Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Posts 51 to 97 of 97
  1. #51

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175 View Post
    My understanding is Leavitt's 12 position scales are to facilitate reading. You can read using any system, but Leavitt's system is based on stretches rather than shifts which supposed to allow you to read without having to look at the fretboard.
    1- Jazz is an aural tradition, you are not supposed to read on the band stand. However it's extremely useful to be able to read even at a very elementary level for one's own development with any system. That said having very good reading skills will help you be competitive for broader range of gigs, studio gigs, gigs outside of Jazz, big bands, concert bands etc. But if that's not your goal, Leavitt's system is not for you.
    2- Many working pro's with strong reading skills do not use Leavitt's system. It's by no means an industry standard.
    3- You really don't want to use the system for improvisation. Shifts unleash many of the expressive elements of the guitar.
    4- Cello and Violin players tend to have superior reading skills to guitar players. They shift all over the place when they read. Doesn't seem to prevent them become some of the best readers.
    5- Segovia was all about shifts. I bet he was a good reader.
    4. String players have the luxury of reading fine music and often. Reading music is like reading text, quality is measured in terms of comprehension rather than mechanical precision. Stephen Hawking was precise but really not a great actor. Comprehension is aided by coherent musical structure.

    1. I did not find the music in the Leavitt books sufficiently well composed to truly develop sight reading, for the reason above.

    5. In jazz shifts should generally be in time. Segovia was a master of using portamenti to announce rubato, generally jazz should be in time. I doubt he was a good sight reader, not that I have any evidence. It is just an alternative prejudice, a gut feeling.

    D.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #52

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175 View Post
    I am not sure if I understood you correctly. You consider you are playing each of the different modes because you CAN play them starting from different roots? I understand that you know how to play them starting from different root, but I am wondering if you necessarily do when you play over ii V I? If you don't then what makes what you play over say D minor the Dorian scale?
    I am asking because before learning 11 or 12 positions of Phrygian dominant scale to play over minor ii V, it might be useful to make sure you know exactly why just learning the Harmonic Minor scale really well wouldn't be enough.
    BTW, if you do transcriptions of solos of bebop legends, you'll quickly see that they almost never start their lines on the roots.
    I understand your point completely. When I say learn 12 Phrygian Dominant positions, I'm exaggerating it to the absurd, to an academic superlative.

    If I focus on learning the Harmonic Minor, I could use those patterns when presented with a chord calling for the Phrygian Dominant. Just a matter of shifting the pattern/on which note you start.

    In my experience, and a big reason I'm now trying to expand my scale knowledge, when I play over a C
    ii-V-I using just the C Ionian or D Dorian, going up and down, things tend to get too bland. Something missing. Even if I try to emphasise the specific chord tones. Moreover, when you get to a chord from a different key, let's say C#dim, you need something very specific to address it. I'd say that's where I'm at right now

  4. #53

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rsergio View Post
    In my experience, ...when I play over a C
    ii-V-I using just the C Ionian or D Dorian, going up and down, things tend to get too bland.....
    Gee, I wonder why?

  5. #54

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rsergio View Post
    I understand your point completely. When I say learn 12 Phrygian Dominant positions, I'm exaggerating it to the absurd, to an academic superlative.

    If I focus on learning the Harmonic Minor, I could use those patterns when presented with a chord calling for the Phrygian Dominant. Just a matter of shifting the pattern/on which note you start.

    In my experience, and a big reason I'm now trying to expand my scale knowledge, when I play over a C
    ii-V-I using just the C Ionian or D Dorian, going up and down, things tend to get too bland. Something missing. Even if I try to emphasise the specific chord tones. Moreover, when you get to a chord from a different key, let's say C#dim, you need something very specific to address it. I'd say that's where I'm at right now
    you need to work on your basic understanding of harmony.

    C#dim is a chord in the key of C (sub for VI7alt). you need to know stuff like that *cold*. you also should be able to play, comp and improvise on at least 20 popular standards before you would even feel the need to use terms like "phrygian-dominant".

    man, you couldn't even mention *one* musician's name you enjoy.

    you're completely on the wrong track and doomed to fail. get a better teacher.

    just for perspective: i'm a working pro, no big shot by any means. but i can play (i'm not fishing for or even accepting students).
    holger weber jazz gitarrist dortmund


  6. #55

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rsergio View Post
    I understand your point completely. When I say learn 12 Phrygian Dominant positions, I'm exaggerating it to the absurd, to an academic superlative.

    If I focus on learning the Harmonic Minor, I could use those patterns when presented with a chord calling for the Phrygian Dominant. Just a matter of shifting the pattern/on which note you start.

    In my experience, and a big reason I'm now trying to expand my scale knowledge, when I play over a C
    ii-V-I using just the C Ionian or D Dorian, going up and down, things tend to get too bland. Something missing. Even if I try to emphasise the specific chord tones. Moreover, when you get to a chord from a different key, let's say C#dim, you need something very specific to address it. I'd say that's where I'm at right now
    You might try Bert Ligon's book on linear harmony to help develop your jazz vocabulary. See chapter 10.

    Also Joe Pass books and Wes Montgomery books have a wealth of jazz vocab in them, when you're ready.

  7. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet View Post
    The old greats learned directly from their band mates, on the street, or from copping lines off the records.
    Yeah....Their band mates, all of whom placed "scales" firmly in the category of "Crap I learned when I was 12". Armstrong, Bird , probably all of the great horn players learn the basics in school.

    Clifford Brown?! Really? You don't tell middle school kids to stop practicing basketball fundamentals so much because Lebron doesn't work that as much anymore. Things which the highest level players practice is not an accurate measure of what beginners practice.

    We can have the conversation, but don't give me Clifford Brown or Lebron. From what we know, how much fundamental musicianship did Bird and Armstrong have togetherat a very young age, before they studied jazz?How much of that is relevant?I'm willing to have that conversation. But most of these conversations are for guitarists only.We are dumbing down because we aren't real musicians the way other instrumentalists are.

  8. #57

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet View Post
    Gee, I wonder why?
    I know right? That's why I'm moving from "play the key/scale you are in, fill in the gaps" to "let's try and play a scale for each chord as much as possible". That, apparently is fundamental in jazz.

  9. #58
    2 common anti-scale theories on the jazz forum:

    1. Disruption
    2. Wasted time or opportunity costs

    Disruption is what I'm calling the notion that somehow playing scales will "interfere" with your cognitive abilities and other musical areas like improvisation. This is utter nonsense. It's true that there areindividuals who practice nothing but scales and therefore don't improve at all in improvisation to any great degree.

    It's a logical fallacy to use THIS fact as "proof" that "scales don't work" or are otherwise a waste of time. The real problem is that they're not doing enough of other things , but that fact is independent of scale knowledge. Taking literature classes, grammar classes , foreign language classes etc. etc. does not make you a worse rider for example. That's just nonsense. The human mind is not limited in that way.

    Wasted Time argument is flawed as well in my opinion. It assumes that every person has some fixed amount of time to work on music and that 100% of it must be spent in some particular way. If you're spending 100% of your time practicing ANY ONE THING in music, you're not using your time in the best way , but that doesn't change the facts about things like basic scales. Somewhere between two minutes per day and two hours a day is going to be reasonable , rational number for the amount of time you should be working on fundamentals if any type if you don't already know them.

    There's only so much bandwidth that an individual has for any endeavor in life. The fact is that most people are not limited only by concrete time limits as much as things like attention span. What do you do when you're not practicing improvisation? What other things should you be doing? There's any number of things that can feel the rest of your day. If you're saying 0% is an effective number for beginners who don't know scales , I would take issue . I think there's some number above zero which is reasonable.

    There's a third notion - that somehow it should take years and YEARS to learn basic scales - which I think points to a very real problem with how many guitarists approach the instrument. If it takes you years and years and YEARS, your approach is WRONG.

    I was challenged pretty hard on this last fallacy by a pro several years ago . It cost me to question everything I think about this instrument . Somewhat difficult , but the best thing I ever did for understanding basics of how the fret board works.

  10. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175 View Post
    3- You really don't want to use the system for improvisation. Shifts unleash many of the expressive elements of guitar.
    There are some fantastic players who use stretch basis their fundamental reference to also incorporate tons of shifts into their playing.

    Pianists aren't limited to five finger scale positions either. Honestly, this is the kind of argument that someone makes when looking at it from the outside.

    There are different ways to approach things. No right or wrong, but this argument isn't necessarily a deciding factor.

  11. #60

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by djg View Post
    you need to work on your basic understanding of harmony.

    C#dim is a chord in the key of C (sub for VI7alt). you need to know stuff like that *cold*. you also should be able to play, comp and improvise on at least 20 popular standards before you would even feel the need to use terms like "phrygian-dominant".

    man, you couldn't even mention *one* musician's name you enjoy.

    you're completely on the wrong track and doomed to fail. get a better teacher.

    just for perspective: i'm a working pro, no big shot by any means. but i can play (i'm not fishing for or even accepting students).
    holger weber jazz gitarrist dortmund

    Let me focus on the constructive side of your post.
    Maybe I didn't word things correctly. What would you play over C#dim? Would you just play C Major scale?

    If naming my idols is important to this, well, I love Django, Pass, Hall and Rosenwinkel. Maybe you are right, what would they play over C#dim?

  12. #61

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher View Post
    ... You don't tell middle school kids to stop practicing basketball fundamentals so much because Lebron doesn't work that as much anymore. ....
    Matt, for me, learning patterns and devices are fundamentals, and I could (should) have been learning these either shortly after learning scales, or concurrent with that learning. I know that we guitarists aren't usually that lucky with how we're taught, but that's not to say it has to be that way. If I can teach someone what It took me 20 years to learn in 3 to 5 years, doesn't that mean I wasted 15 years? Ok, maybe I can't blame scales for a wasted 15 years, there were other wasteful things as well, but I strongly feel that there needs to be more emphasis, very early, on how to play the notes as well as what pool of notes might work in given situations.

    I guess that's the reason "no nonsense" guys like Conti and Bruno seem to be effective, although I think you can go too far the other way, where you rote learn lines without enough background theory to create your own. There's an ideal balance to be struck, somewhere between the extremes, tailored to the individual of course.

    I fear this is all going over the poor OP's head anyway. Maybe the best advice we can give is for him to make sure that his teacher can provide him the right balance of things to practice at the right times. I'm betting there are more than a few teachers out there that can teach scales, arps and chords along with some tunes, but can't really improvise to changes all that well....

  13. #62

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher View Post
    There are some fantastic players who use stretch basis their fundamental reference to also incorporate tons of shifts into their playing.

    Pianists aren't limited to five finger scale positions either. Honestly, this is the kind of argument that someone makes when looking at it from the outside.

    There are different ways to approach things. No right or wrong, but this argument isn't necessarily a deciding factor.
    Matt, I am not really sure what you're ranting about. For one I'm not anti scale. That statement is not anti scale.
    There are large styles of techniques and habits. One can find a fantastic player for each of them. That's not a meaningful way to give response to forum question that's looking for a specific solution. One can only explain the reasons behind each approach, it's strength and weaknesses. Let the person decide for themselves. And yes, the Levitt system is motivated for supporting reading without having to look at the fretboard. This is where it's advantage lies. But that comes at a trade off as well. That's life. That's not looking from outside, that's putting it in a context.
    Also each instrument has it's own expressive advantages and disadvantages. Pianist not using a five finger scale positions is really a silly point.

  14. #63

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rsergio View Post
    I know right? That's why I'm moving from "play the key/scale you are in, fill in the gaps" to "let's try and play a scale for each chord as much as possible". That, apparently is fundamental in jazz.
    You haven't been paying attention to the advice given by many in this thread. Do you know the difference between scales and chord tone embellishment? If not, go ask your teacher.

  15. #64

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet View Post
    Matt, for me, learning patterns and devices are fundamentals, and I could (should) have been learning these either shortly after learning scales, or concurrent with that learning.
    Concurrent is a good word.

    I agree with you, some people miss that for too long, I missed it for a very long time.

    Seems like it's hard to help someone realise that, no matter how kind the intent. And pity isn't particularly kind, especially in the face of hubris. It's a real head scratcher.

    Easy face to face though, with a good teacher.

    D.

  16. #65

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Freel View Post
    Concurrent is a good word.

    I agree with you, some people miss that for too long, I missed it for a very long time.

    Seems like it's hard to help someone realise that, no matter how kind the intent.

    D.
    How was lunch?

  17. #66

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rsergio View Post
    Let me focus on the constructive side of your post.
    Maybe I didn't word things correctly. What would you play over C#dim? Would you just play C Major scale?

    If naming my idols is important to this, well, I love Django, Pass, Hall and Rosenwinkel. Maybe you are right, what would they play over C#dim?

    The short answer is "a melody" but that's not what you mean, so.... it depends on context, but some starting point sources:

    C# dim or dim7 arpeggio
    C# diminished scale
    D harmonic minor (7th mode)

  18. #67

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet View Post
    How was lunch?
    As usual I bit off more than I could chew and got something stuck in my craw.

    It was OK but perhaps I added too much spice, a bad habit of mine.

    D

  19. #68

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Freel View Post
    As usual I bit off more than I could chew and got something stuck in my craw.

    It was OK but perhaps I added too much spice, a bad habit of mine.

    D
    hehe

  20. #69
    I guess you're talking about a different post? I said nothing about anti-scale anything in the quote you linked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175 View Post
    Matt, I am not really sure what you're ranting about. For one I'm not anti scale. That statement is not anti scale.
    There are large styles of techniques and habits. One can find a fantastic player for each of them. That's not a meaningful way to give response to forum question that's looking for a specific solution. One can only explain the reasons behind each approach, it's strength and weaknesses. Let the person decide for themselves. And yes, the Levitt system is motivated for supporting reading without having to look at the fretboard. This is where it's advantage lies. But that comes at a trade off as well. That's life. That's not looking from outside, that's putting it in a context.
    Also each instrument has it's own expressive advantages and disadvantages. Pianist not using a five finger scale positions is really a silly point.

  21. #70

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rsergio View Post
    ...going up and down, things tend to get too bland. Something missing.
    Well that's exactly why. No jazz solo or melody just goes 'up and down'. It sounds like empty noodling.

    Scales are good for practising, but to create music you must somehow come up with melodic ideas.

    Listen to your heroes and work out some of the phrases they play.

  22. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet View Post
    Matt, for me, learning patterns and devices are fundamentals, and I could (should) have been learning these either shortly after learning scales, or concurrent with that learning. I know that we guitarists aren't usually that lucky with how we're taught, but that's not to say it has to be that way. If I can teach someone what It took me 20 years to learn in 3 to 5 years, doesn't that mean I wasted 15 years? Ok, maybe I can't blame scales for a wasted 15 years, there were other wasteful things as well, but I strongly feel that there needs to be more emphasis, very early, on how to play the notes as well as what pool of notes might work in given situations.

    I guess that's the reason "no nonsense" guys like Conti and Bruno seem to be effective, although I think you can go too far the other way, where you rote learn lines without enough background theory to create your own. There's an ideal balance to be struck, somewhere between the extremes, tailored to the individual of course.

    I fear this is all going over the poor OP's head anyway. Maybe the best advice we can give is for him to make sure that his teacher can provide him the right balance of things to practice at the right times. I'm betting there are more than a few teachers out there that can teach scales, arps and chords along with some tunes, but can't really improvise to changes all that well....
    Again, I agree with balance. I just wasted some serious time as well trying to pick the right "side"of the scale vs "other" argument. In the end there isn't one. I just don't feel that this is obvious in these types of discussion.

    Too much either/or implied much of the time...

  23. #72

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher View Post
    I guess you're talking about a different post? I said nothing about anti-scale anything in the quote you linked.
    OK, fair point. I was reading your posts just before that I interpreted that post as a stylistic continuation perhaps.

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher View Post
    There are some fantastic players who use stretch basis their fundamental reference to also incorporate tons of shifts into their playing.
    On the other hand I didn't say one shouldn't use stretches in improvisation either. Or a system that might involve stretches.
    But for someone who is interested in playing straight-ahead language, I don't think it's controversial to say that the 12 position Levitt system would not be an ideal choice. I don't know if anyone can really capture Wes Mongomery or Bird by adhering to the Levitt system. Possible perhaps but let's just say that would be rather unorthodox.

  24. #73

    User Info Menu

    Also let me clarify something. One can't really say they are using the Levitt system if they are not thinking in 6 fret positions where first and last frets are accessed by index finger and pinky stretches.

    PS. I did go through the books sometime ago. Not page by page though. More the second and the third books as the first one I though was very elementary.

  25. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175 View Post
    On the other hand I didn't say one shouldn't use stretches in improvisation either. Or a system that might involve stretches.
    But for someone who is interested in playing straight-ahead language, I don't think it's controversial to say that the 12 position Levitt system would not be an ideal choice. I don't know if anyone can really capture Wes Mongomery or Bird by adhering to the Levitt system. Possible perhaps but let's just say that would be rather unorthodox.
    Check out reg's playing here on the forum. He directly points to this as his default basis, as does Kurt Rosenwinkel. He's definitely not trying to emulate Charlie Parker in all that he does, but reg shifts more than most and appears to phrase things pretty much however he wants. The reference fingering is not a limitation. Just a possible starting point. It doesn't prohibit learning other fingerings by the way, Nor does it make you forget previously learned fingerings etc. Again, to me it's more to five finger scales on piano. They're not restrictions or a "have to". Just a starting point.

    Chromatic scale fingerings or bop fingerings on piano aren't a "proof" that those five finger scales "don't work" either. Somewhat apples and oranges. It's not a "waste of time" for beginning students to learn those five finger scales either. In the long run, it's probably SHORTCUT, regardless of what your long-term goals are or where you're starting from. In my experience, on piano, the easiest way to learn to play without thinking about fingerings , is to work on some basic default "correct" fingerings for beginners. Counterintuitive, but it's easier to break the rules after. One kind of follows the other.

    Again, I don't really see this is a "choice" in a dichotomy.

  26. #75

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher View Post
    Check out reg's playing here on the forum. He directly points to this as his default basis, as does Kurt Rosenwinkel.
    I'm not really familiar with reg's playing. I thought he was talking about a 7 position system somewhere. Seems to me that's not the Levitt system. When I say Levitt system I am referring to a very specific system he develops in the Modern Method for Guitar book. So, when I say Levitt system I don't mean any system that is not CAGED or any system that involves more than 5 positions.

  27. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175 View Post
    I'm not really familiar with reg's playing. I thought he was talking about a 7 position system somewhere. Seems to me that's not the Levitt system. When I say Levitt system I am referring to a very specific system he develops in the Modern Method for Guitar book. When I say Levitt system I don't mean any system that is not CAGED or any system that involves more than 5 positions.
    Sure. It's the stretch protocol outlined above. 5 positions in Leavitt vols 1-2, which are "evolved" through the cycle of 5ths, as in vol 3. If you cycle an additional 2 keys through the cycle, you get 7 positions which you can cycle, but more importantly, you get one fingering per scale degree. Neither of the guys I mentioned in the previous post claim to have gotten this from William Leavitt by the way. Leavitt simply codified something which is a natural result of cycling through key signatures forward or back using this stretch protocol.

    Vols 1-2 use Leavitt fingering types 4, 3, 2, 1, and 1A. Reg's/Rosenwinkel' s simply add in 1B and 1C. Leavitt's breakdown of this stuff is pretty cool to me personally. Page 1 from volume 3.

  28. #77

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher View Post
    Sure. It's the stretch protocol outlined above. 5 positions in Leavitt vols 1-2, which are "evolved" through the cycle of 5ths, as in vol 3. If you cycle an additional 2 keys through the cycle, you get 7 positions which you can cycle, but more importantly, youget one per scale degree. neither of the guys I mentioned previous post claim to have gotten this from William Leavitt by the way. Leavitt simply codified something which is a natural results of cycling through key signatures forward or back using that stretch protocol.

    Vols 1-2 use Leavitt fingering types 4, 3, 2, 1, and 1A. Reg's/Rosenwinkel' s simply add in 1B and 1C. Leavitt's breakdown of this stuff is pretty cool to me personally. Pages 1-3 from volume 3.
    Again, for clarification, Levitt has exactly same notes as CAGED or any other system, difference is it's organization of the fretboard as 6 fret areas where you MUST use first finger stretch for the first of these 6 frets and you MUST use pinky stretch for the last one. Any system that tells you otherwise is not the Levitt system. It's simply a different system.

    So these 7 position systems aren't the Levitt system. You can describe any reasonable fingering system as a subset of the Levitt system. Same scale, same instrument. They all cover exactly the same notes. CAGED Is 5 positions of Levitt pretty much. 3 notes per sting system is in there too. Because Levitt is the most internally overlapping system to prevent the need to shift. Like I said I was specifically referring to the Levitt system, not any other system the a subset of it (practically any other system). There must be a reason why these players aren't using the Levitt system exactly either. As the system I was referring to.

    Edit: When I say subset, I mean organizationally. They all cover exactly the same notes on every string when you merge all the positions of any of these systems together..
    Last edited by Tal_175; 08-17-2018 at 12:57 PM.

  29. #78

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rsergio View Post
    Let me focus on the constructive side of your post.
    Maybe I didn't word things correctly. What would you play over C#dim? Would you just play C Major scale?

    If naming my idols is important to this, well, I love Django, Pass, Hall and Rosenwinkel. Maybe you are right, what would they play over C#dim?

    over C#dim in C they might play: d harm min, Bb mel min. A HT-WT, just Cmaj, C-blues, A wholetone scale, , Cdim (yes, indeed). that's for you to find out. but it's the right question.

    among the guitarists you have mentioned, there is a two-finger player, a mostly three-finger player and two four-finger players. now imagine asking those world-class players your question about fingerings. you'll get totally conflicting answers.

    this has nothing to do with being anti-scale or anti-technique. it's about making informed decisions. consider this: do you know that an important factor with jazz phrasing is sliding/hammering into the beat? so you attack the off-beats and use the left hand to slur/slide/hammer the beat. how does that affect your left hand fingerings? did you ever take that into consideration when thinking about fingerings? there is not a single guitar book on this planet that teaches you this, afaik (i do know a good trumpet book about this though). yet it is essential if you study fingerings.

  30. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175 View Post
    Again, for clarification, Levitt has exactly same notes as CAGED or any other system, difference is it's organization of the fretboard as 6 fret areas where you MUST use first finger stretch for the first of these 6 frets and you MUST use pinky stretch for the last one. Any system that tells you otherwise is not the Levitt system. It's simply a different system.

    So these 7 position systems aren't the Levitt system. You can describe any reasonable fingering system as a subset of the Levitt system. Same scale, same instrument. They all cover exactly the same notes. CAGED Is 5 positions of Levitt pretty much. 3 notes per sting system is in there too. Because Levitt is the most internally overlapping system to prevent the need to shift. Like I said I was specifically referring to the Levitt system, not any other system the a subset of it (practically any other system). There must be a reason why these players aren't using the Levitt system exactly either. As the system I was referring to.
    It's Leavitt, not Levitt. If you don't have a familiarity with his work or have the books, there's nothing wrong with that, but you make yourself silly when you talk about things you don't understand.

    Everything you have been describing is the same thing. If you want to describe his system as a *12* position system, you could do so. it certainly encompasses that as well. It depends on the context of what volume of his work you're talking about.

    It's not some rigid "only five position" thing. The stretch protocol is the most specific aspect , and every thing I have described fits exactly within William Leavitt's fingering system. I mean, who cares? I'm not William Leavitt disciple or anything. I really don't care that much . You're making a big deal out of something that's less important than the way we are talking about it.

    These books are cheap on Amazon.

  31. #80

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher View Post
    It's Leavitt, not Levitt. If you don't have a familiarity with his work or have the books, there's nothing wrong with that, but you make yourself silly when you talk about things you don't understand.

    Everything you have been describing is the same thing. If you want to describe his system as a *12* position system, you could do so. it certainly encompasses that as well. It depends on the context of what volume of his work you're talking about.

    It's not some rigid "only five position" thing. The stretch protocol is the most specific aspect , and every thing I have described it exactly within William Leavitt's fingering system. I'm not William Leavitt disciple or anything. I really don't care that much . You're making a big deal out of something that's less important than the way we are talking about it.

    These books are cheap on Amazon.
    I have the books and I studied them, if you read and understood my posts you'd have noticed that I said this already. Yes there was a typo in the name. That was a cheap shot.
    Don't make me post quotes from the book, if you don't know that Leavitt system requires index and pinky stretch and calling person who tells you this foolish, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe read the books again. Because anyone who understands the Leavitt system is laughing at you right now.
    If you can't follow a simple thread of thought don't get frustrated and attack. This whole discussion started when you disagreed with a statement I made about exactly the Leavitt system. Now you realize that you didn't know what you were talking about, you're trying to downplay it. Fine, but it's not a good way to contribute to the thread.
    All systems cover the same notes. May be you should grasp this first. Different systems approach these notes with different organization. When one talks about Leavitt one is talking about index and pinky stretch covering outside frets.
    Last edited by Tal_175; 08-17-2018 at 01:25 PM.

  32. #81

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet View Post
    You haven't been paying attention to the advice given by many in this thread. Do you know the difference between scales and chord tone embellishment? If not, go ask your teacher.
    Sorry but this comment of yours has gone completely over my head.

    I HAVE been reading all the advice given quite carefully, I'm not just sure the point you are making now.

    Maybe there is lot more philosophical debate around jazz and how jazz should be taught than what I was aware of but my point is very simple:
    - I'm a beginner jazz guitarist hobbyist
    - I love playing jazz standards with essential chord forms pretty much like these: 17 Essential Jazz Guitar Chords For Beginners | Chord Chart
    - I know the Major Scale, it's modes, pentatonics, some arpeggio patterns.
    - That allows me to comp and improvise on many standards, I love it but feel it's not enough. Not jazzy enough.
    - So I get to the part where supposedly you play a "scale" for each chord you encounter. This is common is jazz, I'm not imagining this, right?
    - That's where I'm at. When looking at a chart, trying to improvise over a song, figuring out the best scale/arpeggio/collection of notes. Because, like I said previously, at my current level, when I just try to play what sounds good in my head, many times it fails because there is no underling structure I can use as a crutch. Of course you can just hit a bad note and quickly move one step, and it's good again but you do need a level of knowledge I still lack.

  33. #82

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by djg View Post
    this has nothing to do with being anti-scale or anti-technique. it's about making informed decisions. consider this: do you know that an important factor with jazz phrasing is sliding/hammering into the beat? so you attack the off-beats and use the left hand to slur/slide/hammer the beat. how does that affect your left hand fingerings? did you ever take that into consideration when thinking about fingerings? there is not a single guitar book on this planet that teaches you this, afaik (i do know a good trumpet book about this though). yet it is essential if you study fingerings.
    That I know for sure, that the interest and swing of what I play depends directly on how things are fingered, hammered, pulled, slid. And I absolutely understand I need more knowledge about the fretboard, scales, etc, so I can play the way I want to, instead of just stumbling about from note to note, being overly mechanic and boring. I think fluidity and interest is only achievable with some essential knowledge behind. And that, surely, I still lack.

  34. #83

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rsergio View Post
    - So I get to the part where supposedly you play a "scale" for each chord you encounter. This is common is jazz, I'm not imagining this, right?
    yes, this is the crucial part. you've probably read it somewhere but it is very, very far from the truth. you need to develop your ears to the point where you can here that this is not at all what your favourite players are doing. do you play other styles? the blues? do you understand the concept of lines vs. scale-running?

  35. #84

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rsergio View Post
    ...
    - I know the Major Scale, it's modes, pentatonics, some arpeggio patterns.
    - That allows me to comp and improvise on many standards, I love it but feel it's not enough. Not jazzy enough.
    ...
    Go to the Lessons (top of the page) part of this forum. scroll down to (Jazz Patterns) as well as the section on adding chromatics.

    Ignore the rest of what you are reading in this thread, and just put in a few hours of practice using the information in the lessons section. You should start to see how that makes you sound more "jazzy" than just playing scales. If you like what you hear, then do some research to dig a little deeper along these lines, at your own pace, or ask your teacher for more of these ideas. Somewhere down the track, yo should listen to your fave players and try to work out what they're doing. If you can't, or you can but don't understand what's going on, then ask us on the forum here and we can probably help. This place can be more useful for you when the questions are very specific.

  36. #85

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rsergio View Post
    That I know for sure, that the interest and swing of what I play depends directly on how things are fingered, hammered, pulled, slid. And I absolutely understand I need more knowledge about the fretboard, scales, etc, so I can play the way I want to, instead of just stumbling about from note to note, being overly mechanic and boring. I think fluidity and interest is only achievable with some essential knowledge behind. And that, surely, I still lack.
    make a quick cellphone vid for us. 60 seconds over II-V-I.

  37. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175 View Post
    I have the books and I studied them, if you read and understood my posts you'd have noticed that I said this already. Yes I there was a typo in the name. That was a cheap shot.
    Don't make me post quotes from the book if you don't know that Leavitt system requires index and pinky stretch and calling person who tells you this foolish, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe read the books again. Because anyone who understands the Leavitt system is laughing at you right now.
    If you can't follow a simple thread of thought don't get frustrated and attack. This whole discussion started when you disagreed with my suggestion I made about exactly the Leavitt system. Now you realize that you didn't know what you were talking about, you're try to downplay it. Fine, but it's not a good way to contribute to the thread.
    All systems covers the same notes. May be you should first grasp this. Different systems approach these notes with different organization. One one talks about Leavitt one is talking about index and pinky stretch covering outside frets.
    Okay. It's not just about the spelling. They are EXACTLY the SAME FINGERINGS, in every single way. Not just the same notes... I'm not talking about CAGED or some other shift-fingering. I never said that.

    I mentioned ONE thing about incorporating slides stylistically, but I wasn't saying that it is a shift-based fingering, like CAGED. Sorry for the confusion.

    Check out reg's approach if you like. Defaults to 1st finger stretches in all but one of them, which stretches 4th, as described above (in line with Leavitt philosophy btw). I personally think his approach is a substantial improvement on what Leavitt himself was doing.

  38. #87

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rsergio View Post
    Maybe there is lot more philosophical debate around jazz and how jazz should be taught than what I was aware of but my point is very simple:
    - I'm a beginner jazz guitarist hobbyist
    - I love playing jazz standards with essential chord forms pretty much like these: 17 Essential Jazz Guitar Chords For Beginners | Chord Chart
    - I know the Major Scale, it's modes, pentatonics, some arpeggio patterns.
    - That allows me to comp and improvise on many standards, I love it but feel it's not enough. Not jazzy enough.
    - So I get to the part where supposedly you play a "scale" for each chord you encounter. This is common is jazz, I'm not imagining this, right?
    - That's where I'm at. When looking at a chart, trying to improvise over a song, figuring out the best scale/arpeggio/collection of notes. Because, like I said previously, at my current level, when I just try to play what sounds good in my head, many times it fails because there is no underling structure I can use as a crutch. Of course you can just hit a bad note and quickly move one step, and it's good again but you do need a level of knowledge I still lack.
    Yes, there is a tremendous philosophical debate about how jazz is taught and learned. It comes from something that happens in the development of every guitarist, a kind of crossroads, where one has to make a decision about which path they are going to pursue in order to be able to play. Some make this decision at the beginning or it is made for them so early that they don't even remember it being a thing, whereas others make the decision later where it may be a big thing. A few find they are forced to make the decision uncomfortably late in their development when they confront a severe enough impairment in their playing that they realize something must be done.


    The decision comes from the fact that in order to play one must have a source from which ideas flow, among which particular ones may be selected, and then played; I'm referring to improvisational jazz playing, but this concept extends to other popular forms like blues, rock, etc...


    The decision that must be made is in choosing what will be the nature of your source of musical ideas. All answers may be spread across a spectrum that includes everything from canonical music theory to playing by ear. From the outside this all may appear as an argument between the theory and ear advocates, but it is really a reflection of differences in how guitarists have learned to feed their all important source of ideas.


    To the degree you find your source is not actively presenting enough multiple ideas contending to be played from which you select the best to come out of your instrument, it may be time to reconsider various things with which to feed and build your source... these might comprise shifting toward the theory end of the spectrum, or shifting toward the ear playing end of the spectrum.
    "Bent my ear to hear the tune and closed my eyes to see."

  39. #88

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by djg View Post
    this has nothing to do with being anti-scale or anti-technique. it's about making informed decisions. consider this: do you know that an important factor with jazz phrasing is sliding/hammering into the beat? so you attack the off-beats and use the left hand to slur/slide/hammer the beat. how does that affect your left hand fingerings? did you ever take that into consideration when thinking about fingerings? there is not a single guitar book on this planet that teaches you this, afaik (i do know a good trumpet book about this though). yet it is essential if you study fingerings.
    Randy Vincent's book The Cellular Approach does exactly that although the author doesn't mention it anywhere. He takes fundamental melodic cells through descending ii-V cycles (initially along each string and then in position) and fingers each phrase to ensure hammer/pull-offs and slides from weak to strong beats wherever possible. Of course, if you're a predominantly three-finger player like Charlie Christian, Wes Montgomery, George Benson or Peter Bernstein, the whole game changes!

  40. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by PMB View Post
    Randy Vincent's book The Cellular Approach does exactly that although the author doesn't mention it anywhere. He takes fundamental melodic cells through descending ii-V cycles (initially along each string and then in position) and fingers each phrase to ensure hammer/pull-offs and slides from weak to strong beats wherever possible. Of course, if you're a predominantly three-finger player like Charlie Christian, Wes Montgomery, George Benson or Peter Bernstein, the whole game changes!
    Yeah. It's billed more in terms of the cell aspect, almost as if not guitar specific, but it's really a guitar technique book as much as anything. Anyway, it's fun stuff and emulates bop phrasing in a cool way.

  41. #90

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet View Post
    I guess that's the reason "no nonsense" guys like Conti and Bruno seem to be effective, although I think you can go too far the other way, where you rote learn lines without enough background theory to create your own. There's an ideal balance to be struck, somewhere between the extremes, tailored to the individual of course.

    Carol Kaye may fit in this group too. (Both Conti and Bruno admire her playing, btw.) Her short "Jazz Guitar" primer has no scales in it except the major scale. And she doesn't teach fingerings of that as a scale. Her emphasis is triads. The "chordal scale". (In F: F Gm Am Bb C7 Dm Emb5, F) She calls chord tones the "anchor" notes. You learn some patterns based on triads (and how to substitute patterns in common situations that crop up in playing jazz standards)

    She recommends that people go on from there to "Joe Pass Guitar Style" which has a lot more scales in it.

    The basics aren't that hard, really. Some may have difficulty. (I am such a one.) And as Reg points out, that difficulty is mainly due to poor technique. Developing technique might involve scales and such. Jimmy Bruno has said (recently) that he played scale fingerings for hours a day when he was a kid. Not a lot of scales, either: Jimmy's focus is on the major scale. Up and down, hour after hour. He's got incredible technique. I think technique takes a LOT of practice and WHAT you're playing can't be something you have to think about. (The Wohlfahrt etudes are good for this. They're short musical pieces written to help a student develop technique. They're for the violin but they make good practice on the guitar.)
    "Learn the repertoire. It’s all in the songs. If you learn 200 songs, you will have no problem improvising."
    Frank Vignola

  42. #91

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher View Post
    Yeah. It's billed more in terms of the cell aspect, almost as if not guitar specific, but it's really a guitar technique book as much as anything. Anyway, it's fun stuff and emulates bop phrasing in a cool way.
    There's also a version for other instruments without the fingerings and string indications:

    Building Solo Lines from Cells by Randy Vincent | Sher Music Co.

  43. #92

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes View Post
    ....Developing technique might involve scales and such. Jimmy Bruno has said (recently) that he played scale fingerings for hours a day when he was a kid. Not a lot of scales, either: Jimmy's focus is on the major scale. Up and down, hour after hour. He's got incredible technique. I think technique takes a LOT of practice and WHAT you're playing can't be something you have to think about.....
    Yes, the one thing i got from thousands of hours of scales was technique, but technical facility will be achieved through any kind of repetitive practice. Cells, patterns, devices, riffs etc - these are more useful things to drill once the basic scales are learned. You get technique, plus some voice leading language, the double whammy!.

    Teaching Jazz guitar needs to get smarter if we are to get young students to commit amidst a world of increasing distractions. This Forum should be a god send for the novice, it's something I wish was around when I was a kid, but then, I sometimes wonder what a confused novice will make of the conflicting advice we all spew forth . If they don't have a teacher, I try to point them towards the Lessons section on this forum, which is an excellent primer. But even that will seem daunting to many. Everyone needs guidance and a rough idea of how much time to spend on each aspect that is pertinent to their musical ambitions. Maybe there should be a sticky somewhere that helps to address this. Just imagine you are new to Jazz guitar - regardless of age - what questions and issues would you have? I'd be asking how much time I should be spending on chords, scales, arps, language, tunes, etc as well as how do divide up a typical practice session. Surely most of us know that we guitarists can quickly become addicted to the scales "challenge", like it's a sports contest!

    You gotta nip that in the bud early, I reckon...

  44. #93

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet View Post
    Yes, the one thing i got from thousands of hours of scales was technique, but technical facility will be achieved through any kind of repetitive practice. Cells, patterns, devices, riffs etc - these are more useful things to drill once the basic scales are learned. You get technique, plus some voice leading language, the double whammy!.

    Teaching Jazz guitar needs to get smarter if we are to get young students to commit amidst a world of increasing distractions. This Forum should be a god send for the novice, it's something I wish was around when I was a kid, but then, I sometimes wonder what a confused novice will make of the conflicting advice we all spew forth . If they don't have a teacher, I try to point them towards the Lessons section on this forum, which is an excellent primer. But even that will seem daunting to many. Everyone needs guidance and a rough idea of how much time to spend on each aspect that is pertinent to their musical ambitions. Maybe there should be a sticky somewhere that helps to address this. Just imagine you are new to Jazz guitar - regardless of age - what questions and issues would you have? I'd be asking how much time I should be spending on chords, scales, arps, language, tunes, etc as well as how do divide up a typical practice session. Surely most of us know that we guitarists can quickly become addicted to the scales "challenge", like it's a sports contest!

    You gotta nip that in the bud early, I reckon...
    I agree that jazz can seem daunting to the novice. I had a good teacher when I started but it all seemed to be scales and fingerings, no tunes.That frustrated me. But he did get me through Pat Martino's "Linear Expressions", which will stay with me as long as I live and play.

    One thing about Carol Kaye's approach is that she expects students to be creative from the beginning. (She was unusually creative---many of her legendary bass lines were not written out for her by the arranger but made up on the fly. She really is an extraordinary talent.) I like that better.

    Frank Vignola likes to say, "You learn jazz by learning tunes." And "When you learn 50 tunes, you're a player." There's a lot to that. Great melodies are great lines. Duh. Trite but true. They really work. (Joe Pass once said you can play bits of melodies from standards over any major chord! An overstatement, perhaps, but there's a lot of truth in that. When you know the basic changes to several dozen tunes, you know a lot about how standards work. Plus you have standards to play. And if you start improvising by "playing off the melody" you can learn a lot and start developing your own style.

    As for techinique, I do think some exercises are especially good for it (and for developing use of all four fingers), such as 1-2-3-4 on all six strings. Dead simple but a good exercise. And chromatic scales in 2 octaves are good. And also understanding the chromatics between chord tones, esp (b3) 3 4 b5 5 and b7 6 b6 5. O, hell, between 1 and 3 too.... ;o) Carol Kaye calls the notes between chord tones "traveling notes".

    When you know chord tones and have a sense of melody, you know where you're going. Chromatics and embellishments delay the arrival until just the right moment. (Charlie Christian was a genius at this. He could work a simple lick a hundred different ways and make them all sound good and right.) That's anothe part of improvising, having a strong rhythmic sense. Bird and Charlie Parker were giants in that sense. Wes too.
    "Learn the repertoire. It’s all in the songs. If you learn 200 songs, you will have no problem improvising."
    Frank Vignola

  45. #94

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes View Post
    I agree that jazz can seem daunting to the novice. I had a good teacher when I started but it all seemed to be scales and fingerings, no tunes.That frustrated me.
    So right Mark. And further we have to admit that as humans our memory works most effectively when we have an emotional investment in the material we are working on. We are simply much more likely to remember the things which we love.

    If we follow a purely academic route we may remember some of what we study. But we all remember the music we truly love without effort.

    Working on integrating the study of theory and scales and technique is actually MORE EFFICIENT from an academic point of view, at least if we look at random selection from long term memory. And that random selection from long term memory is what allows us to grow as improvisers or, and the success of this is much more easily calibrated, people who aim to play what they are hearing in their head which is very often and usefully real tunes.

    Now that all sounds pretty complicated but it can be boiled down to this. Play a tune in open position from ear in say C. NOTICE the arpeggios,notice the passing tones and chromatic passing tones, notice perhaps that a Swing tune melody which apparently needs a lot of chords might simply outline the tonic over again. But don't take too long about it, move straight to G, work out completely different fingerings (again for open strings) and you will notice more. At all times you should remain intellectully active, which is to say EMOTIONALLY ENGAGED, it will all be memorable. Running tunes with the same fingering on different frets soon becomes mechanical and we learn zip.

    Following this method makes a lot more sense on every level than trying to understand how to finger everything that you might want to learn in advance. Firstly not only is that approach susyphean because we have to start over so often because we cant remember because we are working without emotion, but it is also INFINITE because the amount of possibilities for novel fingerings presented by even the simplest music are infinite themselves.

    There is a whole world of Jazz that I do not have alive in my ear, I guess I have been quite conservative in my listening. When I listen to something that inspires me in a format that is new to me, I will listen and listen till I can sing it. I'll then learn how to play it fairly straightforwardly on the instrument. I'll notice how it is constructed, if I don't have the theory that explains it already then I will make one up and check that it fits or can produce results that sound stylistically consistent to me, that should take about ten minutes (if I've really listened) then round the keys, different fingerings for every key means HAVING TO THINK all the time. Liking the material means being emotionally engaged, emotional engagement=remembering.

    Oddly enough when one becomes fairly accomplished as a sight reader and one is in the habit of deconstructing music as one studies by ear we can get A LOT of the same benefits as we sight read. And of course all good sight reading is intensely emotional and rests on true comprehension and good instincts.

    D.

  46. #95

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet View Post
    Teaching Jazz guitar needs to get smarter if we are to get young students to commit amidst a world of increasing distractions. This Forum should be a god send for the novice, it's something I wish was around when I was a kid, but then, I sometimes wonder what a confused novice will make of the conflicting advice we all spew forth . If they don't have a teacher, I try to point them towards the Lessons section on this forum, which is an excellent primer. But even that will seem daunting to many. Everyone needs guidance and a rough idea of how much time to spend on each aspect that is pertinent to their musical ambitions. Maybe there should be a sticky somewhere that helps to address this. Just imagine you are new to Jazz guitar - regardless of age - what questions and issues would you have? I'd be asking how much time I should be spending on chords, scales, arps, language, tunes, etc as well as how do divide up a typical practice session. Surely most of us know that we guitarists can quickly become addicted to the scales "challenge", like it's a sports contest!

    You gotta nip that in the bud early, I reckon...
    That, exactly.
    For me as a beginner, but worse, hobbyist with no structured approach/time to devote, the biggest challenge is to use my time in a productive, stimulating way, so I can learn something useful, make it part of my actual knowledge, and then build on that and move to something more complex.

    Had two guitar teachers, both Berklee method. They both told me: Learn to read music; listen to solos and transcribe; learn Major scale and modes on all fingers/strings; use shell voicings alternating strings; learn most common cadences in every key; create solos over cadences writing them down; solo continuous eight notes over the same fretboard area with one finger per fret; etc. All things that to me make a lot of sense. But you know what? I really like just sitting down with the chart for Embraceable You, play the chords, sing over it, do so improvisation. I do like the musical side of it, much more than devoting daily hours to a ton of theoretical and technical aspects (mind you I'm 44yr, with no aspirations to ever being a 'proper' musician).

    What I've been looking for, but honestly never found is a true roadmap to which things you learn first, and then what, and then what, and so on, so I can manage it myself at my own pace and liking. Of course when I ask here "do I really need to learn 12 patterns for the Phrygian Dominant", most people will say it's overkill, just focus on the Harmonic Minor first, others will say "forget all that and just play what sounds good".

    But the reality, and like you said, the lessons on this forum are VERY good for beginners, you do have these concepts of "essential scales", and of course the Phrygian Dominant is there 7 Essential Jazz Guitar Scales For Beginners . To me this kind of lesson is VERY good because it's concise.

    But I stumble a bit then. I need to figure the Harmonic Minor/Phrygian Dominant patterns to solo over a 7b9 or susb9, and I remember my guitar teachers saying "every finger every string" and I just think "shit, I just want to sit down for 30 minutes noodling around Summertime or Misty, I don't want to spend months memorising a scale.

    So, I'm just trying to, as I play a song I like, to incorporate new scales/patterns, as I improvise. That's why I asked my original question, which positions/patterns people find most important, so I can streamline it as much as possible. Of course people can tell me "dude, if you want to play jazz you need much more time/effort". I know that, I just want to make the time I have, as productive and fun as possible.

  47. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Freel View Post
    So right Mark. And further we have to admit that as humans our memory works most effectively when we have an emotional investment in the material we are working on. We are simply much more likely to remember the things which we love.

    If we follow a purely academic route we may remember some of what we study. But we all remember the music we truly love without effort.

    Working on integrating the study of theory and scales and technique is actually MORE EFFICIENT from an academic point of view, at least if we look at random selection from long term memory. And that random selection from long term memory is what allows us to grow as improvisers or, and the success of this is much more easily calibrated, people who aim to play what they are hearing in their head which is very often and usefully real tunes.

    Now that all sounds pretty complicated but it can be boiled down to this. Play a tune in open position from ear in say C. NOTICE the arpeggios,notice the passing tones and chromatic passing tones, notice perhaps that a Swing tune melody which apparently needs a lot of chords might simply outline the tonic over again. But don't take too long about it, move straight to G, work out completely different fingerings (again for open strings) and you will notice more. At all times you should remain intellectully active, which is to say EMOTIONALLY ENGAGED, it will all be memorable. Running tunes with the same fingering on different frets soon becomes mechanical and we learn zip.

    Following this method makes a lot more sense on every level than trying to understand how to finger everything that you might want to learn in advance. Firstly not only is that approach susyphean because we have to start over so often because we cant remember because we are working without emotion, but it is also INFINITE because the amount of possibilities for novel fingerings presented by even the simplest music are infinite themselves.

    There is a whole world of Jazz that I do not have alive in my ear, I guess I have been quite conservative in my listening. When I listen to something that inspires me in a format that is new to me, I will listen and listen till I can sing it. I'll then learn how to play it fairly straightforwardly on the instrument. I'll notice how it is constructed, if I don't have the theory that explains it already then I will make one up and check that it fits or can produce results that sound stylistically consistent to me, that should take about ten minutes (if I've really listened) then round the keys, different fingerings for every key means HAVING TO THINK all the time. Liking the material means being emotionally engaged, emotional engagement=remembering.

    Oddly enough when one becomes fairly accomplished as a sight reader and one is in the habit of deconstructing music as one studies by ear we can get A LOT of the same benefits as we sight read. And of course all good sight reading is intensely emotional and rests on true comprehension and good instincts.

    D.
    I don't really buy the infinite fingerings thing as much. I think if you blindly experimented for a long time, you would eventually arrive at some pretty standard fingerings. I don't think the greats necessarily played everything 12 different ways.

    There's a balance. no need to completely reinvent the wheel with an instrument people have been playing this way for decades.

  48. #97

    User Info Menu

    First the answer:
    You can pass by knowing only one shape, if that much, of one scale, for all the music. You just take care about intervals you need, adapt it to strings you use ... and memorize results for future uses.

    Now, questions:

    What is your goal?
    Do you want to be musician?

    What is more important in regard to your goal and questions, knowlege about jazz, or general command over instrument?

    Who are we, people giving free advice?
    Musicians, or teachers, or what?
    ... humans, or dancers?
    What is "our" goal?
    Are the advice given any good?
    Are we any good in our professions, music, jazz ...?

    What should you learn first, tunes to derive couple basic progressions they are all made of, with convenient grips and fingerings, or ...
    learn basic progressions and fingerings then learn how to "spot" and apply them within tune?

    Jazz specific (???) theory and technique vs general musicianship?

    Which advice is better, one you like, or one you do not understand?

    Answer:
    It is iterative.

    Sent from My Blog Page
    ^ ^ ^
    <<< My BlogSpot Page >>>
    v v v