The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Posts 51 to 75 of 92
  1. #51

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175
    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

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #52

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rsergio
    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?

  4. #53

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rsergio
    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.

  5. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet
    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.

  6. #55

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet
    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.

  7. #56
    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.

  8. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175
    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.

  9. #58

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by djg
    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?

  10. #59

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
    ... 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....

  11. #60

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
    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.

  12. #61

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rsergio
    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.

  13. #62

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet
    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.

  14. #63

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Freel
    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?

  15. #64

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rsergio
    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)

  16. #65

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet
    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

  17. #66

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Freel
    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

  18. #67
    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
    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.

  19. #68

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rsergio
    ...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.

  20. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet
    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...

  21. #70

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
    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
    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.

  22. #71

    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.

  23. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175
    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.

  24. #73

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
    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.

  25. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175
    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.

  26. #75

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
    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.