-
Would be a shame to have someone with Tony's experience and talents leave before he really gets started... I would prefer to have more pros around...
Reg
-
11-14-2012 04:00 PM
-
Before he really gets started!?!?!?
Originally Posted by Reg
Is this just a warm up?
-
I think some of this argument fits under the "it depends" category. I am very interested in how to make practice efficient. Every time you add something, you have to subtract something. The less time you have to practice, either by choice or circumstance, the more ruthlessly you need to cut out "good" for "essential".
A lot of arguments stem from our different circumstances. The more time you have to practice, the more ecumenical you can be. The more of the "essential" that you have already learned, the more "good" you can add.
What is optimal for me is not going to be optimal for a pro.
So, yes there are a lot of good ways to improve your improvisation, but it is important to identify what is essential and to prioritize.
And
We do not all learn differently, we just have different excuses.
(Just thought I would throw that last one in.)Last edited by Jonzo; 11-14-2012 at 06:08 PM.
-
Obviously, the Joe Pass Method is one method, not several. Sources are not the same as methods. Learning from Charlie Christian records and Charlie Parker records are not different methods. Maybe you just use "method" in an unusual way. Originally Posted by mike walker
But this is not worth arguing about. You made a claim in the heat of a discussion that you can't back up. It happens. I really don't wish to pursue this. I'd rather listen to Joe Pass.
-
Nah man, too easy. That's just the name of the book. In the book Joe uses exercises to demonstrate the use of several ways at once, integrating them. Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
Scale, then Arp, then Chord.
There was no 'heat' for me. Was there for you?
You said you weren't dabating, but now you're 'arguing'?..
Too many confused signals from ya fella. I like these things to be clear.
And I'm still not clear on what you are actually saying.
But no worries..... it's all good.Last edited by mike walker; 11-14-2012 at 06:58 PM.
-
This is at least a little anti-natural on the guitar, surely. The ordinary learning process is exactly the opposite. Putting the first two stages in that order probably makes sense on a non-chordal instrument like a flute or a trumpet, but the first thing anyone, and I mean like 99% of people, the first thing someone who picks up a guitar is taught or learns out of a book or whatever, the first thing they learn is a chord. Before they learn where the notes are or anything, just a chord, then more chords. And then how to make arps from those chords. Then tunes. And then, conceivably but not necessarily, scales. Originally Posted by mike walker
-
Well, when I got guitar, first thing I've tried was to play major scale on one string. I knew nothing about guitar, not even string names, nor how it's to be tuned, but I knew the sound of major scale. The next thing, after tuning, of course, was to learn bar chord F (E shape), and than I wrote my first song
F F F AbG. Sure, it was punk! Never really got to arpegios.Last edited by Vladan; 11-14-2012 at 08:35 PM.
-
Well, by the time ya get your head into the Joe pass method, you might be a little past the first chord stage, John. Originally Posted by JohnRoss
-
I think you are absolutely correct that it is "anti-natural" to how people ordinarily learn the guitar, but therein lies much of the problem with the guitar! People learn chords, and then they are trapped - often on the first three frets, no less. As a past guitar teacher once told me, "if someone can't be bothered to learn the major scale, then what's the point?" He wasn't pushing scales as the be-all, end-all, but he knew they opened the door to a way of thinking that one had to go through in order to advance to any kind of meaningful stage. Also, from a technique perspective, scales are very helpful especially in the early goings. So I would suggest that the earlier a guitar novice breaks away from the purely chordal way of thinking, the better. The chords-first approach is especially heinous, in my view, when it starts out on the first few frets where the notes are hardest to fret! Better to start on the 7th or 9th fret and work one's way down. Oops, got sidetracked there... Originally Posted by JohnRoss
-
Aha! You know your master well. Originally Posted by JohnRoss
-
I'm a decent bone player, play in big bands. Began music on Tpt. Played bone through college... Have always thought and heard scales, chord tones, chords, arpeggios... Any construction of the implied pitch collection... There all the same, there all going on all the time, you choose to be aware of what you hear. I hear complete pitch collections for every single note. Depending on concept and application of that concept being used... That complete pitch collection changes.
Single note players might be hipper and might better reflect what their playing over if they understood what those ornamentations, or any melodic embellishment reflects.
Turns or any chromatic note implies harmony. I'm fully aware of what playing lines means... And once you develop the skill of playing melodic lines and can get out of the moment.... You'll begin to be able to hear and develop relationships with harmony. You become aware of what and where your line can go. Part of improve is being in the future... Setting up the future. It's not that difficult to be aware of both...Yada Yada , I've gone through this before.
Let's post examples of what we're talking about, examples of real playing, not someone else's. Only basic jazz skills are required. I've posted hundreds of playing examples on this forum and believe young players get much more from playing examples. Pick some tunes, four, eight, sixteen bar phrases... Doesn't really matter and then let's demonstrate playing examples of different approaches and how we use them. Yea I know...we're all busy...
So Improve with use of...
Melody
Chord tones
Arpeggios
Scales
Reference...relationships... Developments
I'll post tomorrow... Late night
Disclaimer... I don't try or want to push anyone, dish, disrespect etc.... If I did I apologize .... Most are either here to learn, share or both, I'm trying to make posts more useful in that respect.
Reg
-
Good evening, all...
If you'll allow a 40-year beginner to comment, I think I'm rather with John on this. Isn't that what makes the guitar such a popular and democratic instrument..? I'm not wanting to knock academia, or lessen the benefits of going 'classical', but I know far more guitarists (not all, or even most from the 'jazz' idiom...) that play damned well, without having 'studied' the formal route, ever. Many can knock out a pretty convincing 'manouche' pump, and solo over it with conviction, but couldn't tell you what key they were in. I'm not, of course, pretending that there is no advantage to learning scales and all, but there is, I believe, a wider pool of players out there (out here..?), far from the heat of the virtuoso, who could demonstrate through experience, trial and error, ear training (listening...) and sheer bloody-mindedness a fair competence. Yes, I know; this is a 'jazz' forum, but there are many other expressions of the genre than bebop, or Dixieland. I know nothing of the history of the 'greats', but if a lot of bluesmen were to be asked, I'm not sure that they would say they started with scales. I'm not suggesting, either, that such studies should not be picked up later on (after all the 'bad' habits have been acquired, naturally...), but I don't think that one should adamantly profess that knowledge, or proficiency, with scales is a fundamental necessity. A good route, surely, for many; no problem to me, but far from being crucial.
I'm not part of the elite, certainly, but I've seen a lot of players over the years, both amateur and professional, who do/did quite well without formal weaponry. Just my humble opinion; no offense to the erudite participants in this thread.
-
Yes, I was, back in 1980-and-a-bit, which doesn't contradict what I said. I disliked it then, and I've glanced at it again because of this thread, and I still think it one of the least helpful "methods" I've ever had the misfortune to waste time on. JP was a great player and was probably even a good teacher, I don't know, but he couldn't write a textbook (or have one ghost-written for him) to save his life. I don't remember the exercises as "to demonstrate the use of several ways at once, integrating them," I do remember there being barely comprehensible solos which I spent weeks working on, with zero gain. (And I really learned to hate those bloody alts.) Looking at the wretched thing now, I see the TOC says there were only three of the damned exercises anyway, which is a bit pathetic but not as weedy as its total content of 32 pages, which is outright theft, when you're selling to starving music students. The man had a right to take advantage of his reputation, fair enough, but it was pure commercialism, and I feel that if anyone were collecting for a music school library today, they wouldn't buy it unless it were very heavily discounted, and then for its historical rather than musical interest. Originally Posted by mike walker
Now, I'm not saying that if you learned all that the JP Guitar Method pretended to teach, you wouldn't be a brilliant guitarist, I'm sure you would (and I know you are, I've been to your web site). But I would be amazed if anyone got there from the JPGM on its own, because it really sucks.
-
I'm cool with that, J. I have a different opinion on it. I didn't learn per se from that book but it was referenced merely to say that Joe knew, and used his scales (after internalizing them to hell and back of course). Nothing more really. Originally Posted by JohnRoss
Last edited by mike walker; 11-15-2012 at 07:25 AM.
