-
Nothing too crazy...
I use the CAGED, 4 fingers/4 frets, types of shapes, same ones Martino has in Linear Expressions(not that any of that matters).
Regardless of What shapes you use, have you memorized them highlighting Ionian(I tend to reduce the vi and iii here), and the Mixolydian and Dorian modes for all 5 shapes? With the root note and or arpeggios in all 5 shapes for those Mixolydian and Dorian modes as well.
Not sure if this makes sense. I've used these shapes for years thinking of the key centers a bit more, but I think this would be even more helpful for me to play the changes.
Thanks!
-
08-20-2018 02:23 PM
-
That's a good question.
I tend to view things as either minor, major and dominant and go from there re: scales. m7b5 is just minor inverted for instance. And when I teach line construction at first I heavily emphasise the dominant, which is something I learned from Barry Harris.
I don't know the Martino book, but I gather he's all about the minor? That's a similar approach in a way. Kind of the flip-side of the same coin.
I would also advise that as soon as you have the positions down, move towards getting the scales and arpeggios all over the neck. Link that shit up.
-
I've had the Scale shapes down for years. Also have Maj7, min7, Dom7 and m7b5 inversions and arps down.
Originally Posted by christianm77
I'm also interested in people ways of reduction but I'll probably start another thread for that later.
When Bb7 goes to Eb7 I want to see the mixolydian for each one across the whole neck for each chord. F7 too, and all the changes in all my tunes.
I just want to be able to easily modulate and see Maj, min, and Dom7 all the way across the fingerboard across the all of those chords.Last edited by DS71; 08-23-2018 at 04:10 PM.
-
I'm not sure if I can parse this.... do you mean you have the scale shapes but can't map them to changes? Originally Posted by DS71
-
No, not sure if that's it. Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Can you give a concrete example? Originally Posted by DS71
-
I mean, in general, I would say 'apply everything on tunes.'
-
Pretty much agree with Christian on this Originally Posted by DS71
Learn the scales, learn the diatonic arpeggios in the scales. Learn how to make a Dm7 line or a G7 line in the key of C major with the Dm7 or G7 arpeggio in that scale.
One of those things where thinking too much about it can make it more difficult
Jens
-
Arpeggio up/ scale down is a pretty standard jazz type exercise, and really helps connect things.
-
I'm not really sure what your question is. I think it's how to reduce everything to find the simplest way of getting through changes. Is that it? Originally Posted by DS71
I think you're talking about notes and soloing and mixing that up with the CAGED system. CAGED is really for chords, not notes. I think you're going to get very confused if you try to relate scale notes to chord shapes. It seems right but not in practice.
You can solo using the chord shapes as a guide but you'll be very limited if you stick to one scale. It doesn't work like that.
But let's hear more accurately what your question is first.
-
I thought that was basically the most important bit of playing jazz? Originally Posted by ragman1
-
Relating scales to chord shapes is only one of the ways of organizing fretboard, it's not the most important bit of playing jazz as it is not a necessary thing to play jazz. There are also other ways to organize scales on the fretboard. The concept of chord shape does not even apply to many other instruments. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
You might be confusing this with aligning scale notes with chord tones. That's a completely different animal.Last edited by Tal_175; 08-23-2018 at 07:26 AM.
-
I have memorized 3 shapes and I rather "play between" them than having one more.. if that makes sense. Works for me but it's not for everyone of course. I've "glued" stuff on those. Arpeggios and triads and all kinds of junk. But my favorite thing to do with them is to play like 100+ pop hit phrases from the past. The ones that are stuck in the memory anyway. Imo it's very good way to get to know scales well so I feel the need to advertise this method to anyone who starts talking about "arpeggios" and "scales"
.
`
-
Always find it curious that every conversation seems to turn a "can do " or "able to do" into a "have to". Originally Posted by Tal_175
I personally believe that you "should be able to" connect any of them. "Have to" is kind of a separate conversation and beside the point. I'm not talking about how some players "have to" play everything out of accord shape or whatever. Again, different conversation.
The OP is about being "able to" connect different elements. This thing of seeing scales , chords, and arpeggios as somewhat separate entities is a problem with guitarists that gets brought up pretty frequently here. Anyway, that's the topic.
-
I was specifically responding to your claim that, relating scales to "chord shapes" being the most important bit of playing jazz. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
That's very strong and a false claim, I think. Just pointing that out.
Anyway that stuff about "can do", "have to" etc. I have no idea what's that got to do with what I said.
-
It is a completely valid way of doing it though.
-
Sure it is.
-
I think this question is rather vague. I think the OP should get a good teacher who can give them targeted feedback based on their playing.
-
To shapes? No. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
Perhaps it wasn't clear. CAGED will help you find the chords up the neck, e.g. C (C shape) at the open, 3rd (A shape), 5th(G shape), 8th(E shape) positions, etc etc.
Yes, you can find a C major scale at each of these positions. You can find the notes of the other chords in C (Dm, Em, F, G7, Am, Bø) within that scale.
But who plays like that? I couldn't. Try this
-
This may be a layout issue with the instrument maybe. If you're coming from a five shape basis, it probably DOESN'T work. chords and scales are more physically disparate in a lot of cases. I still think , even if you're going with that organization, eventually you want to "be able to" connect them seamlessly as well though.
If you use seven positions, one per scale degree, there really isn't really a separation between chords and scales physically or otherwise , nor is there a NEED to, for ease of understanding. This is why people compromise to adding the two additional fingerings, which on the surface, may seem more awkward at first etc.
I'm always going to go back to what I feel like it's the most logical starting point for looking at these issues and how they may be specific to flaws in our instrument's fundamental pedagogy. On piano, there is no issue with "having to" think of a chord shape to play melodically . It's its own thing or at least it "can be".
At the same time, there's really zero OBSTACLE to being able to integrate "chord thought" with "melodic thought". They're somewhat separate entities which can be easily thought about simultaneously, if you understand fundamentals of the instrument and music. This is obvious to guitarists who don't even PLAY the piano that well, if you think about that instrument and how you approach it.
If you put enough hours, you can make anything work, but I would question the entire PREMISE of what is being implied about them HAVING TO be separate.
In my opinion, there is way too much "That's just the way it is on the guitar . It's a harder instrument" type of thing. Either put in the hours organized differently. Some may choose to do both by the way. There are a lot of options.
-
No the most important bit of playing jazz is to swing.
One of the most important part of being able to actually play the guitar as a real instrument is to map the fretboard.
It just so happens jazzers tend to be better at this for various reasons. But it has nothing to do with musical style per se.
-
Matt and Christian -
I know there are seven scale positions but I stopped at two :-) But I don't really think like that. Maybe I did at one time, now I just find the notes.
I don't think they are separate. It's just notes arranged in certain ways. At least, theoretically :-)I would question the entire PREMISE of what is being implied about them HAVING TO be separate.
The point about the shapes is that you can use the chromatic notes much more easily, they fall under the fingers. In fact, it's easier to play with them than it is without them. Using scales is really limiting and far too diatonic for jazz.
And rhythm. Absolutely, rhythm, rhythm, rhythm!
-
I think there’s such a diversity of pitch organisations in use in jazz it’s impossible to make sweeping statements. If you can play the blues scale with the right phrasing you will sound like you are playing jazz.
Charlie Parker has loads diatonic scales, and Mozart has loads of chromatic passing tones and lower neighbours. In fact I’d say they were about on a par in terms of chromaticism.
The fretboard mapping side of it is purely to learn where these scales and chord tones are. Obviously. But that’s nothing to do with jazz.
Anyway, I’m quite interested (not sure if I agree) with Jeff Berlin’s idea that you can teach the instrument but you can’t teach the music. You have to learn the music by listening to and playing music. (At least I think that’s what he means.)
-
Actually, that's a very good point about blues sounds. They don't fit the (maj) scale or the shape :-)
-
No guys, that wasn't the question but thanks.
Reply With Quote
Playing live and getting the best sound from the...
Yesterday, 02:08 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos