-
That's one advantage of playing with others. Of course, one has to be competent to begin doing that at all and then it's generally uphill. But it's the getting of the competence first.
Also there's the old saying that you're only as good as the people you play with. If the band's good it's like magic, suddenly you're playing well. I had that once with an American band. They were completely focussed, tight as hell, and you just got swept up in it, audience forgotten. Great.
-
05-18-2017 06:19 PM
-
The best advice I've ever read -- and I read it here a couple of years ago -- is to just start by learning tunes. Build a repertoire of jazz standards and the rest will come. I didn't believe it at first, but I figured it couldn't hurt. But learning melodies and chords to a few dozen jazz tunes has improved every aspect of my playing: melodic approaches, harmonic concepts and rhythm (as in it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing!)
In my opinion it's the best place to start and I wish I had seen that advice literally decades ago, I would be way ahead of where I am now. Good luck on your journey.
PS if you haven't seen the Ken Burns documentary "Jazz" check it out. I keep going back to it. It's not perfect by any stretch, he's pretty light on guitarists, but it provides background on the history and evolution of the art form. It's important to have a well rounded education. Jazz musicians are the keepers of the flame, it's part of what we sign up for when we say "wow that's cool, where can I learn to play like that?"
-
Quite so, that's what I'm saying, and I hope marksquire is still around to absorb it.
Originally Posted by tonyp145
I've noticed a lot of people do exercises, endlessly preparing for the big day when eventually they'll be ready to play... I say start playing and gather what you need as you go along. It's not only more positive but also more productive.
-
There's another point too which might be controversial, but it's also true. Some people are quite sure that the more expensive their guitar and equipment the better they'll play...
Not so, regretfully. Get something that's got six strings, not too high-strung, stays more or less in tune, and begin :-)
-
Markesquire,
Loose the "20 hour" idea right now and move forward to the best of your ability. It's great that you recognize that there are many worm holes to get lost in that are very inefficient and will pay little dividends for the time spent. Have a perfectly clear list of what you need to accomplish and a plan to reach those goals. IT TAKES AS LONG AS IT TAKES. I believe you are really setting yourself up for a heart crushing failure if you think you're going to be at ?? level after ?? hours. Doing things in the most efficient and methodical way (for you) is not a shortcut, it's smart. But imposing a time limit to tasks you've never previously performed is asking for trouble. Do it until you have it and you have spent your time well.
Think about the parallels of 20 hours applied to other tasks: What are the fundamental elements of brain surgery, what is most essential that I need to learn in 20 hours so I can remove an oligodendroglioma? Is this how you would choose a doctor, by asking "which one of you studied the least amount of time"?
I think you're going to do just fine, and if you work really diligently and with great focus, after 20 hours you will see that you've got a long way to go, just like the folks who've been playing for decades and play very well!
-
Thanks for the continued discussion. I haven't been timing myself, but maybe I will post a recording of where I am at the 20-hour mark (the beginning of a loooong journey). I just want my 20-hour mark to be a simple but listen-able performance instead of being able to recite theory from flash cards! Originally Posted by tonyp145
It sounds like there is consensus around using songs as the basis for learning chords/scales (that's why we learn them, after all). So, my question is, what are the first 5 basic but still relevant and usable songs that you would recommend I learn? In other words, what songs are played often and employ the types of chords I'll see in other songs (without wasting lots of time with random chords I'll never see again in another song)?
I'll keep you posted as I progress! Where I am at 20 hours depends on how good your advice is -- pressure's on!!! (j/k)
(P.S. One of my long-term goals is to be able to play chord-melody Over the Rainbow)Last edited by markesquire; 05-20-2017 at 09:28 PM.
-
There are loads of options here, but I like: Originally Posted by markesquire
Autumn Leaves
Fly me to the moon
Things ain't what they used to be (or any jazz blues)
All of me
Black Orpheus
-
If I may add something - when I was somewhat younger, and not so ugly, I learnt the pedal steel. I used a book called Pedal Steel Guitar, Oak Publ., and it had a very interesting little chapter on Improvising, pg 75 with the following quotation:
There was an interview with a top guitarist in a magazine several years ago. I don't recall his name, but his answer to one question was very revealing. He was asked how he developed his style. He said that when he started out, he played everything like the records - note for note. Chuck Berry somgs had "Chuck Berry" guitar, and B.B. King songs "B.B. King" guitar. When he became confident in what he was doing, he began to put "B.B. King" lines in Chuck Berry songs. "Suddenly," he recalled, "I was playing like me."
It seems like a good idea. YMMV
-
I have been following this thread and now I finally feel like I want to jump in. Originally Posted by markesquire
I have been playing and teaching for 30 plus years and I have had many people approach me with this.
Learn 5 songs. By learn 5 songs, I mean learn to play the Melody, learn to play the chords, and learn a simple Improvisation that you can use over the changes.
I like to suggest using an app like iRealpro so that it feels like you are playing with a band.
Once you are confident enough, find a local jam and play those tunes in front of an audience.
Here are the tunes I suggest
Autumn Leaves
All the things you are
Fly me to the moon
Misty
Freddie the Freeloader
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Yes, at the start, it's good for confidence in front of an audience. Originally Posted by Doublea A
But be careful of that. I taught someone once who played really well, played solos, and all the rest of it. Till I realised he'd memorised all his solos and, I suspect, copied them too from somewhere or other (he was playing exactly the same thing every time he did the tunes).
When I introduced a song he didn't know, however simple, he was lost, couldn't play, couldn't do it, lost his timing, everything. In fact he couldn't even put in a simple fill. Couldn't even hum one. But he could play the memorised stuff really well!
But don't think there was anything musically wrong with him, there wasn't, he was an intelligent bloke in his 40's. What was wrong was that he couldn't improvise, even badly, because he'd never tried it. And it meant almost starting again and I don't think he wanted to do that.
-
I know I'm an oddball, but the last few posts make me want to jump back in.
I started with classical guitar, and stagnated. I realize now that I couldn't memorize music. Not that I was physically incapable, I just could not keep the interest long enough to memorize a piece. I needed to know WHY.
Finally I gave myself over to learning theory and playing became more rewarding. Ah, I see. This is a iv-ii-V-I followed by a move to the sub-dominant. NOW I can play this tune. I'll never forget or get lost again on this.
Again, probably not how most people work, but I offer it as a little push back to the idea that theory is a waste for beginners or always gets in the way of learning tunes and playing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I don't think that's odd. For you, theory put the music in context. It's not 'theory' for its own sake, rather a way of rationalising what you wanted to play. Originally Posted by rlrhett
-
Yes. I have encountered this with students as well. It is meant to be a starting point. Originally Posted by ragman1
Improvising is not for everyone.
-
What does this mean? Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
-
Forum fail: sorry. Tried to edit and fix this and somehow deleted half the original post . I'll try to fix up later. It was supposed to read "up OR down a third"... Originally Posted by Vladan
Anyway. I'll fix it later when I have time.
-
So, regarding prioritizing things, the approach originally mentioned is pretty cool for that. There's a lot to get in your fingers to play basic jazz , and reg's contention was always that you don't need to get bogged down so much in BASIC, so that you spend the rest of your LIFE chasing after this stuff. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
So for chords, his priorities were something like: learn basic diatonic , root position for each scale degree. Learn diatonic 9, 11, 13 -type voicings in root position from the sixth string, then, from fifth string root, and fourth string roots. "inversions" he basically covers more through substitution thinking/application .
Then, do the same with arpeggios , from sixth string root ...9ths and 13ths as well... After root position, he'd say four inversions each, from sixth string 2nd finger.
Always said not to get bogged down in basic, because "you have to cover melodic minor and harmonic minor as well, right?". So, the next thing is all the same with those scales.
All of that is plenty of work honestly , but could be done in a relatively short amount of time, like several months. If, by contrast, you do what others often suggest first: learning every inversion of EVERY chord type - diatonic major scale degree chords - with every extension combination 9,11,3 etc. , and across three different types of "drop" chords, over three different string sets? The math starts to get crazy with that, again, without even GETTING into anything besides vanilla diatonic harmony. A lot of that stuff would seem to be more " rest of your life" stuff with his philosophy, or at least a lesser priority - much further down the list - after what he would call this "basic" stuff.
Besides which, getting back to the sub thing,... rootless 9th chords are basically the diatonic chord up a third anyway, right? Same for 6ths (or 13ths) DOWN a third. He always referred to these as "extended diatonic relationships". You also have your basic functional subs - things you commonly see in jazz, like subbing ii for IV etc.
The other benefit of using a diatonic chord up a third, instead of viewing it as a rootless ninth is that it's easier to use more expanded relationships to these diatonic ones, like playing off its dominant or other type of approach chords etc. Basically, you can do a lot with harmony and really get some cool sounds with subs, while mostly thinking/playing from root position.
I found it pretty helpful. I'm just learning myself. Gotta go.Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 05-22-2017 at 08:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
Moffa Mithra
Today, 08:31 AM in For Sale