread is where Jay says practicing scales is just a ploy by the universities to get money and that no serious jazz musician uses scales and I give an example of Sonny Stitt playing scales in an actual solo. Then Jay asks me where the videos of me playing are so I post one. You guys can watch the video of me and decide for yourselves how much weight to give my opinion. I'm no real musician and have never passed myself off as such but for me the players whose advise I try to follow and the guys whose advice I try to pass along are the players I respect as musicians because they have proven that what they do/did has worked."

Part of the problem on this thread is that people don't actually read the posts and with all the shit that is thrown around in a straw dog manner (Matt, Lawson) I don't blame them.

I NEVER said that playing scales was a ploy by music schools for money. I was referring to CST. But that is my OPINION. I have played scales since I learned the classical guitar starting at the age of eleven or twelve. In fact, if you actually took the pains to reread the thread from the beginning (painful, I know), you will quite clearly see that I endorse playing scales to attain roundness of tone, finger strength and flexibility, and fluency with the keys and the fret board. In this notion that Segovia's edition of the major and minor diatonic scales are sufficient is actually ridiculed by several members here who insist incredibly that jazz players have no use for Segovia's version because they somehow are inadequate for jazz, which is one of the most stupid things I've read on this forum in my opinion. As if a jazz player or a classical player for that matter are playing jazz or Bach according to some dictate fingering. The whole notion is absolutely absurd and ignorant. But it is not me who attacks others for their different opinions and starts pissing contests. Of course, all such objectivity is swept away in the grade school paradigm of the alpha individual and his or her circle of parasitic sycophants who support bullying and stay mum to avoid being the object of the bully himself and to ingratiate themselves with said individual. Remember that while bullying is damaging to its victims, the bully himself has severe psychological problems (Matt and others including the dearly departed Henry).

I actually did appreciate your playing and I have no problem reading through the Sonny Stitt transcription you posted. But I hope you will do me the courtesy of actually skimming this miserable thread with attention to Matt's posts in particular. Perhaps some individuals are so insecure that they feel my posts are 'threatening" to their self esteem. Not my intention in the least. But I refuse to be bullied by anyone. And I am not one of the sheep who sit silent and tolerate the bully to curry favor. Sorry.

Ok, so you were talking about CST...but nobody else ever mentioned CST the entire thread. It is your opinion that the Segovia scales are sufficient. I disagree. Roundness of tone, ok sure. Finger strength and flexibility, alright. Fluency with the keys and fingerboard, absolutely not. I appreciate what Segovia did for the classical guitar but his fingerings do not cover every note on the neck. They just don't. I don't see how you can argue that by learning his fingering for a C major scale you would be equipped to play C major all over the neck (like a jazz player needs). Because it just doesn't. The notes are just not there in his fingerings. No open strings, nothing on the low E string, nothing above the fifth position, no arpeggios (not your definition). No matter how much you like those fingerings the stuff that I mentioned is just not there and you can't argue that it is. That is why I don't think they are enough. The OP was discussing why other instruments have stronger technique generally and my answer is that pedegogy for guitar just isn't as thorough. Look at the difference between what a trumpet player calls learning a C major scale and what a guitarist calls it. The picture is of one page of THREE from Arban's trumpet method (this is just from the "major scale" section there is actually a ton more information for C) and the Segovia fingering for C. Now you tell me which you feel is more adequate for developing fluency and command of your instrument.

[yaclaus]

I practiced the Segovia scales with a student once, it was very fun and I should really do it soon again. I'm just interested in knowing how a scale exercise only covering going from octave to octave can prepare a jazz guitarist for the flexibility improvisation on the spot requires? I see no interval leaps, no triads, no sequences nor chromatics.

There is a great warm up in one of the other threads highlighted on this forum. It's completely diatonic and still sounds Kreisbergish and crispy. Just shows how far you can get with a simple diatonic scale exercise.

BTW I have a question. It looks like the Segovia scales are really great for horizontal playing, but there a so many position and string posibilites missing, how does one fill up the gap on that?

[Vladan]

... The lists which you commonly see for all of the prerequisite scales which beginners in jazz need to know: like major, all 3 minors, and their corresponding arps (in every key) seems very overwhelming to guitarists who don't already know them, but that doesn't change the fact that they're very basic on every other instrument ...

I do not disagree, I mean you are right. It is basic. When you are low on the food ladder in music business you have to be prepared, "know" everything so you could accept any jib in hope one time something will click to turn your life for better.

