The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Posts 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1

    User Info Menu

    As far as I understand there is some difference in how arpeggios are interpreted in jazz guitar vs classical guitar. This is a question that would be more appropriate for a classical guitar forum but I lost my access to delcam forum due to their strict posting rules.

    Why in jazz guitar it is strictly emphasized that when playing an arpeggio (for instance in a CAGED position) one must immediately release the previous fretted note at the time the next note is being played while in classical guitar it's not a must?

    Arpeggio is whithout a doubt a sequence of notes belonging to a chord played one after another provided no two neighbour notes are sounded simultaneously. You are forced to avoid playing two simultaneous notes on a wind instrument such as sax when going through an arpeggio.

    Why then in classical guitar the chord is fingered and all the notes in sequence are played while the chord is being statically held and still it's called an arpeggio?
    For a comparison, in piano playing while it's still possible to play several notes at once the arpeggio is defined as strictly playing one note after another and no two notes at once.

    Nevertheless in the classical guitar standard notation it is assumed that the note values are held only for their sounding duration while often only the bass note is considered to be held say for the whole measure assuming 4/4 time and four quarter notes per measure.
    In reality the second note will sound the longest after the bass note (3/4th of a measure), the third note for half a measure and only the last, fourth note will sound for an actual written duration of a quarter note assuming after the measure the chord will change.

    Maybe I don't understand classical guitar technique quite well?
    Here I should add that I only consider the free stroke. Would it be more correct in terms of the written notation for classical guitar to lift fingers one by one when advancing through an arpeggio? Say you are fingering the mother of all chords, the C-Maj in the first position and according to your arpeggio score you have a measure of the low C bass, starting the measure and then three quarters of: G-C-E on the treble strings starting from the open G and up to the open E.
    This is probably not a very good example because above I only mentioned fingered notes and here I added two open notes with only one treble C on the second B string fretted.
    In this case we would need to add 'muting' of the open strings to further complicate the matter.
    Anyway, since I mentioned the open strings lets add them to the formula as they are only the opposite of the fretted notes in the arpeggio context: you need not to release them but instead use fingers to touch them after their quarter note values have expired. That means even more finger wiggling.

    I better stop here because my explanation becomes too lengthy. Is it clear enough?

    Anyway with that "open C" chord example above the jazz musician would play the treble notes one by one or maybe "lift and mute" the treble notes while starting with the fretted C-shape and advancing through the arpeggio (mind you, I perfectly understand no jazz guitarist would ever play open C - this is strictly for an example how the notation is treated and what we call an arpeggio).

    My questions is: Is classical guitar way of realization of the arpeggio notation is inherently incorrect and jazz guitar way is strictly right?
    Why in classical guitar music we get a number of simultaneously sounding notes and still call them the arpeggio? It is basically a sounded chord that gains its notes the closer we are to the end of measure.

    Am I missing something?
    Last edited by VKat; 03-08-2014 at 09:37 AM.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #2

    User Info Menu

    The word arpeggio simply means the notes of a chord, played in succession.

    There's plenty of different techniques to do it. But they don't change the definition.

  4. #3
    That's right. Similarly we could say there is plenty of ways to play chords including the 'arpeggio way'.
    So you conclude that the arpeggio is not necessarily a single line texture in the context of a single musical instrument?

  5. #4

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by VKat
    That's right. Similarly we could say there is plenty of ways to play chords including the 'arpeggio way'.
    So you conclude that the arpeggio is not necessarily a single line texture in the context of a single musical instrument?
    well, the word comes from "arpeggiare", meaning to play the harp, whose notes most typically continue to ring, overlapping the succeeding notes...

  6. #5
    I see it suggests that words 'arpeggiate' and 'arpeggio' while having the same root do not mean the same thing in terms of technique. It aligns with mr.Beaumont's reply.

    So, in jazz we usually use 'arpeggio shapes' but we do not (generally) arpeggiate them? Actually I understand in jazz idiom it's prohibited to arpeggiate when playing single lines. Correct? I mean it's not 'prohibited' in terms of what you can do but it's not a standard jazz soloing technique.
    Also I see where you come from when referring to "arpeggiating chords" - it's not always possible to arpeggiate an 'arpeggio shape' even if one wanted to do so.

    Further more, it's common in jazz to use 'chord shapes' but they are not arpeggiated in the context of soloing, only when playing 'chords'.

    I'm still a little confused because 'playing arpeggios' is a general common term that refers to different textures in jazz and classical. Is it correct to use term 'texture' to differentiate the actual audible effect when comparing the two?

    Also, I'm still confused about actual written notation for the classical guitar when it's said the 'chord is arpeggiated'. Is it sort of compromise between unnecessary complication of the score and the desired effect or otherwise the compromise between the playing technique and the actual notation?

  7. #6
    By the way, I also want to add that this is a practical question for me. Would it be incorrect to play the classical arpeggios (arpeggiated chords) with strict conformance to the written notation, that is providing the exact note values as I described in my original post?
    To make my question a little more specific:
    - would it be stylistically incorrect?

    With jazz arpeggios I see no contradictions so sorry to transfer the subject towards the classical side of the question. Hope someone can clarify this for me.
    Last edited by VKat; 03-08-2014 at 11:26 AM.

  8. #7
    OK, after various ways of searching the web I found one relevant reference on delcamp. From the number of replies in that thread I realise this is not a popular subject of discussion.
    http://www.classicalguitardelcamp.co...hp?f=6&t=35117

    However, people do ask such questions and I understand why :-)

    The explanation in defence of the actual playing method of classical guitar vs written notation is the 'overringing' quality of the guitar when considered in the context of a single line texture. In the classical context according to the posters this is a desired feature when applied to the arpeggiating chords and retaining the 'overringing' notes.

    So in other words this is an idiomatic method of playing of classical guitar. This makes sense to me.

    On the other hand jazz guitar concept of arpeggios in general is different but one must be very careful when using these terms and taken out of context they can be a subject of controversy. I understand that when applied to arpeggiating chords in jazz guitar there is even much more freedom so that it doesn't make sense to apply any kind of notation at all.

  9. #8

    User Info Menu

    Keep in mind, that in jazz, horns have always been at the forefront. Horns, as normally played, can only produce one note at a time. So a horn will play an arpeggio as a series of discreet pitches.

    Guitarists playing jazz have appropriated the "horn-like" sound of linear arpeggios for use in soloing.

    The techniques employed by classical guitarists and jazz guitarists may be different and sound different but in the end, they are still just playing one note at a time.

  10. #9

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by monk
    Keep in mind, that in jazz, horns have always been at the forefront. Horns, as normally played, can only produce one note at a time. So a horn will play an arpeggio as a series of discreet pitches. Guitarists playing jazz have appropriated the "horn-like" sound of linear arpeggios for use in soloing. The techniques employed by classical guitarists and jazz guitarists may be different and sound different but in the end, they are still just playing one note at a time.

    That's it.

    I wouldn't get hung up on terminology. Arpeggio in classical music is referred to playing like a harp, which the guitar can do very well within the limits of its 6 distinct strings. And still both the harp and the guitar can play arpeggios taking care to mute the previous strings, or just letting them ring.

    If you play a chord one note at a time, two notes per string, that is not an arpeggio because that is not how a harp works; if you play anything one note per string up and down that is an arpeggio, whether it's a chord or not.

    In jazz music soloing was pioneered by the horns, for obvious volume reason, so if you want to imitate a horn on the guitar at each new note that you play you have to stop all the previous ones.
    The guitar still gives you the flexibility to go with the option that fits you best at the moment.
    Last edited by GuitOp81; 03-08-2014 at 04:07 PM.

  11. #10

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by GuitOp81
    If you play a chord one note at a time, two notes per string, that is not an arpeggio because that is not how a harp works; if you play anything one note per string up and down that is an arpeggio, whether it's a chord or not.
    That seems overly strict and we'll have to agree to disagree. The meaning of terms can shift.

    If I want to emphasize that I am letting the notes ring out, I will say "arpeggiate the chord" or even better "arpeggiate and let it ring".

    I live in a wide tent world. There's little to be gained by trying to rope in words and narrow their meanings.

  12. #11

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by GuitOp81
    That's it.

    I wouldn't get hung up on terminology. Arpeggio in classical music is referred to playing like a harp, which the guitar can do very well within the limits of its 6 distinct strings. And still both the harp and the guitar can play arpeggios taking care to mute the previous strings, or just letting them ring.

    If you play a chord one note at a time, two notes per string, that is not an arpeggio because that is not how a harp works; if you play anything one note per string up and down that is an arpeggio, whether it's a chord or not.

    In jazz music soloing was pioneered by the horns, for obvious volume reason, so if you want to imitate a horn on the guitar at each new note that you play you have to stop all the previous ones.
    The guitar still gives you the flexibility to go with the option that fits you best at the moment.
    Then why did you get hung up on terminology?

    A chord, one note at a time. It doesn't matter if the notes are on the same string or adjacent strings.

    No, jazz was pioneered by horns because horns were the most commonly available musical instrument in New Orleans at the turn of the Twentieth Century.

  13. #12

    User Info Menu

    An arpeggio is an arpeggio. Chord notes played one after the other and not simultaneous. If you are playing chord tones one after the other with two notes per string you are still playing an arpeggio. You do not always hold the chord down in classical music and you can let chord tones ring in jazz. Usually when the composer wants you to hold out the chord it will be notated. Think about playing C then E then G on a piano (C arpeggio). You can play those notes with the pedal and they'll ring out or you can play them staccato but you are still playing a C arpeggio. There is a classical guitar technique called campanella, which means "bell-like". It just means everything rings together as much as possible. It doesn't mean that if a bell can't do it it's not campanella. Sticking with my campanella example, if you played a descending C major scale starting on the G with this technique you could play the G (3rd fret on the high E string) to F (6th fret B string) to E (open) to D (3rd fret B string) to C (5th fret D string). You are playing each note on different strings but you are not playing an arpeggio. You are playing a scale with a certain technique just like you can play arpeggios with different techniques.

  14. #13

    User Info Menu

    I encounter both types of arpeggio types in jazz, and the usual is notated as single note lines with appropriate time values per note, the other type where you are expected to play the notes sequentially but let them ring are notated differently. The sheet music is specific about what it wants, it's not personally or randomly defined. When you play them like a harp, letting them ring, I usually see different stuff like this. Sometimes those squiggly vertical lines have an arrowhead attached to imply ascending or descending.

    Last edited by cosmic gumbo; 03-08-2014 at 11:38 PM.

  15. #14

    User Info Menu

    Much ado about... Not much.

    a jazz guitarist must master arpeggios in "single note" style, so as to solo like a horn player. Or to play "horn lines" if you like.

    a classical guitarist plays what is required. Some of it includes arpeggios. Much of the time it is required that a chord form or grip be held with the left hand while playing the arpeggios.

    A plectrist can do this too but would be more inclined do do so while playing accompaniment - as opposed to soloing.

    generally speaking of course...

  16. #15

    User Info Menu

    I don't fully understand the tone of some replies but, just to clarify my comment.
    There was a question asked by the OP regarding arpeggios in classical guitar vs jazz guitar.
    My whole point is that you can really play how you want without restricting your range because of terminology.

    However, what I said regarding the definition of arpeggio in classical guitar is not an opinion, it is a fact, and I was reporting it not because that reflect somehow on my status but in the same way you would report that in the US you drive on the right side of the road if somebody has any doubt about it. It is not something mysterious or something to brag about.

    You can check for instance on scribd the 120 arpeggi of Mauro Giuliani for classical guitar, including the sections on muting the notes of an arpeggio, and see what is intended as an arpeggio in classical guitar music, if it includes consecutive notes on the same string or not and if you "have to" or just "can" mute the string when you move to the next note.

    Again, this is not a big deal, you can stretch and even change the definitions, but not everything is an opinion and I don't see how contributing information that one happens to have (because of having a specific knowledge) can be seen as an attempt to restrict someone else from doing what he prefers.

    Is it a rule to abstain from commenting in case you have some precise relevant information? I am new to the forum and if that's the case I will take this as a lesson for the future.

    Regards
    Last edited by GuitOp81; 03-09-2014 at 01:25 PM.

  17. #16

    User Info Menu

    I simply do not agree that your definition of an arpeggio is fact nor would any theory or composition professor that I've ever had. By your definition no horn can play an arpeggio and that is just not true.

  18. #17

    User Info Menu

    I've never heard this harp based definition of arpeggio in any of my classical or jazz studies, either.

    I thought an arpeggio was just a musical figure where the notes of a chord are played in succession. Differentiated from a scale because an arpeggio only includes the chord tones.

  19. #18

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ecj
    I've never heard this harp based definition of arpeggio in any of my classical or jazz studies, either....
    I think he is just referring to the Italian source word which is usually accepted to be "Arpeggiare" and generally translated as "play the harp, in the manner of a harp, like a harp..."

    An arpeggio is a form of broken or spread chord. These are chords that are not played as a solid block of sound but the notes of the chord are spread out and turned into a "harmonic" melody. IMO the main difference between the traditional classical way of thinking of the arpeggio and the jazz is the treatment of the individual notes in the arpeggio.

    The original classical arpeggio ("Classical" is not really the correct word as the technique was a familiar one well before the classical era), implied one was to spread the notes of the chord out and let each note continue to sound thus creating a "melody" while also maintaining the "harmonic" nature of a chord. Strictly speaking only instruments capable of producing more than one pitch simultaneously could do an arpeggio. This technique was associated with choir (assuming one considered the choir an "instrument"), keyboard, and plucked string instruments. So, woodwinds and horns could not produce arpeggios. To some degree this notion, that the notes of the chord must continue to sound as the notes are separated for an arpeggio, is still present in the "classical" thought. This idea of melody and harmony sounding together pretty much negates the use of arpeggios on a single string in classical guitar technique.

    The jazz guitar arpeggio can be played as the classical with the notes of the arpeggio running together but it's also acceptable and more common (It appears to me) to treat the notes of the arpeggio as a single melodic line with implied (not actually sounded) harmony. This would be treating the guitar as a melodic instrument, same as a horn or woodwind (as noted above) rather than one capable of harmony and melody at the same time. This type of arpeggio, in the classical genre is more often than not treated as a "special" technique used for effect and not necessarily a common way of playing arpeggios.

    I think the "classical" style arpeggio used in jazz often (not always) gets lost in an ensemble setting. However, it has been used to great effect in solo finger style and some chord/melody playing by performers like Charlie Byrd, Laurindo Almeida, Martin Taylor, Earl Klugh and many others.

    The "Campanellas" mentioned by Jason is a technique peculiar to the Baroque guitar and is most effective on the instrument. As Jason says it's a means of playing scales, generally descending scales, on different strings so that the notes ring together like "church bells". It's a technique playable on modern guitars, including electric jazz guitars, but I think it's most effective on the double strings, special tuning (most often tuned "re-entrant" meaning that the instrument is tuned similar to the top 5 strings of a modern guitar but the lowest pitch is the 4th or sometimes 3rd string with the normally lower strings tuned up an octave) and bright timber of the Baroque guitar.