Reg's Fingerings

[Donplaysguitar]

I'm sorry but I have to be honest. Parts of the last few posts are absurd, no offense to anyone.

Rather, it seems to me that the truth is:

1. Whether a musician is playing a rapid glissando passage on a keyboard or guitar (which for the guitar is next to impossible to do like a pianist), they do NOT have time to think "oh, this is an F#, this is a G, this is an A, now a Bb", for a 20-note stretch at a rapid clip etc. Same goes for an elaborate Parker or Trane type line.

2. Fingerings? Fingerings enable one to play whatever it is they want to play, and to play it rapidly and cleanly. If one wants to play or improvise scales, arepeggios, intervals, permutations of arpeggios/broken chord, licks, chromatics, chord outlines that mix all of the above - then they had best practice those very things. Chances are that one will NOT effectively improvise something dense and fast that does not have its antecedents in practice.

If one wants to play slow and introspectively all night long that's one thing, but they shouldn't be surprised that whatever teensy audience they have hits the exits early. That's true for any style of music by the way, and especially true for jazz.

As is the case with anything physical, if one masters technique they can probably survive those occasions when they get out of position, and still pull off some nice moves. But if they're out of position all the time, or don't even know what being in position is...

[Donplaysguitar]

Just an FYI -

"Reg's" fingerings are a subset of the 12 Leavitt fingerings. 6-7 of them, as I recall. They involve stretches, and to cover 12 frets they also require shifts. Even playing all 12 Leavitt fingerings requires a 1-fret shift between adjacent fingerings, much less a fingering that is not adjacent.

What's the point? That shifts are unavoidable even if one utilizes 12 fingerings to cover 12 frets.

Further, Leavitt himself pointed out that 3 of the 12 fingerings - when applied to Melodic and Harmonic Minor - were impractical. So that's 9 fingerings for those 2 scales, which means more shifting than a Leavitt devotee would be required to use for Major fingerings. (never mind the symmetric scales)

So, like Leavitt, and like Aaron Shearer, you need fingerings and you need nifty shifts. Both of those distinguished guitarists/educators described a set of fingerings and a variety of shifting strategies/techniques as well.

So, pick your favorite fingerings AND your favorite shifts, and get on with playing music.

[rpjazzguitar]

I think you're somewhat viewing that the wrong way around.
:-)

Ah, so you're agreeing with my wife.

[rpjazzguitar]

I'd be curious as to how you arrived at this or whether you remember .

Did you learn major scales in five positions up-and-down the fretboard?

In mapping out non-scale tones, Did you view them chromatically BETWEEN scale tones in the beginning or did you visualize them more as would-be scale tones from DIFFERENT scales?

I or as pure chromatic conceptualization for a given position, from the very beginning.

Thanks.

I did not take a linear path. Instead, I studied with different teachers, years apart, and, even later, figured some stuff out on my own.

1. I studied Chuck Wayne's system with Carl Barry, a great NYC player. So, I learned major scales and arps, Chuck's way.

2. I studied with Warren Nunes, who had 7 major scale patterns (equivalent to modes, although he rejected that term). I also learned what a tonal center is from him.

3. I learned how to read from the very beginning, so I knew the fingerboard.

4. I could never memorize patterns very easily. For example, I couldn't keep Warren's 7 patterns straight. Arne Berle's GP articles with dots on grids were useless to me. I know and use a handful, but if I had to assimilate a complete system, I'd switch to kazoo.

5. At some point, I realized that I could solo without difficulty on a Cmaj7 tonic chord. I knew instantly which notes were in the chord and in the tonal center and I knew, instantly, where they are on the fingerboard. My approach is to always try to make melody and this told me which notes to use for the basics and I could embellish by ear.

I also realized that I couldn't do it as well in some other keys. I'd have to think in Db Gb F# and B. So I started drilling them. Scales and arps. IRealPro helped. I'd pick a tune, set it to change key by a 4th every chorus and play in different positions in every key. If I couldn't do one, I'd slow it down and drill it. And, that's pretty much where I am now.

I agree with the criticism that my approach isn't so great for really fast playing. I have mixed feelings about that. I like it when I hear it. OTOH, I like to try to make every note melodic and intentional and I can't even scat sing good lines at high tempo. So, when I have to play fast, I end up relying on a too-limited vocabulary -- did I mention that I also have trouble hearing a good lick and ever getting it into my playing?

Last point -- I'm what some might think of as "old". I don't have a great many years left to play -- so I'm trying to consolidate things into a style rather than explore brand new vistas. The idea is to make the stuff I can hear and execute sound better and not to be distracted from that goal.

[sgcim]

I did not take a linear path. Instead, I studied with different teachers, years apart, and, even later, figured some stuff out on my own.

1. I studied Chuck Wayne's system with Carl Barry, a great NYC player. So, I learned major scales and arps, Chuck's way.

2. I studied with Warren Nunes, who had 7 major scale patterns (equivalent to modes, although he rejected that term). I also learned what a tonal center is from him.

3. I learned how to read from the very beginning, so I knew the fingerboard.

4. I could never memorize patterns very easily. For example, I couldn't keep Warren's 7 patterns straight. Arne Berle's GP articles with dots on grids were useless to me. I know and use a handful, but if I had to assimilate a complete system, I'd switch to kazoo.

5. At some point, I realized that I could solo without difficulty on a Cmaj7 tonic chord. I knew instantly which notes were in the chord and in the tonal center and I knew, instantly, where they are on the fingerboard. My approach is to always try to make melody and this told me which notes to use for the basics and I could embellish by ear.

I also realized that I couldn't do it as well in some other keys. I'd have to think in Db Gb F# and B. So I started drilling them. Scales and arps. IRealPro helped. I'd pick a tune, set it to change key by a 4th every chorus and play in different positions in every key. If I couldn't do one, I'd slow it down and drill it. And, that's pretty much where I am now.

I agree with the criticism that my approach isn't so great for really fast playing. I have mixed feelings about that. I like it when I hear it. OTOH, I like to try to make every note melodic and intentional and I can't even scat sing good lines at high tempo. So, when I have to play fast, I end up relying on a too-limited vocabulary -- did I mention that I also have trouble hearing a good lick and ever getting it into my playing?

Last point -- I'm what some might think of as "old". I don't have a great many years left to play -- so I'm trying to consolidate things into a style rather than explore brand new vistas. The idea is to make the stuff I can hear and execute sound better and not to be distracted from that goal.

The Warren Nunes and Chuck Wayne/ Carl Barry ways of picking were as different as night and day. I just dig the Nunes sound more than the Wayne/Barry sound, because of the strong articulation differences he could get with his picking technique.

[christianm77]

Lark, sorry I missed this previously. Thanks for the message.
First, far from being incoherent, I think you communicate excellently with English, not just grammatically, but in deeply exploring and abstracting complex ideas and concepts.

To question #1, absolutely, yes. There's more, to be sure, but it's complicated, because the attempt to abstract a deeply subjective, and profoundly kinesthetic and visual "understanding" of something of this complexity is no simple task. Words don't do it justice, and many are apt to dismiss it on the face of its surface-level verbal/symbolic representation.

To question #2: I think you're on the right track. It's somewhat personal - and more related to actual practice (in both senses of the word) than to simple verbal thought. So, I'll just speak from personal experience/understanding re the Second Finger Reference (SFR). I'm going to use a different example, for simplicity's sake, and just talk about G major for a moment. I'll use Reg's B-Phyrgian position, for a few differnt reasons: 1) Because it's the least familiar, 2) because it's the most removed (cyclically) from traditional maj/min scale fingerings and 3) because it illustrates something important about mapping the fretboard chromatically.

First of all, if you approach learning fingerings this way, these fingerings become the "bottom level" of analysis, not in terms of tonal music theory, but in terms of fretboard layout. So, in that position especially, I go to thinking in terms of B rather than "G from a 1st-finger-stretch root". Gmaj7 in this position is somewhat of a Bm7 chord, both theoretically and visually/kinesthetically. B-D-F# are all chord tones from B, and only the G (b13 of B) is somewhat foreign to a newcomer. I would argue, at the very least, that most experienced players "think" Bm faster from this position than Gmajor, regardless of time put in. I would speculate that this only "clicks" at a very high level of experience and understanding, at which point you are subconsciously viewing things in the same "SFR manner" anyway. From what I can understand, Reg's purpose with the SFR is to promote this manner of seeing/hearing/thinking from the beginning, rather than as a random artifact of 1000's of hours on the instrument.

So, when I woodshed Gmaj and Gmaj7 melodic patterns for our Patterns for Jazz group, thinking of that position in (physical) terms of a Bm chord (with added b13). When there were technical breakdowns with more difficult (chromatic etc) patterns in that position, I defaulted to thinking more in terms of Bm (again physically/not necessarily "modally"). Honestly, this B Phrygian fingering is a good gateway for the curious, again because it is "foreign enough" to disrupt automatic pattern/position thought processes associated with more familiar fingerings. After discovering some of this, I started doing more work on trying to clean up my capacity to see/think from the SFR perspective in other positions.

I find this perspective to be particularly helpful in "viewing" would-be 4th finger arpeggios in all positions and all chord types. So, you practice learning to think of D7 for example, beginning on C (2nd finger; "Lydian position") as if it's a type of "C" chord. The benefits are multi-level honestly. It certainly doesn't "replace" prior knowledge. It simply adds a layer of understanding, theoretically sure, but more importantly a different "kinesthetic understanding". My hands respond differently when thinking from C versus thinking D7 from the 4th finger. Anyway, that's a lot of words to describe something that is 99.9999% non-verbal, but honestly, there's nothing to be done about that other than to actually explore the playing/visualizing aspects of this concept.

So, if I'm working on something in that position which is more difficult, I am able to go back to that bottom level of viewing notes/intervals from the context of B, rather than a G "root note" from a 1st-finger-stretch. Thinking of this position is helpful for the aspect that it is probably the most alien to those of us who have played for a while. This position has given me more insight into the positive benefits of the second finger reference (2FR), because I didn't previously "think" in this position from years of prior practice.

I feel that it also needs to be expressed that, with completion of the Phrygian fingering, you have a physical reference for all 12 tones chromatically, from any given position on the fretboard, and each one of those is a concrete diatonic reference from one of the fingerings. 5 fingerings don't cover these in-position, and a purely chromatic viewpoint of potential stretches from fingers 1 or 4 produce numerous unisons and "choices to be made" about where chromatic notes should be played. Reg's fingerings reduce the choices to 1, eliminating unisons and other "choice issues", at least it pertains to "defaults". You can, of course, finger things other ways as well. But that mental clarity and simplification is no small thing. Its benefits related to sightreading alone make it well worth considering.

To question #3. Yes, but they’re going to keep chasing it. It’s current versions don’t have the original title keywords. Download it (and its siblings), and for the good of all mankind, upload it to Odysee/ Lbry.tv or somesuch. Youtube search on terms “Rosenwinkel workshop” and similar to find all. I think “R0senwinke1 w0rk5h@p” now yields nothing. (These videos have turned me into an insurrectionist I guess. I think they should be out there and available.)

To “Reg approach” naysayers, I’d suggest that you watch the Kurt video and honestly ask whether you believe that he (or reg) are primarily referring to modal understanding (or modal playing), or are they mostly describing a more basic physical understanding. Modal understanding and hearing is only one level of analysis and not unimportant. It may arguably not be the most important initially, but that doesn’t change the fact that you’d have to somewhat work modal approaches separately later, if not integrated as “arbitrary fingering labels” in the beginning.

Stretch fingerings in and of themselves are somewhat of a separate issue to the thought process, but to be fair, there is a direct correlation to the ideas validity and the use of shifts (resulting in fewer constants). Again, please listen to Kurt’s actual words on thought process regarding position etc.

To question #4, I mostly answered with a lot of my thought process on this in #2. Simply understand that you still have to woodshed things somewhat separately, but it’s different when you view arpeggios as variations of a "parent" position-arpeggio.

Thanks for that Matt. I didn’t really get it before but I’m kind of getting some sort of idea from this.

So for me it’s quite fun to muck around with different ways of visualising the fretboard. There seems to be no end of them.

Anyway, for those piecing it together at a base level, my beat and most honest advice is to choose one thing and plug away at it.

Later on, flexibility becomes more important. But you have to start with muscle memory and visualisation, and I realise while what you say here is to me sort of .... how can I say this? .... a bit disreputable and unmusicianly. But that’s the guitar for you.

A version of this is indeed how I put my understanding of the major scale on the fretboard about 25 years ago.

The second shock was realising this knowledge did not in any way prepare me to play Barry’s scale outlines. The piano and saxophone are octave invariant. The guitar; not so much. So I embraced a cellular octave approach and practiced that for about a year, and then I could deal with Barry.

[matt.guitarteacher]

The second shock was realising this knowledge did not in any way prepare me to play Barry’s scale outlines. The piano and saxophone are octave invariant. The guitar; not so much. So I embraced a cellular octave approach and practiced that for about a year, and then I could deal with Barry.

I personally found the Barry Harris material to be SUPER difficult on a technical level for guitar. Started once and quit.

Then, a year and a half or so later while doing the patterns for jazz material with a group (accountability), really got my head around an approach which at least makes it technically viable for me and understandable.

There's a real low ceiling for getting enough reps on those patterns to be technically viable without wearing out your hands pretty fast. Anyway, my eventual approach ended up being something I could do and is sustainable physiologically. Kind of quit with all of it several months ago , but had worked through a lot of the material from the DVD booklet.

I think some of us probably need to lay out actual fingerings for this stuff which work, in case we get hit by a comet or something. Personally think guitarists areweirdly superstitious about fingerings and then being personal or something. Other instruments lay out fingerings in great detail, especially to aid in getting started, and have done so for several hundred years now I think.

Everybody's different. I never could do the Ronnie Ben Hur fingerings. The bottleneck for those with me was mental/ Attention span etc. They were just too disconnected from what I was used to in viewing the fretboard. I eventually came up with some starting guidelines for myself regarding active displacement etc. for the arpeggio based material. I'll definitely be back to that stuff before too long .

I would be interested to see the CMiller versions for sure.

[christianm77]

I personally found the Barry Harris material to be SUPER difficult on a technical level for guitar. Started once and quit.

It’s not that hard (at least the improvisation stuff) but the way the guitar is conventionally mapped is not helpful. I don’t think Reg’s positions would be helpful. They are too big.

I figured if I couldn’t simply play scales of a seventh up and down through a blues at tempo that was the fault of my learning of the instrument, not Barry’s teaching. It seemed like a thing I should be able to do. I fixed it and it didn’t take that long.

It’s a bit like the opposite, practicing scales from low E to the highest fret on the top string, (and then doing through a tune.) It seems to me I should be able to do that .

There's a real low ceiling for getting enough reps on those patterns to be technically viable without wearing out your hands pretty fast.

I’m not sure what you are doing with your hands, but have you considered interleaved practice? You go for 3 minutes and keep coming back to it. Gives you a break but I find this stuff is great for learning this kind of material. Going at it for an hour straight is actually less effective apparently.

I would be interested to see the CMiller versions for sure.

I never thought about writing down my fingerings. In general I use a variation of CAGED atm I guess? But I build scales in one octave cells and this relates well to chord shapes. Generally I use 2nd or 4th finger reference.

But the fingers I use I try to mix up. I’m currently trying to eliminate barring from my playing for instance.

I always think I sound better when I use three fingers though. So fingerings are malleable. Positions are too. I don’t like getting stuck. Joining up small cells can help you get around better.

I encourage student to play everything with the first finger as an exercise so they learn to see the notes on the neck rather than get locked into muscle memory. Most of them can already play all the modes etc in position, though.

So my more advanced students can adopt whatever fingering suits them best bearing in mind their technique etc. I’m not interested in being a teacher who demands the student start at square one and learn my way. I’d rather help them make the most of what they already know .

[christianm77]

Another advantage of one octave scale mapping is that if you want to change for instance a major scale into a melodic minor, all you need to do is count up three and lower that note by a half step - there’s no doubling of pitches. You can also integrate functional ear training into this as well.

Sp one related advantage is seamless changes playing. If I’m in C and I see an Fm6 chord for example I can simply lower the 6th in whatever cell I am using in C and seamlessly express the chord. I don’t have to think ‘Harmonic Major’ or something and reach for another fingering. I think it makes for efficient learning. It makes the guitar more like a piano... eventually. It also makes me more sensitive to the importance of each note and less cluttered in my improvising.

But then the modes are an open book as well. In combination with Jordan’s melodic triad approach this method can get very powerful. You have complete flexibility in how you construct modes and scale too; whether you use derivative or parallel thinking (to use Goodrick’s terms) or both.

there are teachers who taught this approach, but I can’t remember who they are and I evolved this approach independently in response to specific musical and teaching demands.

anyway since you asked here’s a vid

In practice you wouldn’t want to derive every scale from the major like I’ve shown. That helps you understand the neck, and where the intervals are, but practicing the various cells for major, minor, dominant, altered etc still needs to be done. But there’s smaller bits of information to learn.

Anyway I think it works well, but there’s quite a few ways up this particular mountain, and it’s interesting to see what routes people have used.

[rpjazzguitar]

Just to offer an alternative for discussion.

To go from a Cmaj to Cmelmin, I know that it's the same scale except for E > Eb. I know where every one of the 7 notes in C or Cmelmin is on the fretboard. Pretty easy in C, but you have to know all 12 keys and a few enharmonic equivalents, all instantly. It's a lot of work, but so is trying to memorize patterns.

So, if I see Fm6, as a tonic, I used to think "white keys except Bb and Ab". Now, it's pretty automatic. I also know I can use any chord generated by the Fmelmin scale. And, if I was short of ideas, I know the same notes spell Dm7b5 and rootless Bb9. If the Fm6 is not a tonic I don't know the theory so well, so I'd probably adjust by ear, if necessary.

It wouldn't occur to me to need a finger reference. Unless I'm missing something, once you know where the notes you want are on the fretboard, you just grab them at will. Any finger that facilitates the line you're trying to play.

I'm wondering if this approach works for me because I learned to read, all over the neck, when I was in my mid-teens. People who don't read might prefer a pattern based approach.

As the risk of belaboring the point, I agree with the criticism that this may not be a good method for high speed. And, it sure isn't a substitute for talent.

[matt.guitarteacher]

It’s not that hard (at least the improvisation stuff) but the way the guitar is conventionally mapped is not helpful. I don’t think Reg’s positions would be helpful. They are too big.

I figured if I couldn’t simply play scales of a seventh up and down through a blues at tempo that was the fault of my learning of the instrument, not Barry’s teaching. It seemed like a thing I should be able to do. I fixed it and it didn’t take that long.

It’s a bit like the opposite, practicing scales from low E to the highest fret on the top string, (and then doing through a tune.) It seems to me I should be able to do that .



I’m not sure what you are doing with your hands, but have you considered interleaved practice? You go for 3 minutes and keep coming back to it. Gives you a break but I find this stuff is great for learning this kind of material. Going at it for an hour straight is actually less effective apparently.



I never thought about writing down my fingerings. In general I use a variation of CAGED atm I guess? But I build scales in one octave cells and this relates well to chord shapes. Generally I use 2nd or 4th finger reference.

But the fingers I use I try to mix up. I’m currently trying to eliminate barring from my playing for instance.

I always think I sound better when I use three fingers though. So fingerings are malleable. Positions are too. I don’t like getting stuck. Joining up small cells can help you get around better.

I encourage student to play everything with the first finger as an exercise so they learn to see the notes on the neck rather than get locked into muscle memory. Most of them can already play all the modes etc in position, though.

So my more advanced students can adopt whatever fingering suits them best bearing in mind their technique etc. I’m not interested in being a teacher who demands the student start at square one and learn my way. I’d rather help them make the most of what they already know .

Yeah. I guess the part I found difficult mostly was the halfstep rules, especially the sequence presented: single key, adding a scale degree at a time. I initially wanted to woodshed those in single positions etc., but my hands really didn't like it, even easier positions. I eventually arrived at just working a single scale degree at a time in all positions simultaneously.

That mix was just easier physiologically, and definitely more engaging cognitively. Basically camped out on each one for about a week, (in seven positions), but I could manage that while watching TV etc. found them to be , like most things, mostly your training. Just took me a while to hear something pretty different from what I was used to at those tempos.

Once I knew all of them , I could pretty easily do the workshop sequence for those in all positions. I don't know that I ever would've gotten there the other way though. I was pretty quickly hitting the walls , with attention span and just physiology , but I don't see how you can get away from the number of reps needed to learn something like that. I haven't tried the interleaved practice thing yet. I'm not a good student. Ha. :-)

Probably the most important of that material for me is making it compelling with the right hand technique as well. Really think slurring into the beat, helps hear better phrasing with this, and there's. adds complexity and interest to something which has to be sorted by pure reps anyway. Kind of a "while you're there anyway" kind of thing. Anyway, I actually ended up enjoying the process.

[christianm77]

Yeah. I guess the part I found difficult mostly was the halfstep rules, especially the sequence presented: single key, adding a scale degree at a time. I initially wanted to woodshed those in single positions etc., but my hands really didn't like it, even easier positions. I eventually arrived at just working a single scale degree at a time in all positions simultaneously.

That mix was just easier physiologically, and definitely more engaging cognitively. Basically camped out on each one for about a week, (in seven positions), but I could manage that while watching TV etc. found them to be , like most things, mostly your training. Just took me a while to hear something pretty different from what I was used to at those tempos.

Once I knew all of them , I could pretty easily do the workshop sequence for those in all positions. I don't know that I ever would've gotten there the other way though. I was pretty quickly hitting the walls , with attention span and just physiology , but I don't see how you can get away from the number of reps needed to learn something like that. I haven't tried the interleaved practice thing yet. I'm not a good student. Ha. :-)

Probably the most important of that material for me is making it compelling with the right hand technique as well. Really think slurring into the beat, helps hear better phrasing with this, and there's. adds complexity and interest to something which has to be sorted by pure reps anyway. Kind of a "while you're there anyway" kind of thing. Anyway, I actually ended up enjoying the process.

Yeah, I think no that’s right. so there’s a fair amount to talk about here, but the important thing is that the fingering must reflect the phrasing.

So an added note scale is a musical phrase. It doesn’t make any sense to put the B on a different string to the Bb when descending, or break up neighbour tone/chord tone groups onto different strings (unless they make sense with the phrasing.)

I think trying to practice added note scales in traditional positions might not be the most useful thing to do.

so you reference slurring into the beat which is connected to that.

Again one octave cells help a lot.

I really think conventional positions get abandoned pretty quickly when I have to play actual jazz phrases.

in terms of reps for learning, there’s a lot to unpack there. I’ll leave a link for you to find out more about interleaved practice (assuming you haven’t already looked into it).
The application of spacing and interleaving approaches in the classroom | impact.chartered.college

[christianm77]

Once I knew all of them , I could pretty easily do the workshop sequence for those in all positions. I don't know that I ever would've gotten there the other way though. I was pretty quickly hitting the walls , with attention span and just physiology , but I don't see how you can get away from the number of reps needed to learn something like that. I haven't tried the interleaved practice thing yet. I'm not a good student. Ha. :-)

Ive been working a lot on classical guitar lately and the process of achieving the baseline - being able to play a piece effortlessly at tempo - does require a lot of specific mechanical practice with unfamiliar fingerings and movements.

Ive found that I can normally focus in on three or four notes that are actually the thing that needs to practiced. This makes repeating these movements much less arduous and I can pick up a guitar and do a few useful seconds practice in between fetching my daughter drinks which is my main occupation at this time.

[bako]

Starting out I learned scale fingerings out of the Leavitt #1 and Sal Salvador Single String books. There was lots of overlap and if I remember correctly
some small differential as well.

I spent a few years in Jazzmobile workshops with Ted Dunbar.
He put much emphasis on knowing the fingerboard inside out.
This entailed being able to play fluently in all keys, full range within any 5
fret position. This yielded many of the commonly used fingerings and a few
that were less user friendly but still playable. He also would demonstrate connecting octaves using multiple pathways and the idea that whatever degree or finger you were on, to be able to continue in any direction.

From a few lessons with Pat Martino, I learned the idea of string groups as an organizing principal for generating fingerings. Around that time, I also read an interesting Downbeat magazine article by Dr. William Fowler on tetrachords as the organizing principal to generate scale fingerings. This period solidified the 3 note per string thing and also yielded fingerings organized to help support various combinations of slurs. Then there was Mick Goodrick's "Advancing Guitarist" which helped solidify the importance of integrating horizontal and vertical movements or in Mick's playful esoterica "the realm of the electric ice skating rink".

Later I got into an interval perspective as the fundamental building
block of all note combinations.This added yet another lens with which
to view a given fingering.

Lastly although I am out of practice with this, is a cool legato approach,
playing scales where every note (as much as possible) is on a different string. This works best with keys that have at least some open strings. I would be surprised if this isn't something that Bill Frisell is conversant in.

In short, I know perhaps too many fingerings. Reg posited the idea of
having a default fingering system (a starting reference) and I had to pause
for a moment to consider what of all this mess was mine.
Best answer was the 5 fret thing which is my sight reading go to as well as for playing over unfamiliar tunes that move through keys in rapid succession.

There is also this artistic classical music perspective, something like this: crafting fingerings that best support the tonal color and phrasing of each note and passage as it functions in the evolving form of the composition.
It is an approach more easily adapted to well practiced, through composed
content and quite a bit harder to instigate on the fly.

Lastly, one thing I like about Reg's 2nd finger orientation is having the 7th degree available to the 1st finger below the modal root.

So how many fingerings does one need to know and where is best place to start? For myself, I am happy with what I have learned about where to find
and how to finger various note collections or problem solve anything unfamiliar. So, congratulations to me.

Now back to that other small task of cultivating the skill to spontaneously create and execute high level musical content on a consistent basis and
how to function as a better communal citizen in a musical collective,
onstage and in rehearsal.

[christianm77]

Lastly although I am out of practice with this, is a cool legato approach,
playing scales where every note (as much as possible) is on a different string. This works best with keys that have at least some open strings. I would be surprised if this isn't something that Bill Frisell is conversant in.

Oh yeah that’s lovely. Campanelas. Plenty of that in the classical pieces I’m learning interestingly. IIRC Jimmy Wyble (and Sid Jacobs) was an enthusiast of this kind of thing, and I can certainly hear it in Bill.

Anyway, using open strings both for scales and also for chord voicings adds a level of complexity to it, because to do it you really need to map the guitar in terms of absolute pitch, not simply intervals by which I mean ears and/or note knowledge...

In short, I know perhaps too many fingerings. Reg posited the idea of
having a default fingering system (a starting reference) and I had to pause
for a moment to consider what of all this mess was mine.
Best answer was the 5 fret thing which is my sight reading go to as well as for playing over unfamiliar tunes that move through keys in rapid succession.

I think default fingerings is something that is pretty necessary if you are sight reading. But they will most often not be the most musical solution. I would not base my choice of fingerings on; so...

There is also this artistic classical music perspective, something like this: crafting fingerings that best support the tonal color and phrasing of each note and passage as it functions in the evolving form of the composition.

Yeah. But good jazzers do this too.

It is an approach more easily adapted to well practiced, through composed
content and quite a bit harder to instigate on the fly.

Lastly, one thing I like about Reg's 2nd finger orientation is having the 7th degree available to the 1st finger below the modal root.

So how many fingerings does one need to know and where is best place to start? For myself, I am happy with what I have learned about where to find
and how to finger various note collections or problem solve anything unfamiliar. So, congratulations to me.

I do think the main problem a student has now is too much choice: the internet. Why choose this or that system?

[matt.guitarteacher]

Ive been working a lot on classical guitar lately and the process of achieving the baseline - being able to play a piece effortlessly at tempo - does require a lot of specific mechanical practice with unfamiliar fingerings and movements.

Ive found that I can normally focus in on three or four notes that are actually the thing that needs to practiced. This makes repeating these movements much less arduous and I can pick up a guitar and do a few useful seconds practice in between fetching my daughter drinks which is my main occupation at this time.

Ha ha. Yes. Lack of time is greatly clarifying. I have basically boiled down to anything I can't do while watching TV quietly isn't Paired down enough. It's interesting....most problems are "technical". And by that, I have come tothink of that is here as well. Always think of Galper and "hearing louder" . I kind of view that technical work as the thing that gets me to the point where I can actually hear it enough to play it. I think you can basically play anything you hear well, using "hear" to describe something kinesthetic as well. I think a lot of the fretboard understanding /mapping process is a scaffold which maybe get you there a little quicker when woodshedding.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Yeah, I think no that’s right. so there’s a fair amount to talk about here, but the important thing is that the fingering must reflect the phrasing.

So an added note scale is a musical phrase. It doesn’t make any sense to put the B on a different string to the Bb when descending, or break up neighbour tone/chord tone groups onto different strings (unless they make sense with the phrasing.)

I think trying to practice added note scales in traditional positions might not be the most useful thing to do.

so you reference slurring into the beat which is connected to that.

Again one octave cells help a lot.

I really think conventional positions get abandoned pretty quickly when I have to play actual jazz phrases.

in terms of reps for learning, there’s a lot to unpack there. I’ll leave a link for you to find out more about interleaved practice (assuming you haven’t already looked into it).
The application of spacing and interleaving approaches in the classroom | impact.chartered.college

I don't necessarily disagree, but I use a slightly different filter. I develop all the variations to certain degree , trusting that personal preference will do the self editing in the end. Knowing a few more, when you already have basic together isn't that much more effort and to a certain degree helps map where you would "shift from" to avoid certain things.

Things that are more viable understandably get a little more attention and use, especially with things like triplets. They're simply impossible as a slur without some "headroom", but I give cursory attention to the ugly "picked" ones as well in the beginning , Just as a form of filling out the map, maybe mostly to satisfy a little OCD.

Also, at a certain level, I think you have come to terms with what DOESN'T work as much as what does. I somewhat see both of these approaches as the same kind of editing, just on a different end of things?

[Danil]

But the fingers I use I try to mix up. I’m currently trying to eliminate barring from my playing for instance.

It is maybe 3rd time you mention this. I wonder why trying to eliminate anything which actually can be useful/ Let us say you thoroughly untrain yourself doing rolls and do only DPWS and then you have to play something like Chameleon (2nd repeats, 2nd bar, descending fourths).

[christianm77]

It is maybe 3rd time you mention this. I wonder why trying to eliminate anything which actually can be useful/ Let us say you thoroughly untrain yourself doing rolls and do only DPWS and then you have to play something like Chameleon (2nd repeats, 2nd bar, descending fourths).

Yeah that’s absolutely fine with separate fingers. I use 3 2 1 / 1 instinctively but I might practice 3231 to eliminate the slide

But it’s not very fast. You should have posted Inner Urge haha. Or maybe Freedom Jazz dance. (EDIT: Actually FJD is fine, more reliable for me without barring in my opinion.)

Re right hand I haven’t been a straight gypsy style picker for years for this very reason. My natural tendency with that figure is to alternate pick it which feels reasonable with my natural DWPS stance. Possibly I might practice UUDU. I can actually do it at the tempo with downstrokes only, again Chameleon is not very fast (I’ve practiced Charlie Christian solos at around 200 with all downstrokes.) downstrokes can be pretty nippy if you do them right. Descending arpeggios are easier than you might think.

DWPS has advantages and disadvantages. That’s the way I pick and a solid approach with distinct advantages and drawbacks but not a panacea (no technique is). But that can be discussed elsewhere.

For ‘shred’ rolled barring is pretty necessary; but I prefer the control separate fingers give in most cases.

[christianm77]

Oh I stupidly practiced that without the Eb in the pickup so I would actually in context instinctively use 3 1 2 1 / 1 for Eb Db Ab Eb Db, (but that might not be the best fingering) alternate picking starting on a downstroke

it might seem weird at first but it gets more natural the more you do it. I practice pentatonics in fourths a lot, as well as triad arpeggios to get used to this.

I might add that I teach classical guitar a lot atm and the suggested fingerings for arpeggios etc are often very interesting and unfamiliar in how they aim to get separation between notes. Finger crossing and stuff like that can be for me quite odd as well.

[rpjazzguitar]

It is maybe 3rd time you mention this. I wonder why trying to eliminate anything which actually can be useful/ Let us say you thoroughly untrain yourself doing rolls and do only DPWS and then you have to play something like Chameleon (2nd repeats, 2nd bar, descending fourths).

This is a good example. I look at the notes and pick an area where they're playable. It wouldn't occur to me to think about a fingering pattern.

When you get to the second line, bar 2, there are some choices.

For the sake of discussion, I'm going to assume that the tempo is brisk enough for the bar to be challenging.

If you're able, which I'm not, you can sweep it. Great solution, if you can do it.

Warren Nunes style, might be to play the first note of the bar as a pull-off. He might then try to get the Ab and Eb on the same string.
Or maybe pick the first note, pull off to the second note (same string even though it's stretchy), and then play the Eb and Db on the same string. Or, maybe he couldn't play that line. He didn't read.

My solution would probably be to palm the pick and play the line fingerstyle, which makes it easy and avoids risking flubbing it.

I confess that I don't understand how fingering patterns can make it easier to read single note lines. It seems to me that, if you can read the notes and you know where they are, you construct a fingering on the fly - one that makes the line sound best. You pick octave, string, and coordinate left hand and picking to get the sound you want -- if there's time to think of all of that. In a pressure situation, you size up where the high and low notes are to pick a position, and then scan for problem areas. If you're the only melody instrument you can always "interpret". If you're voiced as an extra horn in a horn band, then you have to get precise and try to get the guitar to melt into the horn sound. It's usually not that hard -- arrangers know that guitarists tend to be poor readers. There are exceptions.

[christianm77]

Just to be clear I had to play it to work out what fingers I would use. It’s not something I think about before when reading or playing phrases by ear. I just see the music and play.

i see the notes light up on the fretboard and use whatever fingers seem natural (based of course on hours of scale and arpeggio practice over the years.)

But otoh the intuitive first go is not always the best way of fingering something... I mean that’s one reason to practice music right?

[PMB]

Lastly although I am out of practice with this, is a cool legato approach,
playing scales where every note (as much as possible) is on a different string. This works best with keys that have at least some open strings. I would be surprised if this isn't something that Bill Frisell is conversant in.

Indeed, Bill Frisell wrote a short essay, "An Approach to Guitar Fingering" about this very topic. It appears in a collection edited by John Zorn (Arcana: Musicians on Music).

[Danil]

Oh I stupidly practiced that without the Eb in the pickup so I would actually in context instinctively use 3 1 2 1 / 1 for Eb Db Ab Eb Db, (but that might not be the best fingering) alternate picking starting on a downstroke

it might seem weird at first but it gets more natural the more you do it. I practice pentatonics in fourths a lot, as well as triad arpeggios to get used to this.

I might add that I teach classical guitar a lot atm and the suggested fingerings for arpeggios etc are often very interesting and unfamiliar in how they aim to get separation between notes. Finger crossing and stuff like that can be for me quite odd as well.

Sure you can play it like this, but does it feel and sound to you - smooth, articulated and funky? It is not kind of a line which is ok to be played sloppy (and live tempo usually is faster).
Here is another one, our keyboard player wants us to end Tenor Madness like this (I don't know where did he get it from, not from a guitar I bet):




This one arguably tolerates some sloppiness, but still with rolling and economy picking/sweeping it is much more playable and natural (and thus sounds better).

Of all Troy's interviews the most valuable to me is the one with a mandolin/guitar player (Andy Wood?) where he says that he hears a piece of music and then looks for a way to execute so it would sound right - making adjustments to technique, etc. The music drives the technique, not the other way around.

I would say, actually this holds true to a certain extent for each of those accomplished players -- they were after a certain style/sound which defined their technique.

The classical guitar is a very different instrument -- much higher action and effort/precision to get tone, very different sound and kind of music, naturally they have different approaches to the same sequences of notes.

In a summary I would vote for keeping every bit of various techniques, also need to mention that they seem to help each other even when unrelated (sort of elasticity of brain/hands or something like that)

[Danil]

This is a good example. I look at the notes and pick an area where they're playable. It wouldn't occur to me to think about a fingering pattern.

I use this line as a theme for a reflection on guitarist's reality -- playing it in different positions, with various picking patterns and fingerings, feeling dissatisfied to certain extent everywhere Mostly I would sweep it and roll, but it depends on my mood (and I'm not anywhere close to sight read parts like this).

I've once got an assignment from a teacher - to play a solo of Charlie Christian in Shivers. I liked horn parts even more than the CC's playing. So I've transcribed and - ouch how unnatural are those heavenly sounds for a guitar.