How to make scales/arpeggios more musical

[bako]

The basic idea is like this:

Transcribe a phrase that sounds great that can somehow be tied to a scale or arpeggio
either straight up or ornamented. It can then be "Hanonized" (turn into a scale sequence on each degree)
or applied to a song progression.

Pattern practice builds technique but often sounds mechanical. This scenario takes a brilliant musical gesture
granting a higher level of musicality to ones scale/arpeggio practice but alas by virtue of removing context
and overuse, render it less musical than the source of origin.

Not an original idea but I haven't seen it discussed here.

[jazznylon]

I did something similar to this in which I took the notes of a particular melody and try to apply it from the lowest range from my guitar to the highest range and back down (Kind of like 3 octaves scales). Ignoring the ascending descending nature of that particular melody and just try to reach the highest note I can on the guitar back to the lowest. Major skips are involved making it an interesting technical/fretboard knowledge exercise, however its not as musical as the original melody.

I did that because I was assigned to do the 3 octave Major Scale in 12 keys for one hour, It got boring very quickly for me (and kind of frustrating). So why not do something that has to do with a melody I thought? Needless to say I abandoned the exercise pretty quickly anyways. Maybe I'll get back to it again when/if I find another teacher or if I in a mood for it

[TH]

The basic idea is like this:

Transcribe a phrase that sounds great that can somehow be tied to a scale or arpeggio
either straight up or ornamented. It can then be "Hanonized" (turn into a scale sequence on each degree)
or applied to a song progression.

Pattern practice builds technique but often sounds mechanical. This scenario takes a brilliant musical gesture
granting a higher level of musicality to ones scale/arpeggio practice but alas by virtue of removing context
and overuse, render it less musical than the source of origin.

Not an original idea but I haven't seen it discussed here.

Hey there bako. The discussion is one of philosophy and people may find it easier to talk mechanics.
Or simply: What is music?
When the answer is something akin to "the presentation of what is practiced as an extended exercise for an audience.", then it's an exercise in proficiency, or maybe it's the use of time to fill space.

A more elusive mix for me has been Balance. Balance between Lexicon (the vocabulary and concrete building blocks), Syntax (the logical ordering of that lexicon in a codified and consistent way), and Semantics (having something unique, purposeful and human in nature in the realm of communication; imparting meaning to the gesture). This is also a definition of language.
The third element is the one that teachers by far never consider because it's so individual and paradoxibly invisible to the inexperienced and taken for granted by the master. How does one impart meaning to the process of creating an improvised real time composition?

Is this the question you're asking?

If so, it's a great question. Do we assume that meaning in the process is automatically imparted through the transcription process? Does imitation guarantee originality? Can we say something meaningful if we don't have anything to say? How do we practice art? Can we have art without craft and how does not recognizing the distinction between them help or hinder the music we make; the audience we play to? What is the difference between theme and variation? Can we be a good speaker and not be a tolerable conversationalist?

Are these the questions you're hinting at?

Let me just be clear about the question. If it's not what your asking, then let's meet the next time I'm in NY and let's have this talk over dinner. There's a lot that speaks to what music and art is, but it's not in the realm of mechanics, athletics or metrics- the way the world is defined here a lot of the time.

David

[TH]

I did something similar to this ...

I did that because I was assigned to do the 3 octave Major Scale in 12 keys for one hour, It got boring very quickly for me (and kind of frustrating). So why not do something that has to do with a melody I thought? Needless to say I abandoned the exercise pretty quickly anyways.

There's something irresponsible in teaching without addressing the issue of "WHY?". Of course these things are boring and far from one goal of furthering your musical knowledge if music is something beautiful to you.
I think that students go to teachers to find a path to meaningful craft and a natural extension of themselves. I also think teachers take in students to find employment in removing perceived obstacles and limitations. They're two different things and no one really talks about it. For a large part.

Find people to play with. Yeah I mean as much as you can. That's where the question of "Why" is really an issue. That's where you find out if you're talking the talk or jerking the jerk. And that's where you'll come up against your limitations. Once you're there, you have a choice whether to answer the real questions yourself or find a good teacher who can help you.
Many students go to teachers without good questions. So they get bad answers. If you get out there and PLAY with others, or even a good music partner, you may very well find you eventually want to go somewhere that your present abilities won't allow you to go. Maybe someone who's been there can help you.

