On the importance of basic scales and arpeggios

[matt.guitarteacher]

I didn't know exactly where to put this, but I felt like it was kind of blowing up the other thread.

Matt Thanks

Say me what scale use in the solo please

You have score

Say me what is the scale

Thanks

And sorry

Sorry. I guess I missed this earlier. Never replied. I don't think it's entirely fair to post something like a Michael Brecker solo as an example of the fact that jazz musicians don't play scales in solos or whatever. Of course they don't. That's not the purpose of learning scales.

That being said, all horn players know basic scales before entering high school. The fact that guitarists are usually behind doesn't change the fact of that being a basic starting point for most horn players and keyboardists. 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, for example, quit band in 9th grade, but I already knew all the major/minor scales in most keys on my horn. Kids are required to know this stuff.

I think that there is a real place for the discussion of this issue for guitarists. What prejudices are we bringing to the table by entering Jazz at a completely different starting point from other musicians? Do we assume that because other educators aren't constantly harping on basic level scales and arps that they're not important? Or is it actually more likely that they're not mentioning them much because it's assumed that you're already "down with the basics"?

One of my wake-ups was getting into some "jazz pattern" material and discovering how much "working things out on the fretboard" was required to just basically play this crap. Again, I think I could have done it in 8th grade on the saxophone, and are some very good reasons for that.

"You won't see scales and arps in a solo" is a cute quip for the internet. It's hyperbole issued to make a point by a player or teacher who sees someone who is only playing scales and arps, maybe never applying anything to real melody or tunes etc. and maybe needs that specific slap in the head. It isn't a stand-alone philosophy of life, playing, or music. To use it as a "life philosophy" is to take the original idea out of it's intended, hyperbolic, point-making, context and as a result, possibly make your development as a musician a lot more difficult.

Back to the original quote, I think the question of whether Brecker or Bird play(ed) actual, one-octave scale runs in their solos is completely beside the point! A better series of questions might be things like:

Do you think Brecker/Bird ever worked out basic scales and arps?
If so, why do you think that they did?
Is the point of practice only to play things which are complete melodic ideas?
If so, why not complete phrases, choruses, entire pieces?
What differentiates practice from "performing by yourself"?
Again, how do you think Brecker/Bird's practice was different from their performance.

I generally don't trust people on the internet who say that you don't need any scales or other rudiments of music/technique, when most students of other instruments already know them from childhood. That kind of advice seems about as worthless as the opposite sentinment: saying that running scales and arps is the "answer to everything". By the way, I never see anyone actually saying that. It's the legend of internet quip-makers.

[MarkRhodes]

One of my wake-ups was getting into some "jazz pattern" material and discovering how much "working things out on the fretboard" was required to just basically play this crap. Again, I think I could have done it in 8th grade on the saxophone, and are some very good reasons for that.

I never played sax (or took band) so I don't know this firsthand, but I think you're right about what horn players tend to learn early while guitar players tend not to know. I certainly didn't.

Most of my practice now is of things I should have learned as a kid. Such as how to play all seven diatonic chords / arpeggios in one position on the guitar. (First in major keys, then natural minor, then melodic---but I'm not that far along yet to tell you the truth.) And not just know as in be able to find them when pressed, but to know them without thinking about it at all (and by know I mean 'know by hand' so I can play them immediately, accurately, and without interrupting the rhythmic flow of the moment) and in five positions, not just one, and in any key, and how to switch from one key to another on the fly.

It isn't that hard but is work. Its work that, when done, serves one constantly in one's playing. And it is work I haven't yet completed. "I'm a lazy sod" after all. But where there is life (and a guitar), there is hope...

[Boston Joe]

Interesting topic. After reading a lot of Reg's posts, I realize that I don't have my technical stuff down adequately. I'm pretty OK with scales I think, but my arps could use a lot of work (especially the non-root-position ones).

I started working on Garzone's Triadic-Chromatic concept as a way of forcing myself to learn my arps better.

I guess horn players have their stuff down earlier, but when I played sax in school, I sure didn't. I mean, I had the basics, but if you asked me to play a harmonic minor scale, it would have been ugly.

I think there are a couple of things that influence guitarists this way. Most guitarists start with Rock, Blues or Country. I don't know much about country, but I know that in rock and blues, it's pretty easy to get by with a couple of chord shapes and the Blues scale. I think a lot of guitarists come into jazz thinking it's pretty similar (hey, jazzers play pentatonic scales, right?), and they can adapt pretty easily. I also think that because the guitar is such a visual instrument that a lot of players think they can learn everything in one key, and then just shift the pattern around to different keys (I mean, you can do this to an extent, but eventually you're going to hit roadblocks).

Finally, I think there's a lot of what I call punk rock damage in the guitar world. This is the idea that learning theory and technique somehow stifle your creativity. I doubt many horn players think that.

[targuit]

Matt - While I agree in large part with your analysis, I would point out that some of us did study classical guitar or otherwise learned their major and minor scales as youngsters. I realize many guitarists did not study formally, but it is true that most instrumentalists learn scales early on to develop dexterity, tone, and fluency. Even some guitarists as well.

Scales should not be confused with learning repertoire - actual songs. On the other hand, learning to harmonize scales is very fruitful, though not an end in itself. My two cents.

[pkirk]

I think that there is a real place for the discussion of this issue for guitarists. What prejudices are we bringing to the table by entering Jazz at a completely different starting point from other musicians? Do we assume that because other educators aren't constantly harping on basic level scales and arps that they're not important? Or is it actually more likely that they're not mentioning them much because it's assumed that you're already "down with the basics"?

I'm not so sure that guitarists always come to jazz from a completely different starting point. Look at all the effort the teenaged shredders put into scales and technique. I think those jazz guitarists who come to it in their adolescence tend to play pretty well, and know all the basics.

My internet finger pointing would be slightly different: I think that many jazz guitar forum enthusiasts come to jazz at a late age, say after 40, when they have careers, and the "batch learning" which they did in school has long been abandoned and been replaced by more subtle and slow adaptation, partly because memory is so much weaker once childhood is over, but also because intense focus is not required in most careers: once you get the basics of your job down you can more or less cruise. The effort and time it takes to internalize basics tools when you are middle aged is not available, or worth it to many. Especially if you had decent rock or blues chops, why put yourself through years of hard labor, knowing that by starting this late in the game, you are unlikely to ever hang with those who were bitten by the jazz bug at a young age. Guitar is for fun, not work, unless you have a weird obsessive personality. It's a lot more relaxing to just play minor pentatonic licks over an abersold Blue Bossa or satin doll backing track than to drill scales for the hours and hours it takes at that age to internalize them. And frankly basic noodling and grips are usually enough to get you the occasional restaurant gig in many places.

Take, for example, learning to sight read decently. I estimate that at age 45 if you have never practiced sight reading, it would take 3 years of an hour or more per day to get competent. A 12 year old who follows his teacher's instructions could get there in 6 months. Same with all "machine language"-level aspects of music: scales, right hand technique, memorizing chord grips, feeling odd meter grooves, etc. Having these skills speed up the learning of jazz, but memorizing half a dozen 2-5-1 bebop licks gets you to the "fun" part much faster.

[targuit]

My experience with reading notation began in grade school in choirs. By the time I started classical guitar lessons around eleven or twelve, reading notation was integral to each lesson from Day One. And soon the study of major and minor diatonic scales became an essential warm up exercise. No regrets about learning back when the neurons were fresher. But reading became relatively easy within a couple of years. Now going on more than fifty ...

[Longways to Go]

Pkirk,

I'm a late starter (much as you described) on jazz guitar. And yes, it is very tough and slow-going playing catch up on the basics. Of course I wish I had learned when I was young, but hey, that's just not what happened. So I do what I can now & enjoy the work. The further I go with jazz, the more I find practicing basic scales to be useful on a multitude of levels. My biggest weakness is learning lots of standards -- I have very far to go in this area. But I enjoy working on jazz, I enjoy making some progress, and it's not important to me to reach a truly professional level. You don't have to be a pro to enjoy making music

[MarkRhodes]

I wonder what the result would be if 100 sax players, 100 trumpet players, 100 piano players, and 100 guitar players---all in the eighth grade---were given a copy of Jerry Coker's "Patterns for Jazz" and three (or six) months to make of it what they could. I suspect the guitar players would show the least amount of progress through the material.


As Randy Newman put it in "It's A Jungle Out There," "I could be wrong now---but I don't think so!"

For that matter, I wonder how many guitarists here have worked through "Patterns for Jazz."

