"Fretboard Harmony" by Jeffrey McFadden
robert norton
in CG magazine. I've always found the geography of the fretboard a bit
mystifying even after years of stompin round on it and this book really
helps. Lots of work in it tho'. Could take a year or two to study properly.
Expensive at Euro 42 delivered but not when placed against the cost of a
lesson.
Rob
Lutemann
There is not a lot of work to learning fingerboard harmony; 75% can be
learned in a few weeks. It's a matter of approaching it efficiently.
Once you can play through iii, vi, ii, IV, V7, vii7, I (and it's
minor equivalent) in all inversions in all 12 keys using four note
chords, you really don't need any more. Most everything else is
related to that. It's much easier to learn the chords than a scale
system. (By scale system I mean a comprehensive system, not that crap
Segovia wrote.) You don't need to learn, for example, every possible
three note C major triad on the fingerboard, since just about every 3
note C major triad will be part or related to of one of the four note
forms. All the four note major forms are related to the five, 6/5 note
major chord forms and so it goes.
edspyhill01
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Once you can play through iii, vi, ii, IV, V7, vii7, I (and it's
> minor equivalent) in all inversions in all 12 keys using four note
> chords, you really don't need any more.
Show off. Like saying, once you get your BS in Engineering it's a
breeze to design complex thinks.
edspyhill01
> On Feb 15, 8:18 am, Lutemann <lutem...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 14, 2:33 pm, "robert norton" <rjnor...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
> > > I've bought the book direct from OZ after reading a very favourable review
> > > in CG magazine. I've always found the geography of the fretboard a bit
> > > mystifying even after years of stompin round on it and this book really
> > > helps. Lots of work in it tho'. Could take a year or two to study properly.
> > > Expensive at Euro 42 delivered but not when placed against the cost of a
> > > lesson.
> > > Rob
>
> > There is not a lot of work to learning fingerboard harmony; 75% can be
> > learned in a few weeks. It's a matter of approaching it efficiently.
> > Once you can play through iii, vi, ii, IV, V7, vii7, I (and it's
> > minor equivalent) in all inversions in all 12 keys using four note
> > chords, you really don't need any more. Most everything else is
> > related to that. It's much easier to learn the chords than a scale
> > system. (By scale system I mean a comprehensive system, not that crap
> > Segovia wrote.) You don't need to learn, for example, every possible
> > three note C major triad on the fingerboard, since just about every 3
> > note C major triad will be part or related to of one of the four note
> > forms. All the four note major forms are related to the five, 6/5 note
> > major chord forms and so it goes.
>
>
> > Once you can play through iii, vi, ii, IV, V7, vii7, I (and it's
> > minor equivalent) in all inversions in all 12 keys using four note
> > chords, you really don't need any more.
>
> Show off. Like saying, once you get your BS in Engineering it's a
>
> - Show quoted text -
Forgot the ;-)
saraband
The first section is on intervals. Then he introduces three-note forms
for major, minor, diminished, and augmented triads, and then four-note
forms for seventh chords. He only gets into four-note forms for triads
(i.e., which note in the triad to double, etc.) when he introduces
chord progressions, and even then, is careful to point out voice-
leading issues. If you learn four-note forms for triads from the
start, you are likely to start playing progressions with lots of
parallel fifths and octaves. I think his bottom up approach (intervals
-> triads -> seventh chords -> voice doubling for triads) makes more
sense than the top-down approach of treating triads as being "part
of ... one of the four-note forms". Keyboardists don't learn this
way.
In any case, the main thing is the actual exercises that he has the
student do to internalize common practice harmony on the fretboard. If
I was still teaching, I would organize lessons with intermediate and
advanced students so that these exercises were a big part of the
lesson. Great book - check it out if you get a chance Lutemann.
wollybird
>
> - Show quoted text -
I see his doctoral thesis here:
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/24825/1/McFadden_Jeffrey_J_201003_DMA_thesis.pdf
how does it compare?
Miguel de Maria
I wonder if someone could learn the fretboard by just analyzing the
pieces he plays. Do most people know the harmony and scales of their
repertoire, or just kinda memorize the movements and shapes?
Steve Freides
IMHO, pronoucing something "not a lot of work" in response to a student
saying it's difficult ("could take a year or two") is a demonstration of
two things - poor teaching skills, and arrogance. Everything is easy
once you get it.
-S-
Charlie
> edspyhill01 wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 8:18 am, Lutemann <lutem...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 14, 2:33 pm, "robert norton" <rjnor...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
> >>> I've bought the book direct from OZ after reading a very favourable
> >>> review in CG magazine. I've always found the geography of the
> >>> fretboard a bit mystifying even after years of stompin round on it
> >>> and this book really helps. Lots of work in it tho'. Could take a
> >>> year or two to study properly. Expensive at Euro 42 delivered but
> >>> not when placed against the cost of a lesson.
> >>> Rob
>
> >> There is not a lot of work to learning fingerboard harmony; 75% can
> >> be learned in a few weeks. It's a matter of approaching it
> >> efficiently. Once you can play through iii, vi, ii, IV, V7, vii7, I
> >> (and it's minor equivalent) in all inversions in all 12 keys using
> >> four note chords, you really don't need any more. Most everything
> >> else is related to that. It's much easier to learn the chords than a
> >> scale system. (By scale system I mean a comprehensive system, not
> >> that crap Segovia wrote.) You don't need to learn, for example,
> >> every possible three note C major triad on the fingerboard, since
> >> just about every 3 note C major triad will be part or related to of
> >> one of the four note forms. All the four note major forms are
> >> related to the five, 6/5 note major chord forms and so it goes.
>
>
> >> Once you can play through iii, vi, ii, IV, V7, vii7, I (and it's
> >> minor equivalent) in all inversions in all 12 keys using four note
> >> chords, you really don't need any more.
>
> > Show off. Like saying, once you get your BS in Engineering it's a
> > breeze to design complex thinks.
>
> IMHO, pronoucing something "not a lot of work" in response to a student
> saying it's difficult ("could take a year or two") is a demonstration of
> two things - poor teaching skills, and arrogance. Everything is easy
> once you get it.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Steve,
I understand your take on it. It strikes me as being the Limbaugh,
Beck etc al. view: "It's so simple to look at it the way I do that
you're a fool if you don't see it my way." It is in fact arrogant.
If theory and fret board logic were so simple, everyone would grasp
it. There would, in fact, be not much art to music at all because all
could do it. This is not to say that Kent has no insight. It is to
say that if one paragraph on a board such as this can replace
McFadden's book - just as Limbaugh's analysis can replace all thought
on a topic - then I would say simplicity should be doubted.
Miguel de Maria
published by a famous and successful publisher of sheet music. He
had a meeting with this publisher to go over his contract and to
discuss a few things about the publishing industry. The old man, a
cynical veteran publisher of pop-guitar books, rather candidly
told my friend this:
"Young man, you may think we are in the music-publishing business,
but we are not. These books are Pills. Our basic customer is the
guy who stops at the music store on the way home from work, sees
our Roy Clark Big-Note Method on display, takes a look at it and
sees a few titles inside like MALAGUENA, FEELINGS, and LA BAMBA,
takes a look at the price and sees that it's only $4.95 and
decides what the heck, I'll buy it.
"So he takes the book home, gets out his guitar, cracks the book
open on the kitchen table, struggles with the Big Notes for
fifteen minutes, puts his guitar down, puts the book away and
never opens it again. It was just a Pill. Its effect lasts for
about an hour.""
robert norton
"Miguel de Maria" <elegantspa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aa530b52-f2f1-4deb...@k17g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
McFadden mentions this dichotomy in his introduction. most students simply
memorise the shapes and reaslly havent a clue whats going on harmonically.
And they can improvise or play by ear.
Artisan
"edspyhill01" <edspy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c582968c-68ba-4d90...@t16g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
Wait, Segovia has fallen out of favor?
Artisan
"robert norton" <rjno...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:tNz6p.799$K4....@news.indigo.ie...
Well that's why it's called "idiomatic playing" after all.
edspyhill01
wrote:
For me the biggest problem is using the new knowledge. I went through
an old Jazz rhythm guitar book and could play really cool I vi ii V or
I vii iii vi ii V progressions using different chord inversions but I
never used the knowledge and it just went away. I bet one thing that
would have helped that I didn't do which was to start with blues
progressions and do measure by measure substitution exercises. Well,
now that I'm in forced retirement, what's mu excuse. Friggin' monkey
mind!
I note the underlying harmony on pieces I learn. Some lessons would
veer off into 30 minute harmony discussions, which were great fun. It
can get hairy spelling the right chord from the notes. At least I
remember why some songs use a major II chord - it's the V of the V
chord.
Jack
When I was studying jazz in the 70s, my teacher, the late, great Tony
Braden, had me play closed voice triads in all keys on each set of
three strings, in all inversions, up and down and across. Then he had
me build chords on each bottom note: e.g. CEG 1-3-5, CEA 3-5-1, CFA
5-1-3. Then he had me construct three note 7th chords. After that, the
same thing, but with open voicings. All this was just for starters.
Then, four note chords in all inversions. After that, progressions, II-
V-I all over the place. One effect of all this--my sight reading of
classical solos improved by leaps and bounds. I had to write
everything out, sing all the intervals, speak the note function (root,
3rd, 5th, 7th, etc.) There was a lot more--this was just preliminary.
Jack
Miguel de Maria
Using it is the thing, isn't it? If you play what you want to play,
that is what you hear in your head, then that will organize the tools
you need thereby. If it's not in your head, it's kind of fake to play
it, and it won't stick. I use theory in how I analyze and learn my
repertoire. I notice what scale degree each note of the melody is and
how it fits in with the harmony. I take special attention of the
motion of the basses. It's a lot of fun to see how someone like Sor
manages to so elegantly and ingeniously make so much harmonic detail
in such a little space. Each one of these details is an additional
hook that helps me memorize and learn it.
Steve Freides
Charlie, being a poor teacher and arrogant doesn't preclude having
insights. There have been and continue to be many virtuosi who were and
are arrogant human beings and awful teachers - and also very insightful
performers. Some even were insightful teachers if you could get past
their gigantic attitudes.
And then there are those who, well, you know the rest.
-S-
Carey
A helpful post- and the mention of Sor is apt, I think- a composer who
happened to write sympathetically to the instrument: Opus 6 #8 being
a perfect (in many ways) example.
edspyhill01
>
> - Show quoted text -
I get the impression Sor composed away from the guitar initially,
composing for no instrument for the most part. Then he would fit the
piece to the guitar almost incidently. Being a guitarist he always
had a guitar in his mind so the guitar's tuning, note positions and
intervals had an effect during the initial process.
Lutemann
Actually, I don't think that's true. Take these five or six string
first position chords. E, A, D, G, C and strum them through. The
voicings are fine in the outer voices and are pretty good in the inner
voices (They may be fine in the inner voices, but I don't have the
time to go through them). According to my experts (I'm not near my
books right now), with keyboard continuo playing you only need to
worry about outer two voices- the rest is just the chord. (This idea
squares with Baroque guitar continuo playing as well). You can derive
two useful root position chords from each of the five chord forms -
one chord would be the root in the bass and the top four strings, and
the other would be the root in the bass and the 4th, 3rd and 2nd
strings. Then you can easily find the first inversion (sometimes
modified to avoid doubling the 3rd) and the second inversion chord.
Then you do this with the five dominant forms (which are a lot like
the five major forms) and the three minor forms (a lot like three of
the major forms). That leaves very little left to do except to adapt
them to movable forms, which is easy.
To answer Ed, this process doesn't take very long. Most attempts at
guitar continuo playing start with a bunch of rules (which you hardly
need) and three note chords (of which there are too many to learn).
It's better to start with no rules and five chords and work inward.
To get a glimpse at what I am talking about, see Shearer's old volume
two (the green one). He originally had his entire system in there but
publisher gutted it. Still, a small part of it is there.
Lutemann
Charlie,
McFadden's book may be great. There is no one way to do something.
Now you've got me interested in his book so I might seek it out. Let
me say that Shearer's method of learning fingerboard harmony is pretty
clever and quite simple. It works and gives a lot of bang for the
buck. Shearer had a gift seeing what was essential.
Lutemann
Steve,
Many things are easier if you have good instruction.
edspyhill01
>
> - Show quoted text -
Shearer just created a huge book of scales. If he taught theory it
wasn't presented in any usable form.
Andrew Robinson
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why don't you just look at his Phd thesis and see what you think. It's
probably a lot like his book.
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/24825/1/McFadden_Jeffrey_J_201003_DMA_thesis.pdf
Steve Freides
Which, I have no doubt, you are sure you provide.
-S-
Lutemann
>
> >>>> Once you can play through iii, vi, ii, IV, V7, vii7, I (and it's
> >>>> minor equivalent) in all inversions in all 12 keys using four note
> >>>> chords, you really don't need any more.
>
> >>> Show off. Like saying, once you get your BS in Engineering it's a
> >>> breeze to design complex thinks.
>
> >> IMHO, pronoucing something "not a lot of work" in response to a
> >> student saying it's difficult ("could take a year or two") is a
> >> demonstration of two things - poor teaching skills, and arrogance.
> >> Everything is easy once you get it.
>
> >> -S-
>
> > Steve,
>
> > Many things are easier if you have good instruction.
>
> Which, I have no doubt, you are sure you provide.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Much better than most and less than some.
Lutemann
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ed says, "Shearer just created a huge book of scales. If he taught
theory it
wasn't presented in any usable form."
Clearly, you know nothing about Shearer. You really had to study with
him to get it all. BTW, Shearer did not like his scale book. He later
developed a more comprehensive system. However, it has become very
popular with jazzers for sight reading. As I said before, get his old
Volume 2 (Alfred Pub.) If you are really interested in this, I'll help
you with it.