If your teacher doesn't do it for you, ask why. Then you decide if it's right. And yeah, this applies to the whole world of music school too. Don't go there because you want it in order to make you into a musician.
Ha ha, around here a great sax player George Garzone is fond of saying "Go to school. But don't go to school" Dig?

David

[jazznylon]

There's something irresponsible in teaching without addressing the issue of "WHY?". Of course these things are boring and far from one goal of furthering your musical knowledge if music is something beautiful to you.
I think that students go to teachers to find a path to meaningful craft and a natural extension of themselves. I also think teachers take in students to find employment in removing perceived obstacles and limitations. They're two different things and no one really talks about it. For a large part.

Find people to play with. Yeah I mean as much as you can. That's where the question of "Why" is really an issue. That's where you find out if you're talking the talk or jerking the jerk. And that's where you'll come up against your limitations. Once you're there, you have a choice whether to answer the real questions yourself or find a good teacher who can help you.
Many students go to teachers without good questions. So they get bad answers. If you get out there and PLAY with others, or even a good music partner, you may very well find you eventually want to go somewhere that your present abilities won't allow you to go. Maybe someone who's been there can help you.

If your teacher doesn't do it for you, ask why. Then you decide if it's right. And yeah, this applies to the whole world of music school too. Don't go there because you want it in order to make you into a musician.
Ha ha, around here a great sax player George Garzone is fond of saying "Go to school. But don't go to school" Dig?

David

You're definitely on point. The teacher just explains briefly saying that everything comes down to scales (paraphrasing very loosely). I kind of went along with it and made some progress with it but never did finish the whole thing in one sitting (no interest in it). So yeah..

I should definetly ask the 'why' thing more often. And I definetly should meet up with musicians to jam.. right after the hurricane hits though! Hopefully I'll make it out alive

[bako]

Your questions are far broader than what I was getting at, breaking down the elements of preparation
to play improvised music. Thanks for such a well articulated short essay.

My post speaking generally is related to bridging the expressive differential between practice and playing.
Scales and arpeggios were the vehicle. Mechanics often begin aimed at playing content perfectly even
perhaps followed by different subdivisions, accents, articulations, phrasing, etc.
How much musicality is possible to bring into such a venture?

Music is saturated in gesture and expression. I suggested transcribing excerpts that can then be
"patternized" because we can retain the musical intent when applied to the scale/arpeggio mechanics.
We can alternatively create our own or transcribe ourselves for a similar effect.
The goal is certainly imbuing every note played with intention and personality. Sometimes we forget.

You just completed stewardship of the Howard Roberts Chops program. He sets up a musically challenging scenario
of continuous notes within a single subdivision. I didn't participate but I played around with the concept some.
It is so easy to zone out in this endeavor because the insertion of silence has been removed from the method.
It would be interesting to have participants from that study group to weigh in here.

[TH]

Yes bako, that was a kind of part one of a series of threads I have been working on. Part one on the mastery of coordination, perception and time (the Roberts thread), part two on use of space and context to create statements (the etudes thread) and one I'm getting geared up for on addressing the idea of meaning in a compositional (improvisational) context where I'll take a tune a week coupled with a device, approach or idea and graduate the speed through the week with the end goal to develop compositional awareness in the micro and macro through an integration of elements in real time.

I like your question. It's at the heart of what I'm trying to get at: moving from the re-creative to the creative.

Cool. I'll PM you when I start the new thread. It should be fun... for those that are interested in the journey.

David

[pauln]

When I started playing the guitar, I had no pretense of becoming a real guitarist, or playing in bands, or even ever playing on stage. I just loved the instrument and the music. My only interest was teaching myself how to play the songs I liked for my own enjoyment. I did not practice scales or chords; my practice sessions were devoted to figuring out directly how to play what I wanted to hear - the songs, and then just playing them to myself.

My method placed the focus totally on what I played sounding like music. I listened to everything I played from a musical perspective in a way that I think people practicing scales and chords as exercises do not (because their motivation for playing exercises is more toward developing execution and technique than musical sounds for songs).

