-
I just finished a five day jazz workshop. The guitar instructor recommended a “7 position” fingering system that he said originated with W Leavitt. Today one of the other students sent me a chart setting out 7 fingering diagrams. It appears this originated from Jens Larsen.
They look pretty similar to me but I note the Larsen doesn’t use open string while Leavitt’s first position used a couple of open strings. Of course Leavitt’s system fits nicely into his Reading Studies books.
Any tips, advice?
-
07-28-2024 11:52 PM
-
I think William Leavitt taught at Berklee.
Originally Posted by Bach5G
I found these in a post, (ignore the modal names):
-
I think the advantage of not using open strings is that you can easily transpose up and down the fretboard.
-
I think this is some kind of misunderstanding?while Leavitt’s first position used a couple of open strings.
The Leavitt books do have scales patterns/fingerings that use open strings but I think they are not part of "the system".
The completionist system in the Leavitt books (Modern method for guitar volumes I, II and III) has 12 scale fingerings.
2 scale fingering that use 4 frets, (type 2 and type 3)
5 scale fingerings that use 5 frets with a stretch with the first finger (type 1, 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d).
5 scale fingerings that use 5 frets with a stretch with the fourth finger (type 4, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d).
Book 2 mostly focuses on "5 basic" major scale fingerings", and book 3 has several exercises with "9 practical fingerings".
I think you just need to practise scales in a lot of different ways. In the long run you're not supposed to learn scale fingerings once and then blindly stick with them forever (in the long run you use fingerings that fit the music). But in the short run it can simply things by limiting yourself, because you can't do everything at the same time and you need to start somewhere. I don't think it matters so much which system you start with as long as you don't stop and get stuck there and instead continue and explore the other systems too.
If you work with the Leavitt books or material, use the Leavitt "system". if you work with some other material that uses a different system, use that system. If you're working with material that's outside of these system do what feels right to you and makes sense.
-
As stated above, the Leavitt scales that use open strings are not part of his "system", which consists of only closed-position forms.
Jens Larsen uses the Berklee (Leavitt) scales - and he also uses other forms, namely CAGED and 3NPS. My guess is that the 7 forms you are seeing from Larsen are likely the same 7 closed forms from Leavitt. To my knowledge, Larsen has not created his own system but draws largely from Leavitt's forms with the others mixed in as suited. That is what others above have suggested is a good approach.
Here is a blog post from Larsen where he talks about his views on all this: https://jenslarsen.nl/the-biggest-pr...your-progress/
I like to have a variety of forms of the scales to draw from. It is like having multiple ways to drive/walk from home to work: sometimes one way makes sense but other times some other path is better (maybe that alternate path is better on rainy days because it has more tree coverage than your main path). Options are always good!
-
FYI:
William Leavitt
William Leavitt was a long-time chair of Berklee’s Guitar Department, serving from 1965 to 1990. He had a profound influence on Berklee’s guitar curriculum, as well as jazz guitar education worldwide, and he mentored thousands of musicians. As a performer and/or arranger, he worked with many renowned artists, such as Ella Fitzgerald, Andy Williams, and Patti Page.
-
Doesn’t matter. The fretboard needs to become one big position. Practice starting scales from any finger on any string, exploring all the alternative fingerings
-
I learned the "five fingerings" from Jimmy Bruno (-like CAGED, but he HATES that term and he's not thinking in terms of "cowboy chord" shapes: he names the fingerings after the lowest note (low E string) in the position and the names are 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7. Those numbers refer to the degree of the major scale the pattern starts on. )
I learned 3 NPS scale fingerings before then, though I didn't do much with them at first. (I was intrigued by them after first hearing Frank Gambale but I did not take to economy / sweep picking and just forgot about the fingerings for, I don't know, 2-3 decades?
More recently I returned to them after watching a Steve Carroll video about the fingerings, and mentally practicing scales this way while on my morning swim has really helped me learn the fretboard better than ever.
Here's why.
With 3 NPS fingerings, there are only three patterns. That's it.
Each string in all seven shapes is either (A) two whole steps, B) a half step and a whole step, or C) a whole step and a half step.
That's it.
The fingerings make a cycle (-which varies depending on which pattern comes first.)
The A pattern is followed by the B and the B pattern is followed by the C and the C pattern is followed by the A.
The A pattern may occur 3 times in a row (as in the Mixolydian mode / fingering; it occurs twice in a row to start the Ionian fingering.)
The B and C patterns may occur twice in a row (never three times but may occur just once: the cycle never changes but where you start in the cycle does.)
While swimming laps, I pick a key and visualize (while silently naming) each note in the scale. After a while, the patterns become familiar and even uncommon keys (such as B----uncommon for me, anyway) are easy to navigate. More and more, I just see them.
If this isn't clear, I could make a short video.
It's really helped me get my fretboard knowledge together.
-
for sight reading, i use both leavitt's canon books (reading and melodic rhythms) but also use fred hamilton's reading book quite a bit for this exact reason. his book forces you to think horizontally and vertically, and gradually expands until you're good anywhere on the fretboard. the first exercise in the book...a chromatic mishmosh is a great exercise to come back to periodically. highly recommend it. Originally Posted by RyanM
-
There’s more than one way to go about stuff.
I thought i knew my scales until I had to play Barry Harris scale outlines at speed in his workshop. So that destroyed the positional approach I’d been using (CAGED IIRC) Tbh I don’t find positional approaches all that helpful for bebop - there’s too many scales coming thick and fast - but they are good to practice.
It’s all chords in bop really. Even the scales. You need to know your triad and seventh chord positions, scales can fit in around those. More than one octave is more than you need for that kind of music, the line construction is very tight because it’s all modelled on the sax, and the sax doesn’t have that big a range.
But the more you know, the more you know. I think the most value is taking an approach and sticking with it. Nothing wrong with a bit of Leavitt.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkLast edited by Christian Miller; 07-29-2024 at 12:48 PM.
-
For reading, again I depends. I have for my sins done some time with the Leavitt reading books and they are positional obviously, although you can read them any way you like and I don’t follow his system when using them.
I should probably spend more time with them, but musically they are uninspiring compared to reading through real music. (Pseudo music has its advantages though.)
Anecdote suggests Leavitt was quite wedded to his approach and perhaps a little dogmatic as a teacher. Otoh he was very systematic and generations of players have received a solid foundation by patiently working through his books, and for a beginner dogmatism is better than disorganisation! It’s good to have an approach that’s clear and progressive.
I find myself generally looking at the neck in a few general areas - frets 1-5, frets 4-9, frets 8-12 and frets 12+. This might not be the best way to do it, but the more you read in a certain key, probably the more you’ll learn the most useful positions of that key so probably it works out about the same.
I guess it’s whether you approach things in a systematic or more immersion based way. And it’s probably best to do a bit of both in the long run.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Do folks consider scales as 'finger patterns' or as 'patterns on the fretboard that you put your fingers on'?
Scale 'systems' can be very useful in terms of focusing one's practice on a specific area of the neck, but when making real-world music, breaking the occasional rule might be needed in service of the most efficient and swinging phrasing.
Playing up and down a single string can offer some fresh perspectives on fingering and fretboard organization as well.
Best wishes for everyone's music!
PK
-
I was taught scales, initially, as fingering patterns always starting from the lowest note. Originally Posted by paulkogut
Decades later, I try to think of them as a kind of background to the chord tones of the moment. So, if the chord is, say, Cmaj7, I know that the notes are C E G B. I know that the background scale, in vanilla, could be considered C D E F G A B. So that's three extra notes. I know that the 6 and 9 will enhance a major type sound. And, I know that the F can be great, if used properly.
There are 5 additional notes (the black keys) which can be used, but carefully. The F# probably requires special consideration because of the use of the lydian sound in jazz. If you prefer, you can think C lydian. Or you might prefer G major. I just think F#.
C# won't sound good to me against Cmaj. D#/Eb will make the major sound more minor, so I probably won't want that. G#/Ab creates a maj7#5 sound, which can be great, but not in bar 1 of All of Me. The last one is Bb, which will conflict with the B natural and make the chord sound more like a C7, which probably won't fit.
That's a fair amount of verbiage for a Cmaj7. But, that's what I ended up with. Chord tones and what I think of as background sounds that work.
-
This turned out to be more complicated than I expected.
-
Try this. From a Carl Verhyen video: Pick a scale, find the lowest possible note on the fretboard (e.g open E or F) and the highest possible note on the high e, and run the scale and scale patterns the full range of the fretboard. Each time you go up and down try to find a different path. This will teach you all the usable fingerings and how to shift and connect positions and see more of the fretboard.
-
I do more and more of that. Sometimes (more as a mental exercise: I can do it while in a waiting room, for example) I think of a scale and play it along each string from low E to high E. Originally Posted by paulkogut
-
Looking at this a little more closely, I note that 2 positions start with roots/2nd finger and 2 with roots/4th finger. Pretty straightforward. That leaves only 3 patterns that I’m not completely familiar with.
-
exactly my approach. Originally Posted by RyanM
-
Both of those idea patterns are visible non-sounds, Originally Posted by paulkogut
but phenomenologically scales are invisible sound.
I consider scales & chords as sounds in my mind's
ear. So this whole process feels like I telepathically
send the aural images of what my mind's ear wants
to be heard to my hands which learned how to sing.
-
— Immanuel Kant, On the Foundational Theory and Practical Application of Septatonic Musicological Constructs as Aural Phenomena Originally Posted by pauln
-
"The sound of the shape of the visual is the shape of space in the visual becoming acoustically temporal; it is the shape of time in sound becoming visually spatial. The sound shape of the visual is, then, a phenomenological interface of becoming in a participatory process of fully experiencing the world." BS
-
....you could start a cult with that -LOL"The sound of the shape of the visual is the shape of space in the visual becoming acoustically temporal; it is the shape of time in sound becoming visually spatial. The sound shape of the visual is, then, a phenomenological interface of becoming in a participatory process of fully experiencing the world."
I'd say just pick a system and go with it. When you get scale pattern(s) down, you'll break them down into arpeggios, paying attention to the degrees/voices and how they move with the chords. What you're really learning is a concept for navigating the fretboard. ...any system should do, as long as you know you're learning more than just patterns on the fretboard .... ?This turned out to be more complicated than I expected.
...maybe I could start a cult with that
-best,
Mike
-
I learned 3nps and then 7 patterns. Different teachers.
Now, when I'm in a surly mood I think all of it was a waste of time. Not that others haven't benefited.
All of this assumes you know the names of the notes at every fret and what notes are in the scales you use. If you actually don't know the fingerboard and that much background info, then maybe patterns are your best bet.
When you're reading a piece of music you have to figure out a fingering that will sound good. If the piece doesn't have a zillion notes per second, you may think about glissandos, slurs and the like. That affects fingering.
If the notes are coming really fast, the fingering you choose has to accommodate your approach to picking. Sweep pickers seem to have an advantage over alternate pickers in this regard, but the two techniques don't sound the same. Sometimes, you adjust the left hand fingering to accommodate the pick motion. The issue usually involves switching strings cleanly at high speed.
Knowing a fingering for a scale does you very little good if the notes aren't in a linear scale -- and they usually aren't.
Maybe for a beginner, but why not practice melodies and, in the course of it, practice working out fingerings?
In improvisation, as opposed to playing specific lines, having the fingerings down will allow you to play fast, but you'll have to be very careful not to end up mindlessly letting your fingers play the patterns you practiced. It has been done, and brilliantly, but some of us aren't so adept at it.
If this is a disagreement with Levitt you'd have to be crazy to listen to me, but I know those patterns and I never use them intentionally. The only time I think about them is when I find my fingers in those ruts and I have to remind myself not to play that way.
-
I've played the 3NPS since about 1973-1974. I learned them from Warren Nunes. What's the diference between 3NPS and the 7 Patterns? They're the same, AFAIK. They're the backdrop to the fretboard for me. IOt's just a very easy way to visualize the fretboard. Like anything else. But there are no holes in it since they're all separated by each note of the scale. 7 notes, seven patterns. I liked the elegant simplicity of them
Last edited by henryrobinett; 08-27-2024 at 06:51 PM.
-
Thanks. I think I was remembering this wrong. I learned 3nps with sweep picking from Carl Barry who, I believe, got it from Chuck Wayne. Originally Posted by henryrobinett
I studied with Warren quite a bit later. He had the 7 patterns with alternate picking. Same 3nps, as you pointed out.
Somewhere along the line I learned (maybe from Jimmy Bruno?) fingerings that are not 3nps. Those are the ones that feel most comfortable to play.
But, I never think about any of them when I play. I believe that Warren did use them -- and quite successfully.
Reply With Quote
Gibson ES 330 is back
Today, 04:46 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos