-
I've had a lot of improvement since I buckled down with this approach: Reg's Thread... live at the speed of Jazz
Originally Posted by VKat
I've been learning the fretboard for around 10 years now. I still cannot see it as a one big grid. I often start every day from a "blank page" when I have to recall the arpeggio and scale patterns, to see how they connect and so on.
I wonder how many people are on my part of the learning curve after considerable amount of everyday practicing over the years.
Loosers usually don't boast
Most people play G 2nd position - 2nd finger/6th string root
then, G 4th postion - 1st finger/6th string root
G 7th postion - 4th finger/5th string root
etc. etc. The thing is, your reference finger/string is constantly changing, and even closely related keys have less physical relationship to each other, at least to the understanding of a beginner.
This other way, linked above, references the 2nd finger/6th string of each scale degree position-by-postion. It's mostly the same, but just a different way of thinking about where you are on the fretboard. The thing is, it really pays off when you start applying to changes of keys, because the physical relationships and the "reference note" remain constant. I mean, G is always in the same place in 2nd position...
For example, C major is only one note different from G major or F major. The fingerings only change slightly, regardless of what fingering you're using, but if you think about things from the root of major (on whatever string/fret that falls on), your physical reference constantly changes, you have to stop and do the math, at least until you get some stuff together. However, if you think about them as G Ionian, G Mixolydian and G Dorian, all of the notes are in the same places physically and mentally (except for that one changed-accidental in each), the way you relate to them or think about them.
-
07-02-2016 07:12 PM
-
Matt, there must be some useful stuff there, thanks for the reference. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
About the math: that's about how I play guitar, you got me.
However what you suggest (after Reg's teaching) is probably more related to playing in positions? I mean something like CAGED system, not the positions by fret numbers from the nut.
My biggest problem is moving 4 frets away from the current spot and knowing where I am. I can stop, think and then go again but that's not how Jazz or any other guitar style for that matter is played.
Also I can only play by patterns and I cannot identify the new spot where I've just arrived by it's sound. I can only "count notes" for some reason.
I try to play by ear but when I do that (completely unsuccessfully) I cannot reference it to "playing" by patterns. It's either this or that but none of them works for me!
Perhaps, it's simply a lack of talent...
-
There is a certain aspect which isn't really easily conveyed in words. There's a different mental process in thinking of where you are in relation to one note in one position, as opposed to roots on different strings, but if you work on everything from the same finger in each "position" and work your way up, it clicks in a different way than even CAGED would if you're using a different starting finger for each position. Originally Posted by VKat
The other thing is he's using 7 positions instead of 5. Initially, you're not going up 4 frets, you're going up 2 (or 1). Eventually, it doesn't matter as much, but they're close and they're all related. For example, the roots or the 9ths are always in the same place relative to your hand position. You're just changing the accidentals that you need use. I see it like playing piano. If you're playing in C major and then, you modulate to F major, you just replace B nat. with Bb under your fingers. You don't have to do the additional "calculation" of thinking about where the root of F major is. Heck, in the beginning, on piano, you don't even know any of that. You just know B nat and Bb. Later you learn the theory. On guitar, it's mostly assumed that you need to know the theory just to figure out where things are.
There are trade-offs with anything. I mean, there are stretches, and it's 7 positions as opposed to 5. But it's not like 7 mostly different positions. In G: the G Ionian, C Lydian, and D Mixo are very similar in fingering, as they should be. That's pretty much like CAGED, right? Well, in CAGED, the minors are fingered from a different reference (1st finger).
Yes, minor is different from major, but Dorian is only one note different from Mixo. But on the guitar, with CAGED, it's etch-a-sketch, start-over time...completely different fingering reference. I bought into Reg's concept theoretically, on paper, a couple of years before I dove in with working on it with actual fingers. It makes so much sense, but I just couldn't commit to what I imagined as a huge amount of additional work. I wish I had known that it's not as much as I initially thought, and it's mostly the same stuff I had already done. Just a different mindset and understanding of fretboard geography.
There are all kinds of residual benefits that you wouldn't be able to imagine without diving in, as well. Like, for example, chord and scale theory. Most guitarists have to write everything out on paper to figure out complex "problems" or new scales or chords. We have to make diagrams, or else we do the very common practice thing of going to a keyboard to figure things out and then, come back to actually learn how to play it on our primary instrument.
To me, that's the kicker. If we have to go to another instrument to figure out how to play our own, maybe there's a problem. We never even question this. It's widely accepted among guitarists of all levels that there are just some things that are much more easily done on piano first. I think 90% of these issues go away when you have your own instrument mentally and physically organized properly. I'm not a monster player. I'm very much just a student of jazz, but this process showed me how to see pitches, intervals, and harmony profoundly more clearly on my own instrument. And it didn't take the years I thought it might.
You don't have to be able to play at a high level to "see" things properly. Even young children "see" the piano keyboard in a real concrete way... because it's organized.Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 07-02-2016 at 08:46 PM.
-
I remember very clearly when my mental picture of all the positions of a major scale "merged" and became one big scale up the whole neck. Haven't quite gotten there with Melodic Minor yet, but it's coming.
(FWIW, the same thing happened with theory for me. For a long time, I could do things like construct scales and spell chords, but how it all related to the overall system wasn't clear to me. Then one day, it was like all the things I knew just kind of fell into place, and I could see the whole puzzle. This seems to be how some types of learning work for me, and unfortunately, it tends to take a long time.)
-
When improvising a solo, I think, sure. I hear an interval or two which I want to work during this or that passage, figure out a scale that contains those intervals, and go to it. I never think in terms so complex as formal names or chord spellings, but simply hearing what I want to play and then traducing it into physical motion. It happens before I'm aware I'm thinking of it at all, and it does involve a bit of risk, because I strive to avoid stock licks -- meaning sometimes the physical technique isn't up to the needs of the moment.
I reckon i I'm thinking too much, I'm doing it wrong. Thinking is for practice time, not takeoff. If I have to think about it that closely, the song should probably not be in the setlist -- I need to woodshed it more until I've explored some permutations and gotten comfortable with them.
Mind you, this is in the context of jazz-inflected blues or rock, not straight-ahead stuff as so many of y'all are so skilled at. This is obviously a lot simpler in those more harmonically-limited contexts ... which is why I'm here.
-
I think that's all good and can be applied to straight jazz. Originally Posted by Thumpalumpacus
You are right about thinking. But for me bad thinking is micromanaging your note choices. Some high level thinking is OK, but it has to be really relaxed. When I try to 'shoe-horn' something into my playing, it usually goes wrong.
Recently I've spent a lot of time playing scales in intervals. I don't solo using this material consciously, but I think it's great for scale knowledge and technique. The aim is that when I play my fingers have a mind of their own, and I can sort of watch them doing their thing, intervening if it all gets a bit much.
If that makes any sense....
-
Matt, great post. I should give this method more thought. Ideally as I understand one should train himself to start on any note of any string (not specifically the root), having a target structure in mind (scale, arpeggio, phrase) and proceed from there. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
Specific mind set, as you correctly noted should be developed for this kind of skill.
As for the piano, I never try to relate piano to guitar. It would be to much for me. By the way, I started on piano couple years ago and it has it's own big problems, mostly in fingering and chordal playing for me.
And you know what? Believe me or not I try to play all the stuff on the piano from Roots or in tense relation to Roots! I just recently realized I can't go too far with that attitude.
I even relate everything to the IMaj chord on piano even if it's a relative minor!
I try to escape from this trap but it's easier said than done.
And here you've touched on a very interesting aspect of the improvisation process. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
How would you comment the following?
If you watch the Beginner Improvisation Course by Gary Burton on Coursera he mentions this (not a precise quote but very close in meaning):
"I asked many professional players on many instruments, wind instruments etc. how they visualize the notes when improvising. Many of them confirmed that they imagine the piano keyboard - even if they don't play piano at all..." - !!!
I don't want to question Gary Burton's expertise on this subject but I was surprised to hear that.
-
The truth is that's how the "professional improvisation" should happen as far as I understand. I mean it's either that way if you want to get paid for your stuff or "the highway" (to quote the Matrix again, sorry fo this). Originally Posted by christianm77
It's at the same time a necessary skill and on the hand sounds a bit scary, sort of when you have no conscious control over what you are doing, but again - that's the only proper way to do it I guess.Last edited by VKat; 07-03-2016 at 07:31 AM. Reason: again this 'payed'!
-
Abandoning control is always scary. Originally Posted by VKat
we are educationally conditioned into thinking it's dangerous.
I don't want to give you the impression that it is like this for me all the time. Btw whether or not people pay you for entertaining them has nothing to do with the path of the artist, and can interfere with this quest.
this is because the desire to deliver something consistent can interfere with the journey to open yourself up. The challenge of being a professional is to balance these opposing tensions. In some ways it's easier to do this as an amateur.
I don't think the world of the world class artist is necessarily that different either. They talk about bad shows and so on.
A professional will have the craft to sound good, but that doesn't mean that they are 'listening to God' every time they play.
-
By the way, I recalled about the famous interview of Barney Kessel by Arnie Berle which is quite appropriate for this thread.
Unfortunately I can't locate the original source (or one of them) of the interview now through the Internet search so I only found couple of references on other 2 Jazz related forums and here let me please re-quote JonR from:
Barney Kessel on improvisation
A.Berle: "What goes through your mind when you’re improvising?
B.Kessel: "First of all, I think that any kind of introspection is a complete waste of time, and can be harmful - asking yourself why you did that, or what should you do next. You don’t have to explain anything, You just are. Let me tell you what doesn’t go through my mind: scales, the names of chords, arpeggios, licks, devices, formulas, what could possibly work as a superimposition, what John Coltrane would do at that point, what I could do now that will make people think I’m hip, what my jazz lessons through the mail tell me I could do here, what finger shapes I could use on the fingerboard that will sound real weird and eerie and will impress people. Those are some of the things I don’t think about. I don’t think about the notes in the chord, and I don’t think about the fretboard."
There has already been enough speculation on that interview all over the Internet.
If anyone could provide a link to the original interview that would be great.
-
What is interesting about that interview with Barney Kessel is that he mentioned Sonny Rollins as his preference to John Coltrane: Originally Posted by christianm77
Originally Posted by VKat
And that's bad for them! If not their pride they would better listen every time they play
I think this is the direction Sonny Rollins has taken with his music.
B.Kessel: "Well, I’ve mentioned Coltrane a number of times, but I don’t care for him, See what I mean? I like Sonny Rollins"
-
I might be wrong, but I get the impression that Coltrane wasn't that well liked by the mainstream musicians of his day. I remember reading Miles would have preferred Sonny for his group too. Originally Posted by VKat
-
So if Sonny listened to the "right source of inspiration" who did Coltrane listened to with all his numbers and digital patterns?
-
Yeah. The piano is the perfect visual instrument. Mainly talking about degrees to which guitarists rely on it. but yeah, it's it's designed purely for the function of the human hands and ease of understanding, whereas other instruments are somewhat more limited to things like physics etc. The piano keyboard is more of an interface for the actual instrument. Originally Posted by VKat
But using the method linked to above, I am, more and more, relating extensions and thoughts related to chord building to the guitar fretboard. Naming all of the altered extensions of the melodic minor scale chords was always a big hang up for me. Probably would've done it on the music staff first and made grids on paper for the guitar fretboard.
Understanding the fretboard better really helps with the theory as well. Of course, the eventual goal is not think about anything you play , but you've got to get there.
-
I'm not a professional jazz player at all and not crazily talented so you can trust me - its completely possible to send the eyes and theorizing mind on a break while soloing even with a lot of key/chord changes. I had the same question some years ago and bit by bit started to test if the answer was "yes". And it was!
Before that the best I could do (when minding patterns and their positions while playing) was that the eyes started to "see" the sound that a note would make. But that was pretty rare really. Mostly there was too much worry to recall the correct ones.. or eh, maybe I practiced too little. After years of trying to play only by ear, it became more frequent and although it feels good to "see the sound", just to let go and play whats in the mind beats absolutely any other reward music can give me. Well, some other things come pretty close sometimes But is still one of the awesomest skill to pursue imo. And its not hard btw. Just have to go for it without being afraid of the many mistakes.
Now I think that playing by patterns is a quick shortcut. The other way takes a LOT longer but feels right.Last edited by emanresu; 07-03-2016 at 11:08 AM.
-
That would be a "great" answer to the thread starter leaving him to guess 'how to get there' unless you've posted a reference to one possible method (per Reg's teaching). Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
It's interesting that many people in this thread did exactly that: they answered the question directly, sort of "Yes it's possible, I do that all the time."
To me it sounds like they picked up the guitar last week and this week they already shred away
I read many times on the Internet that Stan Getz "played by ear" and I always wondered how would he do that. Oh, of course there are gifted people out there, I knew that.
Later I found in the Beginner Improvisation Course by G.Burton that I've mentioned before that according to G.Burton Stan Getz knew the basic triads and he succesfully buit his solos on that,
"sometimes making mistakes" - !!!
That's what G.Burton told himself, but he also mentioned that Getz corrected those mistakes immediately by sliding into correct notes and using other appropriate methods.
However, for me it was at least some good news that S.Getz "knew the basic triads".
What I'm getting at is that there must be something in the beginning that people like S.Getz approach the music with on their chosen instrument.
It's not just - pick it up and play whatever you hear in your head.
-
Good news again, maybe you are too modest though but you confirm that anyone can do that. Originally Posted by emanresu
You see - it works for you somehow. Is there a method you used to "get there" or did it just "click" and you are there!
If it wasn't hard, no one would started threads similar to this.
-
Coltrane listened to Johnny Hodges. Pretty much the same thing in my book ;-) Originally Posted by VKat
So if Sonny listened to the "right source of inspiration" who did Coltrane listened to with all his numbers and digital patterns?
-
My solf grades were just average and it always was kinda difficult. So I'm very sure I haven't got the best ears out there.
For me it took a month of using ear training app throwing random chords&keys that I tried to catch on guitar when I felt I was on to something. 1-3 hours a day maybe. But I continued for hm.. 2 years. Now I pretty comfy (with diatonic at least) so that doing it that much just feels a waste of time and I can pretty much do the same thing with backing tracks. Works the same way, just that with pieces, the harmony is set more or less. First what happens is that I get good with just getting the keys right, the more I do that, the more I can nail the details - chords&functions.
Funny thing was that when I knew a pattern for a part of a piece and it popped up visually on the fretboard, it actually annoyed me. So I rather avoided those.
So, it didn't "click". It took so much time. But I liked doing it and it was worth it.
-
Oddly enough I don't find it hard to play a solo in any key, as long as I am comfortable with the tune in one key. Something about the transposing nature of the guitar (and maybe having a good ear) seems to make this possible. But it's fair to say, it took many years before I could do this.
-
By not "hard" I mean that the memorizing&reacting right just happens along the way. With the position-pattern playing, the learning felt forced&constantly consciously controlled compared to "only by the ear" method. By ear it takes much longer but is not so tireing.
-
Never thought of it that way, but the comparison is apt. Originally Posted by VKat
-
Sonny and Trane were each the biggest fans of each other. Literally, I've read many interviews that bear this out. Trane realised he could never sound like Sonny, so found Slonimsky instead! Originally Posted by christianm77
It worked out well for him. Sonny on the other hand, thought he needed to catch up to Trane and Ornette. He needn't have bothered, he always sounded "forced" at the free/avant gard thing (well, to me at least). But, it's what he wanted, so.... I mean where else could you go after Saxophone Collussus? With the possible exception of Dexter, Cannonball and maybe our own Wes, Rollin's playing in the mid to late 50's is untouchable in many respects (particularly melodic invention).
All the modern guys from Brecker to Potter are descendents of Trane, and many even surpassed Trane in IMO, yet Rollins remains the greatest improvisor of them all (I'm not alone in making this rather contentious claim, am I?)...
-
Noone surpasses Trane IMO. Brecker and Potter are great, but they are only sax players :-) Originally Posted by princeplanet
Sonny and Trane were each the biggest fans of each other. Literally, I've read many interviews that bear this out. Trane realised he could never sound like Sonny, so found Slonimsky instead! It worked out well for him. Sonny on the other hand, thought he needed to catch up to Trane and Ornette. He needn't have bothered, he always sounded "forced" at the free/avant gard thing (well, to me at least). But, it's what he wanted, so.... I mean where else could you go after Saxophone Collussus? With the possible exception of Dexter, Cannonball and maybe our own Wes, Rollin's playing in the mid to late 50's is untouchable in many respects (particularly melodic invention).
All the modern guys from Brecker to Potter are descendents of Trane, and many even surpassed Trane in IMO, yet Rollins remains the greatest improvisor of them all (I'm not alone in making this rather contentious claim, am I?)...
Rollins and Trane are on a par. Everyone always seems to think of 26-2 and Giant Steps when they think of Trane. Represents a tiny aspect of what he did.
-
Depends what blows yer hair back I guess. For mine, I'll take mid 60's Shorter over mid 60's Trane any day of the week. I mean I get Trane, I even feel Trane, absolutely. Just think that he's been a little over celebrated. People say it's because he was a pioneer in a style that persists to this day. So what about Ornette or Dolphy? I don't see no church raised in their memory. Originally Posted by christianm77
Wayne Shorter was no slouch in the "Revolutionary" stakes either....
Reply With Quote
dearmond 1100 reissue vs original which one is...
Today, 03:30 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos