Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Posts 1 to 50 of 59
  1. #1

    User Info Menu

    Hi all,
    I've begun working through Jody Fisher's "Beginning Jazz Guitar The Complete Guitar Method" and am learning the six scale fingerings. Below is the 6/1 fingering: 6th string, 1st finger.
    Help With Scale Exercise Fingering-fisher-guitar-scale-pattern-6-1-png

    In addition to playing the scales ascending/descending as shown above, he provides some patterns to play in all six fingerings. Below is pattern 18:

    Help With Scale Exercise Fingering-fisher-ex-18-png

    The tab shows the 6/4 fingering (6th string, 4th finger) which is fine, but where I run into trouble is playing this pattern using the 6/1 fingering.

    He doesn't provide a fingering for the pattern using 6/1. When I attempt this pattern using the 6/1 fingering it's impossible to stick to anything close to the 6/1 fingering.

    I'd really appreciate some feedback as to the right way to approach this, and similar kinds of patterns/exercises. I can imagine one of the purposes of playing these patterns using the different scale fingerings is to get experience finding the notes using fingerings beyond the 6 detailed in the book?

    Am I doing it right?

    Thanks in advance!
    Last edited by Maroonblazer; 05-18-2021 at 09:12 AM.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #2

    User Info Menu

    That pattern (up in 4s) is a much better fit for scale shapes from the 2nd finger. In general, the "2" shapes are more ergonomic.

    The main selling point to the "1" pattern is use of 3 notes per string. With a good picking technique you can fly up the scale. Straight up.

    In general, using patterns within a shape helps you learn the shape, much deeper than just going up or down.

    And doing many shapes helps you learn the neck.

    That "up in 4s" pattern does show up in solos (e.g., Al DiMeola, Joe Farrell).

  4. #3

    User Info Menu

    I would not overcomplicate it really... play from 2nd finger...

    also in real playing I would probably play such a pattern with slides.. many options there...

  5. #4

    User Info Menu

    out of professional curiosity. what made you take the leap of faith to decide and study this book?

    also the exercise 18 that you're showing is tabbed out with a 6/4 fingering (edit: and not even that) and not a 6/2 fingering.

    to be honest this shit breaks my heart, it really does. useless exercises and lame fingerings. it's like a chess book that teaches you six different openings before you even learn to mate with KQ against K.

    throw that book away. sunk costs, etc. if you must get a book, get joe pass' "guitar style".
    Last edited by djg; 05-11-2021 at 03:47 PM.

  6. #5
    Most jazz guitar methods have huge problems honestly, but this one goes MUCH farther towards breaking the Hippocratic oath than most. I don't have any problems with the man personally, but this book is the worst. When I used it, I was coming from the perspective of someone who was trying to glean something from it as a STUDENT jazz, while being a teacher in the other contexts.

    A portion of my 2014 Amazon review:

    ***************
    Not a beginner "method". More like a good reference book.
    Reviewed in the United States on May 8, 2014
    I'm always amazed that Jody Fisher's jazz method is at the top and so well rated, because unlike other jazz guitar books with high ratings, this one has a lot of reviews where people state that it's "got a lot of information", "it looks good", or "it is a good reference". However, there aren't many reviews which state that the user learned to *play* from the beginning with this beginner method, or the review is very brief and slim on details. There definitely aren't the kind of personal endorsements from players who learned with it like you'll find with books such as Mickey Baker Mickey Baker's Complete Course in Jazz Guitar: Book 1 (Ashley Publications) or William Leavitt's books A Modern Method for Guitar - Volume 1 . But if this book is a purported *method* book and not just a reference, shouldn't it be methodical? I don't think it is. I have 3 of these volumes (which I purchased at the same time to sample for my own study) and probably won't be getting the fourth (advanced improv, I think).

    As a jazz beginner, I purchased these books along with others and can relate my own experience with reading through them. Below is my detailed review of his Beginning Jazz Guitar Method (which I had previously posted elsewhere in trying to clarify my "problems" with this series).
    ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ***********

    My major questions regarding Jody Fisher's book as a first or primary method book for beginners in jazz guitar study have to do with the sequencing of material presented in the book and the fingerings of scales and chords used in it. To me, they often seem to be contrived.
    Fisher divides each lesson into 2 sections. One for harmony and the other for single-note soloing.

    Single Note Soloing

    The single-note soloing section uses major scales in six different positions, three with roots on the 6th string, and three with roots on the 5th string. If you know much about the instrument, you can imagine that there is quite a bit of overlap in these fingerings. Again, in my opinion, a beginning student's time could probably be better spent learning a new scale type altogether than learning an overlapping, alternative fingering pattern.

    The fingering also seems arbitrary. They use shifts and stretches (sometimes both in the same scale). For a beginner, it would seem to be more beneficial to learn either a CAGED-type system with shifts or a Leavitt-type system with stretches in which you stay in one position. To combine these seems to diminish the benefits of both and reduce the ability to see the relationships of the patterns across string sets.

    To Fisher's credit, he seems to value understanding the theory behind what he's doing above all else. I personally think theory is best learned in the context of playing tunes. That is why I think that this book is best appreciated as a resource rather than a method for beginner self- instruction. The Coda section with a practical discussion on playing jazz in general, how to practice and such is probably worth the price of this inexpensive book. Add to this Fisher's beautifully laid out vertical chord scales and comprehensive discussion of theory and many other practical considerations and I think you have a book every jazz guitar player should have in their library.

    I know that as a teacher, I often see a book and think that it looks great. Then, when I actually start teaching out of it to someone who knows nothing (or in this case, studying myself), I can see the holes in the "method". It's hard as an experienced player sometimes to see something through the eyes of a beginner. In jazz, it's definitely easier for me to see that point of view. :-)
    Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 05-16-2021 at 07:52 AM.

  7. #6

    User Info Menu

    I don't know much about patterns so take this with a box of salt.

    Bar 2 of pattern 18 requires playing two notes in a row at different frets with the 4th finger. B down to F. That's just awkward. If I was trying to play this line at a high speed I couldn't use that fingering.

    Some of the movements for a line of this type are aided by flattening a finger to stop both the note and the next note (usually descending a 4th in pitch) -- so, for example, if a G at the 10th fret 5th string is followed by D a 4th lower, plant the pinkie on both notes when you play the G.

    I'd probably play it with more position shifting, which can be done more seamlessly than that B to F thing with the pinkie.

    I think djg makes a good point.

    But, it leads to a larger question about what the goal of playing this sort of exercise is. Happy to discuss it, but I think I've already gotten too far away from the OP's question.

    As a teen my teacher had me play Paganini's Moto Perpetuo. I think that's where I learned how to solve fingering problems. I also practiced scales and my fingers tend to fall into them like well worn ruts. I'd have been better off playing licks or transcriptions, in retrospect.

  8. #7

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    Bar 2 of pattern 18 requires playing two notes in a row at different frets with the 4th finger. B down to F. That's just awkward. If I was trying to play this line at a high speed I couldn't use that fingering.
    the whole bar 2 makes no sense. the A to B with 3rd and 4th finger and indeed B down to F both with 4th is no good.

  9. #8

    User Info Menu

    I don't know much about patterns so take this with a box of salt.

    Bar 2 of pattern 18 requires playing two notes in a row at different frets with the 4th finger. B down to F. That's just awkward. If I was trying to play this line at a high speed I couldn't use that fingering.

    Some of the movements for a line of this type are aided by flattening a finger to stop both the note and the next note (usually descending a 4th in pitch) -- so, for example, if a G at the 10th fret 5th string is followed by D a 4th lower, plant the pinkie on both notes when you play the G.

    I'd probably play it with more position shifting, which can be done more seamlessly than that B to F thing with the pinkie.

    I think djg makes a good point.

    But, it leads to a larger question about what the goal of playing this sort of exercise is. Happy to discuss it, but I think I've already gotten too far away from the OP's question.

    As a teen my teacher had me play Paganini's Moto Perpetuo. I think that's where I learned how to solve fingering problems. I also practiced scales and my fingers tend to fall into them like well worn ruts. I'd have been better off playing licks or transcriptions, in retrospect.

  10. #9

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Maroonblazer
    He doesn't provide a fingering for the pattern using 6/1. When I attempt this pattern using the 6/1 fingering it's impossible to stick to anything close to the 6/1 fingering. Below is my attempt at this pattern using the 6/1 fingering.
    I think you have found why he does not included a 6/1 fingering.

    Fisher's three books in this series were useful to me. Others hate them, as you can see in this thread. I would advise against CAGED, because you should not be playing in a cage.

  11. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by djg
    out of professional curiosity. what made you take the leap of faith to decide and study this book?

    also the exercise 18 that you're showing is tabbed out with a 6/4 fingering (edit: and not even that) and not a 6/2 fingering.

    to be honest this shit breaks my heart, it really does. useless exercises and lame fingerings. it's like a chess book that teaches you six different openings before you even learn to mate with KQ against K.

    throw that book away. sunk costs, etc. if you must get a book, get joe pass' "guitar style".
    Thank you for your response!

    I have many years of piano under my belt, both classical and jazz, and am interested in playing guitar. I've been a 'strummer' for many years and decided I wanted to aim for a similar facility on the guitar, specifically jazz, that I have on piano (a decades-long project, I recognize). It was a toss up between Fisher's book and Baker's. Both seemed to get good reviews so I essentially flipped a coin. It's not too late for me to jump ship to Baker though.

    You're right, it is 6/4 (sorta?), not 6/2.

    Having spent some time with some of the other patterns I can say that I feel like I'm getting a better sense of the fretboard. That's really my goal at this point. I can look at the piano keyboard and play practically anything I want, because I know where all the notes are. I likened the Fisher exercises to Hanon. Hanon was a game-changer for my technique on piano, but perhaps the analogy doesn't hold for guitar...?

    Thanks again!

  12. #11

    User Info Menu

    Yea... Fisher is a beautiful solo performer. He sounds more like a classical player performing jazz. A little straight or vanilla. Of which there is nothing wrong. Vanilla is where one starts and is a great sound. And he's very talented, But what or where do you want to go with your playing...

    No one really teaches caged or Segovia fingerings anymore.... unless your old, of which I am and started with both.

