-
Originally Posted by Tal_175
If I focus on learning the Harmonic Minor, I could use those patterns when presented with a chord calling for the Phrygian Dominant. Just a matter of shifting the pattern/on which note you start.
In my experience, and a big reason I'm now trying to expand my scale knowledge, when I play over a C
ii-V-I using just the C Ionian or D Dorian, going up and down, things tend to get too bland. Something missing. Even if I try to emphasise the specific chord tones. Moreover, when you get to a chord from a different key, let's say C#dim, you need something very specific to address it. I'd say that's where I'm at right now
-
08-17-2018 07:56 AM
-
Originally Posted by rsergio
-
Originally Posted by rsergio
Also Joe Pass books and Wes Montgomery books have a wealth of jazz vocab in them, when you're ready.
-
Originally Posted by princeplanet
Clifford Brown?! Really? You don't tell middle school kids to stop practicing basketball fundamentals so much because Lebron doesn't work that as much anymore. Things which the highest level players practice is not an accurate measure of what beginners practice.
We can have the conversation, but don't give me Clifford Brown or Lebron. From what we know, how much fundamental musicianship did Bird and Armstrong have togetherat a very young age, before they studied jazz?How much of that is relevant?I'm willing to have that conversation. But most of these conversations are for guitarists only.We are dumbing down because we aren't real musicians the way other instrumentalists are.
-
Originally Posted by princeplanet
-
2 common anti-scale theories on the jazz forum:
1. Disruption
2. Wasted time or opportunity costs
Disruption is what I'm calling the notion that somehow playing scales will "interfere" with your cognitive abilities and other musical areas like improvisation. This is utter nonsense. It's true that there areindividuals who practice nothing but scales and therefore don't improve at all in improvisation to any great degree.
It's a logical fallacy to use THIS fact as "proof" that "scales don't work" or are otherwise a waste of time. The real problem is that they're not doing enough of other things , but that fact is independent of scale knowledge. Taking literature classes, grammar classes , foreign language classes etc. etc. does not make you a worse rider for example. That's just nonsense. The human mind is not limited in that way.
Wasted Time argument is flawed as well in my opinion. It assumes that every person has some fixed amount of time to work on music and that 100% of it must be spent in some particular way. If you're spending 100% of your time practicing ANY ONE THING in music, you're not using your time in the best way , but that doesn't change the facts about things like basic scales. Somewhere between two minutes per day and two hours a day is going to be reasonable , rational number for the amount of time you should be working on fundamentals if any type if you don't already know them.
There's only so much bandwidth that an individual has for any endeavor in life. The fact is that most people are not limited only by concrete time limits as much as things like attention span. What do you do when you're not practicing improvisation? What other things should you be doing? There's any number of things that can feel the rest of your day. If you're saying 0% is an effective number for beginners who don't know scales , I would take issue . I think there's some number above zero which is reasonable.
There's a third notion - that somehow it should take years and YEARS to learn basic scales - which I think points to a very real problem with how many guitarists approach the instrument. If it takes you years and years and YEARS, your approach is WRONG.
I was challenged pretty hard on this last fallacy by a pro several years ago . It cost me to question everything I think about this instrument . Somewhat difficult , but the best thing I ever did for understanding basics of how the fret board works.
-
Originally Posted by Tal_175
Pianists aren't limited to five finger scale positions either. Honestly, this is the kind of argument that someone makes when looking at it from the outside.
There are different ways to approach things. No right or wrong, but this argument isn't necessarily a deciding factor.
-
Originally Posted by djg
Maybe I didn't word things correctly. What would you play over C#dim? Would you just play C Major scale?
If naming my idols is important to this, well, I love Django, Pass, Hall and Rosenwinkel. Maybe you are right, what would they play over C#dim?
-
Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
I guess that's the reason "no nonsense" guys like Conti and Bruno seem to be effective, although I think you can go too far the other way, where you rote learn lines without enough background theory to create your own. There's an ideal balance to be struck, somewhere between the extremes, tailored to the individual of course.
I fear this is all going over the poor OP's head anyway. Maybe the best advice we can give is for him to make sure that his teacher can provide him the right balance of things to practice at the right times. I'm betting there are more than a few teachers out there that can teach scales, arps and chords along with some tunes, but can't really improvise to changes all that well....
-
Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
There are large styles of techniques and habits. One can find a fantastic player for each of them. That's not a meaningful way to give response to forum question that's looking for a specific solution. One can only explain the reasons behind each approach, it's strength and weaknesses. Let the person decide for themselves. And yes, the Levitt system is motivated for supporting reading without having to look at the fretboard. This is where it's advantage lies. But that comes at a trade off as well. That's life. That's not looking from outside, that's putting it in a context.
Also each instrument has it's own expressive advantages and disadvantages. Pianist not using a five finger scale positions is really a silly point.
-
Originally Posted by rsergio
-
Originally Posted by princeplanet
I agree with you, some people miss that for too long, I missed it for a very long time.
Seems like it's hard to help someone realise that, no matter how kind the intent. And pity isn't particularly kind, especially in the face of hubris. It's a real head scratcher.
Easy face to face though, with a good teacher.
D.
-
Originally Posted by Freel
-
Originally Posted by rsergio
The short answer is "a melody" but that's not what you mean, so.... it depends on context, but some starting point sources:
C# dim or dim7 arpeggio
C# diminished scale
D harmonic minor (7th mode)
-
Originally Posted by princeplanet
It was OK but perhaps I added too much spice, a bad habit of mine.
D
-
Originally Posted by Freel
-
I guess you're talking about a different post? I said nothing about anti-scale anything in the quote you linked.
Originally Posted by Tal_175
-
Originally Posted by rsergio
Scales are good for practising, but to create music you must somehow come up with melodic ideas.
Listen to your heroes and work out some of the phrases they play.
-
Originally Posted by princeplanet
Too much either/or implied much of the time...
-
Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
But for someone who is interested in playing straight-ahead language, I don't think it's controversial to say that the 12 position Levitt system would not be an ideal choice. I don't know if anyone can really capture Wes Mongomery or Bird by adhering to the Levitt system. Possible perhaps but let's just say that would be rather unorthodox.
-
Also let me clarify something. One can't really say they are using the Levitt system if they are not thinking in 6 fret positions where first and last frets are accessed by index finger and pinky stretches.
PS. I did go through the books sometime ago. Not page by page though. More the second and the third books as the first one I though was very elementary.
-
Originally Posted by Tal_175
Chromatic scale fingerings or bop fingerings on piano aren't a "proof" that those five finger scales "don't work" either. Somewhat apples and oranges. It's not a "waste of time" for beginning students to learn those five finger scales either. In the long run, it's probably SHORTCUT, regardless of what your long-term goals are or where you're starting from. In my experience, on piano, the easiest way to learn to play without thinking about fingerings , is to work on some basic default "correct" fingerings for beginners. Counterintuitive, but it's easier to break the rules after. One kind of follows the other.
Again, I don't really see this is a "choice" in a dichotomy.
-
Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
-
Originally Posted by Tal_175
Vols 1-2 use Leavitt fingering types 4, 3, 2, 1, and 1A. Reg's/Rosenwinkel' s simply add in 1B and 1C. Leavitt's breakdown of this stuff is pretty cool to me personally. Page 1 from volume 3.
-
Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
So these 7 position systems aren't the Levitt system. You can describe any reasonable fingering system as a subset of the Levitt system. Same scale, same instrument. They all cover exactly the same notes. CAGED Is 5 positions of Levitt pretty much. 3 notes per sting system is in there too. Because Levitt is the most internally overlapping system to prevent the need to shift. Like I said I was specifically referring to the Levitt system, not any other system the a subset of it (practically any other system). There must be a reason why these players aren't using the Levitt system exactly either. As the system I was referring to.
Edit: When I say subset, I mean organizationally. They all cover exactly the same notes on every string when you merge all the positions of any of these systems together..Last edited by Tal_175; 08-17-2018 at 12:57 PM.
16" 1920s/30s L5
Yesterday, 08:44 PM in For Sale