There is an approach to music based on the idea that A->B meaning that in order to be able to perform "B" you have to accomplish "A" first, "A" being the various things that music books, teachers, methods, and popular practice regimes suggest. I did not know about this, so I went straight to "B"; the playing of music as songs. In hindsight, at least for me, this has worked great up through today. For example, this thread's question about how to make scales/arpeggios more musical is a non-issue for me because I am not trying to convert mechanical sounding "A" into musical sounding "B"... I'm not in a world of "A" trying to emerge into the world of "B"; for me "B" is the world.

I recognized this "just B" idea a while back reading Wes' quote about never practicing anything that he would not use in playing a song. It just makes so much sense to me as a performer - I thank goodness that I went the "just B" path back when I had no ideas of ever performing.

I imagine a lot of guitarists have bought into the A->B concept and spent great resources polishing "A" to discover that "B" refuses to shine like promised.

[bako]

Paul,
That sounds great.
Wouldn't it be true that even dealing solely with music, that there still is a form of A>B thing going on.
I mean this in the sense that the process of learning might still engender a way of playing the notes that also fall short of
full expressive engagement. Perhaps similar to what stage actors/dancers do when they are stage blocking, going
through the motions to learn the mechanics. Many people (including me) can get over focused on getting the notes right
which can inhibit other aspects of the music that might already be known.

[TH]

Maybe in the end, mechanics, motivation, options and expression are a unified mix only when you've spent a lot of time breaking down the distinction. Paul, I like the approach of the autodidact; it's where convincing motivated lines come from. As a teacher, I've always believed that I make others aware of options, but we all teach ourselves.

A lot of questions I hear, what should I practice, how should I practice, which method is best, how long will this take... all spring from the sense of self doubt that one can do it, and must do it on your own.

A long time ago I had a whole bunch of books that I looked for answers in. I had teachers that gave me enough work so I didn't need to question where it was going. Then when I got to town here, I met a man who seemed to have his own voice, and it was one that was unlike any other before him. So I asked him about learning to play guitar. We talked and in that conversation I asked "There are so many different directions to go in. It's overwhelming." He asked me why it was overwhelming and I realized there were so many great players I loved and each required a lifetime to know. "I'm afraid I'll spend years learning about John McLaughlin, or getting inside Joe Pass's music, or learning about Johnny Smith's chords and that time I spend will turn out not to be who I am. I'll have wasted my time and floundered for all that time."
Well he said "Flounder. You're never wasting your time if you're answering your own questions. Go in different directions, and study what you need to do. In the end, you'll have put together something that no one else has. Do flounder and be yourself."
That was what Mick told me decades ago and I'm so grateful for that advice. It's also an attitude that has informed an entire generation of some of the most original voices in modern jazz guitar today.

Don't know if this is along the lines or derailing the discussion, but it's always helped me when I've been on the long road of doing. It's where I found the music.

David

[pauln]

Paul,
That sounds great.
Wouldn't it be true that even dealing solely with music, that there still is a form of A>B thing going on.
I mean this in the sense that the process of learning might still engender a way of playing the notes that also fall short of
full expressive engagement. Perhaps similar to what stage actors/dancers do when they are stage blocking, going
through the motions to learn the mechanics. Many people (including me) can get over focused on getting the notes right
which can inhibit other aspects of the music that might already be known.

I was thinking about this on and off this evening (while playing fours hours with my jazz trio in a wine tasting restaurant). I don't know... I guess I could think of it as "b->B" where little "b" isn't quite "full expressive engagement" in the beginning, but it is distinctly in the "B" family. The distinction from the "A" family, I think, is the critical listening to it as music rather than as an evaluation of an exercise. Although I never intended to ever perform for an audience, the way I listen to myself is very much the role of a critical informed music audience - the focus is the same. In concert it feels like I displace my ear into the real audience and "hear what they hear" and continuously guide my judgement with, "How does it sound as music?"

[NSJ]

I think the value of learning any kind of line or lick is not to regenerate the lick. If anything, it's far more important to internalize both the rhythms and the placement of the accents behind the lick. This music is mainly rhythmic.

