The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Posts 26 to 50 of 62
  1. #26

    User Info Menu

    i think George Benson might have something to say something about that.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #27

    User Info Menu

    I know. I meant that they were classical guitarists. I wasn't talking about their background, but I could see how that might be offensive.

    Remember, that's my opinion. That's the sonic goal that I have set for myself. Benson's tone is legit, so is Grant Green's. Wes pioneered the "Blue Thumb", fer chrissakes.

    But, IMHO, stressing the opinion part, I think Johnny Smith has the most beautiful guitar tone and timbre in the jazz arena.

    Why? We should always be able to give some sort of justification, right?

    1. Every note sounds clean (for the most part). Like every note was executed with the utmost precision. George Van Eps talks about the mechanics of the fretting hand and JS embodies that scientist-like precision. JS does that all whilst improvising truly beautiful and flowing lines (please, let's not start THAT argument again )

    2. The tone isn't too muddy (Pat Metheny...er... I love his acoustic stuff... but...)

    3. The tone has a lively but subtle brightness to it (it's there, but you gotta listen to it. Especially when he plays chords it becomes apparent)

    4. The tone is round and full. He pays attention to how he frets notes.

    5. His timbre isn't percussive. Although I love Lionel Loueke's playing and the percussive nature of it all, I am not a fan of percussive smacks whilst playing bebop, standards, and ballads all the time. A little bit of Kenny Burrell and Grant Green is cool, but too much is overkill, IMHO. Once again, my opinion

    6. He uses dynamics... This is a huge part of what separates JS from a lot of "traditional bebop players" of today's day and age. They don't pay attention to the dynamics of the line... That's part of what makes the line exciting IMHO.

    7. Last, but not least. He uses the whole range of the instrument and he pays attention to the intonation issues that are a natural consequence of the guitar.

    Other guitarists have a couple or most of these attributes in their sound, but IMHO, JS has them all

    Different strokes for different folks. Makes the world go round

    As a musician ...
    (yes, I finally consider myself as such. Remember that Tal still painted signs to make money on the side. Being a musician is about how you approach the bandstand, the audience, your instrument, and your ears, not about how you make a living. My studies are certainly not indicative of a mere hobby)

    As a musician I think that an important part of your musical maturity is figuring out who speaks to you on your instrument for certain attributes. JS is tone, timbre, and range for me. Wes is dynamism and being a true story teller (something I value very highly) on the instrument. Jim Hall and Ed Bicket are comping and supporting the soloist with the utmost of simpatico and ESP-like power.
    Last edited by Irez87; 10-25-2015 at 12:16 PM.

  4. #28

    User Info Menu

    OK, but waaaay off topic Irez.


    So back to 3-octave scales:

    What is the point, or points, of practicing them?


    1. It helps build facility with "range playing" (stolen from Jerry Coker). Every melodic instrument has this challenge

    2. It forces you to develop smooth shifts, with the goal of playing shifts just as smoothly as playing in position. Not easy.

    3. It helps you learn where the notes are. Of course there are other methods that do this too, and probably more effectively.

    You should practice them with all diatonic, symmetric and frequently used modal scales.

    The end game is not so much about playing scales up and down. The point is that by practicing them you begin to build the type of capability that you will use when moving freely up and down the fret board - while playing melodic material that is much more difficult than rote scales. You have to walk before you can run.

  5. #29

    User Info Menu

    yeah... I tend to have those flights of fancy sometimes

    Point taken.

    I agree 100% about the 3 octave scales.

    Range playing range playing range playing

    There is a very good reason to break out of the position playing method. It is too mathematical, too geometric, too visual. As you aptly said, my fumbly friend, it has to be all about the notes. Even in classical music (especially so) the melodic contour and the range of the line creates interest. Yes you can play compound intervals in position, but you have more guitar to work with if you think more horizontally... like Jimmy Raney or Brother Wes. Even Barry Galbraith, mr. studio teacher originalle, advises against strict positional playing. He always stresses the primacy of the melodic line. Therefore, he teaches more horizontal methods with his fingering suggestions (on Bach, and on Jazz Standards)

    Fumbles, care to revive an old thread I started on shifting? We could take turns demonstrating shifting principles to the forum. You have a more extensive classical background than I, but I am a devotee of the 3 octave scale and shifting horizontal playing methodology.

