Guitar scale fingerings - what is the priority?

[fumblefingers]

Ok. So, you're talking more about the philosophical differences. And that's cool. I felt like this was getting into a tired old "it's still the same fretboard"/"they're still the same 12 notes" thing.

...and the philosophical approach is fundamentally different. Leavitt's introduction to the cycle in Book 3 shows that he's coming from a different place, with how he'd prioritize the introduction of the cycle in terms of when and how those exercises are introduced. Richie is just emphasizing it more from the beginning. More of a horn approach IMO.

"Richie is just emphasizing it more from the beginning".


Beginning of what? Leavitt was teaching the guitar, not improv. Does Richie teach one to play the guitar from scratch?

[fumblefingers]

ok. so this is your point?


"you should always be trying to optimize playability - NOT memorability (and you should do the extra leg-work so that you master the fingerings despite their having been constructed with ease of execution rather than ease of recall in mind)."

the thing is, if one is an improvisor they have to memorize fingerings so that ideas can flow out unencumbered. (the truth is, serious players of non-improvised music are taught to do the same).

i think this is hair splitting. i think the key is practice, practice, practice. see my post above #10. BOTH ease of play and memorization will be the result.

[matt.guitarteacher]

"Richie is just emphasizing it more from the beginning".


Beginning of what? Leavitt was teaching the guitar, not improv. Does Richie teach one to play the guitar from scratch?

It means exactly what it says. Richie is emphasizing playing through the cycle from the beginning of his material. Leavitt is working it in book 3. Leavitt's material is more focused on learning scales in positions in the beginning, working up the neck. Anyway, book 1 comes before book 3. Ordering Numbers - Math is Fun

Slow day to find something to argue about? Things must have slowed in the political thread. :-)

Nevertheless, I'll keep my Christmas humour to the last. So a merry Christmas, Uncle Scrooge (errr.... Uncle Fumble)!

[matt.guitarteacher]

the philosophical differences... nice way to put it

you can see a tune in terms of a series of sounds - Cmaj then A7 then Dm7 then Db7 etc.

or you can see the same tune in terms of a series of changes (between sounds) - Cmaj-A7; A7-Dm7;Dm7-Db7;Db7-Cmaj7 etc.

that's a philosophical difference because its a difference between two ways of seeing the same thing

but it can be crucially important

----

but still no-one has taken up my original point - and i'm still convinced its very important. you should always be trying to optimize playability - NOT memorability (and you should do the extra leg-work so that you master the fingerings despite their having been constructed with ease of execution rather than ease of recall in mind).

once again this is true whether you are trying to find fingerings for a given sound or for a given change etc. etc.

the really philosophical point i made was that when you commit to fingerings based on their playability you tend not to use visualization so much in the process of getting them learned. you learn more how they feel to play than how they look mapped out on the fretboard.

also an important thing i think.

I think there is a distinction to be made between a beginning reference and everything else related to playability etc. The idea of a default starting fingering for understanding fretboard layout/ reading etc. is pretty standard.

Pianists and horn players learn a basic one-way to play things at the beginning . Then, fingerings are incrementally added for ease of playing in certain situations. The beginning fingerings aren't have-to's or rules, not constraints. They're just a beginning reference from which to build things.

I don't know that it would be helpful at the beginning to learn all of the alternate fingerings at once on a horn, or to learn alternate fingerings which work best in the most popular keys , but are less suited to general use. I would think the variations are best taught from one simple standard, even if it's ill-suited to the highest levels of playing. Pianists don't BEGIN with fingerings suited to playing concertos after all. You don't learn the snowplow technique in skiing because it will help you in the Olympics.

[Groyniad]

that's a perfectly plausible point - that the standard system of position-based fingerings has heuristic value - but i don't think its right.

i think the big danger is that you get stuck with these five or seven stripes of fingerings across the neck and these impose unmusical phrasing patterns and lead to endless cases of 'running out of room to play' on the neck. and that its very very difficult to get away from these fingering patterns once you commit to them at the start.

i suspect that a lot of great players started with 'patterns' that moved up and down the neck much more freely - and they were more concerned with making musical movements within these flowing diagonal patterns than with 'learning the whole neck' etc. etc.

another consequence of these more physically flowing diagonal patterns is that they make playing really brightly a possibility

[mbself]

i wonder how long it tends to take to really start to be able to see the neck as one position in 12 keys for single notes and chords ).

For me it wasn't necessarily a length of time, but a point where I found a teacher who taught me to change keys by staying in a position and just changing to another of the many "scale shapes" I had learned. It was as if suddenly I could see through layers of options no matter where my hands were on the neck. Had I found him sooner I would have learned it sooner.

[matt.guitarteacher]

another consequence of these more physically flowing diagonal patterns is that they make playing really brightly a possibility

So, are you talking symmetrical patterns? It has occurred to me recently that symmetrical (sliding) scales kind of go up diagonally one way and triad inversions kind of "go up diagonally" the opposite way (succeeding, playable, close voiced inversions anyway)....

[fumblefingers]

It means exactly what it says. Richie is emphasizing playing through the cycle from the beginning of his material. Leavitt is working it in book 3. Leavitt's material is more focused on learning scales in positions in the beginning, working up the neck. Anyway, book 1 comes before book 3. Ordering Numbers - Math is Fun

Slow day to find something to argue about? Things must have slowed in the political thread. :-)

Nevertheless, I'll keep my Christmas humour to the last. So a merry Christmas, Uncle Scrooge (errr.... Uncle Fumble)!

no, it's just jazz pedagogy.

people, especially self taught or informally educated players, get confused when improv and instrumental studies are combined. it's not necessarily a bad approach, but it really clouds the issues for a lot of people. you are one of those people. it doesn't make you a bad person, but you are not clear in your understanding.

so you like math, smart guy? here's some math for you. Mark said that "Richie's course" is designed to take a year. At at the end of that year one is expected to be able to play/improvise bebop with some basic competent skill. Still with me? One year. "1"

Nobody, and i mean nobody, expects a player to go from beginner to competent be-bopper in one year. that means that by the time one starts an improv course that they're already at an intermediate player, and depending on the course, an advanced player. (UNT's Improv class one is generally targeted to sophomores, for example. That's a serious musician who has probably played for at least 10 years).

So when you see a course like Richie's you have to understand it for what it is. Same with something like John McLaughlin's course. He spends a little bit of time on scales, arpeggios, intervals, jazz patterns, etudes, but you are expected to improvise through the lessons. It is NOT for beginners. So your comparison of Richie's course "1" to Leavitt's course "3" is not an apples-to-apples comparison. It is invalid. Richie doesn't have a comprehensive guitar course from beginner to advanced. He has a comprehensive bebop improv course.

Leavitt's book 3 is for high intermediate/low advanced level players. That's the reasonable level for approaching a serious study of bebop improvisation when results are expected in no more than 12 months - a course like Richie's in other words.

If you had been educated in jazz pedagogy, you would know this.

[christianm77]

Jazz pedagogy is a rich and interesting subject with some occasional connections to actual jazz.

Fingerings - as easy and as practical as possible. I do not believe we will be rewarded in the afterlife for using difficult ones.

[matt.guitarteacher]

no, it's just jazz pedagogy.

people, especially self taught or informally educated players, get confused when improv and instrumental studies are combined. it's not necessarily a bad approach, but it really clouds the issues for a lot of people. you are one of those people. it doesn't make you a bad person, but you are not clear in your understanding.

I don't know what you're getting at. Not really making any sense today. I don't think anybody made any big assertions about what was being taught where. Where did you get this rule that improv books and other books can't be discussed in the same sentence if they share common methodology otherwise. William Leavitt's book isn't 0% improv information, and Richie's deals with fingering and learning the instrument beyond just improvisational concepts.

The fact is that both methods aren't only about fingering. But they both deal with fingering, and in different ways. If your brain is going to melt from the idea that one is more about improv, please move your brain away from your screen and read something else. I'm sure everyone here shares my best wishes for your mental health and a Merry Christmas.

so you like math, smart guy? here's some math for you. Mark said that "Richie's course" is designed to take a year. At at the end of that year one is expected to be able to play/improvise bebop with some basic competent skill. Still with me? One year. "1"

I didn't go back and read here on my phone, but that's not a real accurate representation of what the course is. I suppose it's possible that Mark is in fact the Ebenezer Scrooge here, with ill intent on misinforming people. You are probably the Bob Cratchit.

My apologies. I hope your day improves. Merry Christmas!

[christianm77]

so you like math, smart guy?

I particularly enjoyed that bit. I think this could be a meme.

[MarkRhodes]

so you like math, smart guy? here's some math for you. Mark said that "Richie's course" is designed to take a year. At at the end of that year one is expected to be able to play/improvise bebop with some basic competent skill. Still with me? One year. "1"

Nobody, and i mean nobody, expects a player to go from beginner to competent be-bopper in one year. .

Richie's course is designed to take one year, yes. It is one year devoted to playing blues only. (The next component will focus on the rhythm changes.) Richie is a Berklee grad----he's a well-schooled guy. He does say that his one-year program conveys what most music programs would take four years to teach. I've never been to a music school, so I can't speak to that (but of course, Richie has, AND more importantly, he actually knows what all is in his lessons while you do not.) Richie's course is not for beginning players, though it can be used by many players with no formal training.

[fumblefingers]

Jazz pedagogy is a rich and interesting subject with some occasional connections to actual jazz.

Fingerings - as easy and as practical as possible. I do not believe we will be rewarded in the afterlife for using difficult ones.

i don't either. i refer to them as "low percentage" fingerings or "out to lunch" fingerings. low percentage because the odds of "nailing it" when using them is lower. thud, thump, pfffft, etc.

that's why after learning Leavitt's so many years ago i've dumped a few and have settled on 5-7 for any given scale. among those, 2-3 are really sweet, per scale/mode. true when Carcassi was here, true today.

[fumblefingers]

Richie's course is not for beginning players, though it can be used by many players with no formal training.

Precisely. No serious study of improv is.

neither is Leavitt's book 3.


hence the fallacy of Matt's observation/argument.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Precisely. No serious study of improv is.

neither is Leavitt's book 3.

hence the fallacy of Matt's observation/argument.

Richie introduces cyclical playing as a part of working through his fingerings from the beginning. Leavitt works in positions up the neck and gets to cyclical playing later. I didn't make any judgment about either one beyond that.

It's not enough that I have to deal with "hormonal hearing" from my wife, but apparently you're also hearing way more than I ever said across the world wide web. You're arguing with statements which were never made. Have fun talking to yourself. If you feel that you need to argue with my imaginary statements that Richie and Leavitt are.......the same, work at the same pace, or are similar in focus, I don't know quite know how to have an imaginary conversation.

I don't know. When I hear that kind of hysterics, I'm thinking maybe you could get a manicure, curl up with a cup of coffee, and a romantic comedy. Everything will be better tomorrow.

Good job thinking for everyone else on the internet.

[christianm77]

i don't either. i refer to them as "low percentage" fingerings or "out to lunch" fingerings. low percentage because the odds of "nailing it" when using them is lower. thud, thump, pfffft, etc.

that's why after learning Leavitt's so many years ago i've dumped a few and have settled on 5-7 for any given scale. among those, 2-3 are really sweet, per scale/mode. true when Carcassi was here, true today.

Haha the infamous fumble fingers. I have my stupid blunt thumbs. Five of them on each hand.

[Moonray]

I don't wish to intrude on a personal feud that seems to have taken over this thread.

Maybe a brief quote from Richie's "About the Guitar Improv Series" books that work alongside
the videos may clarify the spirit of where the player needs to be in order to get the most out
of the course.

"NOTE: This series focuses solely on the development of linear improvisation.
A working knowledge of basic 7th chords is presumed throughout,as guitar oriented
instruction on their construction is beyond its scope"

It seems that the chord-to-melody linkage is what Richie is aiming to develop...
.....as is Barry Greene ....who mentions this very often in his lessons.

From my own view, of course it is really important to have fingerings of scales, arpeggios and chords at your
your instant disposal.
What those fingerings are is personal to each player....as a study of the greats down the years proves.

A comment made previously that I'd go along with 100% is that if you can express what you're trying to
say ....then I'd say you have a "system" that works for you.

[fumblefingers]

Richie introduces cyclical playing as a part of working through his fingerings from the beginning. Leavitt works in positions up the neck and gets to cyclical playing later. I didn't make any judgment about either one beyond that.

It's not enough that I have to deal with "hormonal hearing" from my wife, but apparently you're also hearing way more than I ever said across the world wide web. You're arguing with statements which were never made. Have fun talking to yourself. If you feel that you need to argue with my imaginary statements that Richie and Leavitt are.......the same, work at the same pace, or are similar in focus, I don't know quite know how to have an imaginary conversation.

I don't know. When I hear that kind of hysterics, I'm thinking maybe you could get a manicure, curl up with a cup of coffee, and a romantic comedy. Everything will be better tomorrow.

Good job thinking for everyone else on the internet.

I understand that you don't understand. You don't concede fault particularly well. I get it, it's pride.

I don't give a shit about your wife but think that you would benefit in a few years of both jazz and classical studies on the guitar, as well as theory, composition, arranging etc and multiple levels of improvisation.

then, compare the differences in formal education for future professionals, vs. Informal education - no matter how solid - for hobbyists. Then return to this topic.

you're just as stubborn on this as you were with the rant about beginning guitar instruction taking one string at a time. You're a smart guy but nevertheless are engaged in guitar pedagogy "discovery mode".

cheers.

[matt.guitarteacher]

I understand that you don't understand. You don't concede fault particularly well. I get it, it's pride.

Pride. Maybe so. I'm arrogant enough to refuse responsibility for imaginary statements I never made.

But I'd say it's a bit much to question my integrity while, yourself, presuming to know my thoughts and twisting my words to suit your own apparent need to argue. But that's pretty standard stuff from you. No one expects any less.

It's slightly unsettling to see you get so butt hurt about an imaginary slight against William Leavitt, when I have advocated FOR him and his materials as much as anyone on this forum.

I'd think any conversation of systematic stretch fingerings is going to at least reference Leavitt. Your apparent frothing indignation over the mere mention of his name in the same sentence as anyone else comes across as being frantic and paranoid.

There is one statement, however, that I regret making. I AM very sorry for stating that using Richie's method would in fact make one taller and more handsome. That was perhaps beneath even MY low standards of honesty. I retract that one and promise to do better.

Have to leave now to feed my unicorn....

[Stevebol]

I've recently begun Richie Zellon's bebop course, which is designed to take a year. The first thing you learn is some fingerings for the mixolydian scale. (The context of the teaching is the blues, starting with a simple I-IV-V blues and working up to a "Bird" blues.) I figured they would be like fingerings that I had already learned, and in many ways they are, but what came as a revelation to me is that Richie sets up the fingerings so that it becomes natural / easy to play through a cycle of changes in one position. (He also shows you how to do it "horizontally" but he thinks most players are weak in their "vertical" understanding and boy was that true in my case.) I wondered why I had never thought about it this way before, but it makes such good sense: I mean, how often do you want to play, say, C major all up and down the neck? But being called to switch from, say, D7 to G7 to C7 to F7 (-the rhythm bridge) at a brisk tempo is an everyday thing.

So to answer your question now I would say: what's important about fingerings is that they facilitate playing through a cycle of changes / keys easily

Mark you should get a teacher if you can. I wouldn't confuse good playing with good teaching. Some can do both, some can't.

[Groyniad]

i've not read anyone on this forum being quite so unpleasant as ff on this thread. my experience of jazz learning has been dominated by the experience of playing endless gigs with two or three very advanced and experienced players who have all been very quietly supportive, humble, and entirely focused on our shared enjoyment and love of the music. the sort of big-headed small mindedness on display here has been conspicuous only in its absence. but i have had almost nothing to do with youngsters fresh out of 'jazz school'.

[destinytot]

Besides...

[destinytot]

Sent to moderators:

"I don't give a shit about your wife". Wrong key.

A lot of forum members put their best thinking on the line, making themselves vulnerable to disagreement, challenge and criticism in order to promote learning.


Regardless of the context or history, "This aggression will not stand, man..." - so I register disapproval at its presence on the thread.

.............

Rather than just a five-second clip with the quote, I'm posting the whole scene - might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb:

[matt.guitarteacher]

Sent to moderators:

"I don't give a shit about your wife". Wrong key.

May have deserved that one actually. :-)

I made the comparison, and it was silly (but fun).

Made in irritation.

A lot of forum members put their best thinking on the line, making themselves vulnerable to disagreement, challenge and criticism in order to promote learning.

A very much appreciate the kind sentiments though.

[mbself]

Can't we all just get along?
--Rodney King