-
Originally Posted by Dad3353
I don't think anyone disagrees with you here. The point is that what you are speaking of is not the topic of the thread, although it may be a reaction towards a detour I, personally may have missed. However, your use of the word "crucial" interests me. In my professional life (most of my life) all the things you wish to down-play are precisely crucial just as the things you glorify are equally crucial. Certain musicians you may be alluding to won't be able to sit in an orchestra, play a show (can be a jazz review), do a record date that requires reading music, which often involves long written out scale-type-violin cadenzas ( where zero scale experience and rigorous study won't cut it), or large intervallic passages for that matter. And while we are at it, "scales are not a fundamental necessity" is an opinion you are certainly entitled to, but it won't fly very far in the real world of true musicianship.
And scales? That's only a small piece of the large pie,and I don't mean pizza. It is serious and anyone from the comfort of an armchair can pontificate when they ain't ever lived it. Sure, anyone can take the guitar to the beach and play Wipe-Out, after all, you mentioned non-jazz as well. But for some of us, the subject and the study is a very serious one; one of hard knocks, hard work and sacrifice and that's only the beginning, before the pressure of the professional situations (and I don't mean bars and restaurants and house parties) comes into "play." Just some additional points to consider is all. I think we should stay on topic rather than constantly trickling down into other ones at such a rapid tempo.
-
OK, let's try the short version, answering the OP directly...
Scales or no scales?The pros that I've met and worked with, in many styles, and many instruments, quite definitely did not think in terms of scales when improvising. That was done, if at all, when learning/improving upon/mastering the instrument. Impro on stage does not imply 'thinking' in the conscient sense. It's become instinctive enough (through the use of scales or any other device...) as to not require 'thought'. Listening, yes, but 'thinking', no. Others may have different experience, of course.What do the pros say?
I'm a newbie to jazz, but no stranger to music, and have decided to finally make the switch to Jazz, and I was wondering if you guys think in terms of scales when you improvise?
-
This is a genuine question.... do you think, they 'think in terms' of Chords, or intervals or arpeggios, or rhythm? Originally Posted by Dad3353
-
OK... real question.
As I always say, I think in terms of "everything", all the technical skills with reference to Harmony... Not chords, the harmonic area. Chordal, intervallic, scalular, any use of pitch collection.
It's almost like we're talking about Fruit, and trying to decide which one is a fruit... the apple or the orange.
Depending on what harmonic system and application of... is being used will effect the Reference(s), the Relationships and developments.
Just as rhythm is a tool or aspect that will influence what I play, so are the organization of the notes.... a melody and development, a melodic development with use of scales, chord tones, arpeggios... what ever I choose or is chosen for me by chart or rhythm section will have a reference and that reference is harmony.
The harmony obviously doesn't need to be played and different players may hear different relationships... but there are relationships.
The different techniques, scales, arps etc... are tools for making , in this discussion... improve. The tools or techniques can in them selves become organizing aspects of what I'm playing... but I prefer to use the tools as compared to the tools using me. That's why I chose to understand what I play as well as develop and master the skills.
Long story short... I believe you need all the technical skills in the end ... you need all the tools. I can walk into any situation sit down and read whatever is put in front of, first time and still listen to the context and make choices...yada yada, my point, sight reading is also one of those skills, which as I believe Tony D was making reference to... all those technical skills, the tools, come into play when sight reading also.
Reg
Another point... I can improve instinctively or consciously... I generally am aware of what I'm playing and what other musicians are playing... you can be in the moment as well as in the future. Personal choice.Last edited by Reg; 11-15-2012 at 10:21 AM.
-
The path happens as we walk it.
Scales are no different as a tool for impro than anything else, be it intervals chord tones blah blah blah.
I internalize this stuff then just play, interact, respond, etc etc.
To go with the flow of a musical idea is so wonderful, be it my own, or in support of someone else's.... in real time.... in the moment.
Just the best, for me.
-
If I may chime in, my method is to always have a basic melody in my head, sing it silently, while I play unison, or counterline, or embelishment, or...
In addition, I know the sound certain type of scale makes. Now, I do not know all the scale names, nor modes, so better said, I know the sound of some particular fingerings I came across while I was messing arround.
If I know tune well, I follow chords, so I think: "dm7 is coming, I'll move over there to make some sounds". If I don't know the tune, I kinda think, "I'd better move minor third up, before I end nowhere", or whatever ears and experience are telling me. Of course, ther's not much time to verbalize all that in mind, I mean, i already sing silently, don't I, but I'm pretty much sure that's the process.
-
The problem, as I see it, with some music (theory and practice and technique, etc) newsgroups has to do with the quantum of the acknowledgement of perspective. Professional musicians with years of experience ( can encompass legit training, trail and error bare knuckles, or a combination of the two) are speaking from the pulpit of those years of experience. For example, I know personally that I would be a dead duck on a medical sector newsgroup. I might go on one and write, "Well, a friend of mine cured himself of cancer by eating 40 apricot seeds each day, so he thinks that the "Vitamin B-17" found in each seed is the cancer cure." I am not going to write that "So, I say that is the cure for cancer, and the only cure, as a matter of fact." If he thinks that was the cure for his illness, so be it. It has not been a proven fact, so I won't dare preach that it is a fact. Plus, I am not a bio-chemist or the like. Although, I would like to listen and learn from them. Originally Posted by mike walker
Getting back to the music, it is one of the fine arts. And as in the remaining fine arts, it is subject to scrutiny, supposition, opinions, loop-holes, contradictions, prejudice and even serendipity (which is usually cool, yes?), to name a few. But the main idea is that it is best to give the artist a chance to explain things from all of that hard work and experience. That is very important. The dedicated artist (if nothing else can be understood about him or her) is more likely to see more dimensions than that seen by the novice or less experienced.
I really think that this newsgroup, which is the best that I have encountered thus far concerning over all jazz guitar talk and a lot less jive, can benefit if the perspective is more recognized, appreciated and if I may dare say, 'respected.' A lot can be learned from the fair exchange, because opinions concerning taste and emotion (a few examples) are important as well. And it doesn't take a brain surgeon to voice such an opinion.
Now back to my axe...I have a helluva lot to learn yet.
-
I've expressed my take on this before, but it seemed to get lost....
The big issue is thinking of a map as a method. It's not.
The other issue is, once you've assumed the map is a method, then you assume one "method" is better than another.
Now, that's not to say certain things don't make better sense in certain situations...when I'm learning a tune, if I see two chords to the bar at a medium tempo in a bop style--I'm thinking chord tones are the most straightforward way to get the sound I'm going to need. If I see 4 bars of a 7#11 chord in a modern styled tune, I'm thinking differently...and this doesn't mean I might not go back and think differently later...but all thinking is for practice...I internalize what I practice, and it's what comes out in the moment...
That's why I always argue (heh heh) that there is no arguement....you gotta know all routes of organization available...never limit yourself. And remember the only thing that will come out in the moment is what you really know, what you've really practiced.
-
Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
It is as simple as this.
-
It's just a comment, I'm not trying to prove any point, but I've been looking through the Joe Pass Guitar Method again, and there are 4 pages that I'd forgotten about dedicated to chordal thinking - "Scales from Chords" and "Chord Sequences". Remember this is a very short book, 32 pages, including 1 blank, the inside cover, the index, etc., and at the other end 7 pages of JP's solos, so 4 pages is a significant chunk of the 21 or 22 pages of actual teaching material.
-
This may be a different book, I could easily be wrong about the title. Originally Posted by JohnRoss
Is there some stuff in the back devoted to written out single line solos,
Rhythm Changes, different Blues sequences etc?
Also I'm pretty sure there are more than 32 pages, but I have not seen this book in 25 years.
All i remember is there was a lot of scale stuff in the book.
He embellished the scales with chromatics.
Maj scales Harm min scales, modes, though I don't think he uses that term,
different kinds of altered scale and maybe Melodic min and Diminished scales but I can't swear to that.
Joe knew and played a lot of scales, maybe not the names, it was either maj, min or some form of Dominant for him.
So, like I said a million years back, Joe would have answered "Scales'.
Not exclusively, but the question is 'Scales or no scales'.
Reply With Quote
There will be another you changes
Today, 02:06 AM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions