how to practice patterns?

[Paul Cohn]

I'm trying to incorporate more patterns into my practice routine, so that I can get away from using the same licks/patterns when playing certain scales, free up my playing and get more material under my fingers... The problem is when it comes to actually practicing patterns, I get kind of stuck. There's so much to practice that I don't know where to begin and end, even on a single pattern for a single mode or scale - I could practice the pattern slowly for accuracy, work it up to 300 bpm, play it in every key, and then i could do all of that playing the pattern either picking every note or playing legato.... I really want to get some of these patterns under my fingers but I don't know how to approach them, how far to take them..to be thorough, I could spend days working on a single pattern in a single key. Ideas?

[Joe Finn]

"Paul Cohn" <psc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a7c15082-32cb-41b3...@googlegroups.com...

That's exactly the problem. There are so many scales and related patterns
that no one will live long enough to play them all. Van Eps had made a few
comments in that regard as I recall. The trick is to identify the ones that
you really love and then by all means work on them; but not to the extent
that it dominates your style. All jazz players have pet licks that can be
identified, so even legendary players do this.

It sounds like the way you are approaching the practice routine is fine but
the decision making process is getting you bogged down. Practicing patterns
is just one aspect of your overall routine. Don't neglect the reading,
improvisation, development of repertoire, etc. .....joe

--
Visit me on the web www.JoeFinn.net

[David Raleigh Arnold]

On Thu, 31 May 2012 20:18:11 -0700, Paul Cohn wrote:

> I'm trying to incorporate more patterns into my practice routine, so
> that I can get away from using the same licks/patterns when playing
> certain scales, free up my playing and get more material under my
> fingers... The problem is when it comes to actually practicing patterns,
> I get kind of stuck.

There has been no decent tech in the jazz guitar world.
This is, and will remain, the best tech:

http://www.openguitar.com/dynamic.html

Licks are something entirely else. Practice what you
want to hear, and play. The best way to develop your
own style is to copy that which you like.
Regards, daveA

--
Guitar teaching materials and original music for all styles and levels.
Site: http://www.openguitar.com (()) eMail: d.raleig...@gmail.com
Contact: http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html"

[Gerry]

On 2012-06-01 03:18:11 +0000, Paul Cohn said:

I think you're trying to address multiple questions.

> I'm trying to incorporate more patterns into my practice routine, so
> that I can get away from using the same licks/patterns when playing
> certain scales, free up my playing and get more material under my
> fingers...

Always a good idea.

> The problem is when it comes to actually practicing patterns, I get
> kind of stuck. There's so much to practice that I don't know where to
> begin and end, even on a single pattern for a single mode or scale - I
> could practice the pattern slowly for accuracy, work it up to 300 bpm,
> play it in every key, and then i could do all of that playing the
> pattern either picking every note or playing legato....

Sure there is much to consider. Consider this primarily and forget the
rest for now: First learn the ONE pattern at hand accurately in all the
5 (CAGED) positions or 7 positions (Leavitt) or whatever you use. Make
sure you can play it ascending and descending in one pattern and at a
medium tempo accurately. Then begin ascending in one and descending in
the next position using the cycle of fifths. This is teching you to
change positions under the pattern. Repeat that till you feel
comfortable with it's accuracy. A couple hours a day and you should be
done with this ONE patttern in less than a week.

How about this one, diatonic: 13 24 35 46… That's what I call "broken
thirds". If you can't do that in all positions go learn it.

Then you're done with that pattern for now. Go get another pattern.

There is also broken fourths, fifths and sixths. I found broken 7ths a
waste of time. Or this one: 123 234 345 456 678. Or this one: 1234
2345 3456 4567. And remember to play them both directions so 4321 5432
6543 7654--that's a different pattern which you'll need to learn both
ascending and descending.

There's 1357, 2468, 3579… There's 1235 2346 3457… There's 1231 2342
3453… Stick with diatonic for a while. Eventually you can begin adding
leading tones, but that's after you've got 15 or 20 of these things
down cold.

Memorize them accurately--one at a time--until you can play it in all
positions. Then move on to the next one. Once you've learned these you
can go through an entire cycle. In a few minutes and they can be part
of your "warm up" process rather than the focus of a practice session.

But FIRST you have to have them memorized completely thouroughly and
play-in-the-dark solid. Or play them with your eyes closed away from
the guitar.

I learned them and then practiced them playing them in the cycle of
fifths, then 2nds, then b7ths then b3rds then 6ths.

> I really want to get some of these patterns under my fingers but I
> don't know how to approach them, how far to take them..to be thorough,
> I could spend days working on a single pattern in a single key. Ideas?

Pick a SINGLE pattern, learn it in all positions until it is thoroughly
memorized, then go on to the next one. One a week is fair.

Do you some of those I've mentioned memorized alread? Which ones?
--
If one plays good music, people don't listen and if one plays bad music
people don't talk. -- Oscar Wilde

[Paul K]

On 5/31/12 11:18 PM, Paul Cohn wrote:
> I'm trying to incorporate more patterns into my practice routine, so that I can get away from using the same licks/patterns when playing certain scales, free up my playing and get more material under my fingers... The problem is when it comes to actually practicing patterns, I get kind of stuck. There's so much to practice that I don't know where to begin and end, even on a single pattern for a single mode or scale - I could practice the pattern slowly for accuracy, work it up to 300 bpm, play it in every key, and then i could do all of that playing the pattern either picking every note or playing legato.... I really want to get some of these patterns under my fingers but I don't know how to approach them, how far to take them..to be thorough, I could spend days working on a single pattern in a single key. Ideas?

Work a pattern you are trying to internalize into an arrangement of a
standard, so that you'll have a reference point, and will be able to use
it in similar contexts, like quoting one tune inside another tune.





--
Paul K
http://www.youtube.com/user/fibrationboy
http://www.soundclick.com/paulkirk
http://mypage.iu.edu/~pkirk/

[335]

On May 31, 10:18 pm, Paul Cohn <psc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm trying to incorporate more patterns into my practice routine, so that I can get away from using the same licks/patterns when playing certain scales, free up my playing and get more material under my fingers... The problem is when it comes to actually practicing patterns, I get kind of stuck. There's so much to practice that I don't know where to begin and end, even on a single pattern for a single mode or scale - I could practice the pattern slowly for accuracy, work it up to 300 bpm, play it in every key, and then i could do all of that playing the pattern either picking every note or playing legato.... I really want to get some of these patterns under my fingers but I don't know how to approach them, how far to take them..to be thorough, I could spend days working on a single pattern in a single key. Ideas?

the best advice I received about this issue is to apply whatever
patterns you are practicing to actual tunes. Otherwise you can get
bogged down. I practiced a lot of patterns from the David Baker ii V
I book and from the Jerry Coker book. It was somewhat useful but I
think the time I spent on it would have been more productive if I had
chosen a smaller number of patterns and worked harder on actually
making music with them rather than spending time playing them through
the keys etc... speaking for myself, practicing patterns sort of
created an illusion that I was doing a lot and accomplishing a lot
but when it came time to play music the patterns didn't come out in my
playing as much as I would have liked. all of this takes a lot of
practice and experience to really integrate it into your playing.

[Gerry]

On 2012-06-01 15:00:29 +0000, 335 said:

> the best advice I received about this issue is to apply whatever
> patterns you are practicing to actual tunes. Otherwise you can get
> bogged down.

Other good advice: Don't get bogged down. Don't do it to the exclusion
of all else. This can be said about all other things too.

> I practiced a lot of patterns from the David Baker ii V
> I book and from the Jerry Coker book.

That's what I used when I first started doing this stuff too.

> It was somewhat useful but I
> think the time I spent on it would have been more productive if I had
> chosen a smaller number of patterns and worked harder on actually
> making music with them rather than spending time playing them through
> the keys etc...

It's true that when you're facing these big ol' books chock full of
these things it can make it seem daunting or one can accept the
challenge and spend a ridiculous amount of energy on it. While I don't
recommend making a life of it, the amount of time spent working on
repetitive patterns in all positions helps a lot of technical
proficiency in navigating the neck with fluency. That's helpful too.
Particularly because for some of us the repertoire and intended styles
sometimes aren't the defining factors of our growth: They change too.

> ...speaking for myself, practicing patterns sort of

> created an illusion that I was doing a lot and accomplishing a lot
> but when it came time to play music the patterns didn't come out in my
> playing as much as I would have liked. all of this takes a lot of
> practice and experience to really integrate it into your playing.

Yeah, I didn't discuss that at all in my previous post, because I think
one works technical devices and skills into your playing in your own
way. There's no guidebook I know of that explains when and how you will
instinctively grab this or that skill and insert actually weave it into
your thinking and playing.

But as with all techniques, the more that you have ready for easy
access, the more your creativity has to build with.

[Joey Goldstein]

On 5/31/12 11:18 PM, Paul Cohn wrote:

> I'm trying to incorporate more patterns into my practice routine, so that I can get away from using the same licks/patterns when playing certain scales, free up my playing and get more material under my fingers... The problem is when it comes to actually practicing patterns, I get kind of stuck. There's so much to practice that I don't know where to begin and end, even on a single pattern for a single mode or scale - I could practice the pattern slowly for accuracy, work it up to 300 bpm, play it in every key, and then i could do all of that playing the pattern either picking every note or playing legato.... I really want to get some of these patterns under my fingers but I don't know how to approach them, how far to take them..to be thorough, I could spend days working on a single pattern in a single key. Ideas?

There are at least two reasons why you might want to practice certain
patterns and neither of them really require memorization necessarily.

1. Technical proficiency
This involves coming up up with decent fingerings and also coming up
with logical flowing picking strategies.

2. Ear training
Exposing your ears to the various intervallic combinations within
various patterns will familiarize your ears with those sounds and
sequences of sounds.

And there are at least two ways, as an improviser, that these sounds
might find their way into your jazz solos.

1. Intuitively
Without even noticing it, when you go to play what you hear, you'll
probably include some of these patterns in your lines simply because you
learned to hear them when you were practising them.

2. By means of will
Some of these things are just plain hard to hear, possibly because they
go against against the norms of the diatonic scale and/or because they
are being superimposed on top of something else and it's hard to keep
your mind on both tonalities when you're playing bi-tonal stuff.
So you'll have to practice plugging in these patterns on purpose within
your improv practice until they come out more naturally in your playing.
This can involve simply practising blowing over a tune and throwing in
the pattern you're trying to assimilate or it might involve actually
composing several choruses over a tune while utilizing said pattern in a
way that appeals to you.

Keep in mind though that, generally speaking, there is kind of a taboo
within the jazz community about having too many *obvious* patterns
within your solos.
The preferred aesthetic is to have your solos consist of great melodies
as opposed to predictable obvious patterns.

Still, many great melodies are comprised (in part) of patterned
sequences of notes, but there is usually also something else going on
above and beyond the pattern itself.
Or, the obvious aspects of the pattern might be obscured by some other
characteristic of the line, eg. a broken rhythm or repeated notes within
the pattern.
Sometimes, simply breaking up the rhythm of the notes in a predictable
pattern can serve to obscure the fact that the line consists of a
pattern at all.

I think the main objection to pattern playing is really just the
predictability that most repeated patterns can suffer from.
But the other side of the coin is that those same patterns tend to sound
good because of their predictability to some degree.
It's all about balance.

Good luck.


--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://home.primus.ca/~joegold/AudioClips/audio.htm>

[rpjazzguitar]

This response may not be quite on target.

It sounds like you're looking for new ideas to supplement your current repertoire of licks/patterns.

It seems reasonably clear that if you practice a pattern well enough, it's going to end up in your playing. That's the idea and, apparently, it's already worked for you.

So, my thought is not to pick "patterns" mathematically, but, rather, to find a melodic phrase that you really like and get it under your fingers all over the neck and in every key. Some used CAGED or a similar system. My thought is that your idea starts on a particular note. Whatever note that is, is present on the guitar in only a handful of places. Depending on the complexity and speed of the lick, start on each one, with each finger. Some fingerings won't really work, but it is possible to get to the point where you don't have to think about what finger or position you started in.

Then, once you can play the thing, start working it into tunes. Bear in mind that the idea can probably be played against different harmonic content. That is, an idea that you first heard against a major chord may also work against different major chords, minor chords and/or dominants.

I have spent a fair amount of time practicing patterns like broken thirds. Some of that stuff I wish I could get out of my playing. If I had it to do over again, I'd spend more time lifting melodic content and less time thinking about numbers. The numeric approach can build chops, but I'd find ways to do that with melody, like reading the Omnibook or practicing bop heads or something.

[TD]

On May 31, 11:18 pm, Paul Cohn <psc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm trying to incorporate more patterns into my practice routine, so that I can get away from using the same licks/patterns when playing certain scales, free up my playing and get more material under my fingers... The problem is when it comes to actually practicing patterns, I get kind of stuck. There's so much to practice that I don't know where to begin and end, even on a single pattern for a single mode or scale - I could practice the pattern slowly for accuracy, work it up to 300 bpm, play it in every key, and then i could do all of that playing the pattern either picking every note or playing legato.... I really want to get some of these patterns under my fingers but I don't know how to approach them, how far to take them..to be thorough, I could spend days working on a single pattern in a single key. Ideas?

Eliminate practicing them altogether or at least minimize them by not
making a federal case out of it. It is a waste of time on a treadmill
inside a vacuum. You are already witnessing that. There are infinite
possibilities for patterns, yes, but that's just it, even if you
"memorized 100 of them in every key, you would still not be doing
justice to the remaining 10,000 and beyond. I suggest concentrating on
the scale realm you wish to attend to at the moment, hold down a pedal
tone of a root and 5th and then the remaining lesser potent pedals
while exploring the remaining notes in that particular scale ( also
applying approach notes into those scale steps) in the soprano (add
harmony in between afterward). In so doing, you will come up with many
"Paternizations", if you desire. Many of us do not. And such findings
will be a lot closer to serendipity than to contrived particles of
insincerity. They will also be heard and thus readily assimilated
within the surrounding contextual activity. You will learn, hear and
feel all the respective resonances there of. The "key" ingredient is
resonance and not rote when it comes to jazz.



You never saw this message.



-TD

[to.vi...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 1, 2012 10:38:21 AM UTC-7, TD wrote:
> On May 31, 11:18 pm, Paul Cohn

Well put, thanks for your insight!

[to.vi...@gmail.com]

I'm glad you mentioned the ear training benefit, which seems to get overlooked in discussions on practicing patterns, and scales.

[Paul Cohn]

Basically my reasoning for practicing patterns is for greater technical proficiency of the guitar..there comes a lot of times when I'm playing and I'm hearing something, for example some kind of melodic pattern that I want to repeat a couple times through the scale, but I can't execute it because my fingers don't know the way. This is definitely a small part - maybe 30 minutes or less a day - of my entire practice, which includes other stuff like sightreading, repertoire, improvisation, transcribing, etc.

[Gerry]

On 2012-06-01 20:04:49 +0000, Paul Cohn said:

> Basically my reasoning for practicing patterns is for greater technical
> proficiency of the guitar..there comes a lot of times when I'm playing
> and I'm hearing something, for example some kind of melodic pattern
> that I want to repeat a couple times through the scale, but I can't
> execute it because my fingers don't know the way.

Amazing you should say it and in just that way. That's exactly how I
think about it. I wanted to play a sequence here, over there, and then
go up a few steps with some more iterations. If you've never done it,
you can't do it. If you don't memorize how to do it, then you always
have to "figure out" how to do it anew. That's not to say that you have
to practice the memorization.

I wonder--do others think one should not memorize diatonic scale-tone
chords or inversions too?

> This is definitely a small part - maybe 30 minutes or less a day - of
> my entire practice, which includes other stuff like sightreading,
> repertoire, improvisation, transcribing, etc.

I asked earlier: Have you memorized such patterns as broken thirds and
fourths or limited complexity patterns like 123, 1234, 1231, 132435 in
all positions--anything like that before?

[van]

Playing Patterns at very fast tempos can be pretty difficult on the guitar because of the problem of cross picking.
I play the Hanon patterns up to 332bpm using alt. picking (because a guitarist I used to teach with at a studio ages ago used to use them- he had great technique, but all he played was Johnny Mac, so his jazz sucked), but any faster than that is beyond me because of the crosspicking challenges.
Most classical etudes, like the Klose studies are just patterns sequenced throughout the scale, so they would probably help you

[Gerry]

On 2012-06-02 00:08:45 +0000, van said:

> Playing Patterns at very fast tempos can be pretty difficult on the
> guitar because of the problem of cross picking.

Setting high speed aside, you consider playing patterns a valuable
thing for a guitarist to do then?

> I play the Hanon patterns up to 332bpm using alt. picking (because a
> guitarist I used to teach with at a studio ages ago used to use them-
> he had great technique, but all he played was Johnny Mac, so his jazz
> sucked), but any faster than that is beyond me because of the
> crosspicking challenges.

I used to play Hanon on the piano many many years ago, and
tried--somewhat half-heartedly--to apply to the guitar. But many of
them were simply not feasible as I recall.

Then I found a Hanon for Guitar in a used bookstore I gave it about 10
minutes, and considered it to rudimentary. But that was a long time
ago. I think I'll revisit it.

> Most classical etudes, like the Klose studies are just patterns

> sequenced throughout the scale, so they would probably help you.

I think massaging that until it fit into actual repertoire may be more
of a brain-stretch.

[Paul Cohn]

>
> I asked earlier: Have you memorized such patterns as broken thirds and
> fourths or limited complexity patterns like 123, 1234, 1231, 132435 in
> all positions--anything like that before?

I'm not sure what you qualify as memorizing, but I've certainly worked on those types of things... fourths and higher are something I haven't spend enough time with, they give me some trouble, scalar patterns are usually pretty good, but I'd like to work on more interesting ones as well, like 1342, some more arpeggio based patterns at Rosenwinkel patterns....

Usually my pattern practice has been free form when it comes to major and melodic minor- I would just improvise around a scale and try to work in some patterns as I go. I haven't rigidly practiced patterns much. Now, I'm working specifically on whole tone and diminished and I'm trying to get down these scales with some patterns like those, but I'm getting bogged down with all the possibilities of tempo, style, fingering, etc which is why I brought up the discussion. After I feel more comfortable with applying whole tone and diminished scales in my playing I'm going to add back in major, melodic minor, harmonic minor etc and hopefully figure out a good pattern regimen that will .

[rpjazzguitar]

Being able to hear a line and have your fingers go to it automatically is a fundamental skill.

I think there are probably a lot of ways to get there. The usual route of transcribing/lifting solos would work well. I think it can be done by reading a lot of melody (although that won't train your ear as well). Probably, the more time you spend listening to something and then finding it on the guitar, the better.

Formal ear training might help too.

As the lines get faster or trickier, you may have to build in some advanced technique for picking/fingering. Some of that stuff just has to be worked out in advance to get up to speed.

[Gerry]

On 2012-06-02 00:24:37 +0000, Paul Cohn said:

>> I asked earlier: Have you memorized such patterns as broken thirds and>
>> fourths or limited complexity patterns like 123, 1234, 1231, 132435 in>
>> all positions--anything like that before?
>
> I'm not sure what you qualify as memorizing, but I've certainly worked
> on those types of things...

Being able to do them straight up and down in any one position with
very little inaccuracy or hesitation. Then doing this again in your
other 4 to 6 positions. If you can do that it's "memorized" in my
estimation. Picking patterns, legato considerations, and speed--all
have to follow memorization.

> ...fourths and higher are something I haven't spend enough time with,

> they give me some trouble, scalar patterns are usually pretty good, but
> I'd like to work on more interesting ones as well, like 1342,

I think of that as alternating directions in broken thirds. If you can
do broken thirds, up and down in one position: 13, 24, 35 and
"top-first": 31, 42, 53, then it's pretty easy to alternate them. Same
with 4ths, 5ths, 6ths. In any case they all have to be addressed *to
conclusion* to consider them known and understood: memorized.

> …some more arpeggio based patterns at Rosenwinkel patterns....

> Usually my pattern practice has been free form when it comes to major
> and melodic minor- I would just improvise around a scale and try to
> work in some patterns as I go. I haven't rigidly practiced patterns
> much. Now, I'm working specifically on whole tone and diminished and
> I'm trying to get down these scales with some patterns like those, but
> I'm getting bogged down with all the possibilities of tempo, style,
> fingering, etc which is why I brought up the discussion.

I understand completely it reflects my own approach in my 20's. I would
suggest you address straight patterns as discussed in major scales till
that's nailed. "Free forming it" with more complex mechanism doesn't
mean much (in my experience) if it can't be replicated and directed to
specific ends. Again--my approach. I spent many years free-forming it
with widely varying results before adopting discipline, directed
activity, named targets and documented progress as the best route for
my needs.

It wasn't easy for me when I was young. It produced a lot of tension
and frustration and so forth. But--once memorized--the repetitions
actually summoned relaxation. And the more I did them the less I
"thought" about them. Eventually they came to me without thought.
That's my experience.

"Free forming it" is playing, it's not learning or "practicing" per se.
It's certainly more fun though. Some even recommend against memorizing
or playing patterns altogether as you've seen upstream. To me that is
absolutely incomprehensible. I want my hands to be prepared to do
whatever I can think of, and having already done it a few thousand
times is the best route for me.

This is not ALL of music: this is not a replacement for repertoire,
this won't teach you "jazz phrasing" or exciting rhythmic explorations,
this isn't any of the other things that may be suggested that you
should do instead of not doing patterns.

> After I feel more comfortable with applying whole tone and diminished
> scales in my playing I'm going to add back in major, melodic minor,
> harmonic minor etc and hopefully figure out a good pattern regimen that
> will .

I think whole tone and diminished scales are a lot of fun. But I think
complete control over the major scale is a more important goal. Again,
just my opinion.

Now to be followed, no doubt, by a dissimilar viewpoints. :-)

[Gerry]

On 2012-06-02 01:20:53 +0000, rpjazzguitar said:

> Being able to hear a line and have your fingers go to it automatically
> is a fundamental skill.
> I think there are probably a lot of ways to get there. The usual route
> of transcribing/lifting solos would work well.

It will also help to shape the way you think about building and
constructing lines. If you transcribe 50 or 60 Jim Hall solos you're
likely to sound a lot more like Jim Hall when you're "being creative".

> I think it can be done by reading a lot of melody (although that won't
> train your ear as well). Probably, the more time you spend listening to
> something and then finding it on the guitar, the better.
>
> Formal ear training might help too.
>
> As the lines get faster or trickier, you may have to build in some
> advanced technique for picking/fingering. Some of that stuff just has
> to be worked out in advance to get up to speed.

All important stuff. But honestly, I think his desire to learn
patterns is not ill-placed.

[Paul Cohn]

> > As the lines get faster or trickier, you may have to build in some
> > advanced technique for picking/fingering. Some of that stuff just has
> > to be worked out in advance to get up to speed.
>
> All important stuff. But honestly, I think his desire to learn
> patterns is not ill-placed.
> --
> If one plays good music, people don't listen and if one plays bad music
> people don't talk. -- Oscar Wilde

are there two yellow gerrys here or is it a bad case of multiple personality disorder?

[TD]

On Jun 1, 4:04 pm, Paul Cohn <psc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Basically my reasoning for practicing patterns is for greater technical proficiency of the guitar..there comes a lot of times when I'm playing and I'm hearing something, for example some kind of melodic pattern that I want to repeat a couple times through the scale, but I can't execute it because my fingers don't know the way. This is definitely a small part - maybe 30 minutes or less a day - of my entire practice, which includes other stuff like sightreading, repertoire, improvisation, transcribing, etc.

Yet you wrote:

"I really want to get some of these patterns under my fingers but I
don't know how to approach them, how far to take them..to be thorough,
I could spend days working on a single pattern in a single key.
Ideas?"

To some of us readers, it can be construed in such a way as you wish
to utilize 'pre-packaged panels' to appear as, or enhance,
improvisation. Presuming that you are not a stone beginner, I do not
see relevance in having to memorize or get patterns "under your
fingers" in order to build technical proficiency (with exception as a
mere ancillary tool), but I would not condemn or laugh at you for
seeking your path. Patterns used as an aid to technique have a
negative aspect, perhaps more than a positive one. It tends to nurture
more of a tendency for "Brickwalldom", because they are fragments that
beg to belong to the surrounding line architecture. You may tend to
trip over yourself after departing the pattern. Your dilemma more than
likely emanates from the plectrum hand.



Only food for thought.

-TD

[Paul Cohn]

On Saturday, June 2, 2012 9:05:58 AM UTC-4, TD wrote:
> On Jun 1, 4:04 pm, Paul Cohn

Technical proficiency includes more than just playing fast and clean, it involves knowing the scales, or as you call architecture, in and out... what better way to get to know your scales than to practice different shapes throughout them? Playing triads or arpeggios through a scale are incredibly common and they're just a pattern. Everyone practices patterns. I don't know any jazz musician who can't play thirds or triads through a scale, to start, and if you can't do that kind of thing you probably don't know your instrument very well. That's part of having good technique, and I'm trying to accomplish that- knowing my scales and instrument in and out so I don't get stuck when improvising with a scale in different ways.

Anyway, the point of this topic was not to start a debate on whether I should practice patterns, or if it's good. I'm going to work on playing thirds, fourths, triads, 7th chords, and melodic patterns through scales regardless of what anyone says. I was simply looking to see if anyone had any ideas on how to go about practicing them, since there are so many variables such as tempo, style, scale, etc.

[TD]

I offered no debate. You faced a dilemma and I tried to help. My
mistake in trying to loosen up your frustration and I think I was
quite civil about it. Again, no good deed goes unpunished. I made no
mention of fast and clean and certainly not as an only thing to
accomplish. I did not know you were at the practicing scales and
arpeggio level. No, not every musician practices "patterns." I
offered solid advice and I did not say forsake your patterns. I
offered a clear explanation on how you can recall what you do by
coming up with intervallic and non-intervallic *scale and arpeggiated*
"fragments" via studying resonance in conjunction with proper right
hand execution. Where the line (whether you call it a pattern or
chicken soup comes from a place and departs to a place. There is where
students tend to face problems that need fixing) is going is quite
important. I am happy to learn that others here have benefited by what
I have intended for you. You can simply ignore all that I have
written. I am OK with it.

-TD

[rpjazzguitar]

The more I think about this, the more I think that the question itself contains some assumptions that need to be examined.

There are, obviously, an infinite number of possible patterns. Practicing each one in every position starting on every finger in every key, well, the combinations are still infinite.

So, the first question is which patterns? How are you going to select them? What are they for? To incorportate in solos? To build chops (if that's different)?

Another question is whether or not we're talking about playing fast or slow. It seems to me that for slow playing, the goal is merely to be able to hear the pattern in your mind and have your fingers find it automatically. That would be nice for fast playing too, but I think for most of us, there's a tempo where it becomes important to have some things worked out.

Another issue is your picking technique. As I understand it, the pure sweep pickers are going to use the same fingering/picking at any tempo. But, some of the alternate pickers don't do that. Warren Nunes had specific techniques for high speed playing that changed fingerings to accommodate pick direction. This has got to be relevant in answering a question about practicing patterns.

So, I don't know how to address this question. I do know that, on those occasions when I learn a lick, I try to hear it in different harmonic contexts, and I want to be able to play it in any key. The issue of harmonic context strikes me as more important than the issue of speed, but, that's because I don't try to play especially fast. So, I'd recommend learning a "pattern" by playing it in different places in songs.

[Paul Cohn]

On Saturday, June 2, 2012 8:02:50 PM UTC-4, TD wrote:
> On Jun 2, 7:05 pm, Paul Cohn

Maybe I misinterpreted your comments, but they were pretty difficult to translate into common tongue.

[RS]

On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 06:05:58 -0700 (PDT), TD <tonyde...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>To some of us readers, it can be construed in such a way as you wish
>to utilize 'pre-packaged panels' to appear as, or enhance,
>improvisation. Presuming that you are not a stone beginner, I do not
>see relevance in having to memorize or get patterns "under your
>fingers" in order to build technical proficiency (with exception as a
>mere ancillary tool), but I would not condemn or laugh at you for
>seeking your path. Patterns used as an aid to technique have a
>negative aspect, perhaps more than a positive one. It tends to nurture
>more of a tendency for "Brickwalldom", because they are fragments that
>beg to belong to the surrounding line architecture. You may tend to
>trip over yourself after departing the pattern.

That's an interesting take on it! I'm one of those who has practiced
lots of patterns. I find that there is a benefit in terms of increased
dexterity--having to reach for things that I ordinarily would not
consider. And some benefit in terms of ear training. But I do believe
that you're exactly right in that there is a 'transition' to overcome
in applying any gains to actual melodic phrases. Not to mention that
it's easy to fall into yet another kind of reflexive playing.

Thanks for the comments, Tony!

[RS]

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 01:15:22 -0700 (PDT), Paul Cohn <psc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Paul, Not sure if you know 'TD' but he's a virtuosic player (IMO) and
has a world of insight on how to learn the instrument. Not that any
degree of skill will trump what you personally need to do to get to
-your- next step. I've drilled patterns for countless hours, so I
can't tell you not to. I will say that Tony's comments made sense to
me: even having tons of patterns 'under my fingers' as you put it,
there's still the problem of translating to real music.

If you do want to pursue patterns, there are many sources. Jerry
Bergonzi wrote a series of books that have some recommendations for
how to get started. Permutations of 1235, 1325, 1523, 1532, etc.
Then inversions. Then learn them in various positions (on guitar, you
can play them in ascending m3's or M2's and end up covering the
ground).

I've also done meticulous drills on arpeggios thru diatonic, melodic
minor, and harmonic minor scales with a metronome eating countless
batteries. Kind of turns into Zen meditation after a while, and I've
found that I do pay more attention to even note attacks and timing
now.

But even with my obsessive, mathematically-oriented mind, I ended up
saying "WTF?" after a while. Did they make a difference in reflex and
ear training? Yes. Can you find use for them as small kernels? Yes,
with qualifications. But there's a limit.

Anyway, Tony's comments are worth reading again, if you didn't get
them the first time. Definitely something to consider after you get
through the patterns phase.

[RS]

On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 10:38:21 -0700 (PDT), TD <tonyde...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On May 31, 11:18 pm, Paul Cohn <psc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm trying to incorporate more patterns into my practice routine, so that I can get away from using the same licks/patterns when playing certain scales, free up my playing and get more material under my fingers... The problem is when it comes to actually practicing patterns, I get kind of stuck. There's so much to practice that I don't know where to begin and end, even on a single pattern for a single mode or scale - I could practice the pattern slowly for accuracy, work it up to 300 bpm, play it in every key, and then i could do all of that playing the pattern either picking every note or playing legato.... I really want to get some of these patterns under my fingers but I don't know how to approach them, how far to take them..to be thorough, I could spend days working on a single pattern in a single key. Ideas?
>
>Eliminate practicing them altogether or at least minimize them by not
>making a federal case out of it. It is a waste of time on a treadmill
>inside a vacuum. You are already witnessing that. There are infinite
>possibilities for patterns, yes, but that's just it, even if you
>"memorized 100 of them in every key, you would still not be doing
>justice to the remaining 10,000 and beyond.

Tony, I was on pattern # 9,166. Are you saying that I should stop now?
I still haven't got to B flat.

[RS]

On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 13:18:48 -0700 (PDT), to.vi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>I'm glad you mentioned the ear training benefit, which seems to get overlooked in discussions on practicing patterns, and scales.

I've found that when I'm having physical trouble playing a line, that
it's often some subtle thing about concentration or mind-slightly-
-out-of-sync-with-fingers. I've taken to 'internally' singing the
line as I'm playing it, and it helps synchronize my fingers for some
reason. I had initially started doing that for purposes of locking
physical reflex to ear training, but there's that unforseen
side-benefit.

[TD]

On Jun 3, 4:10 pm, RS <R...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 10:38:21 -0700 (PDT), TD <tonydecap...@gmail.com>

No, don't stop now it's only a two bar break, but by all means resolve
that mutha!

[Gerry]

On 2012-06-03 19:52:03 +0000, RS said:

> But I do believe that you're exactly right in that there is a
> 'transition' to overcome
> in applying any gains to actual melodic phrases.

That's applicable to all techniques and all approaches. You have to
make it work in the music. We have all identified techniques for
ourselves that we consider important to use. The one under discussion
now is patterns. Just like everthing else it has to get merged into
your playing. Just memorizing them won't merge anything. But if you
don't memorize them, what's to merge?

No matter what you do in music you'll be playing such patterns as 1234
and 1325 and 1357 all the days of your life. That's not such a "merge
problem" as some of the more arcane patterns in books that dedicate
themselves to this topic alone, like those that heavily leverage
leading tones and ornaments and such.

I've never heard much talk about how one merges their various
experiments and input in music and in life experience into their
playing except in the most abstract and philosophical way.

> Not to mention that it's easy to fall into yet another kind of
> reflexive playing.

Most everything can form a trap if you get too obsessed about it. I
think it's important to transcribe solos by musicians that are
important to your projected sense of musical self. But I don't think
it's good for actualizing your own ideas to "fall into the trap" of
transcribing too much of one person and/or formulating too much of your
style/approach on theirs. I think many of us have known players who
seemed to play nothing but licks they copped from records, and repeated
them a lot.

I think it's important to learn to read music and to be able to do it
well. Again I don't think one should forego all the many other aspects
of performance for reading.

Paul was asking about how to approach patterns; many have pointed out
the intrinsic possibility that beyond a certain point it could be a
detriment. If hea hasn't been appropriately warned of the potential
damage to life and limb at this point, there's nothing any of us can do.

[Gerry]

On 2012-06-02 23:05:41 +0000, Paul Cohn said:

> I was simply looking to see if anyone had any ideas on how to go about
> practicing them, since there are so many variables such as tempo,
> style, scale, etc.

With the intent of directing more to this specific question: I don't
think tempo, style or scale are very important at all. I think
memorizing and being able to do them efficiently, against changing
harmonic context and progressively smaller regions are the most
important and the easiest things to direct a *focused* approach to this
stuff.

Upstream there is mention of Bergonzi, Baker, Coker and other texts on
patterns. I mentioned a number of patterns specifically. Using the ones
I mentioned as a model I think the important thing is to memorize and
play these SIMPLE more direct and more universally functional patterns;
doing them in all positions cleanly and clearly, then learn to play the
transitions between keys, using cycles of 4ths, 2nds, b7ths, b3rds and
6ths. Thus one is changing both keys and positions at every cycle.

The next thing I personally did was begin playing the same patterns
concentrating on "economy" picking and slurring as much as possible
throughout. So that's only two basic ways: alternate picking, and
maximumized economy either via consecutive picking and or
pulling/hammering slurring.

Knowing your accuracy and consistency via metronome useful. I think
you should know you can do them comfortably at 110 or 220 or whatever
the hell it is. But I don't know how important it is to work to ensure
you can do this or that pattern up to a particular speed so much as it
is important to have memorized that pattern in all positions and the
ability to shift between keys. Once that's done--sure fine work on
getting to 300.

To stress again--I'm talking about the same simple patterns and making
the *background harmony or context* direct the patterns--until that is
done!

I think one should also learn scalar double stops: 3rds, 4ths, 5ths,
6ths and play these double stops in these same 6-8 patterns, also in
all keys, and also in all positions. Once you can do all the couble
stops--do the same patterns (123,1231, 1325, 1357, etc.) using nothing
but double stops.

Here the process concludes. You're done with chapters 1 through 4. You
can then go after tempo, style, more complex patterns, scales other
than major or anything else you want to address. But the part I just
outlined is not "forever" it's six months or something.

These are straight forward and realizable goals that aren't "forever"
or "impossible" or anything like that. They are also *limited* goals.
Learning this won't put anybody in a trap of any kind.

The next thing I personally did that was very useful (disregarding the
next things I did that were not helpful), was to begin doing the same
patterns, the same cycles, including double stops, but limiting all
activity to the top four strings of the neck only.

[TD]

It's the quintessence, Gerry. Don't knock it 'till you try it.

-TD

[rpjazzguitar]

Lots of good thoughts. I'd add this one.

If you can hear it in your mind, you should be able to play it. That's a fundamental skill. How you acquire it doesn't matter. I'm not sure what approach would be most efficient. Probably a lot of time on the guitar, playing different melodic material, transcribed solos, reading or patterns - whatever.

Then, if the tempo is slow enough, you ought to be able to play any pattern you can imagine, without difficulty. I don't see the value in working through a bunch of mathematical patterns at low tempos. If you can hear it, you ought to be able to play it unless the tempo requires rethinking the fingering/picking.

So, for example, I've never practiced broken thirds in all keys, but I can play them anywhere on the neck because I can hear the lines in my mind and my fingers find the notes. Why would I spend time practicing them, unless it was to be able to do so fast that my instinctive fingerings didn't work?

So, if I'm going to practice patterns, I'd pick something that I can't hear very well and work on that. Maybe I'd practice something in a different harmonic context than I can hear easily. Or maybe it would be a line with intervals that challenge my ear. And then, after I memorized the sound, I'd work on getting it into tunes with BIAB.

[Gerry]

On 2012-06-03 22:45:21 +0000, TD said:

>> I've never heard much talk about how one merges their various
>> experiments and input in music and in life experience into their
>> playing except in the most abstract and philosophical way.

> It's the quintessence, Gerry. Don't knock it 'till you try it.

I didn't knock it and I've always consciously worked at it.

I always encourage others to consider it and struggle with it in their
own way. They HAVE to, because, as stated, no one has written or says
much of anything about it except in vague terms. "Remember to make it
part of your playing" isn't exactly instruction.

In this regard, unlike learning the mechanics of scales, arps, chords
and patterns we all have to make our way alone.

[Gerry]

On 2012-06-03 23:45:48 +0000, rpjazzguitar said:

> If you can hear it in your mind, you should be able to play it. That's
> a fundamental skill. How you acquire it doesn't matter.

It does to those who are trying to acqure the skill, and are concerned
that what they're doing isn't getting them there. A lot of people
think that "free formin' it" is the best way because it's so personal
and free from external demands, and not limited by focus or goals or
whatever. For instance.

> I don't see the value in working through a bunch of mathematical
> patterns at low tempos.

By "mathematical" do you mean capable of being described in scale
steps? Like 1231, 2342, …? I think the value of working through a
bunch of these at low tempos until you've memorized them and can do
them without a lot of cognitive activity is that later you'll be able
to do them without a lot of cognitive activity.

The heat of improv is never the best time to say "Let's see, how to
play a line that sounds like 'doo be doo be doo'… Hmm. How about like
this--oops! That's not it!" And so forth. In fact avoiding this is the
most valuable potentiality.

> If you can hear it, you ought to be able to play it unless the tempo
> requires rethinking the fingering/picking.

A rethinking based on the mechanical demands? That's why having played
it or something similar many times before gives you some leverage,
having already addressed the mechanical specifics.

Or maybe I'm not following you. I know people who can hear a
line--they can sing it anyway--but they can't play it on the piano
without hunt-and-peck. What's that got them?

And this doesn't address they things one *can't* or *doesn't* already
hear. Learning some wiggy pattern and playing it in any number of odd
locations may give you some interesting ideas; all of these generated
initially from something you can't/didn't hear. See those Andrew Green
books for more of that. I'm not a big fan, but I think the concept is
valid and useful.

> So, for example, I've never practiced broken thirds in all keys, but I
> can play them anywhere on the neck because I can hear the lines in my
> mind and my fingers find the notes. Why would I spend time practicing
> them, unless it was to be able to do so fast that my instinctive
> fingerings didn't work?

Why would you spend time practicing something you can already do? For
you? I don't know. For me, it's to increase precision of execution,
and to be able to concentrate on interpretation rather than "how to
finger it". Why would OTHERS want to spend time practicing something
they can't do? So they can do it!

So let's use somebody other than you for the example. You never
practiced them but somehow or other you can play them anywhere. How
should they model their behavior on yours in order to simply be able to
play them similarly? Can you give them a list of activities or a
"battle plan" or something to arrive at that ability but without
directly practising it? Are you saying that if they can't play broken
thirds, learning exactly how to play them in all positions is not a
good idea? Or that there is a better way to acquire the skill?

> So, if I'm going to practice patterns, I'd pick something that I can't
> hear very well and work on that.

By working out exactly how to play it and the necessary repetitions
till you can playing accurately most of the time?

> Maybe I'd practice something in a different harmonic context than I can
> hear easily. Or maybe it would be a line with intervals that challenge
> my ear. And then, after I memorized the sound, I'd work on getting it
> into tunes with BIAB.

That seems reasonable to me. The only reason to practice things in the
generic is so that you can easily do them in the specific.

[TD]

Of course, I spoke lightly in my own whimsical way, but when it comes
down to it ( if you feel like getting all wordy and serious),Jazz
cannot be taught at all. We can only waltz around the perimeters of
jazz as a study. It's all acquired by listening and lifting, then
gigging and working with great players. Actually, there is a lot
more... BUT: Learning the instrument is learning the instrument;
another thing, which can or won't make the jazz
connection...eventually. So, the way I see it, from my experience is
that the "mystery" of it is just about on par with the mechanics of
it. By being told to learn this scale, pattern, arp, chord inversions
et al, won't learn ya the jazz either ( neither will rote, but people
can assume it does, because it sure as hell works for classical
people), so there is that margin of magic involved no matter who's
window you want to lurk through. So, as far as I am concerned the
scales et al is also "in vague terms.

Even though it may seem much more tangible to every learner, it
still won't learn ya the jazz. Few write about it or tell about it ( I
some how here the Willy Dixon's Spoonful lyrics), yea sure because you
can't see it like you can't see God or ET's (usually). But the mere
"belief" such a margin exists, is the closest room 101, perhaps. In
the end, I think it is much more reliable than the patterns. No, I do
not say forsake the patterns. I say forsake the ball and chain that
patterns can sometimes instill. JG mentioned "balance", and of course
he is on the money.

That balance word itself can be construed as esoteric. It is the
mixture of ingredients that produces the sauce of assimilation,
because mere learning is not enough. Assimilation is richer; far
richer. I offered a glimpse into the magic area (it went unnoticed of
course and consequently ridiculed, because utilizing the metaphors
alone is an ingredient into the magic area) by introducing one word:
resonance. I introduced a technique and teach it to certain
individuals who want me to show them. I believe that it is a missing
link, or "one of 'em." No, I am not looking for students. Teaching is
a drag. But there is the tune, there is always the tune and the story
being told. Surgically removing fragments, isolating them, permutation
every which 'a way is fine. But, like Tal Farlow would say, if you
practice scales, you play scales." What to do? Don't get hung up on
anything, is what to do.

What some students do is get hung up in the mono-dimesionality that
only practicing one thing will produce. Because, let's face it, it's a
formidable undertaking and an eager student can be able to play really
cool patterns utilizing bi-tonally( tri-tonality) via pedal tone too,
yet still can't blow a beautiful and coherent line through Night and
Day. Some can do both, so BRAVO! Want to get mechanical? Then get
mechanical in a smart way by living the entire machine and not
building a miniature world out of a few nuts and bolts. The magic is a
product; an element, that attracts with other elements to form
compounds. "That Spoon, that spoon, that spooooonfull.

-TD

[rpjazzguitar]

My thought began with the issue of hearing something in your mind and making it come out of the speaker without thought. That's a fundamental skill. For those who don't have it, the issue of how to get it is absolutely of primary importance.

As I said, I'm not sure of the best way to get there, or if it's the same for everyone. I think that it takes a lot of time with your hands on the guitar playing single note lines.

If I were teaching it to beginning/intermediate players I think I'd include the following:

Learn to read all over the neck. Bower/Colin, Niehus, Nunes sp?, are among the authors of books I used (after a couple of Mel Bay) and still like. There are many others, obviously. Read as part of your practice regimen. Read the melodies in the Real Book. Learn tunes. Get the fretboard down cold. Copy solos you like. Try to get the nuances right. When you're sitting around watching TV, copy the melodies. Keep at this. Chord changes too, recognizing that chords can be harder.

The issue of triads, scales, arps, licks and other phrases is a little more complicated. I'll leave it for another time.

[Gerry]

On 2012-06-04 02:15:10 +0000, TD said:

> Of course, I spoke lightly in my own whimsical way, but when it comes

> down to it ( if you feel like getting all wordy and serious),...

Yes--yes I do feel like being all wordy and serious.

> Jazz cannot be taught at all.

I disagree. Prayer can be taught, jazz can be taught, love can be
taught, everything can be taught. Taught absolutely? No. We are
given what other people think, and using that with our own opinions and
experience we cobble together something that works for us. But doing
it withough being taught, by those who know and don't know and those
who understand and don't understand--I think that's all very imporant
too.

> We can only waltz around the perimeters of
> jazz as a study. It's all acquired by listening and lifting, then
> gigging and working with great players. Actually, there is a lot
> more... BUT: Learning the instrument is learning the instrument;
> another thing, which can or won't make the jazz
> connection...eventually.

Absolutely. But learning to operate the machinery is the most
conspicuous aspect that keeps non-musicians from being musicians,
whether of jazz or any other music, whether improvisational or
otherwise.

> So, the way I see it, from my experience is
> that the "mystery" of it is just about on par with the mechanics of
> it. By being told to learn this scale, pattern, arp, chord inversions
> et al, won't learn ya the jazz either ( neither will rote, but people
> can assume it does, because it sure as hell works for classical
> people),

To great extent I consider them very comparable. Classical musicians
place an extraordinary emphasis on inflection and elocution and
expression. And the greats demonstrate it in ways I personally feel
many if not most jazz musicians cannot. It's true they don't improvise
(or leverage improvisation as part of their performance) for the most
part. But middle-eastern and Indian musics, larded to the gills with
improvisation, is also not jazz. All of them and us too, still have to
have command of our instruments or we have no way to convey our bliss,
no matter what style of it is.

> …so there is that margin of magic involved no matter who's

> window you want to lurk through. So, as far as I am concerned the
> scales et al is also "in vague terms.
>
> Even though it may seem much more tangible to every learner, it
> still won't learn ya the jazz. Few write about it or tell about it ( I
> some how here the Willy Dixon's Spoonful lyrics), yea sure because you
> can't see it like you can't see God or ET's (usually). But the mere
> "belief" such a margin exists, is the closest room 101, perhaps. In
> the end, I think it is much more reliable than the patterns. No, I do
> not say forsake the patterns. I say forsake the ball and chain that
> patterns can sometimes instill.

I agree, but I encourage others to shuck of ALL their ball-and-chain
apparatus as soon as the recognize they are carrying them. And they are
everywhere--the limitations we find liberating because we understand
them at some point morph into an anchor. And then, rather than using
them as just another brick in a much larger wall, we consider them the
"key element" and we've another ball and chain that has gone invisible
on us.

> JG mentioned "balance", and of course he is on the money.
>
> That balance word itself can be construed as esoteric. It is the
> mixture of ingredients that produces the sauce of assimilation,
> because mere learning is not enough. Assimilation is richer; far
> richer. I offered a glimpse into the magic area (it went unnoticed of
> course and consequently ridiculed, because utilizing the metaphors
> alone is an ingredient into the magic area) by introducing one word:
> resonance.

Sometimes poetry isn't the best tool in the middle of a
mechanically-focused contretemps.

> I introduced a technique and teach it to certain
> individuals who want me to show them. I believe that it is a missing
> link, or "one of 'em." No, I am not looking for students. Teaching is
> a drag.

I think teaching is a blast: It's the students that are a drag! :-)

> But there is the tune, there is always the tune and the story
> being told. Surgically removing fragments, isolating them, permutation
> every which 'a way is fine. But, like Tal Farlow would say, if you
> practice scales, you play scales." What to do? Don't get hung up on
> anything, is what to do.

My response is from Bird: First learn your instrument, then learn your
music, then forget all that shit and blow.

I put a lot of importance in the mechanics--more importantly, on making
as quick and meaningful a dash through the mechanics as necessary. And
then focus on the poetry--whatever the hell that is to you in your
music or style.

> What some students do is get hung up in the mono-dimesionality that
> only practicing one thing will produce. Because, let's face it, it's a
> formidable undertaking and an eager student can be able to play really
> cool patterns utilizing bi-tonally( tri-tonality) via pedal tone too,
> yet still can't blow a beautiful and coherent line through Night and
> Day.

That's the potential liability. They get something exciting under
their fingers and won't give it up. They begin to define themselves
with it. Another ball and chain.

> Some can do both, so BRAVO! Want to get mechanical? Then get
> mechanical in a smart way by living the entire machine and not
> building a miniature world out of a few nuts and bolts. The magic is a
> product; an element, that attracts with other elements to form
> compounds. "That Spoon, that spoon, that spooooonfull.

My philosophy is simple: The mechanics are critical, you'll never be a
poet with a stutter or an incomprehensible accent. So study the
mechanics hard and with diligent focus and get it the hell out of your
way so you can make better music.

And also, don't make the study of mechanics your only focus, don't
consider it the thing that separates you as an artist from other
artists of note. No matter your mechanical skills it is your passion,
ability to communicate, and other artistic constructs that really
separate you from others--assuming you can control the instrument.

[TD]

Well, it wouldn't be you otherwise.

"I disagree. Prayer can be taught, jazz can be taught, love can be
taught, everything can be taught. Taught absolutely? No. We are
given what other people think, and using that with our own opinions
and
experience we cobble together something that works for us. But doing
it withough being taught, by those who know and don't know and those
who understand and don't understand--I think that's all very imporant
too. "

You did not really respond to what I wrote. You decided to bend things
for entertaining a debate. I said we can only teach around the
periphery. This is the same as your "absolutely." Therefore, Jazz
cannot be taught. It's concepts can be taught. Prayer can be taught,
just like a C scale can be taught, but love? I think love stopped
being taught in Nazi Germany. I see no correlation with Jazz being
"taught." But, OK, I respect your take on love being taught.

"Sometimes poetry isn't the best tool in the middle of a
mechanically-focused contretemps"

It would be rare for me to utilize unintelligible, non-meaningful, non-
transparent metaphors. I have taught some quite well known players by
utilizing metaphors well in the midst of "mechanically focused
contretemps". I find it works beautifully and the results are quite
rewarding on both ends.

"I put a lot of importance in the mechanics--"

So do I, and boy do I ever and did I ever. WE have not had the
pleasure of meeting face to face due to my unfortunate circumstances
over yonder, but I hope that I can give you examples soon.

"...more importantly, on making

as quick and meaningful a dash through the mechanics as necessary."

Now there is where I disagree. You can't shove 5lbs of cement into a
two lb bag. Oh, have I used an inappropriate metaphor here? Forgive
me.

We are not really speaking about the same things and you did not
address my take on your "mystery." Or did you? I forgot within all the
words.

Oh and you stated early on:

"To great extent I consider them very comparable. Classical
musicians
place an extraordinary emphasis on inflection and elocution and
expression. And the greats demonstrate it in ways I personally feel
many if not most jazz musicians cannot. It's true they don't
improvise
(or leverage improvisation as part of their performance) for the most
part. But middle-eastern and Indian musics, larded to the gills with
improvisation, is also not jazz. All of them and us too, still have
to
have command of our instruments or we have no way to convey our
bliss,
no matter what style of it is. "

Again missing the mark, as far as I am concerned. I speak of jazz and
I never mentioned not learning the shit out of your instrument. When I
brought of the "rote" bit, it was to give an example that learning the
precise piece of msuic literature is best learned via rote. It cannot
be played differently in classical when it comes to Bach, Mozart and
beethoven, to name a few. Rote has a far larger and pressured role in
classical music. Just that.

-TD

[Mark Kleinhaut]

> -TD- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Im with Tony on all this stuff, though holy cow, you guys all write
and write and write... where on earth do you get the time to do so
much writing about this? I play guitar a couple of hours a day, more
when I have a gig. I learn tunes when I have to. I write tunes when
I feel like it. I never practice, all I do is play. I don't do
patterns (conciously), though everything is a pattern really, I never
transcribe anything, though I listen to music and echos of everything
I listen to come out in my playing anyway. The biggest truth is you
will play what you practice, but I think it's also true that you will
play HOW you practice. And if it's not fun, then nobody will want to
listen to it.

http://markkleinhaut.com

[Mark Kleinhaut]

[TD]

I write as fast as I play.

-TD

[Gerry]

Yes I did. You said Jazz can't be taught. I believe it can and gave
you the context in which I believe that to be the case.

> We are not really speaking about the same things and you did not
> address my take on your "mystery." Or did you? I forgot within all the
> words.

Sorry.

[Gerry]

On 2012-06-04 14:19:10 +0000, Mark Kleinhaut said:

> Im with Tony on all this stuff, though holy cow, you guys all write
> and write and write... where on earth do you get the time to do so
> much writing about this?

First, writing isn't difficult for me. Secondly it doesn't take much
time, in long posts such as this 5 or 10 minutes. Even when I'm playing
or practicing all day, I take breaks and it's easy to type a few notes.

> I play guitar a couple of hours a day, more
> when I have a gig. I learn tunes when I have to. I write tunes when
> I feel like it. I never practice, all I do is play.

We all have very different approaches to work and play in music. But
to go more to the point of all this, are you recommending others never
pracice, even students. If you believe students should practice to you
think they should exclude patterns, or include them. If they should
include them, in what way?

> I don't do patterns (conciously), though everything is a pattern
> really, I never
> transcribe anything, though I listen to music and echos of everything
> I listen to come out in my playing anyway. The biggest truth is you
> will play what you practice, but I think it's also true that you will
> play HOW you practice. And if it's not fun, then nobody will want to
> listen to it.

So the "free forming it" approach to practice above, just playing some
of this and that, moving through various scales and such; if that's fun
for the student do you think that would be a good route to progress?

[Gerry]

On 2012-06-04 13:58:21 +0000, Mark Kleinhaut said:

> Im with Tony on all this stuff,…

Well maybe Paul should re-think his playing to accomodate all that stuff.

While we're taking votes, is anybody out there with me on all this
stuff. Or is it general concensus that I'm nuts?

[TD]

Stay with that then. I stay with my take. I explained enough and it
has not gone on blind eyes. Any more and we invite those entities that
originally opened the doors for the tumbleweeds. They may be already
en route.

-TD

[Mark Kleinhaut]

On Jun 4, 10:40 am, Gerry <addr...@domain.com> wrote:
>>
> First, writing isn't difficult for me. Secondly it doesn't take much
> time, in long posts such as this 5 or 10 minutes. Even when I'm playing
> or practicing all day, I take breaks and it's easy to type a few notes.
>

I can type fast too, it's the thinking about what to type that takes
time, or at at least it should:)

 If you believe students should practice to you
> think they should exclude patterns, or include them.  If they should
> include them, in what way?

I have no idea what students should do. There are way to many of them
anyway.

> So the "free forming it" approach to practice above, just playing some
> of this and that, moving through various scales and such; if that's fun
> for the student do you think that would be a good route to progress?
> --

Beats me. I think the biggest problem for anyone who wants to learn
music (including playing the guitar), is they think that it can be
done sitting at home with books, records, computers, youtube and all
that. And the notion of getting a teacher is worse than hit or miss,
and ultimately a misguided too. The ONLY way, in my opinion, is to
go out and hear people actually playing live as much as possible, the
music that YOU want to play, and talk to them afterwards about it and
glean what you can. You may by some cooincidence find someone who can
be a "teacher", but everyone who plays is both a teacher and a
student, so the only way to learn is to get out and into it. We have
to go out to the music, leave the house actually:). Then, when in the
woodshed, just think about what you heard and felt and try to find it
in your unconcious.

http://markkleinhaut.com

[Gerry]

On 2012-06-04 15:14:21 +0000, Mark Kleinhaut said:

>> If you believe students should practice to you think they should
>> exclude patterns, or include them. If they should include them, in what
>> way?
>>
> I have no idea what students should do.

Okay, that's honest. On the other hand, I do have ideas about what
students should do to maximize their progress. First, get a clear goal,
then try to take the shortest route to that goal. If there are things
they can't do, try to do them. If there are things they do sloppy, slow
down and clean them up; i.e. don't practice mistakes. Play with the
least tension possible and avoid contorted positions.

This isn't limited to learning how to play the guitar, but is pretty
much applicable to learning in general.

This kind of simple list goes on and on. I've never ever heard these
kinds of ideas contested except in this one forum. I think upstream you
said that in actual performance one is inclined to play what one
practices. I agree. hat's why I recommend memorizing patterns in all
positions (not 40 or 50, but 8 or 10 and not to exclusion of all other
methods of approach, nor the exclusion of listening or transcribing or
eating or sleeping). No matter what you play in life it is dominated by
very few patterns of movement.

It all seems like the most common sense thinking possible. I'm always
somewhat surprised that it usually finds traction for debate.

>> So the "free forming it" approach to practice above, just playing some
>> of this and that, moving through various scales and such; if that's fun
>> for the student do you think that would be a good route to progress?
>

> Beats me. I think the biggest problem for anyone who wants to learn
> music (including playing the guitar), is they think that it can be
> done sitting at home with books, records, computers, youtube and all
> that.

I find it more than just a little curious that the use of books and
records would be considered a problem for students. I've heard this
many times on rmmgj, and it is still confounding to me. Information is
information, much of it is useful some of it isn't. Sorting through it
is something a student, regardless of the subject, will have to deal
with. I'm guessing the vast majority of guitarists learn chords,
scales, and arps from books. I think that's quite valuable. [ Caveat:
Not to the exclusion of all other things. ]

I think people who buy many books but don't read them--well that's not
the fault of the books or the information is it?

The frequent upside-down of this at rmmgj is that one should learn all
things by listening (most frequently in records by sax players), and
figuring it out all on your own. While not an invalid adjunct to
learning, it seems haphazard and ill-focused at the very least.
Listening to records I consider paramount in progress for a musician. [
Caveat: Not to the exclusion of all other things. ]

> And the notion of getting a teacher is worse than hit or miss,
> and ultimately a misguided too. The ONLY way, in my opinion, is to
> go out and hear people actually playing live as much as possible, the
> music that YOU want to play, and talk to them afterwards about it and
> glean what you can.

Hearing a live performance by the ever-diminishing pool of locals is
more important than listening to the recordings of the greats? I'm
really not trying to be a contrarian, but I couldn't disagree more. I
think being able to listen repeatedly and analytically (I don't know if
that's unhelpful too) to a recording can provide insights into playing
music.

The last 3 or 4 musical settings I've heard that were sorta jazz; none
of them would be templates I'd recommend for student guitarists to use
as a reference, not least of which because only one of them included a
guitarist and he didn't have much skill. They'd certainly get a generic
approach to the wonderful world of Satin Doll and The Lady is a Tramp,
though.

> You may by some cooincidence find someone who can
> be a "teacher", but everyone who plays is both a teacher and a
> student, so the only way to learn is to get out and into it. We have
> to go out to the music, leave the house actually:).

For someone who doesn't know what students should do, it's suprising
you can counsel where they should do it! :-)

> Then, when in the woodshed, just think about what you heard and felt
> and try to find it in your unconcious.

I'll put this down in the communal one-page communal chapter of my next
book: How to merge musical technique and devices into your playing.

[rpjazzguitar]

If the question had been "what's the fastest way for an intermediate player to improve?" this would be my answer.

Get on the phone and book some quartet gigs. Hire keys, bass and drums -- all players way better than you. Give them all the money, and maybe your lesson money too, if you have to. Cut a deal with one of them that he's going to critique your playing mercilessly after each gig. Record the gigs.

At that point, you have a good shot at finding out why the phone isn't ringing. And what you actually need to work on. In that situation, most players would figure out how to get better.

Here's a wild guess. If you took a bunch of intermediate players and did that, the majority of the issues identified would be 1. improve your time 2. figure out how to mesh with a group (including knowing, by ear, what the piano is playing) 3. memorize the tunes and 4. deepen your harmonic ideas.

If you did with more advanced players (and had them play with really accomplished players), the feedback might then include chops and details of execution.

[Mark Kleinhaut]

On Monday, June 4, 2012 12:47:32 PM UTC-4, Gerry wrote:
> On 2012-06-04 15:14:21 +0000, Mark Kleinhaut said:
>
> Okay, that's honest. On the other hand, I do have ideas about what
> students should do to maximize their progress. First, get a clear goal,
> then try to take the shortest route to that goal. If there are things
> they can't do, try to do them. If there are things they do sloppy, slow
> down and clean them up; i.e. don't practice mistakes. Play with the
> least tension possible and avoid contorted positions.
>
> This isn't limited to learning how to play the guitar, but is pretty
> much applicable to learning in general.
>

Ok, I didn't think we were talking about beginners. Is anyone interested in talking about that here? I didn't think so.

This kind of simple list goes on and on. I've never ever heard these
> kinds of ideas contested except in this one forum. I think upstream you
> said that in actual performance one is inclined to play what one
> practices. I agree. hat's why I recommend memorizing patterns in all
> positions (not 40 or 50, but 8 or 10 and not to exclusion of all other
> methods of approach, nor the exclusion of listening or transcribing or
> eating or sleeping). No matter what you play in life it is dominated by
> very few patterns of movement.
>

Dominated, yes, which is why it can be monotonous and booring. Also, it's tricky and outright dangerous to memorize patters without the concepts of what to do with them- this results in players on then bandstand showing off their exercise instead of making music-- yawn, no wonder the room is empty.

>
> I find it more than just a little curious that the use of books and
> records would be considered a problem for students. I've heard this
> many times on rmmgj, and it is still confounding to me. Information is
> information, much of it is useful some of it isn't. Sorting through it
> is something a student, regardless of the subject, will have to deal
> with. I'm guessing the vast majority of guitarists learn chords,
> scales, and arps from books. I think that's quite valuable. [ Caveat:
> Not to the exclusion of all other things. ]

But exclusing other things is the problem, it's exactly what people do. They find one thing, and it's like "the way", and they go blind and deaf to everything else. I agree that information is information, all good, but I don't think that's how it goes down. People know what they like and they like what they know.

> The frequent upside-down of this at rmmgj is that one should learn all
> things by listening (most frequently in records by sax players), and
> figuring it out all on your own. While not an invalid adjunct to
> learning, it seems haphazard and ill-focused at the very least.
> Listening to records I consider paramount in progress for a musician. [
> Caveat: Not to the exclusion of all other things. ]

Of course you HAVE to listen to records too.

>
> Hearing a live performance by the ever-diminishing pool of locals is
> more important than listening to the recordings of the greats? I'm
> really not trying to be a contrarian, but I couldn't disagree more. I
> think being able to listen repeatedly and analytically (I don't know if
> that's unhelpful too) to a recording can provide insights into playing
> music.
>

You have to listen to the greats! But live... Of course, if they've passed the records have to do.

> The last 3 or 4 musical settings I've heard that were sorta jazz; none
> of them would be templates I'd recommend for student guitarists to use
> as a reference, not least of which because only one of them included a
> guitarist and he didn't have much skill. They'd certainly get a generic
> approach to the wonderful world of Satin Doll and The Lady is a Tramp,
> though.

Well, that's a bummer and a half. In the last few months I've seen live shows by Chick Corea, Ravi Coltrane, Alan Holdsworth, Bela Fleck, Joey Defranchesco, plus a whole bunch of "locals" who play their asses off. I've not heard anyone playing satin doll and such in many years, though I know the sort of gig you speak of and that's clearly not what I'm talking about.

>
> For someone who doesn't know what students should do, it's suprising
> you can counsel where they should do it! :-)

Ha, not knowing never stopped anyone from pontificating, especially around here:)

>
> > Then, when in the woodshed, just think about what you heard and felt
> > and try to find it in your unconcious.
>
> I'll put this down in the communal one-page communal chapter of my next
> book: How to merge musical technique and devices into your playing.

yep, Kumbaya

http://markkleinhaut.com

[to.vi...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, June 2, 2012 5:02:50 PM UTC-7, TD wrote:
> On Jun 2, 7:05 pm, Paul Cohn
> wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 2, 2012 9:05:58 AM UTC-4, TD wrote:
> > > On Jun 1, 4:04 pm, Paul Cohn
> > >  wrote:
> > > > Basically my reasoning for practicing patterns is for greater technical proficiency of the guitar..there comes a lot of times when I'm playing and I'm hearing something, for example some kind of melodic pattern that I want to repeat a couple times through the scale, but I can't execute it because my fingers don't know the way. This is definitely a small part - maybe 30 minutes or less a day - of my entire practice, which includes other stuff like sightreading, repertoire, improvisation, transcribing, etc.

> >
> > > Yet you wrote:
> >
> > > "I really want to get some of these patterns under my fingers but I
> > > don't know how to approach them, how far to take them..to be thorough,
> > > I could spend days working on a single pattern in a single key.
> > > Ideas?"
> >

> > > To some of us readers, it can be construed in such a way as you wish
> > > to utilize 'pre-packaged panels' to appear as, or enhance,
> > > improvisation. Presuming that you are not a stone beginner, I do not
> > > see relevance in having to memorize or get patterns "under your
> > > fingers" in order to build technical proficiency (with exception as a
> > > mere ancillary tool), but I would not condemn or laugh at you for
> > > seeking your path. Patterns used as an aid to technique have a
> > > negative aspect, perhaps more than a positive one. It tends to nurture
> > > more of a tendency for "Brickwalldom", because they are fragments that
> > > beg to belong to the surrounding line architecture. You may tend to
> > > trip over yourself after departing the pattern. Your dilemma more than
> > > likely emanates from the plectrum hand.
> >
> > > Only food for thought.
> >
> > > -TD
> >
> > Technical proficiency includes more than just playing fast and clean, it involves knowing the scales, or as you call architecture, in and out... what better way to get to know your scales than to practice different shapes throughout them? Playing triads or arpeggios through a scale are incredibly common and they're just a pattern. Everyone practices patterns. I don't know any jazz musician who can't play thirds or triads through a scale, to start, and if you can't do that kind of thing you probably don't know your instrument very well. That's part of having good technique, and I'm trying to accomplish that- knowing my scales and instrument in and out so I don't get stuck when improvising with a scale in different ways.
> >
> > Anyway, the point of this topic was not to start a debate on whether I should practice patterns, or if it's good. I'm going to work on playing thirds, fourths, triads, 7th chords, and melodic patterns through scales regardless of what anyone says. I was simply looking to see if anyone had any ideas on how to go about practicing them, since there are so many variables such as tempo, style, scale, etc.

>
> I offered no debate. You faced a dilemma and I tried to help. My
> mistake in trying to loosen up your frustration and I think I was
> quite civil about it. Again, no good deed goes unpunished. I made no
> mention of fast and clean and certainly not as an only thing to
> accomplish. I did not know you were at the practicing scales and
> arpeggio level. No, not every musician practices "patterns." I
> offered solid advice and I did not say forsake your patterns. I
> offered a clear explanation on how you can recall what you do by
> coming up with intervallic and non-intervallic *scale and arpeggiated*
> "fragments" via studying resonance in conjunction with proper right
> hand execution. Where the line (whether you call it a pattern or
> chicken soup comes from a place and departs to a place. There is where
> students tend to face problems that need fixing) is going is quite
> important. I am happy to learn that others here have benefited by what
> I have intended for you. You can simply ignore all that I have
> written. I am OK with it.
>
> -TD

I would like to learn a solid approach for developing technique that has no brickwalls and where I can measure my progress as I develop, to know I'm on a good path, and to gain encouragement as I go. With patterns, seems they can become an end in themselves and make it easy to gain a false sense of "encouragement" and not really progress in the real goal of making music. There should be some way of learning how to combine technique development AND the ability to impart ones heart into it.
Thanks for sharing your experience and maturity with the group! (All of you!)
Vic

[to.vi...@gmail.com]

I very much agree; using art to communicate an art. Usually being on the receiving end, I find metaphor and parable are often the most pleasurable ways toward truth and wisdom. Sometimes a slap upside the head works even better.
Vic

[Gerry]

On 2012-06-04 18:48:57 +0000, Mark Kleinhaut said:

> On Monday, June 4, 2012 12:47:32 PM UTC-4, Gerry wrote:
>> On 2012-06-04 15:14:21 +0000, Mark Kleinhaut said:
>>
>> Okay, that's honest. On the other hand, I do have ideas about what>
>> students should do to maximize their progress. First, get a clear
>> goal,> then try to take the shortest route to that goal. If there are
>> things> they can't do, try to do them. If there are things they do
>> sloppy, slow> down and clean them up; i.e. don't practice mistakes.
>> Play with the> least tension possible and avoid contorted positions.
>>
>> This isn't limited to learning how to play the guitar, but is pretty>
>> much applicable to learning in general.
>
> Ok, I didn't think we were talking about beginners.

I wasn't. Using Paul as a reference point; he asked the questions and
the above is valid in response.

> Is anyone interested in talking about that here? I didn't think so.

Nor I. I'm talking about all players, learning and progressing still
involves the same things.

>> No matter what you play in life it is dominated by> very few patterns
>> of movement.
>
> Dominated, yes, which is why it can be monotonous and booring.

Discipline is sometimes defined as monotonous, repititious, boring. It's true.

> Also, it's tricky and outright dangerous to memorize patters without

> the concepts of what to do with them---

Here's the concept: You'll always be using 123 an 1234 and 135.
Always, in any music. I say gettig that "under your fingers" is a good
thing.

> …this results in players on then bandstand showing off their exercise

> instead of
> making music-- yawn, no wonder the room is empty.

I memorized all this stuff, I don't "show them off" on the bandstand
and never did. I never considered them "making music". They just made
me vastly more adept at navigating the fretboard, and finding a quicker
way to go from "something in my head" to something on the fretboard
with fingers.

And David Baker, Jerry Coker, and Jerry Bergonzi and others that have
stressed and expanded in patterns--what are they all nuts?

>> Sorting through it> is something a student, regardless of the subject,
>> will have to deal> with. I'm guessing the vast majority of guitarists
>> learn chords,> scales, and arps from books. I think that's quite
>> valuable. [ Caveat:> Not to the exclusion of all other things. ]
>
> But exclusing other things is the problem, it's exactly what people do.
> They find one thing, and it's like "the way", and they go blind and
> deaf to everything else.

I can't imagine that limiting their access to information is going to
make them concentrate on the "right things".

> I agree that information is information, all good, but I don't think
> that's how it goes down. People know what they like and they like what
> they know.

All people have the opportunity to arrest their progress at any stage.
I don't think books, records or patterns are really their defining
difficulty.

>> The last 3 or 4 musical settings I've heard that were sorta jazz; none>
>> of them would be templates I'd recommend for student guitarists to use>
>> as a reference, not least of which because only one of them included a>
>> guitarist and he didn't have much skill. They'd certainly get a
>> generic> approach to the wonderful world of Satin Doll and The Lady is
>> a Tramp,> though.
>
> Well, that's a bummer and a half. In the last few months I've seen
> live shows by Chick Corea, Ravi Coltrane, Alan Holdsworth, Bela Fleck,
> Joey Defranchesco, plus a whole bunch of "locals" who play their asses
> off.

What of the people that don't have access to these people, and a fleet
of locals who can play their asses off. What do they do?

[Gerry]

On 2012-06-04 19:14:25 +0000, to.vi...@gmail.com said:

> With patterns, seems they can become an end in themselves and make it
> easy to gain a false sense of "encouragement" and not really progress
> in the real goal of making music.

Name something that can't become and end itself and provide a false
sense of encourangement to someone so ill-inclined as to do that?

> There should be some way of learning how to combine technique
> development AND the ability to impart ones heart into it.

Not as long as there are 50 competing and exclusive approaches. That's
one major distinction between the guitar and violin/trumpet/sax/piano.

[Paul Cohn]

Wow, a lot has been going on since my last post, I'll have to spend some time going through it...In the meantime, here are some things that I should perhaps clarify..

I wouldn't say I'm a beginner or intermediate player, I would consider myself closer to being advanced. That being said, I still have some fundamental problems in my improvising - one of which being I sometimes can't execute ideas I am hearing, such as taking melodic patterns or arpeggios through a scale, another being just 100% comfortable with playing through a tune with the scales and applications I know (for this I believe I just need to spend more time shedding the tunes in various positions, making sure to hit notes I intend to, and eliminate any guesswork). But for the former problem, I believe I just need to take some of the melodic patterns and arpeggios I hear during a solo and do the technical work - taking them through the different scales, so that when the time comes, they come out naturally without hesitation. For that reason, I don't think I'll have any problems putting them in a musical context, as TD was worried about - it's not like my entire improvisatory repertoire, including what I hear, will be based off of a couple patterns I play. Or that I will decide to play a pattern while improvising and not know what to do afterwards because I only know how to play a pattern. Practicing patterns are only a means for facility so that when the time comes they come out naturally. Ideally I'd like my solos to be organic as possible, which is something I am trying to be conscious of, but I think a part of that is knowing my instrument well enough to facilitate anything I can hear. And right now I can hear things I can't play. So that's about it.

Also, please don't think my entire practice routine consists of practicing patterns. It's just a way to practice the above and I try to work on everything I can to be as well rounded as possible. Just for my single note improvisation alone, I work on patterns as above, in addition to transcribing, shedding tunes, spending time working on improvising creatively, using my ears, and building a solo melodically and with motives.

[Gerry]

On 2012-06-05 03:59:34 +0000, Paul Cohn said:

> I believe I just need to take some of the melodic patterns and
> arpeggios I hear during a solo and do the technical work - taking them
> through the different scales, so that when the time comes, they come
> out naturally without hesitation.

[…]

> Practicing patterns are only a means for facility so that when the time
> comes they come out naturally. Ideally I'd like my solos to be organic
> as possible, which is something I am trying to be conscious of, but I
> think a part of that is knowing my instrument well enough to facilitate
> anything I can hear. And right now I can hear things I can't play. So
> that's about it.

I think your approach is exactly right. I would only counsel you to do
it with deliberation and discipline in a regulated way, rather than
doing a little over here and getting impatient and changing patterns
and doing some over there but not over here and then goofing for a
while on the melodic minor arps and hey--what's on tv?

I think one of the important things one learns by addressing patterns
(as well as conspicuous work with inversions and triads) in all
positions and runing them threw different cycles is focus and
discipline. And once you can lock in to that, it can be thrown at all
kinds of other stuff.

[unknownguitarplayer]

Once you've sorted out all of the sage advice you've received here, you might want to consider this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUvKE3bQlY

[TD]

You might dig my method book, Gateway to Guitar Improvisation (Hal
Leaonard Publishing). I am absolutely not trying to sell books, but
the book seems to fit your needs to a tee.

-TD

[Mark Kleinhaut]

On Jun 4, 5:26 pm, Gerry <addr...@domain.com> wrote:
>
> What of the people that don't have access to these people, and a fleet
> of locals who can play their asses off.  What do they do?
> --

I guess they take up photography:)

http://markkleinhaut.com

[Mark Kleinhaut]

On Jun 5, 7:23 am, unknownguitarplayer <unknownguitarpla...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Once you've sorted out all of the sage advice you've received here, you might want to consider this...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUvKE3bQlY

That was outstanding!

http://markkleinhaut.com

[lukejazz]

On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 6:23:30 AM UTC-5, unknownguitarplayer wrote:
> Once you've sorted out all of the sage advice you've received here, you might want to consider this...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUvKE3bQlY

ha ha fantastic - I'm definitely keeping this under consideration.
Luke

[Mark Kleinhaut]

On Thursday, June 7, 2012 9:29:19 AM UTC-4, 13to56 wrote:
> Paul. I am mostly an anonymous longtime lurker who seldom posts, but
> it has really become ridiculous around here lately and I can't help
> myself. The only piece of advice I can pass along is to listen to the
> clips of the players who give advice here. Most are bedroom players.
> Most speak about topics in great detail that their playing does not
> show evidence of. The proof is in the pudding, and most of the
> pudding here does not swing.
>
> *disclaimer-I am just another old hack giving advice. Pay me no mind.

That's kind of the concept that Jack Zucker was always trying to put forward around here, but a lot of bedroom players got pissed and ugly about it.

http://markkleinhaut.com

[Mark Kleinhaut]

On Monday, June 4, 2012 11:59:34 PM UTC-4, Paul Cohn wrote:
And right now I can hear things I can't play. So that's about it.
>

Paul, you've probably heard this before, but what about singing the lines you're "hearing" in your head? I've found at times that there is a gap where I struggle to sing what I hear, leading me to conclude that it's got nothing to do with the guitar at all, but rather that what I thought I was hearing clearly wasn't actually so clear afterall. When I work on clarifying the idea of a line such that I CAN sing it, there is then never a problem copping it on the guitar. In otherwords, I can play anything I can sing, it always comes back to being able to really hear things.

http://markkleinhaut.com

[Gerry]

That's true. It's easier to attack a vague groupinjg (or in this case
no one in particular) than it is an idea.

There are two kinds of people in the world; Those that divide people
into two kinds of people and those that don't. Good information can
come from idiots as well as geniuses; and when it comes to art (not
that jazz guitar is "art", of course), good ideas can come from
everywhere. Including the pissed and the ugly and those that categorize
them.

[rpjazzguitar]

My experience is similar. When I'm trying to learn a line, it helps to sing it accurately first. Particularly if it's very fast.

On the other hand, I can play more sounds than I can sing. Sometimes that's fakery, but sometimes it sounds as good as the rest.

BTW, I know there are some great players on here. Are those the only ones who get to have opinions? Seems to me that one might not have to be a great player to have something useful to say. They aren't all gems, but the price is fair.

[Gerry]

> On 2012-06-07 18:22:02 +0000, Mark Kleinhaut said:
>
>> On Monday, June 4, 2012 11:59:34 PM UTC-4, Paul Cohn wrote:
>> And right now I can hear things I can't play. So that's about it.
>
> Paul, you've probably heard this before, but what about singing the
> lines you're "hearing" in your head? I've found at times that there is
> a gap where I struggle to sing what I hear, leading me to conclude that
> it's got nothing to do with the guitar at all, but rather that what I
> thought I was hearing clearly wasn't actually so clear afterall. When
> I work on clarifying the idea of a line such that I CAN sing it, there
> is then never a problem copping it on the guitar.

Always good advice. But that then opens up the idea of how one has
ideas in their head that are singable or unsingable to begin with? A
likely response is that it is something that they heard someone else
play. While that may be good it is also, by definition, derivative.

Another approach--and NOT one that vies for supremacy I must state
LOUDLY and REPEATEDLY--is to produce as much flexibility and capability
in playing anything at all, so that you are capable of producing your
own ideas and then refining these so that you can produce your own
invention. This an idea that our beloved Jack Zucker was also a great
champion of.

> In otherwords, I can play anything I can sing, it always comes back to
> being able to really hear things.

I can do the same thing. But I feel that part of the way I got there
was by playing a lot of mechanical patterns. That's an analysis of my
own path, not the one true and mighty road preferred by all non-bedroom
guitarists by the way.

But specifically you, Mark, who are an exceptional non-bedroom
player--do you personally think that learning patterns so that you are
capable of playing them with agility anywhere (and here I'm not
including people who make this the core of their playing or those that
use them to show off or those that don't know anything else), do you
think it's a bad thing for a musician to learn?

[rpjazzguitar]

Depends on the individual, I think.

Some people will be unable/unwilling to work that way and may eventually become fine players some other way. Others can probably become intensely creative players after practicing things purely derived from math.

And, then, of course, it depends on what music you want to make. We generally seem to speak of some archetype of the "well rounded jazz musician". But, some revered jazz players certainly fell short of the current definition of that term.

I am reminded of some of Jimmy Bruno's posts and teaching materials. He did not hesitate to disagree with things that others might think of as conventional wisdom. If he's not a well rounded jazz player, I don't know who is.

[Paul Cohn]

Maybe some of them are bedroom players, but as they say... "never preach what you practice"

[Gerry]

On 2012-06-08 00:53:58 +0000, rpjazzguitar said:

> Depends on the individual, I think.
>
> Some people will be unable/unwilling to work that way and may
> eventually become fine players some other way. Others can probably
> become intensely creative players after practicing things purely
> derived from math.

From my application, learning patterns has nothing whatever to do with
math, and everything to do with forming "muscle memory".

[Gerry]

On 2012-06-08 00:16:24 +0000, rpjazzguitar said:

> BTW, I know there are some great players on here. Are those the only
> ones who get to have opinions?

No, we all get to have opinions. But there are those whose sense of
self-importance has to leverage their opinion of YOU, as if it had
anything to do with the topic. It is in fact a change of topic, and
always has been. "Argue about the participants, not the subject
matter." That's the nub of it.

We've been through it a hundred times: The "credentialed" opinion
versus those of the rabble. It's meaningless.

> Seems to me that one might not have to be a great player to have
> something useful to say. They aren't all gems, but the price is fair.

I agree completely.

[TD]

Everything gets so misconstrued and convoluted here. Fingergymnastics
is OK and the "math" as you put it. No one is putting up a fence with
one bit on one side and the other bit on the other side. The OP seemed
to be hung up is all. He was hitting a brick wall. Some of us "non-
swinging hacks" tried to help him is all. All we suggested was to not
make a federal case out of a pattern because he was perhaps, in a way,
practicing against the grain. In that case, I would suggest to lay off
them or "minimize" the practice and concentrate on the scale he wishes
to draw from and learn how to negotiate consonance with dissonance
amongst resonance. THEN re-approach the pattern much better equipped.
It's just a pattern for chrissakes; it ain't an improvisation on Body
and Soul, now is it? And he did not let on that he wanted the patteren
business merely for chops building in isolation (or correct me if I am
wrong). I could have given him some tips via Skype for free no less,
but he showed no interest. OK. I tried, because let's face it boys,
words don't amount to a hill of beans especially with all the petty
"snideness" that these internet groups seems to inherently breed.
Everything is cool to practice; all different ways. It's about
balance. We gave advice in accordance with the wording of the original
posting. No one is pulling rank. If they are, they shouldn't be here
in the first place. They would be wasting their time and for what?
Same thing goes for the free lesson moochers. If they wish to learn
from experienced players, they should respect them and not try to make
a mockery out of them by inadvertently inviting trolls in to do their
damage. All in all, I see little conflict.

-TD

[Mark Kleinhaut]

On Thursday, June 7, 2012 8:20:40 PM UTC-4, Gerry wrote:
.
> Always good advice. But that then opens up the idea of how one has
> ideas in their head that are singable or unsingable to begin with? A
> likely response is that it is something that they heard someone else
> play. While that may be good it is also, by definition, derivative.

Or it comes from one's imagination- that's why we call it creativity. That said, there are still only 12 tones and everything is derivative of something else to varying degrees, nothing comes out of a vaccumm etc. so there can't be any absolutes in this discussion.

>
> Another approach--and NOT one that vies for supremacy I must state
> LOUDLY and REPEATEDLY--is to produce as much flexibility and capability
> in playing anything at all, so that you are capable of producing your
> own ideas and then refining these so that you can produce your own
> invention. This an idea that our beloved Jack Zucker was also a great
> champion of.
>

Well, I disagree with this. Flexibiity and capability allows one to express one's ideas but they don't render you capable of producing your own ideas. In my experience, the opposite is true- the capability of moster chops stifles creativity and dull's the brain to the potential to create new ideas. In effect, the chops are a crutch and the result is mindless playing.

For this reason, I don't advocate developing one's "muscle memory", which when you think about it is really talking about the ability to play mindlessly, thoughtlessly and without purpose. We joke about knowing something so well that we can play it in our sleep- as if that's something to be admired. Well, that's a great parlor trick, but it's just not musical.

Given that one will play what one practices, and presumably the goal of practice is to prepare yourself for performance, what do you accomplish by practicing how to play mechanically, and specifically, back to the OP question of practicing patterns? I think the goal should be to play music and accordingly that everything one practices should be musical.

To clarify, learning how to play patterns all of the guitar is important for beginners in order to learn the fretboard. But the more one one advances the less and less one should do it.

In my opinion, and it's fine do disagree- I don't really care nor am I trying to sell anything- intermediate to advanced players should strive to make 100% of their practicing musical. Rather than patterns, the work should be on motifs and melodic development, rhythm, harmony, phrasing, breathing and expression. Develop musical vocabulary that can be used on the bandstand. To my thinking, anything that's mechanical is the antithesis of this.

Why do I think this, you may ask? Well, I spent years and years working to develop chops. I used to think if I couldn't play as fast as johnny mac I didn't deserve to hold the guitar- so much energy went into that. Somewhere along the way it dawned on me that the shit just wasnt saying anything and just didn't connect to the other players- it WASNT music and it sucked. So, I stopped.

http://markkleinhaut.com

[Gerry]

On 2012-06-08 02:24:21 +0000, TD said:

> All we suggested was to not
> make a federal case out of a pattern because he was perhaps, in a way,
> practicing against the grain. In that case, I would suggest to lay off
> them or "minimize" the practice and concentrate on the scale he wishes
> to draw from and learn how to negotiate consonance with dissonance
> amongst resonance.

Even in the context of arpeggiated patterns (e.g. 1357), I always think
of these patterns as a subset of a scale. To some extent when I
concentrated on diatonic patterns I was really just concentrating on
moving through a scale with a device (pattern) that is always forcing
me to make adjustments of picking/fingering. Though I don't do it much
any more except maybe when warming up, or when I stumble upon a tricky
pattern and then try to do it everywhere for fun--like a guitaristic
crossword puzzle or something.

> THEN re-approach the pattern much better equipped.
> It's just a pattern for chrissakes; it ain't an improvisation on Body
> and Soul, now is it? And he did not let on that he wanted the patteren
> business merely for chops building in isolation (or correct me if I am
> wrong).

I thought his intent was to be able to play a sequence of notes (e.g.
pattern) wherever he wanted to, without having to hesitate or work it
out cognitively. I would call that chops building, but I suppose it's
open to interpretation.

> I could have given him some tips via Skype for free no less,
> but he showed no interest.

Once he states his questions and we provide three or four buckets of
information, some in accord, some in conflict, he seems to vanish. I
think this time he said "thanks" after 15 or 20 of them, but I'm not
sure that what his take-away was, if any or if it was of if he made use
of anything that was said.

[unknownguitarplayer]

In a perfect world, we'd have all learned whatever we learned in an orderly straight line path, mastering one thing and moving on to the next. I don't know of anyone who actually did that successfully, but the advice we tend to give often recommends it nevertheless.

Looking at it over a period of many years, I think that for most of us playing music involves serial obsessive behavior. Most adult "civilians" don't willingly spend hours every day of their lives in a chair completely focused on a task and cut off from their surroundings. That's obsessive behavior. The target of the obsession changes...Mark says he used to spend all of his time on chops, last month Gerry was obsessed with learning old tunes and playing arranging them as chord melodies. Sometimes we may go overboard or fall into a wormhole, but if we're lucky, we get pretty good at something, internalize it and move on to the next obsession.

If you want to practice patterns, go ahead and practice the shit out of them. You'll gain something, and eventually get tired of them, find something more interesting and practice the shit out of it. Do that a couple times and you too can post about how far you had to walk to school when you were a kid.

[Gerry]

On 2012-06-08 14:20:25 +0000, Mark Kleinhaut said:

> On Thursday, June 7, 2012 8:20:40 PM UTC-4, Gerry wrote:
> .
>> Always good advice. But that then opens up the idea of how one has>
>> ideas in their head that are singable or unsingable to begin with? A>
>> likely response is that it is something that they heard someone else>
>> play. While that may be good it is also, by definition, derivative.
>
> Or it comes from one's imagination- that's why we call it creativity.

It's true that people who've never really listened to much music could
come to an instrument and leverage only their imagination. But that
would likely be pretty simply stuff. Most people take up an instrument
seriously with some kind of back log of context. In any case I believe
the need to be able to play the notes with out first "hunting" them.

> That said, there are still only 12 tones and everything is derivative
> of something else to varying degrees, nothing comes out of a vaccumm
> etc. so there can't be any absolutes in this discussion.
>
>> Another approach--and NOT one that vies for supremacy I must state>
>> LOUDLY and REPEATEDLY--is to produce as much flexibility and
>> capability> in playing anything at all, so that you are capable of
>> producing your> own ideas and then refining these so that you can
>> produce your own> invention. This an idea that our beloved Jack Zucker
>> was also a great> champion of.
>
> Well, I disagree with this. Flexibiity and capability allows one to
> express one's ideas but they don't render you capable of producing your
> own ideas.

It renders your hands capable of exploration of your own ideas.

> In my experience, the opposite is true- the capability of moster chops
> stifles creativity and dull's the brain to the potential to create new
> ideas. In effect, the chops are a crutch and the result is mindless
> playing.

Wow. I am at a loss of words. Developing technical capability is a
crutch? Okay. I surrender. I didn't say "monster", I didn't say
endless mindless playing. Is there no distinction to be made between
practice of any kind and monster chops obsession?

Just singing and head-hearing? It's a smaller world that I imainged.

> For this reason, I don't advocate developing one's "muscle memory",
> which when you think about it is really talking about the ability to
> play mindlessly, thoughtlessly and without purpose.

I think your perspective that muscle memory and mindless/thoughtless
are the same thing is an extravagant exaggeration. Using this
perspective, all practice is destructive to an artist.

> We joke about knowing something so well that we can play it in our
> sleep- as if that's something to be admired. Well, that's a great
> parlor trick, but it's just not musical.

Boxers, I suppose, shouldn't do road work, or work on a heavy- or
speed-bag? Pablo Casals said he practiced scales and arpeggios every
day of his life. Knowing the material well enough not to have to exert
cognition to move it, that's a parlor trick? I really can't see the
value of this logic.

> Well, I spent years and years working to develop chops. I used to
> think if I couldn't play as fast as johnny mac I didn't deserve to hold
> the guitar- so much energy went into that.

And now you have chops. So you would recommend that people NOT do what
you did in acquiring chops? This is the route that got you were you
are now, but you relate that to others as unhelpful? Did you then have
to work to overcome having acquired significant technical skill.

I did the much the same thing. And if you think the next generation is
going to be happy NOT trying to build chops, think again. The question
is just how they're going to go about the process.

So I still recommend what we both apparently did: Work diligently on
technical skills and when we've acquired what we consider sufficient
for our needs, letting that go and find a creative place in actual
music without any further undue obsession with that activity.

[TD]

Personally, I loathe the actual word "pattern." This word lends itself
more towards a "perceptual structure" than to something truly musical.
I prefer to call it "fragments" ( pieces broken off of something
else); thus fragmenting. But that's just me and maybe 300 of my
closest friends. It *isn't everybody*, and I am OK with that.
Therefore, lending itself towards fragments of scales, arps, melodies,
but I do not condemn anyone from using the word "pattern." I am simply
pointing out the dangers involved in misconstruing the note for a
plank. I guess Slonimsky ( Yes, many of us have practiced his scales
and melodic patterns and many of us have assimilated the bi-tonal
harmonic mechanisms to be put in mindful musical contexts; and these
are great for intervallic and double-stopping chops plus more) made
the word more "legit" sounding, but he did not mean to fall so far
away from resonance and musical meaning. Yes, it is entirely possible
to practice your "patterns" within the context of musical criteria *
whilst building chops*) once the student transcends the beginner/
intermediate zone. Paul did say "thanks" but I was not merely
addressing him. I know that he meant well, but let's face it: we all
studied; we apprenticed in some way, shape or form, and *paid* for our
lessons. The rest of us, at least paid dues; a lot of dues. Cheapening
what we have achieved throughout a lifetime by having our words and
heads put up on a chopping block, for simply trying to share our
experiences, does not really get the biscuit. After all is said and
done, I am more and more inclined to think that sharing such material
within this wild west of a venue, ain't really where it's at. Novices
tend to not respect anything that is free. Therefore, rather than
helping them, we are unintentionally leading them astray. There are
exceptions.

-TD

[Gerry]

On 2012-06-08 15:24:49 +0000, TD said:

> Personally, I loathe the actual word "pattern." This word lends itself
> more towards a "perceptual structure" than to something truly musical.
> I prefer to call it "fragments" ( pieces broken off of something
> else); thus fragmenting. But that's just me and maybe 300 of my
> closest friends. It *isn't everybody*, and I am OK with that.
> Therefore, lending itself towards fragments of scales, arps, melodies,
> but I do not condemn anyone from using the word "pattern."

"Patterns for Jazz" is probably where it started. I've always thought
of them as a sequence, and I think of a phrase, like the the first bar
of "As Time Goes By" or "Put on a Happy Face". Those conceptually live
in the same place in my brain. But the didactive mechanism of "playing
patterns", I corral off somewhere else, because I don't believe in the
idea of doing more than a couple of handfuls of these. Beyond that I
don't find any great utility.

> I am simply pointing out the dangers involved in misconstruing the note for a
> plank. I guess Slonimsky ( Yes, many of us have practiced his scales
> and melodic patterns and many of us have assimilated the bi-tonal
> harmonic mechanisms to be put in mindful musical contexts; and these
> are great for intervallic and double-stopping chops plus more) made
> the word more "legit" sounding, but he did not mean to fall so far
> away from resonance and musical meaning. Yes, it is entirely possible
> to practice your "patterns" within the context of musical criteria *
> whilst building chops*) once the student transcends the beginner/
> intermediate zone. Paul did say "thanks" but I was not merely
> addressing him. I know that he meant well, but let's face it: we all
> studied; we apprenticed in some way, shape or form, and *paid* for our
> lessons.

Some have not. Some learn a little piece of somethign here and a lick
from over there, and a couple of hip chords and then believe they have
what they need to navigate the world. For some "woodshedding" means
"free forming it", "being creative" and so forth. That's great--have
fun. But most of the time I meet intermediates that haven't really
progressed in many years I find that they have never spent a
conspicuous block of time in a significant disciplined approach to the
instrument.

This *just me* but I think that's a break-point between one kind of
player and another, or better yet one ID of intent or seriousness. One
realizes they have to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work.
Whether that's study of theory or mechanics, apprenticeship to a
significant player/teacher, 6 nights a week road work, or whatever.

> The rest of us, at least paid dues; a lot of dues. Cheapening
> what we have achieved throughout a lifetime by having our words and
> heads put up on a chopping block, for simply trying to share our
> experiences, does not really get the biscuit. After all is said and
> done, I am more and more inclined to think that sharing such material
> within this wild west of a venue, ain't really where it's at. Novices
> tend to not respect anything that is free. Therefore, rather than
> helping them, we are unintentionally leading them astray. There are
> exceptions.

You do what you have to do. I share my perspectives on what I've done
wrong and what I've done right in advancing as a musician an artist and
others can make of it what they will. I know folks who have came into
their own as an adult or an individual by specifically rejecting the
approach/attitudes of their parents and others who came into their own
only when they adopted their views. Replace "parents" with "mentors";
it's all the same.

Years after the fact, sometimes decades, I rummage around in my brain
and find advice provided by someone, demi-god or hack or non-musician,
and when re-examining it find something of value there. If people do
that with what you say, I believe that's important. That's all
teacher's really get in the end. Teaching is a message in a bottle;
you can never really be sure that the bottle ever washed up anywhere to
be read.

[Gerry]

On 2012-06-08 15:05:59 +0000, unknownguitarplayer said:

> In a perfect world, we'd have all learned whatever we learned in an
> orderly straight line path, mastering one thing and moving on to the
> next. I don't know of anyone who actually did that successfully, but
> the advice we tend to give often recommends it nevertheless.
>
> Looking at it over a period of many years, I think that for most of us
> playing music involves serial obsessive behavior. Most adult
> "civilians" don't willingly spend hours every day of their lives in a
> chair completely focused on a task and cut off from their surroundings.
> That's obsessive behavior. The target of the obsession changes...Mark
> says he used to spend all of his time on chops, last month Gerry was
> obsessed with learning old tunes and playing arranging them as chord
> melodies.

I still am, though admittedly the heat of the obsession is starting to
cool. As usual.

> Sometimes we may go overboard or fall into a wormhole, but if we're
> lucky, we get pretty good at something, internalize it and move on to
> the next obsession.
>
> If you want to practice patterns, go ahead and practice the shit out of
> them. You'll gain something, and eventually get tired of them, find
> something more interesting and practice the shit out of it. Do that a
> couple times and you too can post about how far you had to walk to
> school when you were a kid.

Another incisive reduction.

[TD]

I never said the student must forgo technique at all; and under any
circumstances. Technique is high priority. It was for me, but not
mindless technique; no sir. Possibly, I am not understanding you
correctly, which is my fault, but you seem to be making a distinction
when none is needed and you harp on this superficial distinction; when
it is one for all ( concerning jazz guitar)and all for one. I would
have to observe and hear you play to understand more about your actual
outlook is. Perhaps, what I am missing is that you are , or seem to
be, condoning mindless technique for technique's sake. Yes, you say
that it is needed anyhow, because you never know what will be
confronted with. But all this can be done with music in mind and far
more efficient because, just like language, notes have to come from
somewhere ( learning a fragment in a vaccum has to be handled with
great care and intuition concerning the long view) and go to
somewhere. If so, a student can do what he or she wishes, but I would
never recommend a steady diet of it. There are too many pitfalls. And
about practicing the shit out of one thing (mostly) and then moving on
to practicing the shit out of another thing (mostly); very dangerous
if anyone wishes to be a REAL player as opposed to a fantasy generated
idea of a player off a newsgroup. For a serious player, it is a
balanced ( as much as possibel as per discipline and desire) practice
and study. For a hobbyist, well we may as well be talking about potato
chips, because completely different mindset on priorities and
development. Now, I am not debating this. If anyone wants to go
another way, by all means do so. I am stating what I would not
recommend is all. After all, some kids took the bus, some stayed home,
and some ran allllllllllllll the way home.



About experienced players giving lessons, I simply addressed sharing
their knowledge here when asked by beginners here. I have also noticed
what many think is an advanced player. If the 'teacher' is not
trusted, then OK, a horse of another color. I addressed the way things
are here concerning that; just that and no more. There is a helluva
lot of more dimensions involved here that simply cannot be taught
within this one dimensional plane riddled with potholes, to boot.



-TD

[Gerry]

On 2012-06-08 19:52:18 +0000, TD said:

> Perhaps, what I am missing is that you are , or seem to
> be, condoning mindless technique for technique's sake.

I'm not.

I don't know what mindless technique is so certainly couldn't endorse
it. I have stated again and again the difference between learning
something in disciplined fashion and having one's playing become wholly
defined by that one aspect alone. Hardly a post of mine doesn't somehow
convert to that unrelated argument, despite my cut-and-paste
disclaimers, sometimes on every paragraph in a series.

I don't believe that, and apparently can't say "NOT TRUE" in anyway
that can be heard or understood. So that party will now continue
without me.

> And about practicing the shit out of one thing (mostly) and then moving on
> to practicing the shit out of another thing (mostly); very dangerous
> if anyone wishes to be a REAL player as opposed to a fantasy generated
> idea of a player off a newsgroup.

As you know there is only one kind of REAL player.

Perhaps we would have to refine the definition of "practicing the shit"
out of something, a definition that I am quite sure would still find a
vast chasm into which we could cram needless micro-distinctions to find
faux disagreement over.

[rpjazzguitar]

Andres Varady made the cover of GP at age 13. Not as a novelty act. Andres can play jazz. Check him out on youtube.

In the interview, he stated that he didn't know any theory. He said that he plays entirely by ear.

He couldn't be practicing scales because he said that he hardly knows any.

And, he couldn't have taken too many years to do it, because he's only 13.

Now, I'm not suggesting that everybody try to do it his way. I think it's obvious that most of us could not do so. But, to me, it argues conclusively against the notion that there is a "right" way to learn jazz.

And, of course, some of my favorite players do things in a way that I don't think anybody would teach. All downstrokes? Pick with your thumb? Don't learn scales? Don't learn to read? Use only two fingers of your left hand? Tune the guitar like a banjo? Use fishing line for string? All alternate picking? All sweep picking? Curl a flimsy pick and use it that way? (Can you recognize them all?)

[TD]

There is a thorough way and it transcends novelties. Novelty leans on
roulette and, while perhaps lucky, is almost always riddled with
gaps. Choose your philosophy. I do. In addition, one man's jazz is
another man's facsimile.


-TD

[Gerry]

On 2012-06-09 00:40:27 +0000, rpjazzguitar said:

> Andres Varady made the cover of GP at age 13. Not as a novelty act.
> Andres can play jazz. Check him out on youtube.
> In the interview, he stated that he didn't know any theory. He said
> that he plays entirely by ear.

For a 13-year old he plays very well. I can't help wondering how badly
crippled he'd have been by being educated in a more all-inclusive way.

> He couldn't be practicing scales because he said that he hardly knows any.

In our many cycles through this topic we usually linger for a moment on
the idea that "not knowing" scales is not the same thing as "not being
able to name scales that I use". And "practising scales" doesn't
always mean "sequentially playing the notes of a scale" as part of a
practice process

> And, he couldn't have taken too many years to do it, because he's only 13.
> Now, I'm not suggesting that everybody try to do it his way. I think
> it's obvious that most of us could not do so. But, to me, it argues
> conclusively against the notion that there is a "right" way to learn
> jazz.

Or, there is as many "right ways" as their are humans. In reality you
can ONLY learn it your own way. Of course you may not be REAL, but at
least you'll be personalized.

> And, of course, some of my favorite players do things in a way that I
> don't think anybody would teach. All downstrokes? Pick with your thumb?
> Don't learn scales? Don't learn to read? Use only two fingers of your
> left hand? Tune the guitar like a banjo? Use fishing line for string?
> All alternate picking? All sweep picking? Curl a flimsy pick and use it
> that way? (Can you recognize them all?)

Sure, sure. So the problem for most intermediate guitarists remains:
How to advance by selecting from myriad personal approaches which keep
them thoroughly confused with conflicting information. It's probably
the best reason to encourage kids to learn piano, violin, trumpet,
cello, trombone--where they have age-old battle plans.

[rpjazzguitar]

My impression is that Varady learned in a similar way to Wes -- he copied things he liked at first and gradually developed the facility to play his own stuff.

Frankly, I doubt that he'd be a better player if had more formal training. That's hard to imagine. I think that he might be a lot worse - possibly to the point of losing interest in playing. Impossible to say, but not every kid wants to be taught in a formal way.

[Gerry]

On 2012-06-09 03:56:49 +0000, rpjazzguitar said:

> Frankly, I doubt that he'd be a better player if had more formal
> training. That's hard to imagine. I think that he might be a lot

> worse...

Sure. I think one of the two poles we've now set up is that knowledge,
practice, transcribing, theory, drills, reading--these are all good
ways to ruin yourself as a musician. We should begin calling that
"Approach B". Leaving, unfortunately, an as yet unstated "child raised
by wolves", and singing of course, as the approach to be considered the
"Approach A" to guitar mastery.

> Impossible to say,

But easy to endlessly ruminate on they myriad ways to be crippled by
any outside influences, "showing off", repeating things, memorizing
stuff. Jesus, it's a long list.

> …but not every kid wants to be taught in a formal way.

I'm not sure every kid wants to go through toilet training either, but
someone else usually makes these decisions for them.

[TD]

LOL

[rpjazzguitar]

Maybe it's the nature of on-line discussion. But, sometimes it seems that, no matter how well anybody plays, someone will imply that he would have been better if he'd only done it their way.

I am not one to speak against formal training. If I had my life to live over again I'd be in a Berklee practice room right now. But, the idea that Varady would definitely be a better player if his parents had forced him to do things some teacher's way strikes me as questionable. And the idea, which seems to be implied in some posts, that the music has progressed to a point where nobody will ever become a "well rounded" player without a particular program of instruction also strikes me as unlikely. That's because I know a young guy who has already toured Europe with a jazz musician I admire -- and that young guy is largely an ear player, although he can read.

[Gerry]

On 2012-06-09 18:58:05 +0000, rpjazzguitar said:

> Maybe it's the nature of on-line discussion. But, sometimes it seems
> that, no matter how well anybody plays, someone will imply that he
> would have been better if he'd only done it their way.

We all argue for our own perspective of the best way to do things, at
least those of us who have spent a lifetime pondering these issues in
lieu of unimpeachable information. Which is better "x" or "y"? a
beginner asks. Some of us have spent 50 years working out the answer.
It's not likely an idle answer. That doesn't make it "right" of course.
I said it upstream. For me it's a message in a bottle, if you doesn't
wash up on your shore, that's life.

One of the many vantage points is "do it however you like, there is no
'wrong' way". Another view is, address the important issues. The
important issues are these… [insert important issues]. I fall into the
second category.

> I am not one to speak against formal training. If I had my life to live
> over again I'd be in a Berklee practice room right now. But, the idea
> that Varady would definitely be a better player if his parents had
> forced him to do things some teacher's way strikes me as questionable.

I agree. But let's cover both sides: I think asserting that formal
study may have ruined him is questionable. That was my point. Should
we pursue more information and more skill that we have at any given
moment? I say yes. Others say no, whatever you know now is enough.

> And the idea, which seems to be implied in some posts, that the music
> has progressed to a point where nobody will ever become a "well
> rounded" player without a particular program of instruction also
> strikes me as unlikely.

Agreed. I think a player should be introduced to all the flavors and
pick for himself what serves his/her needs--or what is "easiest" for
him/her to do if that's the approach they prefer. It's more helpful if
you review all the flavors with some integrity.

I assume that the "easy" approach is the mostly highly preferred, since
that is the approach most intermediate players I meet have chosen. Many
people are quick to point out the possible lack of utility of things
that are difficult and time-consuming to learn. That's only human. It's
the first rationale for not learning to read.

Re: the current jihad, I think spending a few months learning to play 8
or 10 patterns in all positions and keys is a flavor to be sampled. If
it doesn't serve a players needs, well it only took a couple of months,
it's not like boarding a flight to Mars or anything. Others might argue
to do this would actually hurt one as a player, that it would define
their playing, cripple them, etc. Clearly I disagree.

> That's because I know a young guy who has already toured Europe with a
> jazz musician I admire -- and that young guy is largely an ear player,
> although he can read.

There have been many thousands if not millions of good ear players and
there have been thousands if not millions of capable non-readers. I
would argue that neither approach is the defining factor that made the
good or capable.

I've participated in many discussions where the basic assertion of
something is "to learn that will hurt or limit you". I don't really
care what the "that" in question is, I'll disagree every time.

[TD]

Learning is easy. Unlearning is a bitch.

-TD

[Gerry]

On 2012-06-09 19:37:23 +0000, TD said:

> Learning is easy. Unlearning is a bitch.

I'll defer to your view. Me, I don't think I've ever encountered
something I wanted to unlearn.

As Maxwell Maltz says, we don't really "break habits" so much as we
"learn new habits".

[Gerry]

Oh my golly gosh: Joe Pass practised patterns! Oh Joe, said it isn't so!

http://rmmgj.blogspot.com

[TD]

Yes, but I was not referring to bad habits or any habit. But, I can
see how you saw it.

[rpjazzguitar]

Speaking only for myself, I have struggled to unlearn some bad habits.

I was introduced to scales many years ago, and I practiced them in order, bottom to top and back. I still do it occasionally -- I don't know why.

The problem is that, if I'm not careful, I will connect up actual ideas with mindless scale fragments.

I did it, back then, because I didn't know any better. I wish I had done it differently.

My thoughts mostly come from the repeated experience, over 48 years of playing, of spending time doing things that proved not to be helpful.

[Gerry]

On 2012-06-09 20:10:58 +0000, rpjazzguitar said:

> Speaking only for myself, I have struggled to unlearn some bad habits.
>
> I was introduced to scales many years ago, and I practiced them in
> order, bottom to top and back.

One of the main reasons I recommend top to bottom and back. But then
once that is clearly covered I recommend doing them only on the top
four strings. And then other ways, many other ways.

> I still do it occasionally -- I don't know why.

I do to, for warming up.

> The problem is that, if I'm not careful, I will connect up actual ideas
> with mindless scale fragments.

Most players "fill the void" with one thing or other. Many fill them
with licks and cliches, others with scale fragments. Filling the void
with noise--it hardly matters what you use, it's not about bad habits
learned to my thinking. It's about not concentrating on generating
your own ideas.

Clearly generating your own lines, thinking in terms of a line's flow
and shape and dynamics and all the rest--it takes a lot of
concentration. Anyway my view is that learning scales and practising
them diligently wasn't a bad habit you learned, it's that you didn't
move on to other things--If I may be so bold as to make the assertion.

Anyway my summation isn't that scales and playing them hurt you; it's
the application not the device. I know a score of guys that can play
every lick off an album or two by Clapton, Beck and Johnny Winter.
They always have and they always will.

> I did it, back then, because I didn't know any better. I wish I had
> done it differently.

Can you state clearly what it is that you did that you didn't know any
better? Playing scales, playing them without breaking them up, playing
them for too many years? What would you have done differently?

Generally I can sympathize with the thinking. I wished that I had done
things differently, and so I did, eventually relegating all kinds of
negative experiences in life to memories rather than ongoing
activities. Here we're talking clearly about more than guitar
techniques.

> My thoughts mostly come from the repeated experience, over 48 years of
> playing, of spending time doing things that proved not to be helpful.

As said upstream: The important thing about bad habits is
first--identifying them and second to *replace them* with good habits.

[rpjazzguitar]

Just a brief response ...

If I had it to do over again, I'd have spent more time lifting material from recordings and less practicing scales. I'd have tried to build chops with music, not exercises. My first teacher had me reading Paganini. That helped with a lot of things. A later teacher had me practicing scales and arps from bottom to top and back -- I think some of the time I spent doing that would have been better spent with ear training or something else (practicing melodic ideas against different harmonic background would have been useful).

And, I did eventually move on from practicing scales, but that muscle memory is built in over decades. When I listen back to a solo, those are the parts I don't like.

[TD]

On Jun 9, 3:42 pm, Gerry <addr...@domain.com> wrote:

OK so as John Cassavetes once said: "You have to fight sophistication.
You have to fight knowing, because once you know something, it's hard
to be open and creative."

-TD

[TD]

OK, I am giving you an assignment. Do it all over again. 1 2 3
begin....

-TD