    Let me know
    Last edited by Irez87; 10-25-2015 at 02:42 PM.

  6. #30

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by fumblefingers
    OK, but waaaay off topic Irez.


    So back to 3-octave scales:

    What is the point, or points, of practicing them?


    1. It helps build facility with "range playing" (stolen from Jerry Coker). Every melodic instrument has this challenge

    2. It forces you to develop smooth shifts, with the goal of playing shifts just as smoothly as playing in position. Not easy.

    3. It helps you learn where the notes are. Of course there are other methods that do this too, and probably more effectively.

    You should practice them with all diatonic, symmetric and frequently used modal scales.

    The end game is not so much about playing scales up and down. The point is that by practicing them you begin to build the type of capability that you will use when moving freely up and down the fret board - while playing melodic material that is much more difficult than rote scales. You have to walk before you can run.

    IMHO, that's the main point of practicing scales; to gain the facility you need to play music and/or improvise.

    NOT to use them in improvisation.
    It's as simple as an athlete working out before they play their games.
    They don't do sit-ups in the football game, but the sit-ups give them the facility to do their thing in the game.

    There's a lot of hate among jazz fans for players with a lot of facility.
    Believe it or nuts, there are many serious haters of Oscar Peterson, because of the great facility he had.
    You can't win.
    Last edited by sgcim; 10-25-2015 at 03:33 PM.

  7. #31

    User Info Menu

    I have a problem with facility if it is for the sake of playing fast, end all be all.

    Oscar Peterson, fast or slow, he always swings his arse off and plays lines that would sound just as beautiful slowed down.

    Same with Johnny Smith.

    Use facility to say something of depth, to create excitement and drama, to add to your story telling palette. Not to show off.

    **Now back to our regular programming**

    Fumbles:



    Just kidden

  8. #32

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by sgcim
    IMHO, that's the main point of practicing scales; to gain the facility you need to play music and/or improvise.

    NOT to use them in improvisation.
    It's as simple as an athlete working out before they play their games.
    They don't do sit-ups in the football game, but the sit-ups give them the facility to do their thing in the game.

    There's a lot of hate among jazz fans for players with a lot of facility.
    Believe it or nuts, there are many serious haters of Oscar Peterson, because of the great facility he had.
    You can't win.
    yep.

    although this hate of all things virtuosic exists strongly in the realm of less-than-virtuosic players, perhaps even more so than with fans.

    i have always observed that virtuosos sell tickets and fill seats, and some players who don't or can't, take exception.

  9. #33

    User Info Menu

    Sounds like a Kurt Vonnegut novel. I like virtuosity.

  10. #34

    User Info Menu

    Coltrane. Virtuoso, correct? But used that technique to say something more than lemme rip through all the scales and Charlie Parker licks I know.

    Dizzy Gillespie. Virtuoso. Same deal.

    My point being that the general audience hears fast vs. slow.

    The knowledgeable listener hears thematic development, altered notes, elusion, and other musical techniques within that speed. All of these elements build together to create an intentional solo. Not just a person standing on stage waving his thing around.

    Just saying. Virtuoso means being able to use technique to service the music not just "can play really fast".

    Trust me, you can spot an impostor playing extremely fast and saying jack squat in a jam session. They aren't playing the Vanguard. Chris Potter, Joe Lovano, Kurt Rosenwinkie, they all use speed to service the music. It's more than "by golly, Johnny, Kurt plays fast, I wanna play just like him".

    Let's save virtuoso for musicians who actually embody the meaning of virtuoso and not water it down into a penis measuring contest. Sorry for being crass, but this is the type of discussion that makes me wanna stop playing music because it simplifies music to technique and speed.

    Speed builds drama and excitement and you need technique to build speed. Used with intention, speed can take a solo into the stratosphere. Coltrane Coltrane Coltrane. Used wrong, however, and it can be just as boring as a slow solo on a very bright tune. Especially if the musician isn't aware of dynamics, phrasing, melodic contour, and thematic development.

    ...Probably went off topic there. Grading papers, dealing with the mess of the system that is SESIS, and planning for the week. This forum is a happy distraction from that mess...
    Last edited by Irez87; 10-25-2015 at 09:08 PM.

  11. #35

    User Info Menu

    I remember having to go through many many different classical fingering sets in the royal conservatory of music technique book back in the day. I suppose what it taught me was how to shift and finger things in ways that make technical sense. To avoid uncomfortable fingerings and weird shifts with weak fingers like the pinky.

    As a jazz guitarist I really liked Joe Pass's advice to simply play any chord and then immediately play a scale that corresponds to that chord shape. I was signed up for Jimmy Bruno's online course not long after he started it up and I really liked his approach too. Learn 5 box fingerings and then all the arpeggios within those boxes. It's interesting because you end up seeing the scale completely differently than if you're just presented with a static box. I see this all the time with my students. I'll teach them the C major box in 2nd position and then ask them to improvise over some chords. Then, I'll teach them the Dm7 arpeggio that fits in that box and it's amazing how it's not obvious since it's such an awkward fingering. And when I ask them to mix the scale and arpeggio it becomes very easy to lose sight of the original fingering. I guess the point is that when you learn these ¨shapes within shapes¨ it just solidifies everything for them and breaks them out of obvious scale choices.

  12. #36

    User Info Menu

    I don't like the positional approach any more. Was it crucial to my development as a guitarist, heck yes. Do I regret learning positional scales, heck no.

    But, for where I am right now in my playing, position playing would do more harm than good. Due to the crap load of ear training I've done in the past 5 years, I relate everything to sound. Those sounds are not visual geometry on a fretboard, they are notes on any instrument that produces pitch (including the human voice). If I were to play positionally, those sounds would be limited to where I was on the neck of the guitar as each position has a limited range (even with the repeated notes that occur due to the nature of the fretboard).

    Now, a word on shifting. I actuallly use first finger shifts and pinky shifts, even though many classical guitars look down on them as "weak fingers to shift on". Remember what I initially said, I relate everything to sound. So the ease of the shift doesn't concern me as much as the access to the sounds it produces.

    I can post some examples of why this comes in handy when improvising. The simple answer, is that if you land on your pinky for a descending line, you still have three fingers to continue the line downward. This is especially important for rangey lines that contain chromatic-ism. The same thing goes for ascending lines with the index finger shift (but you have to be aware of string noise, I play with wound rounds because I love the way they sound. I don't think I will ever go back to flats, but that's just my preference).

    As fumbles stated earlier, these 3 octave scales contain a series of mechanisms that aid improvisational concepts. I think the mechanisms are more important than the scale fingering itself. The mechanism is the shifting principle.

  13. #37

    User Info Menu

    As far as shifting I tend to shy away from large shifts with the pinky. If I'm only shifting up a position or two then it's not a big deal and I'll use it from time to time. But shifting with the index... The index is your strongest finger so I say go for it

    I like Jimmy Bruno's method because, like he says, your fingers start to memorize the sounds of the notes if you're consistent with your fingerings and I tend to agree. I think it's the reason why horn players have such amazing ears because their fingerings are always the same. Imagine every time you played a note it was always the same finger that played it. Your muscle memory and ear would start to work together.

    I hear you with round wounds. Can't stand them either

  14. #38

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Irez87
    I don't like the positional approach any more. Was it crucial to my development as a guitarist, heck yes. Do I regret learning positional scales, heck no.

    But, for where I am right now in my playing, position playing would do more harm than good. Due to the crap load of ear training I've done in the past 5 years, I relate everything to sound. Those sounds are not visual geometry on a fretboard, they are notes on any instrument that produces pitch (including the human voice). If I were to play positionally, those sounds would be limited to where I was on the neck of the guitar as each position has a limited range (even with the repeated notes that occur due to the nature of the fretboard).

    Now, a word on shifting. I actuallly use first finger shifts and pinky shifts, even though many classical guitars look down on them as "weak fingers to shift on". Remember what I initially said, I relate everything to sound. So the ease of the shift doesn't concern me as much as the access to the sounds it produces.

    I can post some examples of why this comes in handy when improvising. The simple answer, is that if you land on your pinky for a descending line, you still have three fingers to continue the line downward. This is especially important for rangey lines that contain chromatic-ism. The same thing goes for ascending lines with the index finger shift (but you have to be aware of string noise, I play with wound rounds because I love the way they sound. I don't think I will ever go back to flats, but that's just my preference).

    As fumbles stated earlier, these 3 octave scales contain a series of mechanisms that aid improvisational concepts. I think the mechanisms are more important than the scale fingering itself. The mechanism is the shifting principle.


    But.... the sounds actually are "visual geometry on a fretboard"....

    The interval locations and their sounds never change, as I'm sure you know. Telling others to separate the two, because you didn't think of/learn/practice them simultaneously, isn't very helpful to them. While learning the positions, they should obviously be doing various ear training/theory/etc drills if they want to get the most out of it.

    The seven position, 3+ octave, 3 note per string system, simply fills in all the possibilities on the fretboard. If your going to learn one from the beginning, you should probably learn the most complete system. That being said, knowing the system, or any system, doesn't mean you can improvise well, it just means you know where the notes are.


    As far as what any of this has to do with improvisation, think about this. A single position (3 1/2 octaves) most likely has a larger range that your voice is capable of covering (at least what anyone wants to hear). Long story short, if someone can't make it happen in a single position, they can't make it happen.
    Last edited by vintagelove; 10-27-2015 at 10:45 PM.

  15. #39

    User Info Menu

    It's great to "know the fretboard" but if your fingerings are strictly ad hoc you WILL flub up. The above video is a perfect case in point, and the lack of a defined fingering through the major scale as one moves up the fretboard undermines the whole point - which is to play successfully - as opposed to unsuccessfully which is what the teacher did. He really should have re-taped that, lol.

    Contrast that to "This Is The Way I Do It".

    that teacher plays each example clean.

  16. #40

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by vintagelove
    But.... the sounds actually are "visual geometry on a fretboard"....

    The interval locations and their sounds never change, as I'm sure you know. Telling others to separate the two, because you didn't think of/learn them simultaneously, isn't very helpful to them. While learning the positions, they should obviously be doing various ear training/theory/etc drills if they want to get the most out of it.

    The seven position, 3+ octave, 3 note per string system, simply fills in all the possibilities on the fretboard. If your going to learn one from the beginning, you should probably learn the most complete system.


    As far as what any of this has to do with improvisation, think about this. A single position (3 1/2 octaves) most likely has a larger range that your voice is capable of covering (at least what anyone wants to hear). Long story short, if someone can't make it happen in a single position, they can't make it happen.
    a single position has three and a half octaves?

    not so.

  17. #41

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by fumblefingers
    a single position has three and a half octaves?

    not so.


    First position of G major goes from G third fret low e, to C 8th fret high e (D if you stretch).


    e578
    b578
    g457
    d457
    a357
    e357


    edit, I could see if you meant three full octaves, I should have said it contains 3 octaves.

  18. #42

    User Info Menu

    Right. Your post has two errors.


    1. "3 1/2 octaves".

    That would be 3 octaves plus a tetrachord. I believe that you meant 2 1/2 octaves.


    2. "position".

    You mean "fingering pattern". The fingering pattern that you referenced above spans the 3rd through 5th positions. That's three positions, not one.

  19. #43

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by fumblefingers
    Right. Your post has two errors.


    1. "3 1/2 octaves".

    That would be 3 octaves plus a tetrachord. I believe that you meant 2 1/2 octaves.


    2. "position".

    You mean "fingering pattern". The fingering pattern that you referenced above spans the 3rd through 5th positions. That's three positions, not one.




    Tomayeto, potahto....


    Just kidding, I'll turn myself into the jazz police now.


    But seriously, if I wanted to play (what I would call a 4 octave scale) in the fastest, smoothest possible way. I would play through the first position/pattern, then, shift to 10 12 14, slide to 15 with my pinky. There are tons of solutions to these fingerings. Improvisation wise, they are far down the totem pole.

  20. #44

    User Info Menu

    I'm sorry but it's not tomato vs. to-mah-to. It's just the guitar.

    I really don't mean to be rude, but it's important to be correct and to avoid leading less experienced readers/guitarists astray.


    1. There is position, and there are fingering patterns, or fingerings. Fingerings can be confined to a single position, or they can span multiple positions.

    2. You referenced what "you" call 4 octaves. Well, most guitars do not provide 4 octaves. That requires 24 frets.


    No big deal. I'm sure that you're a terrific player, much better than I, but you might want to think about some of these things and sort out your confusion.

  21. #45

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by petestorz
    your fingers start to memorize the sounds of the notes if you're consistent with your fingerings and I tend to agree...I hear you with round wounds. Can't stand them either
    Petestorz,

    1. I love round wounds. They give me the best sound unplugged and the electric sound is a close match to the unplugged acoustic sound. They also allow me some much needed brightness, as I lose treble with my gemstone and things can get muddy quite. I use the brightest set of D'addarios I can find, a set of 13s Pro Steels and a set of 12s Pro Steels to create a hybrid that works perfect for me.

    For my next guitar (whenever I can afford it) I would get a customer built archtop that is full bodied enough to cut through a rhythm section acoustically, but bright enough to cut through electrically. I am weening myself off of the "dark jazz tone" as you can be bright and warm... they are two different entities IMHO.

    Johnny Smith has a treble-y-er sound than people give him credit for.

    Jim Hall has a treble-y-er sound than people give him credit for.

    BACK TO THE OPI do not agree that you need fingerings to start learning the sounds of the notes (font problems again). You learn the sound of the notes first by ear training the crap outta them. At the same time, you learn where all of those sounds are found on the fret board. A fingering should never dictate your ability to hear a note. That is what Bruce Arnold and Charlie Banacos would call a CRUTCH (would be in bold, but font trouble)

    However, there are certain articulations that you can only access with a certain fingering pattern. 3 note per string mechanisms allow for extremely quick triple, sextuplet and even quintuplet figures. Think Coltrane flourishes. Those are hard to articulate with more traditional fingerings...

    Another however, if you play with 3 note per string mechanisms exclusively (ALL THE TIME), depending on your hand size (you know what they say about guys with big hands... they have big... gloves ) you could cause a lot of unnecessary tension, and eventually, unnecessary damage to your hands.

    Every mechanism has a purpose. Try to learn as many as possible. I still use positional mechanisms for extremely quick double time passages.

    But the difference is that I do not rely on one mechanism to cover the entire fret board.

    Here is the OP

    I rely on sound for my sound, not a prescribed fingering mechanism for all my sound. Technique and sound production are connected, but they are not exclusively cohesive to one another.

  22. #46

    User Info Menu

    sorry did I say round wounds? Yes, I did... Sorry I meant flat wounds... :P

    No I don't believe that learning scale positions is the end all and be all of ear training. I just think it's an interesting concept that can help your ear training and provide a bit of a short cut. For instance, a dm7 arp starting with the pinky on the A string is going to be the same fingering as starting with your pinky on the E string. A very quick and easy way to get it in the fingers and the ear simultaneously

  23. #47

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Irez87
    Petestorz,

    1. I love round wounds. They give me the best sound unplugged and the electric sound is a close match to the unplugged acoustic sound. They also allow me some much needed brightness, as I lose treble with my gemstone and things can get muddy quite. I use the brightest set of D'addarios I can find, a set of 13s Pro Steels and a set of 12s Pro Steels to create a hybrid that works perfect for me.

    For my next guitar (whenever I can afford it) I would get a customer built archtop that is full bodied enough to cut through a rhythm section acoustically, but bright enough to cut through electrically. I am weening myself off of the "dark jazz tone" as you can be bright and warm... they are two different entities IMHO.

    Johnny Smith has a treble-y-er sound than people give him credit for.

