-
True, but if it's your goal to learn how to improvise, then it is approached with that in mind. Duplicating the feel, tone, phrasing, emotional content is just the foundation from which you start, it's not an end unto itself. As a single source, it will provide you with the most material you could possibly work with. Everything you need is in the music. It's what you do with it that matters.
Originally Posted by Jonzo
-
03-31-2014 09:34 PM
-
well without going too deep: Originally Posted by angelpa
harmonic analysis
rhythmic analysis
melodic analysis
same as with any music. just don't obsess over it, as it is not composed music. it is improvised soloing, which is to say "impulsive" to one extent or the other. (Impulse records was an old jazz label, FYI
).
The books I recommended will assist with this somewhat (Christiansen's in particular). But I would not worry about the above as step 1. The above is step 2. Remember:
1. Imitate
2. Assimilate
3. Innovate
-
Fumblefingers: thanks for the links in a previous post of yours. But this one doesn't come thru; can you tell me the title of this one:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss...20pass%20books
-
This thread certainly has players engaged. Guys, stop chewing each other out because you are largely all correct. The reason for that is something teachers get taught (or come across whilst teaching) that we all learn in different ways - we have a preferred learning style. The three main styles are visual -"show me a chart - show me a diagram, a table, a flow chart" - auditory/text - "where's the book, the instructions, the story?" and Kinsethetic - "Show me how to do it then I'll do it and you can show me and I'll do it again..." Sometimes a forth style is added "videos". (Other educationalists sometimes have more than three or four - the point is there is diversity of learning styles)
As teachers we are taught to engage all these styles in group work because using the wrong method will make learning more difficult - and bottom line - turn off a student who is getting material that doesn't appeal to their dominent learning style. We have all had teachers who do their thing which doesn't match what we were looking for. But also we all express how to learn, related to our own dominent style - take a look at the above posts - recognise how you like to learn?
Quick test - try this - If you and I were meeting at a bar next week ... would you like me to give you a map with the route marked, would you like me to give you a list of directions from your home to the bar, or would you like me to drive you there tomorrow so you can see where it is and learn the route on the drive over there? The one you choose idicates your predominent learning style. Visual charting, written instructions, and show and do.
The posts above are more about us argueing for our own preferences in learning - they all work - but one way works betterr for us. Me? I like to work things out from charts, finger diagrams, scale diagrams and neck charts. My least referred way - show me where you put your fingers and I will try, then show me again (drives me nuts).
Think about it - explains a great deal about students opinions on teachers - get fed the wrong match to their preferences and you get "He's a bad teacher." The same guy that the next person thinks,"He's awesome!"
-
couldn't disagree more. The easiest way to hear jazz and to not be a beginner anymore is to transcribe . That's how all the great jazz musicians learned in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. Probably 90s too. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
Wes montgomery knew noting of keys when he transcribed charlie christian solos and actually did a gig learning to play them. Dan Wilson knew nothing about music or reading or theory when he learned to play like Wes and George Benson. Dan went back to school and got a master's degree in music performance (or was it theory). To me (and dan agrees), learning to play by imitating is *THE BEST* way to learn to improvise. If you are the type of person who is not interested in analyzing the solos and figured out how they fit over the various chord progressions (despite lack of formal theory training) then it's highly likely you would never have become a jazz player in the first place.
-
We probably need to separate who is teaching and who isn't. Some of what is being discussed here just can't part of how a guitar teacher would approach the subject. If you take a typical student who can play accompanyment witha variety of say eight chord types. They can play the melody from the page or learnt by ear. And they can get away with a blues solo of learnt riffs and licks that put their solos together like jigsaw pieces but no real connection to the chords (see my earlier post). That is the average student who wants to start doing jazz style soloing. They need all the foundation work explaining and then coaching and babying through the first steps. I agree they will get to a point where they can self teach, self analyse solos. But just saying, go listen to lots of jazz solos and by some sort of osmosis you too will become a player doesn't seem right. If that were true we would learn a foreign language simply by listening to an audio story book in that language - listen to the book for long enough and we would speak the language. We learn a language with a teacher who starts us on simple stuff and explains everything along the route of learning. When the o,d stagers talk about how they learnt in the past, and how they just sat in on sessions and learnt stuff, they arealmost certainly leaving outall the mentoring and ad hoc teaching thatwould be done whilst 'sitting in' on a session. Even over drinks afterwards you would getpointers, tips, and bollockings for your performance.
-
Originally Posted by angelpa
its the Joe Pass page at Amazon, under books. They have a few.
-
If forced to choose one, I would side with Cosmic Gumbo and say the music (-the recordings.) As Jamey Aebersold used to (and may still) say, "All your answers are on the records." Learning solos (and tunes/ heads) is, for many, the best way to learn to "really hear" the music. And playing the material teaches one about touch, timing, phrasing, swing, all the nuances that make up a style. Originally Posted by Jonzo
-
Did you bother to read the rest of my post? Originally Posted by jzucker
EDIT, because I was being snippy without explaining...
In the rest of my post I agree about the importance of copping licks and transcription. My assertion that it's "lazy advice" stems from the fact that not every student is even remotely ready for a solo transcription...tell that advice to a student who hasn't developed their ear at all, and their first jazz transcription will be their last.Last edited by mr. beaumont; 04-01-2014 at 11:17 AM.
-
All of the pop and rock players I know, including myself, learn songs from listening to the records and copying them.
Copying, is how it's done.
-
Nitpicking, but I can't agree with this statement. e.g.: Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
-
Imo, this is the silver bullet. Introduction to Jazz Guitar Improvisation by Joe Elliot. It specifically addresses the issues rock guitar players have when transitioning to jazz.
We had a study group, it's sort of still going... I'd like to continue once I get off my ass and start practicing again:
https://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/impro...ead-index.html
-
Originally Posted by fep
I've got the book and done many of the exercises, I'm curious, so if you don't mind me asking, why do you think it's the silver bullet?
-
Fep: any prerequisites a student should know before using that book? Thanks
-
I'm not a jazz teacher, but I've spent my entire adult life teaching in classrooms, churches, group lessons, and private lessons. I'm an advocate for teachers and believe that acquiring a good teacher is one of the single most important things a beginner can do to you learn to play in any style. Originally Posted by ChrisDowning
All that being said, I think you are over blowing the teacher's role. The beginning stages of the learning process are probably the least important for teacher input. Basic direction may be needed, but some work has to be done on the part of the student before there's enough feedback for a teacher to really teach.
I learned this from one of my favorite college instructors. I was taking classical guitar from him, and I loved our lessons. I diligently practiced most of the time, but one time I showed up unprepared. He smiled and said that I would receive a zero for that lesson and sent me to the practice room. "I don't have anything to teach you if you haven't worked on the material", he said. It was much more effective than a guilt trip.
We don't learn our *first* language by being taught the language. We learn it by imitation.
listen, listen, listen...
imitate, imitate, imitate...
Give a listen to the TED talk on the researcher who randomly placed a computer with internet access in a wall on a street in an impoverished Indian neighborhood. The kids learned to read English and solve complex scientific equations all without a teacher. If I remember correctly, the researcher was so stunned that he moved it to a new location in another neighborhood and the same thing happened. It's been done repeatedly in other locations.
Khan Academy is also changing in the way people think about education. Kids watch the assignments on video, do the work, and *at that point* the teacher has something to work with. The students' problems and the walls they run into give the teacher a context from which to actually teach.
I'm at teachers' advocate. I believe you should have one to learn to play, but my mother didn't teach me to speak. Uneducated women without teaching skills teach their children to speak every day, but they don't *teach* them...
The little buggers learn it by imitation.Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 04-01-2014 at 12:06 PM.
-
chris, i've been teaching for 35 years, have taught jazz guitar at the university of miami, university of maryland and several other local colleges, have taught workshops all over the world, and have 2 jazz guitar books out so you can't filter me out with that straw-man argument.
The thing is, jazz is commonly called a language but you can't make the comparison about learning jazz and apply the same heuristics as learning a language. It's a totally different experience. Let's just agree to disagree and move on.
-
I think what's being lost here in ther misinterpretation of Jack Zucker's post regarding listening to and copying other solos, is his advice to analyze the solo they've transcribed. This anaysis will lead to an understanding of why certain notes were used over certain chords. . rhythmic phrasing . . the usage of tensions and resolutions . . chromatics etc. Of course, this can't be done/analyzed without a fair understanding of theory . . . but . . suffice it to say . . even the masters quoted each other, and still do.
-
True, but Jazz is not our first language, and we cannot use it to ask for a cookie. Trying to learn a second language by parroting alone is pretty inefficient. Has anyone ever really learned to speak a second language by repeating phrases off a recording? Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
Last edited by Jonzo; 04-01-2014 at 12:39 PM.
-
Clearly, learning jazz and learning a language have much in common: vocabulary, grammar, clichés, standard phrases, and the creative manipulation of these in real time, in response to changing conditions. Originally Posted by jzucker
I am curious about why you think they are totally different.
Are you comparing learning jazz as an adult to learning a first language as a baby, or comparing learning jazz as an adult to learning a second language as an adult?
-
exactly! Originally Posted by Patrick2
Which again, is why I say you need to know where a student is at before "transcribe the masters" is truly good advice...
-
I don't know who's advocating for parroting "alone", but it's not all one thing or the other. Originally Posted by Jonzo
But what if it was? Would you learn more by "only" studying the principles of putting phrases together or "only" parroting from a recording?
In the language courses out there, there's still a lot of parrotting involved, even in the most innovative, new ones. I'm pretty sure that the new trend in teaching languages is to try to make it more like learning your first language anyway.
I have several friends who have learned much more second language skill from a few weeks in the workplace (because they *had* to learn it just to communicate with someone who spoke a different language) than from years in the classroom studying abstract concepts.
Concepts are almost meaningless without context. Without problems, we don't know what we need to learn in the first place, and we don't have a reason to remember it.Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 04-01-2014 at 01:11 PM.
-
I think you are right that a balanced approach is most effective, but that your comparison to learning a first language is off base.
I doubt that someone struggling to use a language at work for 8 hours a day would learn more than a person spending the same 8 hours in a well designed immersion class. Usually when people make these comparisons, they are comparing someone who took a class for a few hours a week to someone who lived in foreign country for an extended period. It's not a valid comparison.
In answer to your question, one would learn more by only studying principles and using them to improvise than by only parroting phrases. You have to improvise to learn to improvise. If you parroted phrases and then used them as the basis for improvisation, you would have better results.Last edited by Jonzo; 04-01-2014 at 01:22 PM.
-
Agreed Matt - A book, a DVD, online resources, listening - each one on its own won't get the job done. What we are all thrashing around with here is different methods, different age groups and different playing abilities. Each of us actually, in the context of the comments, would probably agree with 95% of what has been posted.
But going back to the original post, which I tried to answer, which was what would be the single best resource - probably a teacher taking you through the book "Chord Tone Soloing" or Joe Elliot's book "Jazz Soloing". There is also a thread to help you through Joe's book. Or go to Matt's web resources and get him to help you. BTW if you are a baby learning a language you don't have much else to do all day - most students don't study guitar that way.
-
Jonzo - agreed -.I have freinds who learnt English by working in their cafe in London for thirty years - they would be the first to agree their English is dreadful and they would admit they can't write English at all. So much for the 'learn it on the street approach' for adults. We all know someone like that.
-
Chris, if its immersion, it's not just the one thing. There's still a lot of parroting in an immersion class. It's an interaction. The teacher can't give you feedback about your mispronunciation until you have practiced doing it first.
There's only a certain amount of information that can be assimilated without practicing it. If you improvise jazz at all, in some way you're parrotting what you've heard in the past, whether it's the phrasing, the feel, or actual pieces of phrases. Otherwise, is it even jazz? Is jazz simply *any* improvised music you can play over jazz changes?
Eddie Van Halen is not a jazz in innovator, but Miles Davis is. They both played something new and different. What makes it jazz (and not some other style) if it doesn't build on what others have played in the past? How do you emulate that without playing it first?
You can't innovate something you don't know. You're just simply creating something completely new. Miles Davis innovated in jazz because he knew the language and spoke it. Then, he changed it in the context of what had been done before. Playing other people's solos is more than just pure pitch and rhythmic content.Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 04-01-2014 at 01:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
Couple of entry level arch tops
Today, 01:28 PM in For Sale