The 84 Jazz Guitar Equations (Steve Crowell)

[rgisondi]

Hi to all. I'm a new member tough an a old reader. My name is Raffaello and I'm from Italy.
I'v been using the Crowell method from two years now getting many benefits.
In my opinion one thing that it miss is applayng the equating patterns to armonic and melodic minor scales.
Crowell manages them as "tools" aside diminished and whoole tone scales.
I think that h. and m. minor would deserve the same work made with the major scale.
I have made some attempt in this direction but the minor word is harmonically a bit different: haminic min. is mostly dominant and melodic mostly tonic.
So that the alternating app. patterns may get best risults mixing the two tipe of minor scales.
Has anyone experimented the same problems?

[Reg]

The approach... equation, is good. Old school. Can't go wrong. Everything is I chord, it's relative Tonics, up and down a Diatonic 3rd and then the II V... That's basically all Wes used. Basically traditional Relative and Parallel Borrowing and the II V.

The only thing that pushed me away is the technique.... slow motion is cool, but like up tempo... anything gets old.

Hey Prince... do you stare at your fretboard while playing. Not trying to get in your shit, but like most vids on this thread or forum in general.... the technical advantage of seven positions, sight reading for one, are basically designed on the design of the instrument and structural elements of Music in general. I like it for the obvious mechanical reasons. But I also use caged licks or positions all the time... I like and need to cover styles and articulations from.

Rg relate Harmonic minor to Nat. minor or Aeolian with Ionian functional guidelines.
Relate Melodic minor to Dorian minor... more of a Subdominant thing.
Same with fingerings.

[princeplanet]

......

Hey Prince... do you stare at your fretboard while playing. ....

Well yeah, when I'm practicing, but not much when I'm improvising (I play better with my eyes closed, I think...). As for sight reading, I don't do much of it any more, but when I did, If I hit a wrong note (and I would) during a position shift, my ear would usually tell me and I'd adjust from there. I guess I can see how 7 or 12 positions can help for reading, if that's your thing.

[MarkRhodes]

I'm still working with this material, spending more time in the "Jazz Formulas" book, which puts the "equations" to work in various ways.

If asked, I think Crowell would say there is nothing wrong with other fingerings. He knows the CAGED ones (as we now call them) and also Pentatonic fingerings. I think he would say the advantage of this way is that you have more range in each fingering. (This might sound surprising: one might think 7 fingerings would each involve a shorter range than 5 fingerings but this is not the case.) One tremendous advantage is that you can use consistent fingerings, which makes lines easier to play. (Easier to finger fluently.)

Of course, if you're fine the other way, then as Chuck Berry said, "Ain't nobody gonna bother you."

[Lark]

Hey Mark thanks for the update! Thanks to this thread and that some other people that use it (Henry, Jens etc.) I started to look more into 3NPS. I was a die hard CAGED proponent but I think that 3NPS might be simpler and easier for the brain for me. As I said before if you modify intervals (flat or sharpen them) they are still on the same string. So 3 and b3 are both on the same string, same applies to 6 and b6 and 7 and b7. This is contrast to CAGED where for example the 3 is played on the next string with the index finger and the b3 is played on the same string with the pinky. For my brain 3NPS is way easier. It also is super easy to then derive the other scales (melodic minor and harmonic minor). HM and MM in CAGED are a mess IMO.

Other great things are the arpeggios. Every shape has (4*3=) 12 full 4 note 7 arpeggios in them. 4 where you start with your index on the root. 4 where you start with your middle finger on the root and 4 where you start with your pinky or ring finger on the root. And since modified intervals are still on the same string these fingerings are really consistent. I feel the 3NPS gives you a very good reference and really see the fretboard as a grid instead of 5 boxed shapes. For me at least ;p.

However, the con is the wide major third interval stretch. And also that you move out of position for the last 2 strings (B and E strings). Other con is that the pentatonics don't fit that nicely into the shapes. Here CAGED is a big plus: first learn the pentatonics and then just add 2 notes.

Mark could you tell us some more about the Jazz Formulas book? Does it provides ways to generate lines? Because I sometimes feel that learning the scales etc. all the grunt work is still the easy part :P. I saw that it covers a lot of material? What do you think of it?Thanks!

[MarkRhodes]

Hey Mark thanks for the update! Thanks to this thread and that some other people that use it (Henry, Jens etc.) I started to look more into 3NPS. I was a die hard CAGED proponent but I think that 3NPS might be simpler and easier for the brain for me. As I said before if you modify intervals (flat or sharpen them) they are still on the same string. So 3 and b3 are both on the same string, same applies to 6 and b6 and 7 and b7. This is contrast to CAGED where for example the 3 is played on the next string with the index finger and the b3 is played on the same string with the pinky. For my brain 3NPS is way easier. It also is super easy to then derive the other scales (melodic minor and harmonic minor). HM and MM in CAGED are a mess IMO.

Other great things are the arpeggios. Every shape has (4*3=) 12 full 4 note 7 arpeggios in them. 4 where you start with your index on the root. 4 where you start with your middle finger on the root and 4 where you start with your pinky or ring finger on the root. And since modified intervals are still on the same string these fingerings are really consistent. I feel the 3NPS gives you a very good reference and really see the fretboard as a grid instead of 5 boxed shapes. For me at least ;p.

However, the con is the wide major third interval stretch. And also that you move out of position for the last 2 strings (B and E strings). Other con is that the pentatonics don't fit that nicely into the shapes. Here CAGED is a big plus: first learn the pentatonics and then just add 2 notes.

Mark could you tell us some more about the Jazz Formulas book? Does it provides ways to generate lines? Because I sometimes feel that learning the scales etc. all the grunt work is still the easy part :P. I saw that it covers a lot of material? What do you think of it?Thanks!

I like your point about alterations being on the same string. I've found this to be a big deal in the Patterns For Jazz study group. Enclosures are easiest when all the notes are on the same string.

As for pentatonic scales, just use the five normal boxes. (That's what Crowell does) It's a five-note scale; there can't be seven positions of it!

All for now. Busy day. More later.

[ragman1]

Jeez, I'll be dead soon. That's about 82 too many

[fathand]

I finally got around to opening my "Formulas for Jazz Guitar Improvisation" book and I'm really happy that I did! I didn't know what a goldmine it was and the idea of 84 equations made me a bit apprehensive as I was thinking that's way too much work for me to get into. Truth is it's a lot of work but most of the players here already play so basically, you're just adding to what you already know and that by itself makes it easier. This is a book with a wealth of information, I like the way Steve teaches with basically the same scales that Warren Nunes taught with. The scales alone is a better way to learn improvisation and guitar in general IMHO. Here's a pdf so you all can see the scales, it came from one of Warren's books. The "Formulas for Jazz Guitar Improvisation" teaches triads, arpeggios and everything in-between.

[TomJGuitar]

For Crowell, it's just 7 fingerings in 12 keys. The "84 Jazz Equations" book is a reference. It lays out the seven fingerings in 12 keys. That's it. (Well, there are a few exercises but not many.) The later books put the "equations" to work in common musical contexts.

I bought 84 Jazz Equations as well.

Essentially, the information presented could easily fit on one page accompanied by the words "transpose in 12 keys".

[cosmic gumbo]

At $46.40 shipped, thats about 55 cents per equation, less than a cup of coffee.

[PMB]

Hey Mark thanks for the update! Thanks to this thread and that some other people that use it (Henry, Jens etc.) I started to look more into 3NPS. I was a die hard CAGED proponent but I think that 3NPS might be simpler and easier for the brain for me. As I said before if you modify intervals (flat or sharpen them) they are still on the same string. So 3 and b3 are both on the same string, same applies to 6 and b6 and 7 and b7. This is contrast to CAGED where for example the 3 is played on the next string with the index finger and the b3 is played on the same string with the pinky. For my brain 3NPS is way easier. It also is super easy to then derive the other scales (melodic minor and harmonic minor). HM and MM in CAGED are a mess IMO.

I feel that conversion to minor in CAGED requires a different approach. In essence, the five CAGED major scale fingerings are 'filled out' versions of their equivalent major pentatonic scales. As Miles Okazaki points out in his book, Fundamentals of Guitar, the open strings of the guitar constitute a reordered G major pentatonic and therefore the instrument's tonal layout is defined by that scale. 'CAGED' itself is simply yet another reordering of the G major pentatonic, GEDBA (less catchy, I know...) transposed up a fourth.

Indeed, I think of the guitar as basically being in 'G' rather than 'C'. The latter key is usually taught first as it contains no accidentals and is defined on the piano exclusively by its white keys. Most instrumentalists follow pianists' lead and run exercises/tunes through a cycle of 4ths starting from 'C'. However, when dealing with standard jazz repertoire, the five most popular keys are G, C, F, Bb, Eb and their relative minors (Em, Am, Dm, Gm, Cm) so it makes just as much sense to practise that same cycle from 'G'.

Now, picking up on that point, we all know that the notes in a G major pentatonic scale are identical to those in the relative E minor pentatonic. Therefore, it may be easier to conceive of all major to minor conversions when dealing with the five CAGED regions in a similar manner. In modal terms, we are thinking in a derivative rather than parallel fashion (i.e. G major converts to E minor rather than G minor).

[MarkRhodes]

Indeed, I think of the guitar as basically being in 'G' rather than 'C'. The latter key is usually taught first as it contains no accidentals and is defined on the piano exclusively by its white keys. Most instrumentalists follow pianists' lead and run exercises/tunes through a cycle of 4ths starting from 'C'. However, when dealing with standard jazz repertoire, the five most popular keys are G, C, F, Bb, Eb and their relative minors (Em, Am, Dm, Gm, Cm) so it makes just as much sense to practise that same cycle from 'G'.

Interesting. I hadn't thought of it that way before. I know that Carol Kaye, in her book "Pro's Jazz Phrases" gives the phrases in four keys (G, C, Bb, Eb) but she never says why those four. (She does say that practicing things in four keys is usually enough.)

As for running things through the cycle, I agree that C is not always the best place to start. It's not a bad place but one needs to be able to start in other places too, such as G, Bb, Eb, and F, for starters.

[fathand]

I didn't buy the 84 Equations book as it was mind boggling to me, I just didn't understand what it was about and at the time I was learning to read music in Leavitt Book I! I bought the "Formulas for Jazz Guitar Improvisation" book and I'm really happy with it. The Formulas book laid around my house for 2 or 3 years until I had time for it, that was a bit ignorant on my part but I live and I learn. It's the perfect book for me as I learned to play guitar by ear and the scales I learned were based on the pentatonics both major and minor and that's all I really knew about playing guitar until I bought the formulas book! As a result of playing only major and minor pentatonics, it worked for blues but that was about it! BTW, pieces of this book are similar to what Garrison Fewell teaches about in his "Jazz Improvisation for Guitar A Melodic Approach", the same but different. The "Formulas for Jazz Guitar Improvisation" book comes with a DVD and a CD to clarify what he's talking about.

[PMB]

Interesting. I hadn't thought of it that way before. I know that Carol Kaye, in her book "Pro's Jazz Phrases" gives the phrases in four keys (G, C, Bb, Eb) but she never says why those four. (She does say that practicing things in four keys is usually enough.)

As for running things through the cycle, I agree that C is not always the best place to start. It's not a bad place but one needs to be able to start in other places too, such as G, Bb, Eb, and F, for starters.

I think Herb Ellis also dropped the 'D' shape (corresponding the key of 'F' in Carol's book). Ron Eschete includes it along with the others in his Complete Practical Guide for the Jazz Guitar Soloist. However, he doesn't follow the cycle of 4ths and it was while going through Ron's book about twenty years ago that I hit upon the idea of rearranging the five CAGED shapes into a cycle of 4ths (EADGC) and mapping them onto the five most common jazz keys (G, C, F, Bb, Eb). I wrote my own book at the time, Five by Five: A Progressive Approach to Jazz Guitar Lines to catalogue a whole series of lines I'd been working on and set them out in that manner. As it happens, it's comprised of five sections - major, dominant, minor, major II-V-I, minor ii-V-i - with each one moving from simple to more complex lines and concepts. I've used it for students wanting to get a grip on CAGED-based lines (I also teach single string scales, 'Reg' scales and 3nps concepts as well).

Here's a sample from the first 'Major' section to give you some idea:

[MarkRhodes]

I think Herb Ellis also dropped the 'D' shape (corresponding the key of 'F' in Carol's book). Ron Eschete includes it along with the others in his Complete Practical Guide for the Jazz Guitar Soloist. However, he doesn't follow the cycle of 4ths and it was while going through Ron's book about twenty years ago that I hit upon the idea of rearranging the five CAGED shapes into a cycle of 4ths (EADGC) and mapping them onto the five most common jazz keys (G, C, F, Bb, Eb). I wrote my own book at the time, Five by Five: A Progressive Approach to Jazz Guitar Lines to catalogue a whole series of lines I'd been working on and set them out in that manner. As it happens, it's comprised of five sections - major, dominant, minor, major II-V-I, minor ii-V-i - with each one moving from simple to more complex lines and concepts. I've used it for students wanting to get a grip on CAGED-based lines (I also teach single string scales, 'Reg' scales and 3nps concepts as well).

Here's a sample from the first 'Major' section to give you some idea:

That's nifty!
I think of Herb's focus on three major triad shapes as "FAD" but the "A" here is what is sometimes called "long A" (which would be the "G" of CAGED). It can get confusing. Herb just numbers them, he doesn't name them. Since triads are 3-note chords, you don't have five positions, only 3, but the positions are wider than in "CAGED". (Fred Sokolow's "Fretboard Roadmaps" series is based on these shapes, though I think he calls them "F-D-A", as that is the order they appear in along the neck. I mean, D follows F, A follows D, F follows A, and then it starts over.

Sometimes I think the desire to be thorough (-everything, everywhere on the neck) becomes impractical if one's goal is to improvise well rather than be able to play "everything, everywhere on the neck". It's okay to have tendencies and preferences.

Anything built on the cycle is worth a jazz player's attention. That's the way the music tends to go.

I haven't heard of your book. A Google search is not showing me anything. ???

[MarkRhodes]

I didn't buy the 84 Equations book as it was mind boggling to me, I just didn't understand what it was about and at the time I was learning to read music in Leavitt Book I! I bought the "Formulas for Jazz Guitar Improvisation" book and I'm really happy with it. The Formulas book laid around my house for 2 or 3 years until I had time for it, that was a bit ignorant on my part but I live and I learn. It's the perfect book for me as I learned to play guitar by ear and the scales I learned were based on the pentatonics both major and minor and that's all I really knew about playing guitar until I bought the formulas book! As a result of playing only major and minor pentatonics, it worked for blues but that was about it! BTW, pieces of this book are similar to what Garrison Fewell teaches about in his "Jazz Improvisation for Guitar A Melodic Approach", the same but different. The "Formulas for Jazz Guitar Improvisation" book comes with a DVD and a CD to clarify what he's talking about.

I have the "Formulas" book too. That's where it gets interesting. The 84 EQs book is more of a reference. I like the focus on arpeggio families within each of the seven scale fingerings. I find the 3 NPS scales (and their arpeggio fingerings) easier on my new Tele than my old archtop. (Different strings, lighter gauge, friendlier neck for this sort of thing.) So I'm getting a lot out of this book now.

[PMB]

That's nifty!
I think of Herb's focus on three major triad shapes as "FAD" but the "A" here is what is sometimes called "long A" (which would be the "G" of CAGED). It can get confusing. Herb just numbers them, he doesn't name them. Since triads are 3-note chords, you don't have five positions, only 3, but the positions are wider than in "CAGED". (Fred Sokolow's "Fretboard Roadmaps" series is based on these shapes, though I think he calls them "F-D-A", as that is the order they appear in along the neck. I mean, D follows F, A follows D, F follows A, and then it starts over.

Sometimes I think the desire to be thorough (-everything, everywhere on the neck) becomes impractical if one's goal is to improvise well rather than be able to play "everything, everywhere on the neck". It's okay to have tendencies and preferences.

Anything built on the cycle is worth a jazz player's attention. That's the way the music tends to go.

I haven't heard of your book. A Google search is not showing me anything. ???

It's not commercially available, Mark. I wrote it years ago and have made some revisions since but two kids, studying for a Master's and other life stuff took over at the time so I never got around to contacting publishing companies. I did try that with my Chuck Wayne transcriptions book and it looked like Hal Leonard was going to release it but the market quickly took a downturn.

[choicenotes]

Great posts, very helpful - thank you all!

[Gabor]

i would like to distinguish two things, talking about each other, I mean fellow forum members *versus* talking about teachers and learning materials. Letting down each other is definitely a "no do" however evaluating learning materials is probably a useful thing.

If something created and presented as learning material, that should have fall into different category

***

I really do not understand why we would invest a lot of time to learn and practice material from guitarist who do not have even basic time feel, at least based on this very youtube samples. The OP video is at least questionable, Satin Doll is definitely anti time, Penthouse is convincing at first but really ambiguous at the end.

Again why would I even listen and try to learn those, if I can *listen* and try to learn from the greatests?

[matt.guitarteacher]

i would like to distinguish two things, talking about each other, I mean fellow forum members *versus* talking about teachers and learning materials. Letting down each other is definitely a "no do" however evaluating learning materials is probably a useful thing.

If something created and presented as learning material, that should have fall into different category

***

I really do not understand why we would invest a lot of time to learn and practice material from guitarist who do not have even basic time feel, at least based on this very youtube samples. The OP video is at least questionable, Satin Doll is definitely anti time, Penthouse is convincing at first but really ambiguous at the end.

Again why would I even listen and try to learn those, if I can *listen* and try to learn from the greatests?

I would also like to hear him play something in time. I don’t dig the extra measures/beats versions of rubato playing of a lot of guitarists.

[Gabor]

Besides of time feel issues in both guitarist's learning material, both "equations" and Satin Doll completely disregards the very basic essence of a lick or a motif or a musical sentence: the phrasing.

How on earth can get a meaning a series of notes without rhythm and phrasing? Even one or two notes can have meaning with groove, and dozens of notes can lack of meaning without time and phrasing. It is completely non-sense as a jazz learning material.

Run :-)

[rgisondi]

Besides of time feel issues in both guitarist's learning material, both "equations" and Satin Doll completely disregards the very basic essence of a lick or a motif or a musical sentence: the phrasing.

How on earth can get a meaning a series of notes without rhythm and phrasing? Even one or two notes can have meaning with groove, and dozens of notes can lack of meaning without time and phrasing. It is completely non-sense as a jazz learning material.

Run :-)

I have never heard him play in a real music contest.
Actually calling solos things that are only exercise might be misleading.
However if someone is looking for a method for learning scales: a way to visualize, organize and play and connect the arpeggios within the mayor scale, this is not bad.
In my opinion better than many other.
It is up to you experiment and extract music from it.
Similar thing were played by Warren Nunes that was a great guitarist.