    Jim Hall has a treble-y-er sound than people give him credit for.

    BACK TO THE OPI do not agree that you need fingerings to start learning the sounds of the notes (font problems again). You learn the sound of the notes first by ear training the crap outta them. At the same time, you learn where all of those sounds are found on the fret board. A fingering should never dictate your ability to hear a note. That is what Bruce Arnold and Charlie Banacos would call a CRUTCH (would be in bold, but font trouble)

    However, there are certain articulations that you can only access with a certain fingering pattern. 3 note per string mechanisms allow for extremely quick triple, sextuplet and even quintuplet figures. Think Coltrane flourishes. Those are hard to articulate with more traditional fingerings...

    Another however, if you play with 3 note per string mechanisms exclusively (ALL THE TIME), depending on your hand size (you know what they say about guys with big hands... they have big... gloves ) you could cause a lot of unnecessary tension, and eventually, unnecessary damage to your hands.

    Every mechanism has a purpose. Try to learn as many as possible. I still use positional mechanisms for extremely quick double time passages.

    But the difference is that I do not rely on one mechanism to cover the entire fret board.

    Here is the OP

    I rely on sound for my sound, not a prescribed fingering mechanism for all my sound. Technique and sound production are connected, but they are not exclusively cohesive to one another.


    there is really no stretching if done properly. Finger 357 with index middle pinky, make sure your thumb is with your middle finger, this allows you to reach slightly back with the index, and forward with the pinky. A little movement is fine as you move from index to pinky.

    I have multiple students under 12 that play this fingering with no tension or other issues. Also fwiw I have small hands myself.

    Any way you look at it the idea is to play through the positions (sorry fumble, there are many who use there term position when referencing the major scale fingerlings), which requires really knowing the neck.

  24. #48

    User Info Menu

    And I used to use the whole tapped finger principle while playing scales.

    My point is, you learn a system to learn the notes... great.

    But once you get comfy with that system, learn a new one.

    Then another new system.

    Then another new system of fingerings.

    Then ear train.

    Like a BAMF.

    Don't be stuck playing 10 years with one fingering system.

    Jimmy Bruno, et all, I don't care.

    That fingering system will inherently dictate how you play and what you play. Don't let the guitar dictate what you play, let your inner ear and your mind dictate what you play.

    Was it Hal Galper that said...



    Cue the Hal Galper hate

    And the Erez87 hate

  25. #49

    User Info Menu

    i'm working on fingerings a lot after 25 years of ignoring them

    improvements in my right hand technique made it obvious to me that i moved around the fretboard in a clumsy way that made it next to impossible for me to play long fluid phrases at bright tempos

    it's wonderful to find ways of moving up and across and down the instrument that are genuinely flowing - and there's no better tool to use to get this going that three octave scales

    i'm having a great time with this simple routine:

    play 3 octave 8 note maj and min 6 (or 'melodic minor') scales starting on 1,3,5 and 6 - on the bottom string (at least to start with)

    and the blues scale too

    i'm using the passing note between 5 and 6 as a physical hinge most of the time - almost always keeping it on one string and using it to move up or down. there's a kind of slip feel in the 'line' at that time and to conjoin it with a slip up and down with the hand feels musical and clear.

    the other thing i try to do - for the first two octaves at least - is to keep the fingering pattern the same for each octave. if i start on the fifth of the scale with my second finger i want to hit the fifth of the scale an octave higher with the second finger so that the second octave is produced with essentially the same left hand movements as the first was. (b string makes differences obviously). this makes the scales feel great to play - and it will help with improvising too.

    there's no doubt at all in my mind that i need to move around in these easy flowing ways with my left hand if i'm to come anywhere near playing the long, flowing phrases i want to at fast tempos and in double time passages.

    but to do it requires that i basically throw out all the clumsy fingering patterns and habits that have always been my way of coping with the neck.

    it takes a lot of time.
    Last edited by Groyniad; 10-28-2015 at 07:35 PM.

  26. #50

    User Info Menu

    I think what we have here... as always... is a failure to communicate.

    I never said forget about fingerings...

    Just in case you were responding to my OP