[John A.]

These threads about "guitar players don't know/can't do what horn players learn know when they're in diapers" threads strike me as pretty dumb. Compare apples to apples. Take two players of similar levels of training and experience on different instruments, and you'll find they play at similar levels of sophistication. Take two players of different levels of training and experience, and whether they're playing the same or different instrument, they'll play at different levels of sophistication. Choice of instrument has its impacts -- certain types of lines fall more naturally/easily on horns than guitars; it's a bitch to comp on trumpet. So too does how you got started -- if you started when you're 18, the guy who started at 10 has a head start; the reality that in school bands there are 15 horn chairs and one guitar chair plays a role in this.


But beyond that -- e.g., to say that guitar players on average are at one level of experience and training and horn players at another -- I don't know how to calculate that. IME, there are good and bad players of all instruments, and varying levels of knowledge. Specifically with respect to stuff like knowing the names of scales and chord subsititution terminology, I think it's a mixed bag. IME, maybe guitar players tend to focus more on the idea that "this chord subs for that chord" than piano players, who maybe tend to talk more in terms of chords as different voicings of the same thing and/more more in terms of voice leading; that's natural given the way you form chords on the two instruments. I have no idea what horn players think, since they never take the damn horns out of their mouths long enough to speak (which may be a blessing in disguise) -- at a jam I attended recently the pianist/leader said, "OK, this is a ballad, AABA, so horn players please limit yourselves to 5 choruses."

John

[lawson-stone]

I think another aspect of this is that, at least in the US, the guitar was mainly a "folk" instrument. I know I became passionate about guitar after a year of my mother forcing me to take piano with The Wicked Witch of the West as a teacher. I swore I'd learn to play music without having to get hit on the knuckles by an old lady wielding a ruler!

So a lot of us learned enough to play some chords, play for our friends, play the folk-rock protest music of the 70's, and we learned anecdotally from others who also learned pretty much the same way.

Learning the mechanics of music was a layer on top of a practice of music already in place. When the anecdotal aspect of learning got overwhelming, with too many tips-n-tricks to remember, we started looking for a way to organize it. For me, that was the CAGED system, a form of which I learned in 1970 or so. That and the cycle of 5ths and the technique of Travis Picking took me for 20 years!

I took up jazz because i finally realized I simply love the guitar, and wanted to play it well, not as an adjunct to singing about the world's evils or whatever. And then I realized my options were (a) classical or (b) jazz. Not wanting to memorize long pieces that only had numbers instead of titles (Etude #3 in D minor) I went the improvisational route of jazz. I also loved the songs and heard Joe Pass at a crucial moment.

What I'm getting around to is that for many guitarists, who came along as I did, we felt learning to read music, learning mechanics, etc. was more or less "the man" and we'd be the fret-slinging, free-thinking "we don't need no steenkin' theory" red-blooded American guitarists.

Yeah, that didn't work, at least not for most. So that's how I come into this. I'm over all that baggage and really want to be able to play as well as I can as I totter over the grave at 61! I'm envious of people who learned to sight-read, learned basic scales and arpeggios early enough to get past the mechanical part and actually use them to make music. I am doing my best with the time I have to learn the theory, mechanics, and repertoire, and also to have fun on the journey.

[Boston Joe]

What I'm getting around to is that for many guitarists, who came along as I did, we felt learning to read music, learning mechanics, etc. was more or less "the man" and we'd be the fret-slinging, free-thinking "we don't need no steenkin' theory" red-blooded American guitarists.

Yeah, that's part of the "punk rock damage" I was talking about earlier.

[targuit]

This credo of guitarists are dumber than rocks and cannot learn to read music is tiresome. All other instruments base their instruction on reading notation and in the case of horn players on playing monophonic melodies. At least guitarists, like piano players, can play polyphonic music. Take a little pride in that.

Rather than rationalize one's musical deficits, try getting up to speed on your instrument.

[mr. beaumont]

This credo of guitarists are dumber than rocks and cannot learn to read music is tiresome. All other instruments base their instruction on reading notation and in the case of horn players on playing monophonic melodies. At least guitarists, like piano players, can play polyphonic music. Take a little pride in that.

Rather than rationalize one's musical deficits, try getting up to speed on your instrument.

Sadly, it's often willful ignorance.

[matt.guitarteacher]

My internet finger pointing would be slightly different: I think that many jazz guitar forum enthusiasts come to jazz at a late age, say after 40, when they have careers, and the "batch learning" which they did in school has long been abandoned and been replaced by more subtle and slow adaptation, partly because memory is so much weaker once childhood is over, but also because intense focus is not required in most careers: once you get the basics of your job down you can more or less cruise. The effort and time it takes to internalize basics tools when you are middle aged is not available, or worth it to many. Especially if you had decent rock or blues chops, why put yourself through years of hard labor, knowing that by starting this late in the game, you are unlikely to ever hang with those who were bitten by the jazz bug at a young age. Guitar is for fun, not work, unless you have a weird obsessive personality. It's a lot more relaxing to just play minor pentatonic licks over an abersold Blue Bossa or satin doll backing track than to drill scales for the hours and hours it takes at that age to internalize them. And frankly basic noodling and grips are usually enough to get you the occasional restaurant gig in many places.

A lot of good thoughts in that entire post, Paul. I agree with a lot of the ideas. I think the main problem is that most seem to read something on the Internet and get into an " all or nothing" mentality. I think that memory is a factor with older musicians, as you say, but not nearly as much as the "amount of free time" factor that you're referencing above.

With kids, doesn't necessarily matter how they come about it. They have so much more time than adults do that they can kind of get away with just doing things in less efficient ways. They also have a lack of interest in big picture. You can explain why they need to learn scales , but it's mostly lost on them anyway. The fact that they "have to" our "need to" is usually more of their idea of it.

I think the idea of BALANCE is pretty important actually. If you're doing ALL technical/rudiment type work in your practice session and never applying to tunes, that's not cool either. I just don't hear a lot of people saying "never play tunes". It's mostly"forget about scales".

You see a lot of recommendations for jazz practice sessions and most seem to recommend something like 5 to 10 minutes for scales/arpeggios/patterns/warm up etc. Reg said, in the beginning, it should make up about 50% of your practice time I think. That's probably a good number, if accounting for the gap in guitarist knowledge/technique vs other instruments, if only at the beginning.

The number which is right is going to be different from player to player, but I just get sick of seeing the Hyperbolic catchphrases about not practicing any fundamentals. I understand the idea behind them, but I think it's misleading. Surely fundamentals should comprise slightly more than zero.

[pkirk]

Pkirk,

I'm a late starter (much as you described) on jazz guitar. And yes, it is very tough and slow-going playing catch up on the basics. Of course I wish I had learned when I was young, but hey, that's just not what happened. So I do what I can now & enjoy the work. The further I go with jazz, the more I find practicing basic scales to be useful on a multitude of levels. My biggest weakness is learning lots of standards -- I have very far to go in this area. But I enjoy working on jazz, I enjoy making some progress, and it's not important to me to reach a truly professional level. You don't have to be a pro to enjoy making music

Absolutely. I'd add that you dont have to aspire to be an artist, or to worry at all about the value or depth of what you are playing, or aim to impress other musicians, or any of the other things that take loads of work and commitment, to enjoy playing jazz. And hence, the idea that if you start late and play to enjoy yourself, you need to go through the fundamentals for a long time seems off to me. Learn some licks, cop the right swing feel, and forget the drills *until you feel compelled to do them*. The faster you get to actually making music you enjoy the more motivated you are to advance.

[lawson-stone]

This credo of guitarists are dumber than rocks and cannot learn to read music is tiresome. All other instruments base their instruction on reading notation and in the case of horn players on playing monophonic melodies. At least guitarists, like piano players, can play polyphonic music. Take a little pride in that.

Rather than rationalize one's musical deficits, try getting up to speed on your instrument.

I wasn't rationalizing, but simply explaining.

Sorry if my story irritated you. We don't all get the same opportunities growing up. I got beaten for not reading music correctly. I hope you can understand that slowed me down a little in that department.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Anyone who wants to have the conversation about "dumb guitarists" with imaginary persons who are having that debate , please have that conversation in THAT thread. I'm sure many will join you in that riveting discussion. I just don't see anyone here making that statement , and that tired, hairtrigger response is way beyond tedious.

[pkirk]

A lot of good thoughts in that entire post, Paul. I agree with a lot of the ideas. I think the main problem is that most seem to read something on the Internet and get into an " all or nothing" mentality.

You see a lot of recommendations for jazz practice sessions and most seem to recommend something like 5 to 10 minutes for scales/arpeggios/patterns/warm up etc. Reg said, in the beginning, it should make up about 50% of your practice time I think. That's probably a good number, if accounting for the gap in guitarist knowledge/technique vs other instruments, if only at the beginning.

The number which is right is going to be different from player to player, but I just get sick of seeing the Hyperbolic catchphrases about not practicing any fundamentals. I understand the idea behind them, but I think it's misleading. Surely fundamentals should comprise slightly more than zero.

The "all or nothing" thing tends to correlate to how advanced and ambitious the musician is, what style of jazz they aspire to play, what level they aspire to play, etc. I don't know much about Reg as a player, but his posts can often be read as "If you want to be a player of the sort that I am, here's what it takes". But what if one's aspirations are different? Let's say your goal is to comp like Marty Grosz. What good is practicing scales? On the other hand, if your ultimate goal is to sound like John McLaughlin, would you bother spending half your practice time on 4-to-the bar comping?

I can't imagine dedicating half my practice time to scales/arpeggios/patterns/warm up when I started, my goal was to get on the bandstand as quickly as possible, and learning a bunch of tunes and a few licks got me there quickly. After I started playing with others, my tastes and musical goals dictated what I practiced.

I think the phenomenon you are describing comes from the fact that there are as many different ideals of jazz guitar playing as there are players, and a hundred things one could do to get good at jazz guitar, but you have to pick and choose the ones that fit your goals. For some, scales/arpeggios/fingering/picking is down the list.

[christianm77]

You need to practice the feckers and not discuss them at length on teh interwebz.

[lawson-stone]

You need to practice the feckers and not discuss them at length on teh interwebz.

But it's so much FUN to revert to undergraduate dormitory bull-session talk. I mean, otherwise, I'd have to practice... wait... I actually like doing that...

...bye y'all...

[MarkRhodes]

What I'm getting around to is that for many guitarists, who came along as I did, we felt learning to read music, learning mechanics, etc. was more or less "the man" and we'd be the fret-slinging, free-thinking "we don't need no steenkin' theory" red-blooded American guitarists.

That sounds familiar! Further, if you come up with your own stuff----and what self-respecting teenager who takes up the guitar does not assume he will soon be churning out great songs on his own?---you don't need to write it down in conventional notation. (It wouldn't do you any good if you did, as you can't read it!)

[MarkRhodes]

This credo of guitarists are dumber than rocks and cannot learn to read music is tiresome. All other instruments base their instruction on reading notation and in the case of horn players on playing monophonic melodies. At least guitarists, like piano players, can play polyphonic music. Take a little pride in that.

Rather than rationalize one's musical deficits, try getting up to speed on your instrument.

Since you're in the market for advice, I'll give you some that's actually relevant: try posting on the actual topic.

No one here said guitarists are dumber than rocks. No one here THINKS guitarists are dumber than rocks. We are all guitarists here. We are not biased against guitarists.

[lawson-stone]

BTW folks. When I decided to make the jump to playing past the 5th fret, it was an unmitigated disaster until a teacher put in my hand Leon White's classic Styles for the Studio. That book was and remains for me the best guide to navigating the fingerboard and reading music in the process.

The good news is the book has been updated, re-set, and re-issued! I just got a PM from Leon (as many of you did too I hope) announcing the book is available again. I ordered my copy and I imagine many here will do so as well.

It's not a magic pill or secret formula, but solid musicianship and fretboard learning, all with a view to practical playing.

http://www.stylesforthestudio.com

I've also started a thread in the Improvisation section on this announcement. I have absolutely no tie to Leon White other than being grateful for his book, and I can commend it to any who are interested in the subject of this thread.

[smokinguit]

If you want to be at the level of say a Charlie Parker, you gotta know your stuff (the fundamentals, that is). And yes, you have to practice a lot. I don't know about 12 hours a day, but you gotta clock in a lot of time on the axe. If you can't do that you are not going to play at a high level, assuming that's your goal.

[christianm77]

Since you're in the market for advice, I'll give you some that's actually relevant: try posting on the actual topic.

No one here said guitarists are dumber than rocks. No one here THINKS guitarists are dumber than rocks. We are all guitarists here. We are not biased against guitarists.

My brane hurtz