As for the Notes themselves, it is important more to see them as general patterns than to get everything down verbatim . But even diverse patterns are diffuse and undifferentiated in terms of music without the proper placement of accents and rhythms . In any event, the human mind seeks patterns, because patterns makes sense. The creative goal is to make concrete music from these patterns, and music that can be generated in an infinite variety of ways.

So the movement becomes one from the very specific to the more general, and the use of the general, when Put through the ringer of all kinds of rhythmic activity and all kinds of different accents, creates an infinite variety of specific lines .

In any event, these are my viewpoints, having studied for the last couple years more intensely. I think the people that make the most sense to me are two piano players, Mike Longo and Barry Harris . And they said time and time again, the main value of this music is rhythmic .

[lawson-stone]

The basic idea is like this:

Transcribe a phrase that sounds great that can somehow be tied to a scale or arpeggio
either straight up or ornamented. It can then be "Hanonized" (turn into a scale sequence on each degree)
or applied to a song progression.

Pattern practice builds technique but often sounds mechanical. This scenario takes a brilliant musical gesture
granting a higher level of musicality to ones scale/arpeggio practice but alas by virtue of removing context
and overuse, render it less musical than the source of origin.

Not an original idea but I haven't seen it discussed here.

How is what you're describing different from, say, copping a line from Joe Pass or Kenny Burrell or Jimmy Raney, learning it all over the neck, learning the kinds of places where it fits, and then simply making it part of one's vocabulary for improvising? Almost every thing I've ever read or heard includes this advice. John Conti has actually built a whole pedagogy off this idea, except for rarifying it down to scale-degrees.

[TH]

How is what you're describing different from, say, copping a line from Joe Pass or Kenny Burrell or Jimmy Raney, learning it all over the neck, learning the kinds of places where it fits, and then simply making it part of one's vocabulary for improvising? Almost every thing I've ever read or heard includes this advice. John Conti has actually built a whole pedagogy off this idea, except for rarifying it down to scale-degrees.

That's an interesting question.
In my experience, there can be very different levels of vocabulary assimilation depending on how "molecular" (to borrow from Wittgenstein), your learning/assimilation process is.
Bako, I'll just give one perspective here. There is a prominent duality among two very well established and effective educators in my circle here. One of them (I'll call him Dave) advocates transcription, thorough line and phrase re-creation including inflexion, dynamics and rhythmic nuance and of course the correct notes. The other (I'll call him Mick) doesn't believe that the key to improvisational mastery comes from complete phrases copied from other players. There have been excellent players who've come from both these schools of study but their end result can be very different.

Dave's approach allows for a great appreciation for the historical context of a phrase... or it can result in a parroting of convenient lines and "licks" that give the soloist a convenient way to fill space. This is a re-creative approach.
Mick's approach demands an increasingly dynamic and evolving theoretical basis to inform a very individual and unique approach... or it can really show up the limitations of one's knowledge at any given point. This is a molecular approach.

In the past, it's been a part of the bebop tradition to learn lines in toto and apply them yourself within your soloing, and by a process of individuation, cut, augment, re-arrange or re-interpret those phrases. It imparted a sense of aural tradition that allowed a listener to easily identify lineage and establish linguistic validity.
There was a break that came about somewhere in the shadow of Jim Hall, who took a molecular rebuilding process that Sonny Rollins was known for, and combined it with a conservatory sensibility of the modern classical composer. Jim's circle was equally informed by Sonny, Bill Evans, conservatory training and people like Jimmy Guiffre, so you can begin to see the break from the tradition at that point.

The generation that came after, or through Jim included people like Pat Metheny, John Scofield, Bill Frisell, Julian Lage, and the intermediate (direct conduit) generation of players/teachers who they studied with like John Abercrombie and Mick.
A strong philosophical attitude of this new generation has been "Understand the theory, the language, the options the traditional masters were faced with and their solos AS ONE OPTION of what was possible." and don't copy a passage until you've re-structured it and made it your own. It also allowed for a player to freely incorporate elements of rock, folk, different traditions... as the player saw fit as long as the underlying premise of improvisation was true and rigorous.

