-
wrong.
Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
-
03-08-2021 07:12 PM
-
Yes I think one should be able to do those things. Any fingering system is just a foundation anyway. Exceptions are made frequently, if you want to call them that. Classical guitar shows you that right away. They teach you scale fingerings then you start dealing with all kinds of exceptions to pull things off. I think that Christian hit on that the other day. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
The same goes for jazz. Stretching happens, using the "wrong finger" happens. Having the flexibility to play anything from anywhere is something that Leavitt's system of 12 fingerings takes to its logical extents. The problem in my view, is that once you adopt a system like that you likewise practice it like hell because you intend to leverage its benefits. And practicing the heck out of those stretch fingerings just happens to be tough on the hands, that's all. Plus I think some things don't "play as well" with stretches, as they do with the optimal hand shape (for lack of better words). One finger per fret, fingers slighty apart, thumb in the center of the back of the neck, finger tips pointing straight down on the string being fretted, blah, blah, blah. Not everything can be played that way, I get it, but when you can, do.
But I'm beating a dead horse. Stretch away if you want to, lol.
The list of stuff that I posted above is basic material in a solid undergrad jazz guitar course of study. Some of it's upper division material but undergrad material nonethless. It's a lot of work too, but to Reg's point is merely foundational. I think a serious guitarist needs to develop their technique (among other things, just staying focused here), maintain it, and then get a mountain and miles and miles of musical performance experience. Music is no different than any other field in that experience is the biggest differentiator, not school.
-
Pick a fingering and don't worry too much about it. Learn to stretch, if after you try it for a while and your hands don't like it, then stop (you have to have at least gotten out of the "this feels weird" phase).
Eventually over a period of 10 years or so depending on how much you practice you will have tried them all. Or maybe not and you're out there post pandemic burning it up and not too concerned with fingerings and mapping the fret board. Anyways, every fingering you learn will help you. Also, every tune played 'on top' of your visualization 'system' will make to think about your system in a new way.
Leavitt, 3NPS, caged/5 shapes, 4 note per string, Segovia scales, repeating octave fingerings (3 string and 4 string) + fragments. As long as you have a base understanding of where the notes/ sounds are, however you do that, all of these are tools and will only increase your fretboard knowledge (doesn't always equal great playing but doesn't hurt I guess, just make sure add some playing time too with some kind of rhythm (drums, recording, bass player)
Some more fretboard mapping ideas:
1. play a major scale from G2 to G5 (3 octaves), find a fingering you can play cold and stick with it (maybe you want to think about how you want to pick it, but I don't want to go way off topic)
2. play G2 to G5 on 2nd string
3. play from G2 to G4 on the 1st string (maybe G major, E shape or leavitt or whatever, maybe not, your choice)
4. play from G2 to G4 on 2nd string
5. play from G2 to G4 on 3rd string
6. play from G2 to G4 on 4th string
7. play from G2 to G4 on 5th string (maybe play one octave on 6th string and start playing A3 on the A string)
find set fingerings for these using shifts where you see fit then pick a new reference where you're ready
ex: G Phrygian or maybe Eb major starting on the 3rd (both of these are the same but will be brain exercise to run these both so then the 'thinking' aspect becomes meaningless)
Cheers! felt like posting again
-
Reg, I hope you're well too, and we'll soon see the light at the end of this tunnel. Originally Posted by Reg
I suspect that I cover some of the same territory with a different thought process.
For example, if I see a Cmaj7, I know that I can play C Ionian or C Lydian. I don't know a pattern for C Lydian, but I know that it has an F# instead of an F, and I know where all the F and F#'s are. I also know that I can substitute Em7, Gmaj7 and Am7 (the subs I learned from Warren Nunes - and I've posted about before). And, I might even think,well, as long as I'm playing on Gmaj,I can sub Bm7 Dmaj7 and Em7, but that C# in the Dmaj7 is a bridge too far for my style, usually. And, for that matter, I know that I can side slip up or down for a couple of notes here and there. I do know some fingerings for these things, but, ordinarily, I don't use them or think about them. Beyond that, I've probably got the melody in mind and a few possible quotes from other tunes.
Of course, on a good night, playing a tune I know well, absolutely none of this will cross my mind.