    There are better systems... Most just push what they know and understand. In the end you'll be using all fingerings. All the early stages of learning are just a path to getting to where the complete fretboard becomes one 12 fret pattern that repeats. Eventually you'll be able to use what ever fingering you want to. Different fingerings have natural articulation...

    You can use different fingering to help create a style or sound
    The shortest path to that end is using 7 position fingerings. Which easily supports Caged, 3 notes per string, or even Segovia's magical 3 octave fingering.

    And as mentioned... generally learning chords, melodies, tunes etc... are also part of technical studies. When you begin to develop some skills... What your able to play will expand. Spending too much time learning performance when you don't have skills.... usually just develops bad habits. Which are hard to break.... later.

    I checked out your vid... cool.... but your already developing bad position shift habits. You need to work on single position studies and get your speed up.

  13. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    Some of the movements for a line of this type are aided by flattening a finger to stop both the note and the next note (usually descending a 4th in pitch) -- so, for example, if a G at the 10th fret 5th string is followed by D a 4th lower, plant the pinkie on both notes when you play the G.
    Thank you for the reply!

    Peter Sprague, in his course "Jazz Guitar Foundations" really discourages the 'flattening" or "rolling" of a finger to play notes on two adjacent strings. I can kind of see the argument for it but I'm not proficient enough to know (or have a strong opinion one way or the other) whether this makes much of a difference in the long run.
    Last edited by Maroonblazer; 05-11-2021 at 11:52 PM.

  14. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by djg
    throw that book away. sunk costs, etc. if you must get a book, get joe pass' "guitar style".
    Based on the table of contents that Amazon lets me see, the Joe Pass book seems aimed at the guitarist who is already familiar with the fretboard and is looking to improve their jazz improvisation skills. Is that a fair assessment?

    The other thing I've liked about Fisher's book is that he starts by building out the triads and their inversions. Having grown up playing piano, for me everything begins with triads and their inversions, upon which one then builds 7ths, 9ths, extensions, etc. This is one aspect I'd been missing in my attempt to 'shortcut' learning the fretboard. The first few etudes in Fisher, while practically the antithesis of jazz, have helped me solidify knowledge of how/where to find triads on the fretboard.

    Do you have an opinion on Micky Baker's book in this regard?

    Thanks again.

  15. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Reg
    And as mentioned... generally learning chords, melodies, tunes etc... are also part of technical studies. When you begin to develop some skills... What your able to play will expand. Spending too much time learning performance when you don't have skills.... usually just develops bad habits. Which are hard to break.... later.

    I checked out your vid... cool.... but your already developing bad position shift habits. You need to work on single position studies and get your speed up.
    Thank you for the reply!

    The bad habits are exactly what I'm trying to avoid. In studying piano I was fortunate to have good teachers instill good technique from the very beginning. It paid huge dividends. I'm trying to replicate that on guitar.

    The "bad position shift habits" you're witnessing in the video is me struggling to make sense of using Fisher's 6/1 fingering over this 1-3-4-5 pattern. Hence my posting this question to the forum. Based on others comments it sounds like this might be a fool's errand.

  16. #15

    User Info Menu

    Your fingers are asking you to try other ways to play things. Trust them.

    Using what is being called the 6/1 fingering, that exercise is going to ask your first finger to move in a clumsy way - e.g., a move that combines shifting strings and frets with the first finger - from the top of the third arpeggio to the bottom of the fourth one (moving the first finger from D string 9th fret to A string 8th fret).

    When I play that, at that point my fingers naturally go:

    ...first finger D string 9th fret
    fourth finger 6th string 13th fret
    third finger A string 12th fret

    first finger D string 9th fret
    second finger D string 10th fret...

    As others are mentioning, specific fingerings of lines need to be figured out to the degree that various stock fingering patterns might not work so well; the important thing being to listen to what your hand is figuring out. The logic of fingering is a physical mechanical "finger logic". The suggested stock patterns are just a starting input. As your hand smartens up it will naturally override these awkward fingering patterns by anticipating them and spontaneously offering a better solution.

    This is similar to how a sax player learns the multiple fingerings for the same note within the context of practicing different scales, in order to teach the hands to select the specific fingering best for that note when playing lines in different keys - taking into account the fingering of the previous and subsequent note(s) for the best mechanical continuity... guitar fingers learn how to do this, too. I call it "muscle melody".

  17. #16

    User Info Menu

    Is there there a source in addition to Joe that people recommend for fingerings?

  18. #17

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Maroonblazer
    Thank you for the reply!

    Peter Sprague, in his course "Jazz Guitar Foundations" really discourages the 'flattening" or "rolling" of a finger to play notes on two adjacent strings. I can kind of see the argument for it but I'm not proficient enough to know (or have a strong opinion one way or the other) whether this makes much of a difference in the long run.
    Does he say why?

    In your pattern 18, the first bar end on A and the second bar begins on A. The tab says to play them at the same fret. If you can play it fast enough while moving the finger from one string to another, then there's no problem to solve. I can't do that and get the line as fast as I want it to be. However, if I flatten the finger it's no longer a bottleneck.

  19. #18

    User Info Menu

    Joe Pass’ two books “guitar style” and “on guitar”, are worth their weight in gold.

    Granted, they are NOT for guitar beginners and they are not comprehensive “guitar methods”, but that’s fine. We all know where to get go for that.

  20. #19
    The Joe Pass orange cover gets into sounding a little like Joe if you can read a little which I found quite exiting! a few years ago. The solos are short but they certainly point you in the right direction. Anyone who knows about jazz guitar knows that Joe was one of the all time Greats!!! I dont think there are very many exciting famous recordings of the other ones. The technique must always be the servant not the master.

  21. #20

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    Does he say why?

    In your pattern 18, the first bar end on A and the second bar begins on A. The tab says to play them at the same fret. If you can play it fast enough while moving the finger from one string to another, then there's no problem to solve. I can't do that and get the line as fast as I want it to be. However, if I flatten the finger it's no longer a bottleneck.
    Flattening / rolling to get one finger to play adjacent strings at the same fret in sequence is potentially risky. If you can do it while keeping the finger curved it is OK. The problem is if you allow the distal joint of the finger to bend "backwards" - finger joints can bear a firm load quite well when curved, but are weak and vulnerable when the joint is reversed, leading to risk of a repetitive stress injury.
    Depending on your form, maintaining finger curvature while flattening / rolling generally becomes increasingly more difficult the higher up the neck you position your hand... once you entertain doing it up beyond about the 15th fret you really have to have planned ahead to reposition the guitar so the neck extends way out to your left side in order to even chance trying it. The insidious thing is the temptation in the excitement of the moment, thinking, "I just do it for this line..." You might get away with it, or you might feel it and know you have hurt yourself.

  22. #21

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Bach5G
    Is there there a source in addition to Joe that people recommend for fingerings?
    the barry galbraith books are ok. the leavitt have some good exercises connecting the various fingerings. also some good triad exercises. but they require a teacher because they contain so much dead wood.

  23. #22

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Maroonblazer
    Thank you for your response!

    I have many years of piano under my belt, both classical and jazz, and am interested in playing guitar. I've been a 'strummer' for many years and decided I wanted to aim for a similar facility on the guitar, specifically jazz, that I have on piano (a decades-long project, I recognize). It was a toss up between Fisher's book and Baker's. Both seemed to get good reviews so I essentially flipped a coin. It's not too late for me to jump ship to Baker though.

    You're right, it is 6/4 (sorta?), not 6/2.

    Having spent some time with some of the other patterns I can say that I feel like I'm getting a better sense of the fretboard. That's really my goal at this point. I can look at the piano keyboard and play practically anything I want, because I know where all the notes are. I likened the Fisher exercises to Hanon. Hanon was a game-changer for my technique on piano, but perhaps the analogy doesn't hold for guitar...?

    Thanks again!
    i'm not a fan of this top-down approach. trying to learn guitar and jazz at the same time can be problematic.

    so how is your piano playing? can you carry a tune? could i let you sit in at my gig and get good comping and a nice solo on a tune like stella?

  24. #23

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by djg
    i'm not a fan of this top-down approach. trying to learn guitar and jazz at the same time can be problematic.
    I've often thought this.

    Problem is, a lot of people sort of 'play' the guitar, which means they play parts for songs, but don't have much knowledge of the instrument's workings (OTOH classical players have a technique that is not often used by jazz players.)

    So in this sense, fretboard mapping, chord construction all that stuff is kind of identified with jazz, because you end up doing a fair amount of this type of teaching as a jazz guitar teacher.

  25. #24
    As a time and thousands of students taught the W. Leavitt Berklee Method has got many started in the right direction for standardized scale and triad information. John Scofield,Mike Stern, and Mark Whitfield are some of those who have used it. They turned out Quite well.

  26. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by djg
    so how is your piano playing? can you carry a tune? could i let you sit in at my gig and get good comping and a nice solo on a tune like stella?
    I could hold my own. I wouldn't be blowing anybody away but I also wouldn't be on the receiving end of any tomatoes.

  27. #26

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Maroonblazer
    I could hold my own. I wouldn't be blowing anybody away but I also wouldn't be on the receiving end of any tomatoes.
    excellent. could you teach yourself a few nice sounding lines and figure out the fingerings on your own? maybe with regard to the principle that we attack the off-beats and slur/slide into the beat? because this is an aspect that is often ignored when we talk about fingerings in mainstream jazz.

  28. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by djg
    excellent. could you teach yourself a few nice sounding lines and figure out the fingerings on your own?
    Yes and no? My ear is pretty good so I can pretty easily pick out the notes. The trap I find myself falling into is not seeing the fretboard as notes but instead as patterns and shapes. Just seeing patterns and shapes doesn't help when I know I want to reach for any given note. It's not like the piano where a Bb looks the same everywhere (I know I'm stating the obvious). This is where I thought a good method book would be appropriate - to help me learn the fundamentals of how the fretboard is laid out and the relationships that allow one to build lines, intervals and chords.

    Quote Originally Posted by djg
    maybe with regard to the principle that we attack the off-beats and slur/slide into the beat? because this is an aspect that is often ignored when we talk about fingerings in mainstream jazz.
    This I did not know - thank you! I've been transcribing more horn players than guitar players lately which is also probably holding me back in this whole endeavor. I'll fix that.

  29. #28

    User Info Menu

    The ex. #18 is very simple Cmaj scale pattern. Typically you would just play in 7th position. If the point is to be able to move between two position... it should be pointed out and with fingerings and string indications.

    And the point of the study would be to train your fingers, and head to develop technical skills to move between positions. And most important... teach you the basic techniques of how to move between positions without ackward and problematic movements and needing to stare at your fretboard. ( use of common fingers or strings )

  30. #29

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Maroonblazer
    Yes and no? My ear is pretty good so I can pretty easily pick out the notes. The trap I find myself falling into is not seeing the fretboard as notes but instead as patterns and shapes. Just seeing patterns and shapes doesn't help when I know I want to reach for any given note. It's not like the piano where a Bb looks the same everywhere (I know I'm stating the obvious). This is where I thought a good method book would be appropriate - to help me learn the fundamentals of how the fretboard is laid out and the relationships that allow one to build lines, intervals and chords.



    This I did not know - thank you! I've been transcribing more horn players than guitar players lately which is also probably holding me back in this whole endeavor. I'll fix that.
    Try playing scales and speaking the names of the notes out loud

  31. #30
    My understanding is that Peter Sprague its primarily a nylon string player who plays some steel string as well -- as opposed to the other way around. This rolling technique is not as viable or important for nylon/classical playing for multiple reasons. If you're going to play mostly nylon, he may be right.

    A lot of steel string players consider that left hand roll technique to be important -- to at least be AWARE of. Other teachers, like William Leavitt, probably consider it more in the category of "vital/ essential" steel string technique.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maroonblazer
    Thank you for the reply!

    Peter Sprague, in his course "Jazz Guitar Foundations" really discourages the 'flattening" or "rolling" of a finger to play notes on two adjacent strings. I can kind of see the argument for it but I'm not proficient enough to know (or have a strong opinion one way or the other) whether this makes much of a difference in the long run.

  32. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Try playing scales and speaking the names of the notes out loud
    Yes, I've been doing a lot of this. Not only with scales but with nearly everything I'm playing. I'm old, so my short-term memory isn't what it used to be. I think I just need to reconcile myself with the fact that this will be a slow, brute force, process.

  33. #32

    User Info Menu

    If the goal is to learn the fingerboard, I'd recommend doing it by learning to read.

    I'd suggest a typical beginner's book, like Mel Bay (which I used) or Berklee (after my time).

    Then, Complete Rhythms by Colin and Bower. Play everything in first position, then up an octave.

    At that point, you can start reading out of the Real Book both the Concert edition and the Bb and Eb editions to expand the range of keys you can read.

    6 months and you know the fingerboard and you can read, which is a useful skill.

    Being able to play out of scales requires knowing where the notes are and there are two main ways to accomplish that.

    One is to know the names of the notes in the scale and where those notes are on the fretboard.

    The other way is to memorize patterns.

    If you do it the first way, you start with C major, then add one sharp at a time, then one flat at a time, until you know all of them to F#/Gb.

    Then melodic minor, by flattening the thirds of all of the above.

    Then, whichever additional scales you want to use.

    Same thing for chord tones.

    It's a lot of work, but, so is doing it by patterns. In the pattern method you need separate patterns for the same scale in multiple places on the neck and you have to know the patterns so well that it doesn't matter which note you play first. For me, that was harder, but apparently most people do it that way. It may make playing faster easier.

  34. #33

    User Info Menu

    yea... it should be just a given... that you need to be able to sight read. But that's just the way it is... guitarist have a different mind set.

    So your having a conversation with Christian that is great... but you don't sound like you have the technical skills yet.
    This from one of your post above...

    "Yes and no? My ear is pretty good so I can pretty easily pick out the notes. The trap I find myself falling into is not seeing the fretboard as notes but instead as patterns and shapes. Just seeing patterns and shapes doesn't help when I know I want to reach for any given note. It's not like the piano where a Bb looks the same everywhere (I know I'm stating the obvious). This is where I thought a good method book would be appropriate - to help me learn the fundamentals of how the fretboard is laid out and the relationships that allow one to build lines, intervals and chords."

    1) it's the same thing as piano.... you just can play and understand the technical skills of playing the notes on the piano. You may not have chops... but you can play the instrument. Your trying to play the guitar and you don't seem to have an understanding or technical skills of the instrument...

    I'm not big on analogies but like trying to play the piano with just your thumbs...

    You need fretboard organization with fingerings before you start learning melodic patterns. Which include fixed references and fingerings. If you start somewhere in the middle... that's where your end up.

    I'm not a baby sitter and am not looking for $.... my only goal is for guitarist to get better.

    Can you play a Cmaj scale anywhere on the fretboard starting on any note... without going through much thinking. I would guess you can easily do that on the piano.

    You need to be able to play the notes before you can play what you hear.

    Most usually supplement different fun or performance material with developing the technical fretboard skills.

    It's not the opposite... you don't supplement technical skills while learning tunes and performance skills. ( even though that seems like what's goes on).

    Anyway... good luck.

  35. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    If the goal is to learn the fingerboard, I'd recommend doing it by learning to read.

    I'd suggest a typical beginner's book, like Mel Bay (which I used) or Berklee (after my time).
    Thank you. I have the Leavitt book and I see there's a guided study section here in the forum so will reference that and try to navigate around the 'dead wood' that an earlier poster mentioned.

    BTW I went ahead and ordered the first Mickey Baker book. Amazon let's me see the first few lessons online while I wait for the print version to arrive. Already I have buyer's remorse (to the degree one can, spending $9USD). Lesson One is "Learn these 26 chords..."

    No, no, no. I want to understand how triads are built. Up, down and across the fretboard. They're the foundation. Only then do I feel like I could begin to construct a D13b9 or G7b5. This is what I like about Fisher's book. Baker's book seems aimed at someone who's already unlocked the fretboard and 'simply' wants to learn jazz.

    Thanks again!

  36. #35

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Maroonblazer
    Thank you. I have the Leavitt book and I see there's a guided study section here in the forum so will reference that and try to navigate around the 'dead wood' that an earlier poster mentioned.

    BTW I went ahead and ordered the first Mickey Baker book. Amazon let's me see the first few lessons online while I wait for the print version to arrive. Already I have buyer's remorse (to the degree one can, spending $9USD). Lesson One is "Learn these 26 chords..."

    No, no, no. I want to understand how triads are built. Up, down and across the fretboard. They're the foundation. Only then do I feel like I could begin to construct a D13b9 or G7b5. This is what I like about Fisher's book. Baker's book seems aimed at someone who's already unlocked the fretboard and 'simply' wants to learn jazz.

    Thanks again!
    Triads are built in intervals, as you know. You need to know the notes in the triad you want and where they are on the fingerboard. Learn to read and learn a handful of formulas and you're there, if the goal is simply to learn how to find triads.

    BTW, I've looked at the Leavitt book and I think Complete Rhythms may be a little more fun -- which might help someone who is resisting the task. It's old fashioned (now, not when it was written) syncopated swing lines. With chord symbol and some harmonies iirc.

  37. #36

    User Info Menu

    No, no, no. I want to understand how triads are built. Up, down and across the fretboard. They're the foundation. Only then do I feel like I could begin to construct a D13b9 or G7b5. This is what I like about Fisher's book. Baker's book seems aimed at someone who's already unlocked the fretboard and 'simply' wants to learn jazz.
    Well... what's so bad about learning 24 chords? MB book is practical, it gives turnarounds and sequences that are applicable to real song context and sound jazz.
    Why not play D13b9 right away?

    As for triads... you said you play piano... so I guess musically you know how to build them.
    Then just build up the patterns on guitar....

    On three adjacent strings, skipping the strings... inversions... not so many things to do.

    I would go for standard 7th chord fingerings to ... so called Drop2 and Drop3

  38. #37

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    I've often thought this.
    i take it for granted that you've read your pirsig? this might very well be about fingerings:

    "'value traps': these can be described generally as an inability or reluctance to re-evaluate notions due to a commitment to previous values."
    (Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance - Wikipedia)

  39. #38

    User Info Menu

    You mention classical and jazz; might I ask some leading questions?

    When you play jazz piano, are you:

    - playing from sheet music? Sticking to the score? Embellishing, interpreting, or improvising from the score?

    - playing from a lead sheet with just a scored melody line and chord symbols indicating the harmony? Constructing the chords' voicing, inversions, left hand, etc.?

    - playing familiar tunes based on memory? Memory of chord names? Progression schema? Able to arbitrarily transpose? Based on knowledge of key signatures?

    - some of these? Something else?

    Asking because it sounds like you have considerable music knowledge from piano. How much of that might be transferred to the guitar, how to do that, and whether to even think of it that way is really what is being discussed.

    I admit bias; I concede that the guitar while mechanically challenging seems conceptually relatively easy, even more so if approaching it with musical experience on the piano. Musical understanding (questions above) may end up partly portable, but the mechanics not so much.

    My bias leans to favor learning the guitar by brute force figuring things out, which would usually describe a bottom up kind of approach (worked well for me). Someone already suggested issue with top down - approaching the guitar with an established ready reservoir of music knowledge. Might that cloud or interfere with absorbing some of the foundation of "guitaristic" knowledge naturally acquired with learning curve time on the instrument?

    I'd like to understand more about what is going on (especially what and how you are thinking musically) when playing jazz piano...

  40. #39

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by djg
    i take it for granted that you've read your pirsig? this might very well be about fingerings:

    "'value traps': these can be described generally as an inability or reluctance to re-evaluate notions due to a commitment to previous values."
    (Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance - Wikipedia)
    A few years back - that’s a good quote!

  41. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah
    Well... what's so bad about learning 24 chords?
    I liken it to learning a bunch of big words in a new language without first understanding the grammar of how sentences are constructed.

    I've in fact been doing that (learning the big chords) for years, thinking I could 'shortcut' the process of learning the fretboard that way. The opportunity cost - where I could've been spending that time learning the fretboard - is unavoidable, at least in my case.

  42. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    BTW, I've looked at the Leavitt book and I think Complete Rhythms may be a little more fun -- which might help someone who is resisting the task. It's old fashioned (now, not when it was written) syncopated swing lines. With chord symbol and some harmonies iirc.
    Thank you!

    Google isn't finding a book called "Complete Rhythms". Was it renamed? I found this by Leavitt: "Melodic Rhythms for Guitar".

    https://berkleepress.com/guitar/melo...ms-for-guitar/

    Is that it?

  43. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by pauln
    You mention classical and jazz; might I ask some leading questions?

    When you play jazz piano, are you:

    - playing from sheet music? Sticking to the score? Embellishing, interpreting, or improvising from the score?

    - playing from a lead sheet with just a scored melody line and chord symbols indicating the harmony? Constructing the chords' voicing, inversions, left hand, etc.?

    - playing familiar tunes based on memory? Memory of chord names? Progression schema? Able to arbitrarily transpose? Based on knowledge of key signatures?

    - some of these? Something else?
    Thanks for your reply!

    I can read, but more often than not I'll use recordings to ingrain the melody and changes in my head. I'll refer to transcriptions if there's a particular set of changes that I can't sort out by ear immediately. I'm familiar with all the signatures and feel comfortable transposing. When coming across licks or entire solos I'm especially fond of I'll learn them in all 12 keys as it's the best way I've found to really assimilate them into my vocabulary.

    Yes, you've correctly diagnosed my aim: how do I take all the concepts and knowledge that I know and can apply on the piano, and transfer them to the guitar in the most efficient and effective way possible. To my mind it's all about the mechanics, as you say.

    Thanks again.

  44. #43

    User Info Menu

    I enjoy this book, Book 1, as a primer for beginners or as a practice guide for more advanced players. It's well organised with good visuals to discover or hone fingerboard skills for fingering and fingerboard pattern selection. Also, it explains the triads, their layout and inversions within the context of the harmonised Major Scale.

    Jodie Fisher's tab, for the scale sequence of Pattern 18 (1345, 2456), indicates 6/4 fingering. You may use the 6/1 fingering, but it is awkward, and one would instinctively not go there. That's why JF indicates 6/4. So, if you decide to use 6/1, it's a good finger exercise (a challenge), but certainly not of practical use if you had to play a singular 1345 sequence... !However!,

    However, when playing a chord such as C Major in first inversion (3x153x), pattern 6/1 would be handy for melody or a single-note fill. That's why it behooves us to be able to play everything in every way, all over the fingerboard, or at least to play the music of our current interest. Often, it is musical advancement that dictates the usefulness of obscure fingerings and fingerboard patterns.

    We prepare ourselves for this when practicing. Playing chord 3x153x along with a 6/1 scale is part of the D Form arpeggio according to the CAGED system. The D shape and 6/1 is also preferable for many major pentatonic passages, (especially if you're a bass player... it's quick and ergonomic with glissandos and hammer-ons).

    Yes, 1345 sucks in 6/1 because of the fingerboard distance between 3 and 4, but to play within a C Major or CM7 first inversion 3x153x, the 6/1 fingering is under the hand and offers a lot of possibilities for other melodic sequences.

    Mix and Match the scale fingerings (1 2 4) with the CAGED chord forms and arpeggios and the possibilities are a 3x5 matrix for 15 possibilities. Not all are always useful, but at least you will know your window and your limitations. I find that fingerings are simply a "standard" or "nominal" point form which to start. You will often modify a fingering to suit the music you are playing. Blues loves three fingers while classical loves four. Guitar loves 1234 while bass loves 124 Simandl (or 134 Italian).

    Fingering is definitely not the grist for polite discussion, as it is personal and arbitrary as it depends on genre, style, players' physiology, neck scale/width and how you angle the guitar. I like to play seated with the neck at 45 degrees and the fingerboard tilted, not so that I can see the neck, but to allow the fingers to execute even the most difficult of chords. Look at the old photos of big bands and archtop players. Teachers used to teach students how to hold the instrument. Today, they'll tell you "oh...whatever makes you comfortable".

    No matter the terminology, how you "see" the geometry of the fingerboard is personal and dependent upon your playing interests. Study all that comes your way and select what works for you. Also, be inventive and modify the paradigm to your benefit.

    I know that in CAGED, the E Form arpeggio also contains the F Form. The E Form covers the six strings, but I like to also look at the Top 4 strings of the E shape as the F shape. The F Shape is the C Shape translated horizontally across the fingerboard. CAGED for me is GCF-EAD...
    G translates to C which translates to F. Then E translates to A which translates to D. The tuning of the G-B strings to a M3 "warps" each form as you translate it across the fingerboard.

    You get a nice FM7 chord (xx1357) and a few other treasures to add to your playing, like a bluesy F7 chord (xx1357b). In the end, it's all about how "YOU" organise the fingerboard. There ain't enough years remaining for anyone to know it all. One could spend some time in the keys of F, Bb, Eb and Ab (99% of jazz tunes) and learn how the CAGED chords, arpeggios, and scales are fingered in each neck position, but I'm sure that even George Benson, Salvatore Massaro, Johnny Smith and Wes Montgomery knew where to draw the line with fingerboard technique and concentrate on what was needed to "send" the musical message.

    Also, is it really smart to learn Jazz first while you still can't play the instrument? Jazz is not for beginners. My attempts at jazz guitar improved as I branched into classical, folk, rock, country, bluegrass, ragtime, latin, popular and blues. Mell Bay's series and Leavitt's 123 helped me considerably. Reading is a critical tool - mapping the fingerboard gamut to the staff (F & G Clefs). Jazz is a "fancy-dancy" way of playing all of the above. It behooves the beginning guitarist to broaden their vista before embarking on the jazz journey. Learn all the tunes, like Joe Pass did, then jazz them up. This establishes an appreciation for what jazz, chord extensions and alterations and swing rhythm and syncopation is all about. Apply jazz harmony and rhythm to your music. Often, jazz is just music from Broadway Musicals played in a particular way.