However, I can not even imagine the world so boring without "under-beginners" who knew only a fraction of above mentioned, yet made all the nice, pretty, soulful, even complex, music I actually like, where really good players eventually ended in roles of sidemen, or studio musicians at the max. Of course, this is Jazz forum, for people interested in playing guitar at above average level, so my view is kind of OT, but just saying. Even the icons of Jazz Guitar from "pre Berklee boom" era, Django, Pass ..., even all-mighty-holly Bird, Miles and Coltrane, are you sure they knew all the scales, arpeggios ... in all the keys ... , before they became great, or maybe they kind of understood the essence and used their talent to hack through, naturally learning more and becoming "better" along the way, but initially becoming great while they still were "under-beginners" as per standard you've set above, before even knowing all "the basics"?

While I fully support the view of multitude of references, possibilities, layers ... I also support the idea that there is only "that" much of them actually sounding half good enough to be worth used on regular basis. Therefore I also support the view it's all personal matter of organization, i.e. it does not matter how you came up with your musical product as long as it provided you with all the musical solutions you needed to make your public and/ or your boss satisfied.

Will you hit the wall, or will you not, it depends of a gig you chose to play. You may loose/ have to pass on many gigs, but it's good thing to happen if those gigs were the bad ones.

Finally, nobody can blame you for you've evolved.

[Jonah]

it's all about how to organize your work....

Practicing techiques is one thing
Practicing music is another

Even if in both cases you use the same material.


If you understand this and do not mistake one another... you will have no problem

Attitude is everything.
Things are what we make them.

You play arps and you think this make your solos mechanical... well...
play arps when you pratice techiques and when you pratice music play phrases...
even if you play exactly the same notes in both cases.

so simple...

[lawson-stone]

And I did finally record a version of Girl Talk last night. Three tracks - one vocal and a "rhythm"and second lead guitar tracks. Oh, I know - I will be criticized for not playing both guitar tracks simultaneously. As well as singing. That's NOT JAZZ!!

And I did not once think about - scales, fingerings, the fret board, God, country, hot women... ok, I did think about that last one. After all it is 'girl talk'.

Is there some reason why you won't just do what we would like to hear: no vocals, not double-overdubbing of whatever, just PLAY. Improvise over the changes. Someone can send you a backing track you can use. We're talking about baseline jazz improvisation, which is blowing over changes to a tune.

I give up.

[mr. beaumont]

So anyway, here's what I was hoping we could do to turn the big "challenge" into something constructive. Just play a bit on the changes and then we can kinda analyze where things came from.

Obviously, you can't remember everything, but sometimes when you hear something back...well, I know, for me at least--you can "hear what I was trying to play."

Edit: yep, there was supposed to be a video attached.

[targuit]

Nice video, Jeff!

I confess that my recording is more being faithful to the song Girl Talk. But I hope it will be entertaining in some fashion. I don't look at this as a final effort, more as a rehearsal 'work tape'. Gotta get me a proper archtop guitar. I keep telling my wife that if sell my Godin and my Roland synth, it might cover the cost of the Eastman I want. But she does not accept this argument. (sigh) Stymied at every turn!

[mr. beaumont]

Nice video, Jeff!

I confess that my recording is more being faithful to the song Girl Talk.

That's fine, but you realize, I was just playing a solo over the form of the tune, right? I wasn't playing the melody, but i definitely had it in mind.

but if every soloist played the melody it'd get a bit boring, no?

[StanG]

To go back to the original post. Of course they did. To think otherwise is ridiculous. Of course, they did lots of other stuff, also.

Gary Campbell has a book on intervallic improvisation. Near the beginning he outlines a practice routine, of going through scales in different ways, and says that Michael Brecker use to do this, perhaps daily.

[matt.guitarteacher]

To go back to the original post. Of course they did. To think otherwise is ridiculous. Of course, they did lots of other stuff, also.

Gary Campbell has a book on intervallic improvisation. Near the beginning he outlines a practice routine, of going through scales in different ways, and says that Michael Brecker use to do this, perhaps daily.

What's the name of that book, Stan?

[Dana]

What's the name of that book, Stan?

Expansions by Gary Campbell (sorry, I know you asked Stan).
Great book, IMO. It's been a big part of my practice routine since I first got it.

[StanG]

That's it. My copy is under a pile, perhaps on my music stand, as I looked and couldn't find it.