I see this duality in the forum membership here and it's really interesting to see the split between transcription champions and molecular constructionists. Of course the two are not mutually exclusive. Not in any way.
Dave and Mick are best of friends, they've played together and they had long ago agreed to disagree and of late have begun to borrow concepts from each other's approaches.

Hope this is an amusing read, if not an answer to your question Lawson.

David

[bako]

It may or may not be different. I see this more as an idea in service of a more musical pattern practice than one of lick study learning. Perhaps the difference resides only in my mind.

Learning the same figure all over the neck and in all keys is different because it is left unmodified.
I've never looked closely at John Conti's pedagogy and so can't comment on that.
Nor do I know the specific ways that players expand and internalize licks.

I think of the transcribed excerpts more as motifs than licks, semantics, yes I know.
I mention two contexts for expansion:

1. Hanonization: Pattern within a scale context, modified pitch wise as needed to fit the note collection.

2. Song Context: Modifying figure to match the harmonies of a given song and playing in real time.
There are some possible challenges here when the harmonic rhythm is out of sync with the pattern length.
Also not every motif can be modified to fit every harmonic scenario.

The sub text of the thread is about maintaining a musical intent for every note we play.
Building patterns using audible musical motifs, not notated (be it transcribed or self generated),
was a suggestion of a way to stay expressively engaged even within the oft mechanical sounding realm
of pattern playing.

[lawson-stone]

It may or may not be different. I see this more as an idea in service of a more musical pattern practice than one of lick study learning. Perhaps the difference resides only in my mind.

Learning the same figure all over the neck and in all keys is different because it is left unmodified.
I've never looked closely at John Conti's pedagogy and so can't comment on that.
Nor do I know the specific ways that players expand and internalize licks.

I think of the transcribed excerpts more as motifs than licks, semantics, yes I know.
I mention two contexts for expansion:

1. Hanonization: Pattern within a scale context, modified pitch wise as needed to fit the note collection.

2. Song Context: Modifying figure to match the harmonies of a given song and playing in real time.
There are some possible challenges here when the harmonic rhythm is out of sync with the pattern length.
Also not every motif can be modified to fit every harmonic scenario.

The sub text of the thread is about maintaining a musical intent for every note we play.
Building patterns using audible musical motifs, not notated (be it transcribed or self generated),
was a suggestion of a way to stay expressively engaged even within the oft mechanical sounding realm
of pattern playing.

I'm unfamiliar with the term "hanonization"


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[mrcee]

It probably refers to the Hanon Book which has tons of exercises for piano. A book like that for the guitar would be great.

Hanon exercises - 240 Piano finger exercises in all keys

[TH]

I'm unfamiliar with the term "hanonization"


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Piano method by Hanon is the staple for many classically trained pianists. They are a series of exercises each focused on permutations of notes, embellishments and kinesthetic patterns that are designed specifically to impart the musical and hand coordination that is an integral part of the late romantic to modern repertoire. They're like classical "licks" or "riffs" put into sequential musical exercises.

Similarly, there's a healthy debate in the classical circles whether they are a good or bad influence, much consensus going towards "depends on whether they're taught with good technique, a good contextual awareness and with a developed ear:.

David

[TH]

It probably refers to the Hanon Book which has tons of exercises for piano. A book like that for the guitar would be great.

Hanon exercises - 240 Piano finger exercises in all keys

Difficult because guitar is much less genre specific than classical piano. Bebop players might claim the Charlie Parker Omnibook is the Hanon of jazz. Many players compose their own repertoire, and this becomes the backbone for their improvisational lexicon.

Check out some really great improvisational cats before they walk on the stage. The warm up regimen that Ben Monder uses is different from what Kurt Rosenwinkel does and they are like catalogues for what they feel constitutes the staple patterns for their music.

Hey great question for a workshop or clinic! "If you were to write Hanon for the guitar, what would it look like?"
You can be sure that all the cats who have made their own mark have at some point devoted their time to their own "book" of exercises. And they're quite different as you can imagine.
Jazz is far from standardized... as it should be.

David

That being said, Oliver Nelson's Patterns for Improvisation is an essential tool for facility and patterns. Have you checked it out?

[mrcee]

Difficult because guitar is much less genre specific than classical piano. Bebop players might claim the Charlie Parker Omnibook is the Hanon of jazz. Many players compose their own repertoire, and this becomes the backbone for their improvisational lexicon.

Check out some really great improvisational cats before they walk on the stage. The warm up regimen that Ben Monder uses is different from what Kurt Rosenwinkel does and they are like catalogues for what they feel constitutes the staple patterns for their music.

Hey great question for a workshop or clinic! "If you were to write Hanon for the guitar, what would it look like?"
You can be sure that all the cats who have made their own mark have at some point devoted their time to their own "book" of exercises. And they're quite different as you can imagine.
Jazz is far from standardized... as it should be.

David

That being said, Oliver Nelson's Patterns for Improvisation is an essential tool for facility and patterns. Have you checked it out?

No I haven't checked out the Oliver Nelson book. It sounds like I should.

What about Sal Salvador's Single String Studies?

[TH]

No I haven't checked out the Oliver Nelson book. It sounds like I should.

What about Sal Salvador's Single String Studies?

Gotta check that out. Thanks! He was a pretty diverse player, having been around every block for a while. I'd love to see what his take it.
Oliver Nelson's is not guitar specific so it's kinda broadly addressed. I used to hang out at this place called Charles Colin Publishing in NY. The place was like a haven for jazz development and all day you'd hear practice rooms upstairs radiating jazzy embellishments and patterns then hear them applied to a song the musician was working on. The Nelson book was a foundation there. Just going through the file cabinets of music and listening to that music being learned on that deep a level was a revelation.
Shame the digital age and extinction of the book store ended their run.

David

[matt.guitarteacher]

Incidentally, there are some jazz Hannon type books . Saw one in music store about a year ago. Looking on Amazon, there are several so I don't really know anything about them.

Anyway, Hanonization is kind of its own thing. The OmniBook isn't "Hannon ", because it's "through composed or improvised" as it were. When you canonize something , you're boiling it down to an essential component so that you can work it technically three or repeating motif etc. as Barry said , it's based around single scale or key center, so different from working through a tune in all positions etc. There's a repeating rhythmic motif , and it's a descending/ ascending sequence.

just with a quick browse on Amazon,one of them isbasically just geared around making the Hannon be more based on jazz harmony than traditional Hannon etc.

[mrcee]

Gotta check that out. Thanks! He was a pretty diverse player, having been around every block for a while. I'd love to see what his take it.
Oliver Nelson's is not guitar specific so it's kinda broadly addressed. I used to hang out at this place called Charles Colin Publishing in NY. The place was like a haven for jazz development and all day you'd hear practice rooms upstairs radiating jazzy embellishments and patterns then hear them applied to a song the musician was working on. The Nelson book was a foundation there. Just going through the file cabinets of music and listening to that music being learned on that deep a level was a revelation.
Shame the digital age and extinction of the book store ended their run.

David

I had a copy of the Salvador book but haven't for a while. I remember it being good. It gets good reviews. It seems that it was out of print for a while but now may be reprinted with tab which the original did not have.
There's a thread on this forum from around 2008 which discusses the book.

[bako]

Jake,

Here's a silly example: opening phrase of My One And Only Love but is hard to play this song devoid of feeling.
It is far better to work from a sound source than notation.The point being to bring musicality to pattern practice.
Musical pattern playing as Paul points out is a poor end goal.

Original: G A C D E B G | A D B

I - C D F G A E C | D G E

II - D E G A B F D | E A F

III - E F A B C G E | F B G

IV- F G B C D A F | G C A

V- G A C D E B G | A D B

VI- A B D E F C A | B E C

VII- B C E F G D B | C F D

Integrating chromatics into diatonic patterning involves more thought and sometimes workaround compromises.

[PMB]

It probably refers to the Hanon Book which has tons of exercises for piano. A book like that for the guitar would be great.

Hanon exercises - 240 Piano finger exercises in all keys

Not Hanon but close, both in name and content:

Alan Hanlon - Kreutzer Violin Studies for Guitar - Documents