The impact of symmetry and rhythmic elements on technical progress

[matt.guitarteacher]

I have never been a really technical player. Not fast. Never really that interested in getting down into this stuff apart from tunes etc. But the last year or so, I just kind of stopped everything and have taken a harder look at it.

Honestly, it's been very enlightening, and actually enjoyable - far beyond what I would have expected. There have been a lot of lessons learned. Many of them re. just basic motion etc., but the most profound and game-changing for my slow, small-handed, non-technical self have been re. symmetry and basic rhythmic reference .

Like many, I guess, I had always heard that, in the beginning, with scales and arps, regardless of position, you start on the root, play up to the highest note in position, and then, back down to the lowest note, and back up, ending on the lower root....for scales, arpeggios etc. Always found this slow going. Right-hand and left-hand technical issues seemed to always trip up progress with increases in tempos. Each position had its own, unique rhythmic/fingering/picking patterns basically.

Anyway, after a strange combination of things - working on one of those rhythmic Barry Harris things which Christian posted and then reading an old Reg post where he talked about symmetrically working four inversions of diatonic seventh arpeggios: from the second finger, sixth- string, up to the same pitch on the first string, two octaves, and then back down. anyway, I found that the rhythmic symmetry and picking/layout symmetry immediately made many things easier.

Of course, you can do the same thing with scales, by always beginning on the same finger on the sixth string (kind of modal), and limiting to one/two octaves etc. The very surprising result of limiting things this way is that the right hand just kind of "gets out of the way" , in terms of technical issues. That's because it's doing nearly the same thing for each "inversion" of scale or arp. Helps with LH as well, and with seeing related patterns between scales modes etc.

It very much reminded me of piano lessons. You learn to play arpeggio inversions in one or two octaves , at least at the beginning. You don't learn to play up an octave and a third or an octave and a fifth and then, back down to an arbitrary pitch below the root, and back up, not as a first step. Stop and consider how much more difficult such a simple technical exercise on the piano would be, if you did that. It's the thing you do in learning actual pieces , but it's not a starting exercise to work things in a basic, beginning, technical way. In most instrumental methods, you generally think of beginning exercises as mostly limiting variables.

But this is basic pedagogy for much of what I've seen for guitar, and I think it's messed up. There's no symmetry and no rhythmic reference for a lot of beginning material, which is already pretty difficult. Simply relating each position to an inversion which corresponds to the "low note" in that position solves the problem associated with this asymmetry, and for me, had an almost immediate impact on technical execution, across multiple positions.

I feel like I've progressed far beyond where I would've been, doing things the old way, in the same amount of time. It's very easy to Hanon-ize any simple exercise on the guitar with this kind of approach. Maybe others have always done it this way? I'm sure I'll never be really fast or technical player, but this is taking loads off my mind, in terms of my own perception of the amount of work which may be required to get to certain places technically. I now wonder how many "technical issues" which are talked about by guitarists, are actually more related to problems with reducing the number of variables in a sufficient way.

Reg has always talked about a lot of these seemingly complex technical tasks as being " simple" etc., and generally, there's the vibe here that we're basically all thinking , "yeah. Right. Maybe for you". :-) I know I have certainly been there .

Lately, I'm thinking more along the lines of considering that my approach may have just been much more difficult, all along. Anyway, I'd be interested in anyone else's thoughts regarding this type of thing.

Thanks.

[JakeAcci]

Hi Matt I like where you are going with this and I think I follow but not fully.

One thing I came across a few years ago - and tell me if this in line with your realizations:

We can approach the fretboard or fingerings with different aims in mind.

1. minimal movement in the left hand

2. consistent movement in the left hand

3. creating mental maps of the fretboard

4. some ideal of preparedness for certain types of improvisation or vocabulary

5. right hand consistency or efficiency

And what's the primary issue of technique that gets discussed in guitar forums? Picking technique, playing complex figures crossing over strings. So if we can arrange fingerings and lines with #5 as a focus, it often can solve a lot of the common problems.

It's late but I'm trying to be a good reader - seems like your observations are related mainly to #2 and #5, while conventional guitar pedagogy focuses a lot on #1 and #3.

Personally, I think it's important to tackle the fretboard in different ways depending on what we are trying to accomplish.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Sorry if I'm not making sense.

Yeah. It's mainly just about reducing the number of variables for me. Especially in the beginning. It just occurs to me more and more lately how much easier things are, for right hand especially -but really both - when you keep things to one or two octaves and treat scale patterns more modally, with that in mind, in terms of position, .....and likewise, treat arpeggio patterns more like inversions, with that in mind.

Same rhythms , same string sets, same picking patterns or very similar. Anyway, the arpeggio inversions have been my thing I've been interested in lately. I'll maybe post something later.

[JakeAcci]

I think I do get the general idea, but more specific examples could be cool! I do think this is in line with some "big" realizations/observations I had a while ago.

[princeplanet]

Yes, I looked at ways to reduce the asymmetric maze we all face, even considered P4 tuning which makes a lot of sense. In the end, I just accepted the grind and learned everything (I mean everything) in 4 or 5 different places on the neck. The fact that every phrase played in each of the different positions feels so different is a bitch, for both hands. It takes years to get everything feeling like 2nd nature.

The rewards are slow to come, but I never wanted to be limited to play within favoured positions only. Besides, 5 positions gets you all 12 keys within a couple frets. A piano player has to learn 12 different fingerings...

[matt.guitarteacher]

Yes, I looked at ways to reduce the asymmetric maze we all face, even considered P4 tuning which makes a lot of sense. In the end, I just accepted the grind and learned everything (I mean everything) in 4 or 5 different places on the neck. The fact that every phrase played in each of the different positions feels so different is a bitch, for both hands. It takes years to get everything feeling like 2nd nature.

The rewards are slow to come, but I never wanted to be limited to play within favoured positions only. Besides, 5 positions gets you all 12 keys within a couple frets. A piano player has to learn 12 different fingerings...

Yeah. There are different ways of looking at it. I'm not really talking about compromising, in terms of not playing certain positions, as much as how you'd address each position.

I'm talking about addressing something like a Cmaj7 arp as a 2-octave entity as a starting reference, and each position. C-to-C, E-to-E, G-to-G, B-to-B. For a 5-position player, that's one position short for each chord maybe, but the overlap covers all of them. For what Reg describes, it's about priorities basically, root position from each scale degree is the basic starting point. Then, you add inversions for each chord degree. Then, you fill in the rest. anyway, one of the "unintended consequences" of this is that, by default, there's a pretty constant rhythm and picking pattern throughout each of these.

From what I've seen in the books and what I've always heard most players talk about, that's a little different, as a starting point. I think that something closer to a consensus starting point for most guitarists/books is something like: learn each arpeggio in all five, or seven, positions by starting on the root and playing to the upper range of the position, and then back down past the root to the lowest note in position, and finally, back up to the beginning root.

I personally think one is a bit more arbitrary-feeling than the other. If we were playing piano, at some point, there would be an emphasis on learning arpeggiated patterns in inversions. Every exercise I've seen of this type keeps a constant rhythm throughout the exercise, and also more often than not, the fingering reference for the beginning of each phrase will begin on the first finger etc., remaining constant as well.

Them apply it to the guitar. Rather than arbitrarily practicing inversions in each position, it might be a lot more helpful to practice inversions up the fretboard first, with the actual layout of the instrument making the initial decision for us: as to which inversion would be played in that position.

I can't help but think that there is just a natural technical advantage to playing things with as few variables as possible, especially in the beginning. Of course, I am naturally going to believe that starting each inversion on the same finger is an additional advantage, limiting one additional variable.

[Lobomov]

So you're saying not to practice the standard 6th to 1st sting arppegio runs, but to focus on for example four notes arpeggios and their inversions?

[princeplanet]

So, you're looking at a sort of repeatabllity wherever possible for the sake of easier ear to finger conceptualising, as well as rhythmic consistency? Sounds great, the sort of thing that may have saved me a couple years Too late for me, and perhaps many others, who have committed to another (more traditional?) concept. For the same reason it's too late to go P4- we're past the point of no return...

[matt.guitarteacher]

So you're saying not to practice the standard 6th to 1st sting arppegio runs, but to focus on for example four notes arpeggios and their inversions?

Not really. I'll post a cheesy vid later.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Really not set up to record through this rig anymore. Tone is pretty bad.

Anyway, I can't record guitar and speech simultaneously right now either. Below, I'll try to break down what I'm playing. I included a couple of mistakes to keep things real, as well, and to make everyone feel more comfortable. :-) You're welcome.

The beginning is 4 inversions each for each diatonic chord. Gmaj7, Am7, etc.

Later it's ascending root position, ascending 1st inversion, 2nd, 3rd....

Then, four inversions for each degree, in position. For G: Gmaj7, Em7, Cmaj7, Am7, then, up to A, and the same. Anyway, I wouldn't have been able to work through all these iterations like this, even a couple of months ago. This has had a pretty profound effect on my ease of navigating this kind of stuff, both mentally and technically. I've always been more of a fingerstyle jazz hobbyist. The pick thing is newer, but this approach alone, helps considerably with the technical aspects of both hands for me.

Anyway, maybe someone else finds them at least interesting. Thanks.

[JakeAcci]

that's interesting Matt but I wonder - how it is it going to connect to actual improvisation? My teaching approach right now is more to learn the standard stuff you were discussing earlier (the conventional approaches) but only as a means to see locations, not to play. In fact I tell students to check out certain fingerings and really not spend all that long on them, as reference but to not get too attached to them because in actuality they're gonna wind up all over the place anyway. Then we work on etudes and principles of lines.

symmetry in the right hand is really important great, but a lot of it falls apart when dealing with actual lines, which can take a variety of shapes and forms, right?

[matt.guitarteacher]

Not THE way. Just a way... :-)

[Guitarzen]

It's good to find some way to memorize where all the notes are, but as Jake says, all those logical / symmetrical fingerings and pick patterns go out the window when you are improvising freely and creatively. I wouldn't get attached to always starting everything on the same finger for example, because every fingering lends itself to different ideas, and if you are attached to one fingering, you are going to never play some ideas. The reason for this is simply that some licks will be easy with the fingering you are using, so you will always gravitate to those ideas. You'll be much less likely to go to the ideas that are really difficult with that particular fingering. But there is always a different fingering that makes those difficult lines easier.

Use whatever system you need to in order to memorize where all the notes are, but moving to the next level will involve being able to play any idea you can imagine or hear, no matter what crazy ass fingering it requires.

I'm still a little unsure what you mean by your original post, but I guess you mean starting on the same finger, and having the same amount of notes and similar picking pattern makes it more symmetrical?

[matt.guitarteacher]

To be absolutely clear, I'm not a gigging pro. I'm really not a jazz player. I'm one of many people here trying to learn the fretboard, and learn to play some jazz generally.

Maybe it's been misunderstood that my original intention was to say that "this is the way to play when soloing" or something. I don't know what I may have said to imply that I think everyone should change the ORDER of the notes they play while improvising to make things easier.

I was simply talking about learning a beginning reference for notes on the fretboard , and basic exercises for learning more positions etc. I've spent some time lately trying to clean some things up technically, and therefore, have done some technical exercises.

I don't really hold any notion that they should be the ONLY thing players ever practice . I honestly don't understand why these conversations always devolve into a conversation about these types of things not being what you would play in an improvised solo or whatever. I would think that that's understood.

The examples I pointed to were like Hanon exercises for piano , or simple one octave arpeggiated chord inversions. I think if we were talking to pianists about these type of technical exercises, one wouldn't have to stop and constantly insist that everyone understand that playing Hanon isn't going to make you immediately able to play OTHER pieces of music or whatever.

But the honest truth is that most of us in music, regardless of instrument , learn to play things ONE way before we learn to play them every way. I don't think anyone has to stop and explain to pianists constantly that one day they won't play simple five finger positions. You cross that bridge when you get to it.

Also, to be fair, beginning each position on the root instead of the lowest note in position, whether it's the first finger or second finger, is really no LESS arbitrary than the example I posted . Neither one makes you actually better at playing the other. They're still separate entities, and they both, equally cover the entire fretboard. Would it be silly for me to point out that you're not always going to start on the root in each position either, or is this basically assumed by everyone? I'm not really suggesting anything different.

All things being equal, when addressing something basic, like learning the fretboard completely, which I'm kind of finishing out myself, especially in terms of cleaning up some technique, it's actually very helpful to LIMIT variables as much as possible.

( Apologies for all caps. Posting from my phone with limited editing options. please don't read into this any defensiveness or anger from me. Really enjoy both of your posts always. Thanks.)

[matt.guitarteacher]

I'm still a little unsure what you mean by your original post, but I guess you mean starting on the same finger, and having the same amount of notes and similar picking pattern makes it more symmetrical?

Yeah. I just notice in Piano methods or horn methods or whatever that there are very often exercises in the beginning which cover different note sets or inversions while maintaining the same rhythm and phrasing. Even on guitar, you eventually have to do that WITHIN each position, and I understand that. But in the beginning, the inversion might actually be a better starting point, for actually LEARNING the position, if it suits the position better.

To be fair, as guitarists we're very likely to learn one position as a two octave phrase, the next position as an octave and a fifth etc. etc. And that's just to get started. I don't know. I mean, inversions are a legitimate thing anyway. Why not use them to actually make some technical aspects of playing and learning a new position simpler?

On piano, you just shift your hand up to play the next inversion of the one octave arpeggio. In my mind, it's the same thing basically, on guitar.

By the way, I'd still be learning all this in seven positions, and I have. The other three begin with a first finger stretch, but I still limit the arp to two octaves for the rhythmic advantage in using it as a warm-up this way. That's not a forever thing, mind you, and I wouldn't do that improvising.

[christianm77]

Really not set up to record through this rig anymore. Tone is pretty bad.

Anyway, I can't record guitar and speech simultaneously right now either. Below, I'll try to break down what I'm playing. I included a couple of mistakes to keep things real, as well, and to make everyone feel more comfortable. :-) You're welcome.

The beginning is 4 inversions each for each diatonic chord. Gmaj7, Am7, etc.

Later it's ascending root position, ascending 1st inversion, 2nd, 3rd....

Then, four inversions for each degree, in position. For G: Gmaj7, Em7, Cmaj7, Am7, then, up to A, and the same. Anyway, I wouldn't have been able to work through all these iterations like this, even a couple of months ago. This has had a pretty profound effect on my ease of navigating this kind of stuff, both mentally and technically. I've always been more of a fingerstyle jazz hobbyist. The pick thing is newer, but this approach alone, helps considerably with the technical aspects of both hands for me.

Anyway, maybe someone else finds them at least interesting. Thanks.

I think your pick technique is good, and I really like your tone. You obviously get more comfortable as you go on... I think these will sound great with a bit of practice.

One thing I am obsessed about ATM - effortlessness. I have to remember to practice this kind of stuff (scales, arps, heads etc) with a slow metronome (40bpm say) - slower than I think I need just to make sure. Obvious stuff, but there can't be any feeling of 'oh what note do I play now?'

That said, effortlessness isn't necessarily cultivated best through playing things slow for everyone. I'm in two minds about when to introduce a fixed tempo - it can be detrimental if done too early, you need time to get used to a fingering.

In any case, I want everything in my playing to be polished till it shines. I should really video my exercises - that's the acid test, isn't it? Classical players make sure every scale and arpeggio sounds beautiful - so should we.

Some might think this is anathema to improvisation, but it really isn't.

[matt.guitarteacher]

I think your pick technique is good, and I really like your tone.

One thing I am obsessed about ATM - effortlessness. I have to remember to practice this kind of stuff (scales, arps, heads etc) with a slow metronome (40bpm say) - slower than I think I need just to make sure. Obvious stuff, but there can't be any feeling of 'oh what note do I play now?' I want everything in my playing to be polished till it shines.

Some might think this is anathema to improvisation, but it really isn't.

I'm with you on that. I don't always play it right at the edge like that. I actually can do it a good bit faster with crap technique and nobody looking, but I often practice slowly as well. :-) I'm really not good with the red light on to start, and a lot of this is really fresh for me.

I'm always impressed with your ability to talk and play simultaneously btw. You've got your stuff together.

[christianm77]

I'm with you on that. I don't always play it right at the edge like that. I actually can do it a good bit faster with crap technique and nobody looking, but I often practice slowly as well. :-) I'm really not good with the red light on to start, and a lot of this is really fresh for me.

I think you were getting more effortless as you went on. If you have the capacity to make mistakes and not have them bother you then you can get away with practicing it a bit faster. I can't.

Also, as I mentioned in the edit above, I'm not always sure when the best time is to go from playing things out of time to get the mechanics together and then move to fixed tempo. I'm don't know if there are any hard and fast rules on this TBH, but I think it's a mistake to do it too early.

I'm always impressed with your ability to talk and play simultaneously btw. You've got your stuff together.

Thanks! I remember Kenny Werner saying if you can't talk (without your speech being linked with the phrasing of what you are playing) while you're doing it it's not effortless.

The aim in his eyes is to play everything effortlessly, and I agree. I need to get used to curbing impatience.

Easier said than done, but I figure if I just have 5 things that I can play beautifully in all positions and keys and be able to extend, vary and apply through all the different changes, that'll be enough for my career.

I'm serious.

I end up making stuff up sometimes. But if that happens, I figure that's OK ;-)

[Guitarzen]

I don't think anyone assumed you meant anything that you didn't explicitly write, I sure didn't. But there is no harm in everyone sharing their 2 cents on the topic right? By reading all the different perspectives on the topic we can all hopefully come to a clearer understanding. I don't ever think it is a good idea to assume there is something that everyone already knows. It is quite possible that someone could mistakenly believe there is one right way to do something, we see that all the time, in every area of life not just guitar playing. In fact that is the most common mistake people make with everything as far as I can tell...

[JakeAcci]

Hey Matt I get what you're saying - my perspective on the issue is somewhat nuanced and hard to explain via text without taking half a day to phrase things correctly, but hopefully I can jump back to this thread soon.