-
I just wanted to add that in my job as a guitar teacher this is not just an area of idle interest. Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar
For instance, to take something pretty worked out and systematic, let's look at begginer-intermediate classical guitar.
If you build up the traditional way, the way most books suggest and the way I was taught, which is open position, one finger a fret, you actually hit a wall around UK Grade 2, which is where music in two parts that simply isn't melody over open string basses is introduced. So that the third finger is free to fret G's, C's and F's on the basses, you then have to introduce the idea of using the little finger for the G and D on the top two strings. This is a bit of a 'whaaa...?' moment for beginners and introduces what I think of as the fingering/fretboard mapping distinction.
However there is another school of thought - some teachers seem to use always 4th finger for these notes from day 1. Advantage is the hand stays in same position, prepares student for polyphonic playing. But it's not possible to use a nice simple rule from day one to govern which finger handles which note. So you pay your money and you make your choice. And what do you choose drill into muscle memory from day 1?
To add to the confusion, most books teach 'one finger a fret' and the Classical Guitar exam boards prefer the 4th finger fingering right from the earliest grades (which is harder to teach at first but undoubtedly superior in the long run)... So... How you distribute and handle those little bumps in the road is really one's job as a teacher, no?
Of course this separation becomes more important as you move through the classical guitar grades and encounter more and more non standard fingerings. For instance move to position III and then deal with the fact that the D is now with the first finger. It actually seems quite alien to most student to recognise that this is the same 'object' on the guitar - 3rd fret 2nd string.
This can be true even of relatively advanced students who have been playing for a long time. And it is also and issue in jazz. For instance, take a CESH Dm Dm(maj7) Dm7 Dm6, where only one note changes but the student must make some quite complicated fingering changes. I seem to inherit a lot of students who have problems around these sorts of things. So something is going on in the wider pedagogy where people get stuck on positional/kinaesthetic approach to playing?
While the 'brute muscle memory' approach is necessary for the beginner, I think it outlives its usefulness in more advanced players.
Personally, I'm not a fan of making any stretches I don't need to. I would prefer to work with the shape of the hand. I think dogmatic position teaching - one finger a fret etc, actually can introduce an artificiality to guitar technique.
So there's no definitive answer to any of this. Basically it all hinges on the quality of the teaching and learning. Rules can't do it all.Last edited by christianm77; 03-09-2021 at 06:51 AM.
-
Re: Levitt; I haven't spent much time with those books, but what I have seen leads me to think the author spent a LOT of time thinking about these issues. It's a shame the books are a bit 'dry'; it would be nice if Leavitt's ideas were applied to books with a bit more appeal to a wider audience of children. I should really spend more time with them anyway.
-
Yea.... Jazz is not for beginners. It's almost a given that one already has their technique together when one starts to play Jazz, let alone in a Jazz style.
And there are a million analogies.... but who just practices all the time. From my years of watching and listening to guitarist.... the biggest problem is they don't practice. They spend most of their time working on noodle theory.
Again ... I don't think guitarist have a problem with practicing too much.
Hey Christian... you haven't spent much time working with Leavitt? What type of Guitar are you teaching? If your teaching jazz...I would hope your aware of terms and technique.
Sometimes it seems we're looking for anything micro that will avoid the macro.
bediles.... refreshing post, I know it's just stating the obvious, but thanks.
-
Lol, yeah, I don't think his books were targeted to children, more like music majors. Originally Posted by christianm77
The music is original, as opposed to using standards (kind of a bummer on that last point), the music is well written and is harmonically rich. Some of the things that Leavitt requires you to do are pretty challanging for the hands.
I had one troubled young student who moved out of his regular "book 1" and was quite proud of himself. He had worked hard. So I started him with Leavitt's Volume 1 next. Big mistake on my part! He hit a wall on about the 5th page and gave me the strangest look. I never saw him again. He was about 10. 13 and up might be a better age.
-
In my post #95 above I listed a skill builder to practice:
- All one-octave modes from one note (same string, same fret)
- All one-octave arpeggios from one note (same)
These should be practiced in a challenging way, like with a flash card approach.
If I understand Reg correctly has makes the point that stretch fingerings support modal interchange and mode switching in an effective manner. If that's one point I certainly agree. But i think that the above two drills can help the player who uses non-stretch fingerings to get a handle on changes as well.
-
For beginners - classical and pop/rock. Most of my jazz students can operate the instrument. I think Leavitt would be worth my time, I just haven't had time to sink into it and I didn't learn that way. And TBH, students learning via Leavitt still had some of the same habits as those learning by any other method. Originally Posted by Reg
I don't like the music in the Leavitt books, that's the main thing. I can't get inspired teaching it. But there's no reason why I couldn't take things from his books and apply them elsewhere if I found them to be useful.
-
I've seen beginners starting with Leavitt's books. I have inherited students who have been using the books. I generally get to the end of the book with them, and move on to more accessible material (and feel quite sorry for them afterwards.) Linear, old school teaching. Certainly not the way I learn things. Well worked out though! Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar
Lol, yeah, I don't think his books were targeted to children, more like music majors.
The music is original, as opposed to using standards (kind of a bummer on that last point), the music is well written and is harmonically rich. Some of the things that Leavitt requires you to do are pretty challanging for the hands.
I had one troubled young student who moved out of his regular "book 1" and was quite proud of himself. He had worked hard. So I started him with Leavitt's Volume 1 next. Big mistake on my part! He hit a wall on about the 5th page and gave me the strangest look. I never saw him again. He was about 10. 13 and up might be a better age.
I also get students with trainwreck left hand techniques trying to sit classical guitar exams. There's a lot of bad teaching out there. CG technique isn't everything, but it does work for everyone, and I think is a decent base. My ideas are in revision all the time.
It seems a lot of people have been through Leavitt. It would be interesting to do a straw poll and see how many jazz players have been through them.
I'm very skeptical about systems and books used prescriptively, but there's never a good reason not to gain more knowledge... That's why the teaching side of it so important.
My main method of teaching is ask leading questions which gets the student working out the principles of good technique themselves and applying them intelligently. You can't do that simply working out of a book; you need the knowledge and experience.
It's amazing how much more quickly people will apply and practice things when they think it was their idea all along.
-
So... working with Leavitt was not just his basic books.... there were tons of Lab workbooks and handouts, all of which were incorporated into lesson plans etc.. And then you were required to play in ensembles... the actual playing of tunes etc...
Again most get stuck looking at a few trees and miss the forest...
Sorry my point is there is much more... than the books... same with the other Berklee books one can buy.
Hell I studied piano with James Williams, and Ray Santisi while at Berklee, had percussion lessons with Alan Dawson.
Was able to play or sit in with faculty on gigs... "The playing is what it is about". And I was a composition major, I could already play, had been playing gigs for years before I was there. Again the playing was what it was and is about.
Teaching kids is more like babysitting right? ( I get the $ thing)
-
-
I think that the Leavitt books are a good "rudder" for a broader study plan, so to speak. It's useful to know what to skip or skim in the books. His reading supplements are useful too. Its kind of like "plectrum guitar studies that help build a foundation that can be leveraged for other styles, including jazz". At least that's my 2021 take on the method, which was written in the 60s and 70s. I'm a bit skeptical that very many people have gone through Volume 3.
But there should be a lot more (like Jazz for instance). Jazz Blues, Jazz and Standard Tunes, Bebop and Post-Bop Improv studies, Comping, Chord Melody.
One can also look at the Berklee curriculum online to see some "level by level" requirements. It's linear, a bit dry, and doesn't provide much insight into repertoire, ensemble work, or improv. It's only one way to go but at least it's defined/sorted out.
-
Sure, if you are crap at it it is. Originally Posted by Reg
I see no fundamental difference between teaching kids and teaching postgrad jazz guitarists. The latter are more patient with bad teaching, that's the main difference.
-
Just to focus on one point about fingering:
I was taught one fret per finger. Later, I was taught 5 frets for 4 fingers. Still later, back to one fret per finger, but this time, with patterns.
All of the teachers were great players, using the techniques they taught.
Now, consider Django (two fingers) and Wes (all single note lines with three fingers). How did they do it?
I think the answer is that they moved their entire hand.
So, the implication is that you don't just "stretch" back to reach a note that's at the fret below your first finger. Rather, you keep the position of your entire hand fluid. It moves, sometimes just ever so slightly, and that movement makes things easier to finger.
Maybe everybody else already knew this, but it was a kind of revelation to me when I stumbled on it, trying to play West Coast Blues without my fourth finger, like Wes.
Is it important? Probably less so if you've got giant hands and you're playing a short scale guitar. Or if your tendons allow a lot of separation of your fingers.
But, the point is, that this isn't one size fits all. How you're going to finger things depends on your physiology, your guitar and the sounds you're trying to make.
At this late date, I wish I'd spent more time drilling bop heads or other pieces of music rather than running scales.
-
As a counterpoint, I did go ahead and buy Tom Quayle's "Visualising the Fretboard" lesson, and while it is kind of common sense stuff, and I quickly grasped the concept and was off on my own to work it out in practice, that's kind of the point. Bear in mind, guitar is my second instrument (though self-taught on it since middle school), I came to guitar having some jazz background, not the other way around, and I'm an aging amateur--this is strictly for my own enjoyment. I'll find something that works for me, that doesn't inflict too much pain and torture. :-)
Though TQ doesn't dismiss Caged or 3NPS, etc, and allows that these different methods can enhance each other, he does point out that those systems ask you to carry a lot of information in your head. Grids of 6 strings x 4+ frets, with certain cells lit up in your mind's eye. His approach is to just memorize interval shapes within an octave, up or down, across the different string sets. Pick a particular A. Where are the minor 3rds from there, etc. Which in fact most of us should already have a good feel for. Key point: he focuses on interval function, so i.e. find the 7th of the chord up, and the 7th below, from the root reference (which would actually be a 2nd interval down). Memorize those shapes.
Then when playing through changes, you can focus on whichever root note is in the neighborhood, and find your desired notes as functional intervals off that. Like with anything else, this works best of course when you actually know the fretboard well in absolute terms too. I'm in the early stages of working through it, but it's an approach I can embrace.
-
My perspective is that there are two realms, the physical mechanical realm of fingering, and the musical realm of what I want to hear played. Everything is about hearing in my mind's ear what I want to hear made manifest on the instrument through my hands.
In the physical realm, I use all four left hand fingers all the time on all strings in all locations on the finger board. My fingers over the fingerboard are always parallel to the frets and the only contact with the neck is thumb behind the neck, fingertips on the strings, and the occasional small barre. This means I never have to stretch because I can hold thumb position and shift my whole hand up or down a couple of frets, or I just shift the thumb and whole hand.
A lot of people tend to use three fingers and in order to span 4 or 5 frets they slant their fingers over the frets so that their finger tips kind of point up the neck. The traditional jazz box strung high and tight with fat strings suggests why, but this actually compresses their innate fret span, forces stretching from position, decreases the air gap between the hand and neck (or includes direct contact), and rotates the thumb deceasing the ability to hold the thumb fixed and shift the whole hand. All these things work together to force stretching and make it harder to do so.
In the musical realm, I hear in my mind's ear what I want to play and my fingers' "music memory" play that directly, independently of everything except some consideration for string tone in phrasing.
Since I want to play what I hear, I don't use indirect approaches. By that I mean I don't start with something I don't want to hear or play and convert to what I do want to hear and play - when the song harmony calls for Cm6 I don't use a C major fingering pattern of notes (something I don't want to hear or play) and modify it to a fingering pattern of notes for Cm6 (the thing I do hear and want to play). I already hear Cm6 and my hands already "hear it", too; the process of constructing what I want from what I don't want is disruptive because I play by ear. Why would I want to try to hear something different from what I want to actually hear?
So I don't use a fingering system from which I derive the actual things I play; I only use a set of mechanical principles that allows my fingers the most freedom to do what they need to do to play what I want to hear. I never have to inform my hands with detailed instructions of how to do these things.
It is clear to me that the musical realm of others includes thoughts in addition to the sound of music - the note names and accidentals, the key, the chord and scale names, the interval names, and verbal descriptions of various music theory relationships among these things... so I can't really analyse the musical realm on their terms with regard to fingering; however, I hope that something of what I mention about the physical realm of fingering is of some use.
-
When you have sufficient facility on the instrument, you can do that by ear. Your hear the note in your mind and your fingers play it, with no interference from you. Originally Posted by timmer
To develop the facility, I'll re-belabor the point. Learn the fretboard. Every note - automatic. Then learn the notes in the chords, scales/modes/arps that you use. 12 keys and the necessary enharmonic names. Then, you won't need to think about the root in order to find the interval. Sure, it's a lot of work, but I'm convinced it's easier (for me anyway) than trying to memorize a large number of diagrams with dots on grids -- after which you still have to figure out how to deviate from them.
I remain surprised that more people don't do it like this, although a couple of people have mentioned that they do.
I'll offer one more sales pitch for the method.
Most guitarists don't read well. In my area it sometimes feels like you could pick a random guy on the street and he'd play better jazz guitar solos than I do. But, I can read pretty well for a guitarist. That ability has afforded me opportunities to play regularly with musicians who are way over my head. They need a guitarist who can read -- and that really limits who they can call. And, the best way to get better is to be the worst guy in the band. Solves all kinds of problems with your playing.
-
Yeah I just drilled the C major notes in by speaking them out loud
Once I could play ‘CABBAGE’, ‘BAD DAD’, ‘CAGED’ and ‘BAGGAGE’ in any octave in the position I moved on.
Its not pretty but it got me started.
After you get the notes mapped, then it’s a matter of plugging away and getting experience. Read every day.
Teaching is good for reading. Provided you teach reading that is. Which I do, for the reasons you outlined, rp. I want my students to be able to play in ensembles.
Play piano as well, for theory.
-
In 4th grade, when the young guitarists were learning to strum cowboy chords, the young horn players were learning to read together in an ensemble.
After you've mastered the basics -- you can find the notes and read simple rhythms, I'd suggest getting into an ensemble where you have to play single note lines with other musicians. In hindsight, I now understand that it's the best way. No fudging. Either you melt in with the horns or you don't. And, if you don't, you can figure out why not and improve.
-
Sounds like everyone already has their act together, why waste time on a useless fingering thread.
-
Definitely just knowing where the notes are cold is the thing. Of course. But rather than whining about how the guitar is harder than the piano keyboard, I figured maybe I could embrace what comes naturally? If you know a tune in Bb, and some singer needs you to suddenly do it in G, thinking in terms of the intervals can be a nice, I hesitate to use the word...crutch.
-
Unsurprisingly, I have a curmudgeonly opinion on this too. If you're switching keys by a half step or a few half steps, it may be no harder than sliding up or down the neck. Originally Posted by timmer
If the jump is too large, or you want to vary the comping, the goal is to hear the sound and have your fingers find the chords without any intervention from the likes of you <g>.
Your fingers are probably smart enough now to find the IV chord in a blues without you, why not other chord changes?
So, you start out thinking in intervals. It helps. But, the guys who know a zillion tunes -- I think they hear the sound of the song the same way a non-musician does and their fingers find the chords without much intervening thought.
You get good at this by practicing playing songs you know in keys you've never heard of.
-
Learning scales is really not that difficult. Let's say you drive 15 minutes to work and 15 minutes back every day (=30 Minute commute), so you dedicate the first week to C major. You speak out loud all the notes as you drive, (speak them out loud, not just in your head), scalar as in "Scales", but also as arpeggios, in all inversions, up and down, and with all extensions and so on. At the end of the week you can recite C major / A minor (and of course D Dorian etc.) in your sleep.
Do this for another 11 weeks with the other keys and you will have completely internalized the basic vocabulary of western music.
Then the next 12 weeks you do the same with melodic minor, except that it goes much faster this time because you already know "major/minor" and now only one tone changes at a time. And so on... HT/WT HT etc.....
So if you learn in parallel what every single note on the fretboard is called, you don't need no "shapes" or "fingerings" any more.
At least that's what I did (and still do).
EDIT:
I just thought, it's a bit like in school back then. I hated learning the multiplication tables by heart, but what the hell, you had to do it.
I now realize more and more how useful it was later on when I notice how many people even can't do the simplest mental arithmetic anymore.Last edited by DonEsteban; 03-09-2021 at 10:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
Transcriber wanted
Today, 04:35 PM in Improvisation