RE: [jazz_guitar] Re: Learning arpeggios

[Dave Woods]

To me, the most important thing is to learn to hear this stuff. Practice a
fingering for a musical component within a Key Position slowly. The object
is to hear them as part of the phrases you hear, and have your hands find
the notes automatically. Another aspect of this is that if you think "that
was part of a G7 arpeggio", your creative flow is weakened. A good question
to ask your inner self is "how does this scale / arpeggio / chord voicing,
make me feel". Your feelings are what summons the notes you use in a phrase,
and the rhythms you put them in.

Dave Woods

_____

From: jazz_...@yahoogroups.com [mailto:jazz_...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Petri
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 10:42 AM
To: jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [jazz_guitar] Re: Learning arpeggios

--- In jazz_guitar@ <mailto:jazz_guitar%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com,
John Amato <jamato316@...> wrote:
> In fact, a close examination of their music reveals a strong reliance on
"Chord Tones," arpeggios, and very few scales. The scales they do play act
as transition phrases between sections of their solos, otherwise marked
exclusively by phrases, or cells, of chord tones and arpeggios...
>

Yes!

If you ask me, to "learn arpeggios" is to be able to play the chord tones in
a melodic fashion all over the fretboard. Whatever that takes. You can base
your visualization of the chord tones on CAGED system, other systems,
three-note-per-string fingerings, whatever. The point is, learn to find the
chord tones for any chord. And to be able to play the notes in any order.
That is, IMO, a lot more important than scales in learning to improvise over
chord changes.

Best wishes,

Petri

www.petrikrzywacki.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jazz_guitar/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jazz_guitar/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
jazz_guit...@yahoogroups.com
jazz_guitar-...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
jazz_guitar...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[John Amato]

A good question to ask your inner self is "how does this scale / arpeggio / chord voicing,
make me feel". Your feelings are what summons the notes you use in a phrase,
and the rhythms you put them in.

Dave Woods

__

Dave,
Therein lies guitar craft wisdom......

[Bob Hansmann]

> To me, the most important thing is to learn to hear this stuff.

I agree. And the way to learn to hear it is to play (practice) it - a lot.

Bobby

[rguitarjj]

When a teacher says "learn arpeggios", what exactly does this mean?

I know this sounds like a stupid question ...

Is it specific fingerings for specific arps and scales?

Is it simply knowing which notes are in which chords?

Is it knowing how to finger an arp for each major chord form in the CAGED system?

I'm really unclear on this.

When I was told this years ago, it referred to learning Chuck Wayne's fingerings for basic arps at four places on the neck.

--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, "will_halligan" <will@...> wrote:
>
> I few years ago I attended a master class with Bobby Broom and I clearly remember his advice "Get on the bandwagon – learn your scales and arpeggios."
>
> One really great way start learning what actual notes are used in certain arpeggios is to sit down with the sheet music (not tab,) to Pacbell's canon in D and work through it. This is not hard and very worthwhile.
>
> Will

[rguitarjj]

I have the impression that many jazz greats play by thinking about chord tones and passing notes. They then get their diverse sounds by knowing which chord to juxtapose over the harmony. So, at a basic level, someone might play Am9 or Gmaj7 over Cmaj7. At a more sophisticated level, someone might play Emaj or Bbm over G7 (creating G13b9 and G7#9#11, respectively) and, at an advanced level who knows what. That, and they have a big repertoire of licks that go over the various chords.

Rick

>
> If you ask me, to "learn arpeggios" is to be able to play the chord tones in a melodic fashion all over the fretboard. Whatever that takes. You can base your visualization of the chord tones on CAGED system, other systems, three-note-per-string fingerings, whatever. The point is, learn to find the chord tones for any chord. And to be able to play the notes in any order. That is, IMO, a lot more important than scales in learning to improvise over chord changes.
>

[will_halligan]

I few years ago I attended a master class with Bobby Broom and I clearly remember his advice "Get on the bandwagon – learn your scales and arpeggios."

One really great way start learning what actual notes are used in certain arpeggios is to sit down with the sheet music (not tab,) to Pacbell's canon in D and work through it. This is not hard and very worthwhile.

Will

[John Amato]

> In fact, a close examination of their music reveals a strong reliance on "Chord Tones," arpeggios, and very few scales. The scales they do play act as transition phrases between sections of their solos, otherwise marked exclusively by phrases, or cells, of chord tones and arpeggios...
>

Yes!

If you ask me, to "learn arpeggios" is to be able to play the chord tones in a melodic fashion all over the fretboard. Whatever that takes. You can base your visualization of the chord tones on CAGED system, other systems, three-note-per- string fingerings, whatever. The point is, learn to find the chord tones for any chord. And to be able to play the notes in any order. That is, IMO, a lot more important than scales in learning to improvise over chord changes.

Best wishes,

Petri



YES! .. to me, it's a better approach ... scales seem to play "around" and "on top" of the changes, chord tones play "IN the Changes" .... like Metheny says, playing chord tones is like "getting your hands dirty"....

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Bob Hansmann]

> I would subscribe to this method over the years and also teach it ...
> but lately, as of a few years ago, I realized that you really don't
> hear many top players like Martino, Metheny, Burrell, Pass, Wes, et.
> al. play "scales" per se ...

One doesn't practice scales to directly plug them into solos, like a
"paint by number" approach to pseudo-creativity, though. The idea is to
make something creative and personal with them, an idea which has been
explored thoroughly by guys like David Baker. On this list list, Dave
likes to call it "working with key centers". "Scale players" sound like
"scale players" - that's true - but my guess is that they would be
non-creative no matter what tools they were taught. But real creative
players learn them for the many positive things they offer, not least of
which is knowledge of the instrument in the first place - soon to be a
lost art.. Pat Martino, for example, knows his scales inside and out,
and has a lot to say about them.

The students I have who willingly apply themselves to practicing them
always learn everything exponentially faster than those who don't. Of
course, nowadays guitar "students" want to dismiss all the things of
knowledge - reading, arps, scales, pieces, theory, &c., &c., leaving
nothing except that which they feel like learning. Perhaps they'll
eventually and finally break it down to the belief that the best way to
play is to not play at all, or even to own an instrument, for that matter,

Oh, that's right. They already have - "Guitar Hero". Lots of good
players there...

best,
Bobby

[Marc Leduc]

Sorry to insist, Guys, but I am extremely surprised none of you mentioned
intervallic formulas as the first step to learn arps!

- Familiarize yourself with generic relationship of notes on the fretboard
- Learn the basic arps by heart, generic way (1 b3 5 b7, etc, etc, name it)
- Play them generically on the fretboard, in several keys, octaves,
fingerings
- Ear them in relation with the matching chord(s) (ear training)
- Match them with scale/melody/chromatic cells

Marc

[John Amato]

I few years ago I attended a master class with Bobby Broom and I clearly remember his advice "Get on the bandwagon – learn your scales and arpeggios."

...........

I would subscribe to this method over the years and also teach it ... but lately, as of a few years ago, I realized that you really don't hear many top players like Martino, Metheny, Burrell, Pass, Wes, et. al. play "scales" per se ...

In fact, a close examination of their music reveals a strong reliance on "Chord Tones," arpeggios, and very few scales. The scales they do play act as transition phrases between sections of their solos, otherwise marked exclusively by phrases, or cells, of chord tones and arpeggios...

_

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

[Greg Macmillan]

Then play them through the cycle of 4ths, then starting at the top and
going down, then starting on the 3rd of each chord, then the 5th, then
7th, then any other extension, then trying joining the 3rd of each to
the 7th of the next going through the cycle of fourths. Use all the
different chord types, but most important learn tunes and melodies by
ear and memory. Work on voice leading and melody more than chord scale
relationships. Use chromatic voice leading and embellishment, delayed
resolution etc. Learn genre specific applications of any of the above.
Just my 2c

cheers Greg

[will_halligan]

I personally don`t have a problem learning
from somebody else - esp if that person is
one of the classical greats.

Music has been around for so very long it is
quite hard to come up with something that
somebody hasn`t already done in some form.

I quite like the idea of passing notes but I
also think a player should actually know what
notes they are playing rather than just patterns.

The "Arpeggios from Hell" by Malmsteen is a fun
way to find your way around the fingerboard.

Will

[JamesM]

In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, "will_halligan" <will@...> wrote:

I few years ago I attended a master class with Bobby Broom and I clearly remember his advice "Get on the bandwagon – learn your scales and arpeggios." One really great way start learning what actual notes are used in certain arpeggios is to sit down with the sheet music (not tab,) to Pachelbel's Canon in D and work through it. This is not hard and very worthwhile.
Will
Mings: I agree (and as suggested by Mr. P)
also harmonize all scales in three parts with open chords
a good place to start is C(5th fret, 2nd finger)A (up a 6th on 3rd string) E (up a 10th on second string)
Go up and down in the key of C, observing the string crossing points (duplicates). There will be 3 sets of four strings and each has a slightly different fingering. not that many actually
Now change keys, for example 4 flats...and so on.
lots of music here.

[RONALD VITARELLI]

Will,
 
It's OK to learn arps from someone else, but there is always the danger of sounding stilted and similar to someone else.  I work with the great Joe Diorio, who teaches you how to develop arps off chord shapes, slash chords, stacked chords and patterns based on the work of Slonimsky (sp?) and many other ethereal sources.  As I explore these sources, which are limitless, I find some very interestiing new ideas.  He recently showed us how he took some phrases from works of Bach and created, right before our very eyes/ears, some great arps.
 
Arpeggios are similar to verbal expressions that reflect the cognitive depths to which you are capable of going.  These things take time and, if you devote the time to creating original ideas, you will create them.
 
RV
CT/USA

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

[Petri]

--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, John Amato <jamato316@...> wrote:
> In fact, a close examination of their music reveals a strong reliance on "Chord Tones," arpeggios, and very few scales. The scales they do play act as transition phrases between sections of their solos, otherwise marked exclusively by phrases, or cells, of chord tones and arpeggios...
>

Yes!

If you ask me, to "learn arpeggios" is to be able to play the chord tones in a melodic fashion all over the fretboard. Whatever that takes. You can base your visualization of the chord tones on CAGED system, other systems, three-note-per-string fingerings, whatever. The point is, learn to find the chord tones for any chord. And to be able to play the notes in any order. That is, IMO, a lot more important than scales in learning to improvise over chord changes.

Best wishes,

Petri

www.petrikrzywacki.com

[JamesM]

--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, Greg Macmillan <gregmac@...> wrote:
>
> Then play them through the cycle of 4ths, then starting at the top and
> going down, then starting on the 3rd of each chord, then the 5th, then
> 7th, then any other extension, then trying joining the 3rd of each to
> the 7th of the next going through the cycle of fourths. Use all the
> different chord types, but most important learn tunes and melodies by
> ear and memory. Work on voice leading and melody more than chord scale
> relationships. Use chromatic voice leading and embellishment, delayed
> resolution etc. Learn genre specific applications of any of the above.
> Just my 2c

Cool, Greg!

[Nat Janoff]

I really like this post about how the chord/scale/arpeggio
makes you feel! Great idea to think about!!!

Nat Janoff

[John Amato]

I really like this post about how the chord/scale/ arpeggiomakes you feel! Great idea to think about!!!

Nat Janoff



Nat,
When playing in so many situations like the Blues and other genres including jazz, I find myself playing mini versions of scales as connections to chord, chord tones, arpeggios and other "chordal" figures. Very rarely would I consciously think of playing a whole scale per se for fitting into a key tonic or modulation UNLESS a scale becomes unconsciously heard by the "ear" ... then ANYTHING GOES because it's from the heart/mind/body/soul.
John Amato
Isaiah 55:11

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[akmbirch]

Practicing arpeggios enables one to practice hearing chord tones melodically. To that end one essential part of the practice is singing the arpeggios. It is important to sing them with AND without the instrument, at first in root position, then in inversions. The ear takes time to develop, you should start with triad arpeggios, and once you can hear them clearly and can sing them, move onto 7th arpeggios etc. Sadly too many students dive straight into 7th arpeggios when the can't even hear basic triad arpeggios. The mechanics of playing them is important, but hearing them is essential, again sadly in today's "rush to the finish line mentality" students focus on the mechanical, the visual rather than the auditory. In the end unless they are heard and are in your ears they are not very useful, so mechanically executing all the patterns in the world will not result in non-mechanical improvisation.

--
Alisdair MacRae Birch
Guitarist/Bassist/Educator/Arranger
http://www.alisdair.com

[Petri]

--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Woods" <david_woods@...> wrote:
>
> All of this sounds very comprehensive, and thorough, but I still say work
> all of this stuff out around a tune.

Very true. Most of the building blocks of music (scales, arpeggios, chord prpogressions) never made too much sense to me before I started to hear them in the context of a tune. It's much easier to relate to them that way and also, it's the pathway to feeling them as Dave mentioned.

It just takes work, being around these things, marinating oneself in them. Like learning a foreign language: none of the words initially made you feel in any particular way (except frutrated when you couldn't recall a word when you needed it). It takes years and years of using the language to develop that emotional connection with the components of that language. But it's worth it.

This is why I think that paedagogically always using tunes to drive any point across is the only way to go. You can say something like "the dominant on the II degree tends to be a #11 or b5" and it means little until you play tunes like Take The A Train or Desafinado.


Best wishes,

Petri

www.petrikrzywacki.com

[musicmaker1245]

--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, "will_halligan" <will@...> wrote:
>
> That is one of the exam tests in grade 7 bass.
>
> Pretty good too,

Will

What exam is that? Can you give some more details.

Mark

[will_halligan]

That is one of the exam tests in grade 7 bass.

Pretty good too,

Cheers

Will

--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, Greg Macmillan <gregmac@...> wrote:
>

[Dave Woods]

All of this sounds very comprehensive, and thorough, but I still say work

all of this stuff out around a tune. You should not only know the melody,
you should be able to hear the Key and chord changes through the notes of
the melody. Once you can do this, begin working gradually away from the
melody into the key and chord changes, always keeping the melody in mind.
This is the arena that we all apply all this stuff to. This is the
practical focusing of it.

If something musical, expressive, and creative is going to happen, you will
never just play the straight arpeggio. It will be a melodic idea that
incorporates the arpeggio. I say once you have an arpeggio under your
hands, "PLAY" with it, work out melodic ideas within it for your expressive
vocabulary, and bit by bit try to use them in the tune. It's necessary to
always keep an overview of the entire process in mind, and a tune is what
gives that to you.

Dave Woods

_____

--- In jazz_guitar@ <mailto:jazz_guitar%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com,

Greg Macmillan <gregmac@...> wrote:
>
> Then play them through the cycle of 4ths, then starting at the top and
> going down, then starting on the 3rd of each chord, then the 5th, then
> 7th, then any other extension, then trying joining the 3rd of each to
> the 7th of the next going through the cycle of fourths. Use all the
> different chord types, but most important learn tunes and melodies by
> ear and memory. Work on voice leading and melody more than chord scale
> relationships. Use chromatic voice leading and embellishment, delayed
> resolution etc. Learn genre specific applications of any of the above.
> Just my 2c
>
> cheers Greg
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

[william_v_nicholson]

--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, "musicmaker1245" <musicmaker1245@...> wrote:

>
> --- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, "will_halligan" <will@> wrote:
> >
> > That is one of the exam tests in grade 7 bass.
> >
> > Pretty good too,
>
> Will
>
> What exam is that? Can you give some more details.

Indeed - the grade 7 bass exam with which exam board (RGT, ABRSM, Trinity Guildhall, Rockschool, etc)?

William

[will_halligan]

Bass guitar grades,

http://www.registryofguitartutors.co.uk/exams/bass-guitar.php

The classical grades are worthwhile also.

Cheers

Will

--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, "musicmaker1245" <musicmaker1245@...> wrote:
>

[JVeg...@aol.com]

Hey Will,

"There is no requirement to read traditionally notated
music as all music is written in easy-to-read TAB, as well as
traditional notation. CD examples are provided so you can 'listen
and learn'."

What's up with that????

Cheers,
JV

Juan Vega

_w...@post.com_ (mailto:wi...@post.com) writes:

Bass guitar grades,

_http://www.registryhttp://www.regihttp://www.rhttp://www.rhtt_
(http://www.registryofguitartutors.co.uk/exams/bass-guitar.php)

The classical grades are worthwhile also.

Cheers

Will

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

[John Amato]

On 11/11/09, John Amato <jamato316@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> Hey Will,
>
> "There is no requirement to read traditionally notated
> music as all music is written in easy-to-read TAB, as well as
> traditional notation. CD examples are provided so you can 'listen
> and learn'."
>
> What's up with that????

" as well as traditional notation." Looks like that about covers it, no?...

..... I didn't write that ... I questioned it -- because I disagree....

[Angelo]

On 11/11/09, John Amato <jama...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Will,
>
> "There is no requirement to read traditionally notated
> music as all music is written in easy-to-read TAB, as well as
> traditional notation. CD examples are provided so you can 'listen
> and learn'."
>
> What's up with that????

" as well as traditional notation." Looks like that about covers it, no?...

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[John Amato]

Hey Will,

"There is no requirement to read traditionally notated
music as all music is written in easy-to-read TAB, as well as
traditional notation. CD examples are provided so you can 'listen
and learn'."

What's up with that????

Cheers,
JV
................

Whoever wrote this -- is he serious?
"...no requirement to read traditionally notated music as all music is written in easy-to-read TAB..." gotta' be kidding me!

[Bob Hansmann]

hi Angelo,

> " as well as traditional notation." Looks like that about covers it,
> no?...

Doesn't seem so to me. If I take out the stuff about TAB, this is what I
get:

> "There is no requirement to read traditionally notated

> music as all music is written.....[snip]... as well as
> traditional notation.

Seems contradictory to me.

Does any of this really matter, though? After all, it's just one more
person trying to sell one more book on "how to play the easy way".

best,
Bobby

[Angelo]

The quote as presented:

> "There is no requirement to read traditionally notated

> music as all music is written in easy-to-read TAB, as well as
> traditional notation. CD examples are provided so you can 'listen
> and learn'."

Seems to say that the music is presented in BOTH tab AND traditional
notation.Also included are CD examples. It seemed to me that people were on
the author for not representing traditional and I was merely pointing out
that he had.
I was not placing a value judgment on tab vs. traditional notation
vs.playing by ear.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

[Chris Smart]

JV, excellent points.

Ever seen tab where the author tries to denote rhythms, putting E
above all the eighth notes, coming up with something to show dotted
notes, etc.? By the time they're done, they've invented a whole
new notation system for themselves that is just a mess!

[Robert Cole]

Tab is definitly NOT easy to read. It is a code and it must be de-coded.

[JVeg...@aol.com]

Yea, and in order to "decode" it, you either have to hear the song,
or have rhythmic notation along w/ the tab. The time spent trying to
figure that s**t out would be better spent learning to read standard
notation, and applying it on the guitar, trust me. Not to mention
that the tab is probably riddled with mistakes, but I s'pose people
don't care too much about that, either. Yes, I know the Real Book
has mistakes in it, but at least it's in a universal format, and the
mistakes can be determined by playing the notes.

Why do we guitar players insist on being so musically illiterate???
Beats the life out of me. Oh well...

Cheers,
JV

Juan Vega

In a message dated 11/11/2009 2:58:20 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

[JVeg...@aol.com]

I think that having the option to learn by listening, or by using tab
removes a lot of "rigor" from the program. The way the text reads,
reading standard notation is pretty much pushed to the end of the
line, so no, I don't think that "covers it", personally, but...

Cheers,
JV

Juan Vega

In a message dated 11/11/2009 2:42:31 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
jama...@yahoo.com writes:

" as well as traditional notation." Looks like that about covers it,
no?...

[Bob Hansmann]

Juan,
> ...The time spent trying to figure that s**t out would be better spent
> learning to read standard
> notation, and applying it on the guitar, trust me....&c....

Barry Farber used to support immigrants keeping their native Spanish in
lieu of learning English at all. He then apologized for his error,
saying that that policy would keep them in the predominantly poorer
esoterically South American neighborhoods of the City.

This was in error also, though, in that it didn't take into account how
many actually had no greater aspirations anyway.

My point here is that most (of course, not all) of those you are
addressing with these posts really have no desire to be any good in the
first place. If they did, then learning standard notation would be the
obvious choice for them. They don't; it's not. In short, you are pissing
in the wind.

As for those who actually think they can enter the pro arena through the
world of TAB, they'll get no argument from me. "Good luck" is about all
I can come up with. Yes, some will do well by knowing several hundred
tunes, and some by being a part of a successful self-contained band. So
what?

Bottom line - If someone doesn't want to read, then there's usually a
myriad of other things of musical importance he's not interested in
either. That's the "other 95%" I referred to in an earlier post. Years
ago I had a student from Iceland, a "local hero", for all of two
lessons, during which he was more interested in telling me all that he
knew than anything else. Then he "jammed" with another student of mine,
and afterward asked me, "Bobby, how come this Dana fellow kicks my
ass?". No kidding...

Frankly, when I get a student who has been playing by ear for years and
is good, I'll do the best I can to help them improve their skills, with
or without reading. Most of those players come to me wanting to finally
learn to read, but for some it's just too late. But when I get someone
who insists on using TAB, I'm not at all interested..

I try to help others, on or off this list, who do not choose to be
willfully ignorant, as much as I can. Even if I could be of help to the
rest, they wouldn't be interested in it. My students are happily
progressing and doing well, and that's good enough for me.

I already regret responding to this thread at all....

Bobby

[dphidt]

Chris,

I have a book or two (Lee Ritenour music, I believe) that had std notation and TAB, but the TAB was written w/ rhythmic notation as well. It had stems and flags, but where the note head would be was the fret number. I thought that it was a step in the right direction. Personally, I agree w/ most of the posts here regarding TAB vs. standard notation. 1) Standard notation is just as tough to read on guitar as with other instruments, and 2) Systems exist (position markings, explicit fingerings for LH and RH) to notate exactly what is intended.

I think piano music is probably at the same level of difficulty as guitar music, if not more difficult. Yeah, you can play the same note in several places, but any chords you're playing usually will be within a note range covering a span of 4-5 frets, whereas the two hands on the piano can span the extremes of close/intertwined to separated by several octaves. With the guitar, the span of 4-5 frets narrows down the positions considerably.

With single notes, there are at most 4 places to play the same note (e.g. G 15th fret 6th string, 10/5th, 5/4th, and open on the 3rd.) (The extreme is on a 24 fret neck, and the note E: 24/6. 19/5, 14/3, 9/3, 5/2, open/1). Most only have 2 or 3, so the choices are not all that extensive. Plus, taking the notes in context usually narrows it down further.

What would probably help the wannabes is if GuitarHero/RockBand, etc. used an actual staff and at least showed the actual rhythm notation being used. Even if they kept it to a 6 line "tab like" staff, but put the actual notation in, that would help. Something similar to SmartMusic, but geared towards the wannabe.

-- Mike

[william_v_nicholson]

No, I think the Registry of Guitar Tutors are a bit weak in their requirements for reading skills (and repertoire) compared to the rival British exam boards in the UK relevant to electric or "non-classical" guitar (which are the RGT, Rockschool - requiring stronger reading skills but still from combined tab and traditional notation I think - and Trinity Guildhall - with their plectrum guitar exams - requiring reading skills from traditional notation). In their defence, I would say the RGT require more technical stuff like scales, arpeggios, chords, etc than the other guys for similar grades (probably including the various classical guitar grade exams).

By the way, the RGT electric guitar grades cover most of the arpeggios required for the RGT bass guitar grades and may be of more interest to most guitar players. (I am currently trying for RGT electric guitar grades myself and may try for the Trinity Guildhall grades in the future - with the latter providing a target to improve my sight reading skills. My reading skills are quite poor...),

William

[will_halligan]

It is only in the "electric" grades that the music
reading is weak. Similarly the "Rock school" grades.

The classical grades are quite different and each
classical grade includes a sight reading test as
part of the exam. A candidate is allowed one minute
only to view the sight test before a performance.
This is quite a high pressure music reading test.

The RGT classical grades are very similar to the
Associated board. The convenience of the RGT grades
is that the pieces are all contained in a single book for
each grade. With the Ass Board a student has to purchase
several books and select the pieces from them. Also
RGT requires knowledge of melodic minor scales from
G3 whilst As.B. does not until G5 and even then gives
people a choice of Melodic or Harmonic scales to perform.

Will

[Robert Cole]

Learning to play standard notation on guitar is considerably more difficult than on piano due in part to the non- linear setup of the guitar fretboard. But even on piano, it takes years of lessons and practice to be able to play even moderatly advanced arrangements. So learning to play guitar by reading standard notation is definitly a more time consuming challange. And tablature is definitly NOT a good alternative for sight reading. 

 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

[Robert Cole]

The key to enjoying the playing of music by sightreading standard notation is to become proficient enough to play reasonably advanced arrangements without being frustrated. Most people that want to learn to play guitar do not plan to become professional musicians. But they would love to be able to learn to play songs on guitar in solo chord melody style so that the melody and harmony can be enjoyed at the same time and so listeners can recognize what they are playing and are impressed. If they must first learn to become proficient in standard notation, most do become discouraged because of the difficulty in becoming proficient enough. And when they try to use tab they quickly realize that decoding tab is just as difficult if not more difficult. So they resort to learning a few songs by watching someone play and memorizing what they see visually. But this learning method extremely limits their repertoire because if they don't constantly practice
their songs they forget how to play them. And most people don't have the time to constantly practice.
 
This is the main reason why most guitars end up not being played. Discouragement!
 
So who disagrees and why?  

[JVeg...@aol.com]

If by the comment below you mean that the same note is
available on the guitar in multiple places (for quite a few of
them), then I second that. I've had university professors
with doctorates tell me they'd tried to play guitar, and it
was just "too difficult"...

Cheers,
JV

Juan Vega

In a message dated 11/12/2009 6:15:08 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
rmcg...@yahoo.com writes:

Learning to play standard notation on guitar is considerably more
difficult than on piano due in part to the non- linear setup of the guitar
fretboard.

[Robert Cole]

Piano notes are always linear meaning that notes to the right always go up in pitch and notes to the left always go down in pitch. This is only true on guitar if you use only one string. Playing notes and scales on guitar is mostly non-linear because, of course, multiple strings are used. As a result, guitar is much less intuitive due to the fact that the direction of the movement of the fret hand does not cause the pitch of the note changes to be consistant. ie. sometimes movement to the right lowers pitch and sometimes it raises pitch. This causes confusion.
 
Right?  

[JVeg...@aol.com]

Rick,

I think the answer (or AN answer) to your point below has more to
do with the guitar's musical "pedigree", more than anything else.
The guitar was an instrument that was played by clowns, sailors,
and women, no offense meant, and by virtue of that, it's assumed
playing guitar is somehow "easier" than other instruments. Since
the guitar didn't make it into the concert hall until Segovia, for the
longest time, it's kind of a "second-class citizen", musically. There
is some truth to that, since playing guitar is "easier" than say, oboe,
or French Horn, etc. (Also, you don't get chicks playing those, lol...)

Nobody in his right mind would go out and buy or rent a flute, oboe,
violin, (heaven help us) trombone, or even a piano, take it home, and
say to a child and/or loved one, "here, learn it". On the other hand,
as a teacher, I often have students who came into their instrument
from an uncle, parent, friend, garage sale, etc.

I refer to the guitar as the "Rodney Dangerfield" of instruments, because
it doesn't get any respect, but those who take the time to learn the
instrument know really it's not that way at all, nor should it be, although
I'm probably "pissing in the wind" as somebody else told me here.

I'm not holding my breath for the video game "Bassoon Hero", but,
ya never know...

Cheers,
JV

Juan Vega

In a message dated 11/12/2009 7:13:08 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
rpjazz...@gmail.com writes:

So, it puzzles me a bit why a great reading guitarist is usually a poor
reader compared to horn and piano players.

[Bob Hansmann]

> I've had university professors with doctorates tell me they'd tried
> to play guitar, and it
> was just "too difficult"..
>

I've taught several keyboardists. Some were great successes, and some
utter failures. Most were somewhere in the middle. Once they get past
the idea of having 6 keyboards, tuned a 4th apart (with one exception,
obviously), the rest depends upon how much they are willing to practice
(repetition again), and upon their talent, just as it does with anyone
else. Ultimately their musical background helps them in the end, just as
a guitarist's background would help him to learn the piano.

best,
Bobby

[Bob Hansmann]

> Learning to play standard notation on guitar is considerably more
> difficult than on piano due in part to the non- linear setup of the
> guitar fretboard. But even on piano, it takes years of lessons and
> practice to be able to play even moderatly advanced arrangements. So
> learning to play guitar by reading standard notation is definitly
> a more time consuming challange. And tablature is definitly NOT a good
> alternative for sight reading.

I disagree with this. Each instrument has it's own set of challenges.
For example, pianists have two clefs to deal with right out of the gates.

More so, learning to read is not that difficult. Becoming proficient
with it is another matter. But it doesn't involve "learning" per se so
much as it does repetition. One can learn to read vocabulary, but it
takes experience with many situations to become a fluent reader
(probably the reason why so many comic book enthusiasts became such good
readers, to the dismay of their elementary school teachers). So it is
with music. By avoiding that repetition every time the opportunity
arises, nothing is gained, at least in terms of reading skills.

The incorrect notion that reasonable reading skills can only be achieved
through many years of studies is probably what drives so many away from
trying. The fact is that when reading studies are a regular part of the
learning process, as well as a means to that learning process, progress
is achieved faster and more solid than by any other means.

And yes, TAB is most definitely NOT a good alternative for reading,
sight reading or otherwise. There is a lot more information about a
piece of music to be understood through standard notation than comes by
merely knowing where to place your fingers. Any standard notation reader
is aware of this. Most TAB readers would not understand this principle
if it were explained in absolute depth.

That's my experience, anyway.

best,
Bobby

[rguitarjj]

I don't think that guitar is particularly difficult, as instruments go. Of course, it is infinite, so there will be people who play it in ways that astonish. That's true, I suppose, for every instrument.

But, it isn't particularly difficult to develop some chops on guitar. The number of teenagers who can shred attests to that.

Learning music theory and training one's ear is the same on every pitched instrument.

So, it puzzles me a bit why a great reading guitarist is usually a poor reader compared to horn and piano players. I'd guess because it's easier to do other things on guitar, so people don't spend much time reading. Also, there are some things that are just doggone hard to play on guitar because of the need to coordinate picking and fingering.

My idea of a hard instrument is chromatic harmonica. It sounds great, it's cheap, easy to carry and almost nobody plays it. That's because it is amazingly difficult. Nothing to see, nothing to feel and the geometry of the instrument is jabberwocky.

I also think that great drummers are amazing. The coordination just seems so difficult to develop.

--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, JVegaTrio@... wrote:
>
> If by the comment below you mean that the same note is
> available on the guitar in multiple places (for quite a few of
> them), then I second that. I've had university professors
> with doctorates tell me they'd tried to play guitar, and it
> was just "too difficult"...
>
> Cheers,
> JV
>
> Juan Vega
>
>
> In a message dated 11/12/2009 6:15:08 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

[Bob Hansmann]

Hi Juan,

> I'm not holding my breath for the video game "Bassoon Hero", but,
> ya never know...

Good one!

best,
Bobby

PS - When I said that trying to convince a TAB guy to read was "pissing
in the wind", it was not meant at all as an insult, either to you or to
the TAB guys. It was merely a metaphor.

[rguitarjj]

I'm a pretty good reader on guitar. I'm nowhere nearly as good as the average pianist, but I can read pretty well for a guitarist.

That said, I find it very difficult to read chord melody. Maybe it's because the print is too small. But maybe it's because when you read a couple of chord symbols you have to figure out where you can play them, in sequence. That is, just because you can figure out how to play the first one, doesn't mean you'll be in position to play the second one. It may require being somewhere else on the neck, or using a different fingering.

On piano, at least you don't have to figure out where to play each note.

[rguitarjj]

Juan,

I don't read on any other instrument, but I wonder if it has to do with the notion of passages "laying" well on an instrument. I get the feeling that "laying well" isn't a big deal on flute. But, it makes a difference on guitar. Some passages are much easier to play than others.

But, another thing is that the guitar isn't usually taught with massive amounts of graded reading material.

--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, JVegaTrio@... wrote:
>

[Bob Hansmann]

Rick,

>
> But, another thing is that the guitar isn't usually taught with
> massive amounts of graded reading material.

This is absolutely true, and in too many cases. The problem comes from
the fact that way too many "teachers" are really not qualified. Many are
not good readers themselves, have no knowledge of repertoire or guitar
studies which are existent, do not really understand a whole lot of
theory and harmony, and were, for the most part, self- taught (usually
rock wannabes) themselves.

This makes it very hard for a student to find a good teacher in the
first place. When I get a student who's left one of these "teachers", I
have my work cut out for me - it's up to me to turn around a lot of
wrong-isms. Some of those students understand and throw themselves into
it, and some have layers of misconceptions to unravel before they get
it. All I can do is be sensitive to the issue at hand, and do my best to
turn the student around. Most of these students would have been better
off had they just tried to learn on their own first instead of trying to
study under one of these "teachers" - the negative effect of it having
been that strong.

This is something which will never change. It's the same lack of
integrity that finds its way into all businesses, human nature being
what it is. These "teachers" are determined to make that extra buck,
regardless of the consequences to their trusting and vulnerable students.

best,
Bobby

[Bob Hansmann]

> If they must first learn to become proficient in standard notation,
> most do become discouraged because of the difficulty in becoming

> proficient enough....

> ...So who disagrees and why?

Rather than disagree, let me just add to what you've said.

When reading standard notation is used right away as part of the overall
guitar learning process, and not as an "add on" as it is by so many, it
rarely causes either confusion or frustration. As easy exercises, tunes,
melodies, &c are practiced, reading proficiency develops right along
with everything else.

Bobby

[Bob Hansmann]

> As a result, guitar is much less intuitive due to the fact that the
> direction of the movement of the fret hand does not cause the pitch of
> the note changes to be consistant. ie. sometimes movement to the right
> lowers pitch and sometimes it raises pitch.

Yes, this, along with having the same note in more than one place, is
what pianists find confusing,. But only in the beginning, when he begins
to leave the 1st position and make his trek up the neck.

Mick Goodrick's "Unitar" studies, along with regular old position
studies remedy this if the student has a little patience and persistence.
It's not rocket science, after all.

best,
Bobby

[rguitarjj]

--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, Robert Cole <rmcgmn15@...> wrote:
>

> Piano notes are always linear meaning that notes to the right always go up in pitch and notes to the left always go down in pitch. This is only true on guitar if you use only one string. Playing notes and scales on guitar is mostly non-linear because, of course, multiple strings are used. As a result, guitar is much less intuitive due to the fact that the direction of the movement of the fret hand does not cause the pitch of the note changes to be consistant. ie. sometimes movement to the right lowers pitch and sometimes it raises pitch. This causes confusion.
>  
> Right?  
>

Maybe early on. After you've been playing a while that part gets automatic, I think. For the more advanced player the challenges are in, among many other things, increasing fluidity, which requires knowing which notes you want to play and figuring out how to pick them at higher speeds.

[msc...@comcast.net]

"Other instruments
have things like embouchure, eg, to take into consideration, so
guitar is in a lot of ways an "easier" instrument to approach at
a basic level. "

On the most basic level, provided you have fingers, I'd say a piano is the easiest instrument to "play"... meaning to produce sound from.

I've found this to be the reason why whenever children see a piano (and adults!), they feel the need to run up to it and start banging on the keys.  Push the key down, sound comes out.  This is a natural, "fun" thing to do, and very easy to do.

I'm not talking about making music.  I am talking about the physical aspect of producing sound.  It does not require a specific embouchure.  It does not require coordination of two hands.  It does not require calloused fingers or lips.  It does not require strong "breath" control. etc.

[Bob Hansmann]

Juan,
When the blind lead the blind, they both fall in the ditch.

best,
Bobby

[JVeg...@aol.com]

In a way, guitars are a lot like exercise bikes: people have
unreasonable expectations about how long it's going to take
to produce "results". In the case of the guitar, being able to
play all that stuff you mentioned, which requires a lot of time
and work, and in the case of the bike, getting in better shape,
without having to work at it too much. When reality sets
in, the bike goes in the garage or on the lawn at a yard
sale, or the guitar goes in the closet.

I don't think it's "discouragement" (sic), as much as it is
the realization that there's more involved than most people
want to invest. In this world, to do just about anything well
requires an investment of time, effort, discipline, and
commitment; I don't care if you want to be a lawyer, IT pro,
accountant, and on and on. Playing an instrument is no
different. In the case of the guitar, the proliferation of
instruments and the fact it's relatively easy to play a little,
the tacit expectation is that one can get "good" at it (the
guitar) w/o too much work. When reality sets in, it's a
whole 'nother story. That's the reason for things like tab,
a "distraction" and another way of disguising the effort
required.

Cheers,
JV

Juan Vega

In a message dated 11/12/2009 8:46:07 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
rmcg...@yahoo.com writes:

This is the main reason why most guitars end up not being played.
Discouragement!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

[JVeg...@aol.com]

Hi Rick,

I've been taking trumpet lessons for 3 years, and I think every
instrument has certain passages that are easier to play than
others. On the trumpet, certain keys are harder to finger, etc,
so I don't think the guitar is alone in that regard. Other instruments

have things like embouchure, eg, to take into consideration, so
guitar is in a lot of ways an "easier" instrument to approach at

a basic level. It doesn't take but about 3 minutes for me to teach
someone "Horse With No Name", where on the trumpet it might
take a week just to be able to get a basic sound out of the
instrument.

Where things get "interesting" though, is when a song written
for one instrument is played on another. My sax player tells
me that "Donna Lee" isn't all that big a deal on the sax, but as
a lot of us here know, on the guitar that's a different story. I
think that's also why in a way, classical guitar music is "easier"
to play on the guitar, because it "makes sense" on the instrument,
where trying to play horn lines requires us to adapt the melodies
to an instrument different from the one on which it was originally
conceived.

Among those same lines, anybody who has ever seen or had to
play a guitar big-band chart can see that whoever wrote it probably
had little or no clue as to how a guitar works...

Cheers,
JV

Juan Vega

In a message dated 11/12/2009 9:50:40 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
rpjazz...@gmail.com writes:

I get the feeling that "laying well" isn't a big deal on flute. But, it
makes a difference on guitar. Some passages are much easier to play than
others

[Ron Becker]

Just a guess here, but the learning progress enhancement you mention,
would it be safe to say that the real benefits begin to accrue a ways
into the process? Perhaps as it becomes time to start analyze
transcriptions?
No question that if you don't start out that way it's a big drag to
begin it this late in life. That said I can see the benefit of having
to completely learning the neck. It also necessitates moving around
by feel. I'm at the stage where as soon as I take my eyes off the
page I'm lost. Happens with recreational reading also. I think I can
partly blame dyslexia. Sometimes reading I reverse whole words like I
often do with letters when typing.

Ron
Living and playing outside the box.

http://www.myspace.com/ron45becker

On Nov 12, 2009, at 7:46 PM, Bob Hansmann wrote:

>
> The fact is that when reading studies are a regular part of the
> learning process, as well as a means to that learning process,
> progress
> is achieved faster and more solid than by any other means.
>
>

> That's my experience, anyway.
>
> best,
> Bobby
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

[JVeg...@aol.com]

Bobby,

Exactly right, that's what I tell my students, the "answers"
are all right there, if you're willing to work to look for & find
them...

Cheers,
JV

Juan Vega

_bobby...@verizon.net_ (mailto:bobby...@verizon.net) writes:

It's not rocket science, after all.

[Bob Hansmann]

> There are plenty of players out there, of any instrument not just
> guitarists, who can hear these types of things without being able to
> read. Not saying that's a good thing, but just making the point. I
> know guys who can hear a chord and name exactly what it is, both
> quality and actual notes, and can't read.

And there are plenty of players out there with these abilities who can
read. So what? - the thinking behind this argument has been around
forever. Good musicianship today far surpasses what would be considered
good in the past. Pros today are naturally expected to have all these
skills AND be able to read.

The product of a public school music program is generally mediocre at
absolute best - they are notorious for it. School music programs are by
design only intended to provide exposure to music and an instrument. To
attempt more than that is to attempt the impossible. Usually even that
goal is quite often not met, but the hope is that through this exposure,
the student will be inspired to take on private studies.

>
> Oh and I'd say drummers constitute another grouping of musicians who
> are generally "poor" readers. Yes, this is a generalization there are
> a myriad of exceptions, but the same goes to guitarists, as well.
> Anyway, I know plenty of drummers, who grew up in the school band, and
> still can't read all that well.

this is also true. i think it was brought up before.

This discussion is becoming circular at this point. Hopefully, we'll
move along to something else soon.

best,
Bobby

[msc...@comcast.net]

I think also one of the reasons most horn/piano players are better readers than guitarists (generalization) is because most of those instrumentalists start younger, due to school music programs.  Guitar is not something taught in schools, so most players tend to pick it up when they're older in their teens and beyond.

Anything can be taught and learned at any age, but it comes more intuitively and naturally at a younger age... especially when taught through a formal training program.  The best music students have formal music lessons with a private teacher and that is reinforced in school with school band & music class.  Not only do those students get more training, but they are exposed to it much more (both at school and home), which reinforces that training better.  But, there are plenty who grow up without any formal music/ear training yet play in the school band every year until they're 18.  These people can read music too, sometimes well... but I wouldn't call them musicians.

My wife is a clear example of this.  She played flute in the school band from 3rd grade until 12th grade.  She can read music (although now she's out of practice).  But, she cannot "hear" music for the life of her.  Even simple things, such as a modulation as is common in Disney tunes, etc.  She also cannot play a note of "music" at all unless it's written on a page in front of her.  She cannot sing lines on a written page.  She cannot name intervals.  In most cases, she can't even distinguish intervals.  etc. 

There are plenty of players out there, of any instrument not just guitarists, who can hear these types of things without being able to read.  Not saying that's a good thing, but just making the point.  I know guys who can hear a chord and name exactly what it is, both quality and actual notes, and can't read.

Oh and I'd say drummers constitute another grouping of musicians who are generally "poor" readers.  Yes, this is a generalization there are a myriad of exceptions, but the same goes to guitarists, as well.  Anyway, I know plenty of drummers, who grew up in the school band, and still can't read all that well.

"I'm not holding my breath for the video game "Bassoon Hero", but,
ya never know..."

This comment reminds me of one of my all-time fav music jokes:

- Why is a bassoon better than an oboe?

 --- It burns longer.  :)

[JVeg...@aol.com]

Nope, people have been banging on stuff ("drumming") long
before the piano was around. It's probably some sort of primal
urge (no drummer jokes, please).

Cheers,
JV

Juan Vega

In a message dated 11/13/2009 10:40:45 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
msc...@comcast.net writes:

I'd say a piano is the easiest instrument to "play"...

[JVeg...@aol.com]

"If a student starts out using standard notation, then as he progresses
as a guitarist, he is simultaneously growing as a reader, instead of
having to try to add it on later.

That's enough from me. Your turn, Juan,"

Bobby,

I'm done, man. I s'pose the difference in a discussion like this centers
on whether one considers him/herself a "musician" or "someone who
plays an instrument"; they're not the same thing. The former sees
the benefits of something like reading music (or solfeggio, etc) as
something that will aid and abet the learning and growing process,
while the latter just wants to be able to play an F chord, or, for would-be
jazzers, be able to comp and solo a bit. Most classical instrumentalists
not only understand and play their ax, they have more than basic piano
skills; most jazz educators not only have a primary instrument at which
they excel, they can probably comp on piano pretty well, and perhaps
even lay down a walking bass line, and keep time on drums as well. A
few years ago, I hung out w/ the great sax player Phil Woods a bit, and he
spent more time at the piano than playing alto. Same thing with the likes
of Dizzy Gillespie, and many more.

There's a real difference between being a "musician", and being "someone
who plays an instrument", and I'm not going to judge the value of one over
the other. That said, if you're going to be a "musician", you'd better
try to
have your "craft" together, and even then, sometimes you'll get caught up
short.

The video below makes the point, and although it's a bit long, and I
understand Cos
is going for his physical comedy bit, the tale is very true. I remember
the
first gig I had w/ a Latin-rock band (I was playing congas), and we'd never
really played in front of people before, for any length of time. About
halfway
through the 1st set, the timbale player's right arm cramped up, since he'd
never practiced much to speak of, and he wasn't in shape to do the gig. We
all gave him a ration of s**t about it and laughed, but the message
wasn't lost on me.

Check it out:
_http://www.drummerworld.com/Videos/billcosbydrumming.html_
(http://www.drummerworld.com/Videos/billcosbydrumming.html)

Cheers,
JV

Juan Vega

[Bob Hansmann]

Juan,

>
> I'm done, man. I s'pose the difference in a discussion like this centers
> on whether one considers him/herself a "musician" or "someone who
> plays an instrument"; they're not the same thing.

That's what I've been telling you, but you got mad when I said you wee
"pissing in the wind".

Oh, well. The video was true Cosby - very kool.

best,
Bobby

[Robert Cole]

Standard notation was originally developed for keyboard instruments, not the guitar. Most people find learning standard notation for playing guitar very, very challanging and for many it is too challanging. That's probably why tablature is still around. Unfortunately that's the reality of what a guitar wanna be has to deal with.

 
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

[Ron Becker]

I'm still less that good in the ear dept. At least as far as hearing
all the chord qualities is concerned. I can usually tell if a note is
played on a wound or plain string. But that and 8 bux would get me a
cup of coffee in Germany.

Ron
Living and playing outside the box.

http://www.myspace.com/ron45becker

On Nov 13, 2009, at 12:40 PM, Dave Woods wrote:

> Ron Wrote,

>
> No question that if you don't start out that way it's a big drag to
> begin it this late in life. That said I can see the benefit of having
> to completely learning the neck. It also necessitates moving around
> by feel. I'm at the stage where as soon as I take my eyes off the
> page I'm lost. Happens with recreational reading also. I think I can
> partly blame dyslexia. Sometimes reading I reverse whole words like I
> often do with letters when typing.
>

> Dave,here
>
> I like Ron am dyslexic. Plus, I was born with an excellent ear.
>
> Dave Woods

[Dave Woods]

Ron Wrote,

No question that if you don't start out that way it's a big drag to
begin it this late in life. That said I can see the benefit of having
to completely learning the neck. It also necessitates moving around
by feel. I'm at the stage where as soon as I take my eyes off the
page I'm lost. Happens with recreational reading also. I think I can
partly blame dyslexia. Sometimes reading I reverse whole words like I
often do with letters when typing.

Dave,here

I like Ron am dyslexic. Plus, I was born with an excellent ear.

I read music better without the guitar in my hands than with it.
I can write down what I hear, and can sing the melody in my head pretty much
I look at a tune on the page.
I worked as an arranger and could write out all the parts as I heard them.
When I played on my dates, I already knew the part. I wrote it. Most of my
playing situations were all improvisational.
I have no excuse. I never learned to be a good sight reader because I was
too Goddamn lazy. That's it.
As far as the guitar is concerned I know it inside out. I can play anything
I hear, and put together anything I want to.
When all is said and done, I love the guitar with all of its short comings,
and I've never been able to put it down.

Dave Woods

[msc...@comcast.net]

"Nope, people have been banging on stuff ("drumming") long
before the piano was around."

Sorry, I should have clarified that... I was only referring to "tonal" instruments, or "melodic" or whatever you want to call it.

And, yes I realize drums can be tuned, and there are things like timpani and roto-drums etc, and the whole argument over whether instruments like vibes and xylophone are considred drums or not, etc.  I have no interest in going there...

Put it this way, drums were excluded from that statement.

[Bob Hansmann]

Dyslexia is tough. Or should I say, hgout si aixelsyd?

> Just a guess here, but the learning progress enhancement you mention,
> would it be safe to say that the real benefits begin to accrue a ways
> into the process?

The staff was specifically designed to show intervallic distances
between notes. It was also designed to show line to line and space to
space odd intervals, as well as line to space and space to line even
intervals.

The writing of time, the aspect which is really hardest of all for most
students, is easily written using standard notation.

With standard notation, the commonly seen voicings become familiar
quickly to the reader. Even the dreaded "up the neck" voicings become
easy to read with familiarty. For example, even taking a simple tune
like "Autumn Leaves", and fingering it into different positions makes
that reading much, much easier.

All harmony and theory and orchestration and contrapuntal studies are
best facilitated through standard notation.

Relationships (range, &c) from instrument to instrument are clearly
shown through standard notation.

Transposition by clef is WAY superior to the way that most guitarists
try to do it.

Standard tunes sheet music can be used from instrument to instrument,
without the need for a special crutch sheet for guitarists.

&c., &c., &c.

If a student starts out using standard notation, then as he progresses
as a guitarist, he is simultaneously growing as a reader, instead of
having to try to add it on later.

That's enough from me. Your turn, Juan,

best,
Bobby

[dal_gtr06]

--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Woods" <david_woods@...> wrote:
you will
> never just play the straight arpeggio. It will be a melodic idea that
> incorporates the arpeggio. I say once you have an arpeggio under your
> hands, "PLAY" with it, work out melodic ideas within it for your expressive
> vocabulary, and bit by bit try to use them in the tune. It's necessary to
> always keep an overview of the entire process in mind, and a tune is what
> gives that to you.

As my instructor says...learn the tune, play the tune...use the "pool of notes available" within each key section of the tune...learn to hear the changes...most of all play what you here...practice the arpeggios to get them completely under your fingers and second nature...eventually you will begin to hear them fit in to what you are doing as you improvise (it will just happen) and then you will incorporate them.

[rguitarjj]

I don't think reading single notes is all that difficult, although some passages can be tough to get up to speed. Reading chords written out on stems is hard, at least for me. I have the impression that pianists have an easier time with it -- more practice over the years -- and no choice about where to play the notes.

--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, Robert Cole <rmcgmn15@...> wrote:
>

[Bob Hansmann]

> > Standard notation was originally developed for keyboard instruments

Actually, it was first used for chorale singers. The 5 fingers were help
up, and moved to indicate pitch. Those 5 fingers became the 5 lines of
the staff.

I'm guessing that Tom Williams can be of more help here than me. Tom?

Bobby

[Bob Hansmann]

> .. As is needing to know how to transpose.. One button do it...

Transposition is a very necessary skill.

BTW, Anyone here remember Irving Berlin's famous transposing piano?

Bobby

[JVeg...@aol.com]

Bobby,

I didn't get mad, no offense taken, totally. I just didn't respond
at the time.

Cheers,
JV

Juan Vega

In a message dated 11/13/2009 1:46:30 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
bobby...@verizon.net writes:

That's what I've been telling you, but you got mad when I said you wee
"pissing in the wind".

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

[John Amato]

I don't think it's "discouragement" (sic), as much as it is
the realization that there's more involved than most people
want to invest.

Cheers,
JV



Juan,
I would often "lecture" my students exactly on this subject: 'if you want it bad enough, nothing will get in your way. Wanting it bad enough equates with one's intents and purposes for realization "in the real world" of results based on WORK --- success derived from nothing more or less that WORK -- albeit, "talent" is just a code name for "arriving to the table" with a well-seasoned taste .....


_,_._,___

[David Beardsley]

Bob Hansmann wrote:
>> .. As is needing to know how to transpose.. One button do it...
>>
>
> Transposition is a very necessary skill.
>
> BTW, Anyone here remember Irving Berlin's famous transposing piano?
>

That's not the piano with a wammy bar is it?

--
* David Beardsley
* http://biink.com

[Angelo]

But, god help you if the piano is out of tune and/or has a couple of keys
broken... I guess that now, with the digital keyboards that's a thing of the
past.. As is needing to know how to transpose.. One button do it...

[JVeg...@aol.com]

"Reading chords written out on stems is hard, at least for
me. I have the impression that pianists have an easier time
with it -- more practice over the years -- and no choice about
where to play the notes."

Pianists do indeed read multiple notes (on multiple clefs) more
often than guitar players, but if you're reading guitar music, as
you do it more, it becomes easier. I don't necessarily agree
you always have a choice about where the notes are played,
especially if the music was written for guitar by someone who is
familiar with the instrument. Voicings start to look familiar, and
somewhat less intimidating. Not saying it's "easier", but with
practice, everything gets more solid. I understand Barry Galbraith
was a monster chord cluster reader, and my guess is he really
knew the fingerboard, and practiced a bunch. I studied w/ Matt
Elgart, a terrific classical guitarist, and his knowledge and skill
at this stuff were exemplary.

If you're reading stuff somebody else wrote, then Katy bar the door,
all bets are off. I've seen stuff that has voicings that were clearly
copied from a piano part, and just ain't gonna happen, and then
there're those "voicings" that have bass notes outside of the guitar's
range, etc. In those cases, you do what you can, and hope
for the best...

Cheers,
JV

Juan Vega

[Bob Hansmann]

>
> That's not the piano with a wammy bar is it?

No.

[msc...@comcast.net]

"The product of a public school music program is generally mediocre at
absolute best - they are notorious for it. School music programs are by
design only intended to provide exposure to music and an instrument. To
attempt more than that is to attempt the impossible. Usually even that
goal is quite often not met, but the hope is that through this exposure,
the student will be inspired to take on private studies."

You're completely correct.  My point was not the value of the school program, in fact, I supported what you say... by stating that unless you take private lessons you won't be much of a player.  However... my point was less on the "who", "what" & "how" you are getting taught... and more-so on the "when".

What I was saying is, regardless of the value of the education... traditionally more "classical" instruments, including piano, are started at a younger age then a guitar is.  Maybe this is less true today then it was when I was growing up 30 years ago... but I think it's still safe to say that when someone says they've been playing guitar since they were 10 yrs old they are generally considered to have started at a young age.

For something like violin or piano, you'd likely say, "well, yeah thats about average, I guess.  If not slightly older than most"...

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

[g_u_i_t_a_r]

Am 13.11.2009 20:57, schrieb Ron Becker:
> But that and 8 bux would get me a
> cup of coffee in Germany

Perhaps in 10 year. Nowadays a buck is pretty close to an euro :)

Best regards
JoCa

[Dub Deklawni]

--- On Fri, 11/13/09, msc...@comcast.net <msc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> I've found this to be the reason why whenever children see
> a piano (and adults!), they feel the need to run up to it
> and start banging on the keys. Push the key down, sound
> comes out. This is a natural, "fun" thing to do, and very
> easy to do.

check this out: :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lXh2n0aPyw

Piano Stairs . . .

[John Amato]

> Standard notation was originally developed for keyboard instruments, not the guitar. Most people find learning standard notation for playing guitar very, very challanging and for many it is too challanging. That's probably why tablature is still around. Unfortunately that's the reality of what a guitar wanna be has to deal with.
>

Yes, but if you want it bad enough you'll do anything you have to in order to master the instrument. Case in point: many of the seniors here (those who broke their teeth in the 50 and 60s) had nothing but notation ... their was no such thing as TAB ... and we learned by doing what we loved best -- no matter what it took.
I'd say that TAB may (or can become) a detriment to the semi-serious or half=hearted student, or hobbyist of the guitar because it (TAB) it can lead them down a down end street -- meaning that not all serious music is in TAB -- besides the fact that TAB is not musically correct -- just see how it tries to lay out rhythmic figures on the TAB staff ... one HAS to listen to the music --- that is not musicianship -- and that is one of the reasons I say that it cold be detrimental to a serious student who really needs to understand music notation in terms of accurate and true musical markings and how to play,interpret and understand the music.

[rguitarjj]

Good point. Come to think of it, I'm usually faced with reading piano charts. I don't read music written specifically for guitar very often. In some cases there is a way to play the piano voicing, but sometimes it isn't obvious. It can take some time to figure out whether or not it's possible given the overall progression and tempo. If not, then it takes some time to figure out what to omit and how to handle the voice leading.

How often does a jazz guitarist get a chart with guitar-specific voicings written out on stems? What I see in the music I play is that the composers and arrangers (even ones who play guitar) use complex chord symbols and then don't play all the notes. So you're faced with trying to figure out what they meant.

Does anybody on here routinely see chord symbols on stems, written for guitar, in their jazz work?

[funkifized34]

--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, Bob Hansmann <bobbybmusic@...> wrote:
>
> Rick,
> >
> > But, another thing is that the guitar isn't usually taught with
> > massive amounts of graded reading material.
>
> This is absolutely true, and in too many cases. The problem comes from
> the fact that way too many "teachers" are really not qualified. Many are
> not good readers themselves, have no knowledge of repertoire or guitar
> studies which are existent, do not really understand a whole lot of
> theory and harmony, and were, for the most part, self- taught (usually
> rock wannabes) themselves.
>
> This makes it very hard for a student to find a good teacher in the
> first place. When I get a student who's left one of these "teachers", I
> have my work cut out for me - it's up to me to turn around a lot of
> wrong-isms. Some of those students understand and throw themselves into
> it, and some have layers of misconceptions to unravel before they get
> it. All I can do is be sensitive to the issue at hand, and do my best to
> turn the student around. Most of these students would have been better
> off had they just tried to learn on their own first instead of trying to
> study under one of these "teachers" - the negative effect of it having
> been that strong.
>
> This is something which will never change. It's the same lack of
> integrity that finds its way into all businesses, human nature being
> what it is. These "teachers" are determined to make that extra buck,
> regardless of the consequences to their trusting and vulnerable students.
>
> best,
> Bobby


Oh, man, do I agree with that. I see this more often than not. I get some students that just are not going to read, and the only way I can get them to learn is to work on tunes that they're interested in. It's another way to learn which can be valid, as learning is always good. It's all good for the ears, but damn, it's really difficult to teach an inexperienced student without the aid of reading. It's like trying to teach someone to be a great orator without learning to read their native language. It certainly can be done, and the person who does this is likely to connect better with his/her words, as more focus will need to be spent on the learning process, but damn, it's difficult, and it's likely to discourage the learner enough to quit rather than become proficient at it. True to form, the vast majority of students who refuse to learn to read fail and give up. Most students who read from the beginning don't really understand that reading is "difficult", and they tend to stick with guitar, or come back to it. Even the reading students who take time off for summer or whatever are more likely to return to continue lessons.

As they used to say in the commercials, reading is fundamental. Of course the only players who disagree with this are the non-readers. There are certainly non-readers who understand that it's important to learn to read, but I've never met a reader who wishes he/she hadn't learned to read.

[rguitarjj]

This is not a defense of tab, in fact this post has nothing to do with tab.

Rather, it's about standard notation. I've been frustrated with the difficulty of getting enough information in a chart to actually have the tune sound right when good readers play it (having never heard the tune). By "right" I mean to sound something like the composer's original intention. Obviously, if you don't care about that, this post won't make sense.

It is incredibly laborious to notate the proper feel of the rhythm section (this is on Brazilian music). I have a number of professionally done charts by a well known arranger (well known if you're a genre insider, anyway) and they have the same problem. Even though the charts can run 5 or 6 pages, you still have to listen to the recording to get it right.

Well, I can't resist. The situation with tab is parallel, in a way. If you want to learn to play a Beatle's song and sound like the record, and you can't read standard notation, tab will really help. But, you still have to know how the song is supposed to sound.

Standard notation gives a lot more information, but, in the end, if you want to sound like the recording, you're going to have to listen to the recording. Standard notation might be capable of notating everything, but the time required to do it could be ridiculous.

[Bob Hansmann]

> ...By "right" I mean to sound something like the composer's original
> intention....&c.

Yes, it is the musician's job to be able to capture the nuance of the
piece. This is true whether the music is Classical (Early, Renaissance,
Baroque, Classic, Romantic, Modern, &c. also) , Jazz, Swing, Folk,
Blues, Pop, Rock, Country, Argentinian, Brazilian, Flamenco, Cuban, or
frikkin' Disco.

Some players merely play what is written, and it sounds like it. Try
playing "Night & Day' stiff as a board, and you'll see what I mean.

The ability to capture nuance is part of what makes a better musician, a
better musician. Obviously, no musician has every single style down. Try
learning a Flamenco piece (notated, TAB, or even by ear, thinking you've
got it down), and performing it for a real flamenco affectionato, and
you'll see what I mean. As another example, Segovia was a good reader,
but I don't think I'd ever put a simple Beatle tune in front of him.

This fits in with the thread on reading, and doesn't at the same time.
No written anything can absolutely spoon feed the reader all of the
nuances. If it could, critics would have nothing to write about, now
would they; "So & So read the score correctly; So & So did not read the
score correctly." Further, the writer should have the license to
simplify timings on some music (such as Pop tunes, Real Book, &c.), with
the expectation that the player will know how to interpret properly.

Even simple assembly directions require thought.

best,
Bobby

[Angelo]

If it's so difficult to teach a student without his/her learning to read
first, how do you account for the success of the Suzuki Method and the
European Solfegge Method.
I knew a NY studio musician who went to study sax with a local Italian
teacher. The teacher wouldn't let him touch the horn for two years... When
he did, he progressed very quickly...
There is also the Dalcroze Method, where students move to various rhythms
until they can move various parts of their bodies in a polyrhythmic fashion.

I was studying with a top classical bassist who was involved with this
method who said that students coming to him from these eurythmic studies had
no problems with the most complex scores as regards rhythms, which, I think
most would agree, is the most difficult aspect of reading music....
It seems that what these systems do is to use methods wherein the music is
internalized before looking at the dots and stems. Similar to how we learn
to read a language we are fairly fluent in already..

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------