    Instrument popularity and portability alone, do not bode well as reasons for starting the guitar. Select an instrument by how much you love their sound and then investigate how it is played. If you love a particular sound produced on the guitar and love the feel of the strings under your fingers, you will be successfully motivated. You may like strings, but perhaps find a special affinity for the sound of the double bass or banjo. In any case, make time to play some piano. It is the king of instruments for all musicians to enjoy and learn reading and harmony. $33 at Walmart gets you on your way.
    ...

  45. #44

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Maroonblazer
    Thank you!

    Google isn't finding a book called "Complete Rhythms". Was it renamed? I found this by Leavitt: "Melodic Rhythms for Guitar".

    https://berkleepress.com/guitar/melo...ms-for-guitar/

    Is that it?
    It's this. You can see a couple of pages on this site. They call it Rhythms Complete ... but I remember it the other way.

    Rhythms Complete – Charles Colin Music

  46. #45

    User Info Menu

    The layout of the piano with white keys for naturals and black keys for sharps and flats is brilliant. Makes identifying the notes easy. And every octave is the same.

    Learning the fingerboard on guitar is a little harder. You have 72 notes to learn (6 strings x 12 frets). But, if you learn where the naturals are (that is, the notes of Cmajor) you really get the rest for free.

    It's a couple of months of work, best done, IMO, by learning to read.

    Eventually, the fact that the B string is tuned a third higher instead of a fourth higher than the next-lower-string, makes no difference. The adjustment becomes automatic.

    So, you learn C major, then you sharp the F's and it's Gmajor. Flat the B and it's F. Proceed like that, one key at a time.

    Much later, fingering difficult passages can require some thought. I think that my experience is somehow different from some other posters (including players I admire). I read stuff all the time and I never think about fingerings. In fact, I think it would get in the way if I did.

    You glance at the page, check out the lowest and highest notes, that gives you an idea of where to begin. Pick an octave. Then, if the tempo is slow enough, you can play the notes anywhere. As the tempo gets more challenging you have to start solving problems. For me, fingering patterns don't help a bit with that process. What helps is a repertoire of techniques to facilitate picking -- because the bottleneck (for me) is almost always in the right hand -- sweep pickers may not have this problem.

  47. #46

    User Info Menu

    hey Maroon.... here is a thread I was asked to start back in January 2010... it's full of information and examples. The concepts all have basic References and why I chose different aspect of learning to perform. They are complete concepts... they have a beginning.... and an end.

    You may choose a different approach... but maybe it will help you at least understand that choices have results... Performing jazz isn't fair... different approaches have different results. About the only thing you really need... is to... understand yourself, how you work.
    If anything looks interesting... I have new PDFs of fingerings for every details of the fretboard... scales, chords, arpeggios etc...(lots of them). There was another thread from back then, but I can remember was the name was...
    Reg's Thread... live at the speed of Jazz

  48. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Reg
    hey Maroon.... here is a thread I was asked to start back in January 2010...
    Reg's Thread... live at the speed of Jazz
    Thanks very much Reg, this looks really helpful.

  49. #48

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Maroonblazer
    I liken it to learning a bunch of big words in a new language without first understanding the grammar of how sentences are constructed.

    I've in fact been doing that (learning the big chords) for years, thinking I could 'shortcut' the process of learning the fretboard that way. The opportunity cost - where I could've been spending that time learning the fretboard - is unavoidable, at least in my case.

    A child does not learn how to speak by first learning the alphabet, grammar and phrasing. They learn that white tasty stuff is called bottle and they say bah. Then they learn that nice lady is mommy and they say ma, and that big fun one is daddy, and they ddy. Eventually they get it right, but first they learn some basics to get by. This is what Mickey Bakers book does. Also, skip lesson 1. It's more practical to learn the chords as you need them in the book.

  50. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by AllanAllen
    A child does not learn how to speak by first learning the alphabet, grammar and phrasing. They learn that white tasty stuff is called bottle and they say bah. Then they learn that nice lady is mommy and they say ma, and that big fun one is daddy, and they ddy. Eventually they get it right, but first they learn some basics to get by. This is what Mickey Bakers book does.
    The analogy is an imperfect one. Children and adults learn languages differently. I think they might also learn music differently (that's actually an interesting question I'd not considered). Anyway, the point is that they start with small words and simple sentences before taking on larger words and more sophisticated syntax.

    Quote Originally Posted by AllanAllen
    Also, skip lesson 1. It's more practical to learn the chords as you need them in the book.
    Ah! Thanks for this! I'll take that advice.

  51. #50

    User Info Menu

    I still think the underlying point stands, even as an adult you don't learn a new language by leaning all the rules first. You learn bathroom, hospital, and maybe hotel (similar to a few chords) and then have at it. Is it better to dedicate 10 years to learning Italian before you visit Rome? It might be, but you'll probably lose interest in the language before you ever use it due to lack of well, using it.