Scale patterns - 12 rather than fewer
Chief Squawtendrawpet
approach" for learning chords and arpeggios. If this approach has any
utility (still not sure), it's in combining and graphically organizing
the study of scale, arpeggio, and chord patterns in a way that would
help a guitar student systematically expand his or her chord
vocabulary. That's plenty vague and I'm sure there's not much
original here. Mostly I'm working on this as a vehicle to build my
own chord knowledge and to organize some of the material that I've
presented to students over the years.
Most of the music theory or scale/chord books that I've perused -- and
I'm not especially well-read on such matters -- tend to present the
study of scale patterns by dividing a given scale into a few patterns
(say, 5 to 7) covering the range of a full octave. For example, one
frequently sees the major scale divided up into 5 compact fingering
patterns. However, there are actually 12 compact patterns for every
scale, one corresponding to each position. By "compact" I don't mean
whether a finger stretch is required; rather, I mean that the pattern
fits within the fret boundaries implied by the guitar tuning. For
example, in the open position in standard tuning, a pattern would
never contain notes beyond the 3rd fret on the G string or beyond the
4th fret on the rest of the strings. As I say, following these
pattern-generating rules, there are 12 compact patterns for any scale,
one for each position. The pedagogical approach that I'm
experimenting with begins by tackling the problem in this way.
My question, then, is whether any of you can direct my attention to
books or other resources that organize the presentation of scale
patterns in this manner -- that is, 12 patterns, one for each
position. Thanks in advance for any suggestions.
Chief S.
Nazodesu
<c...@edu.edu> wrote:
William Leavitt's Berklee Guitar course in three volumes. Chuck
Wayne's two books Chords and Scales.
The exhaustive 12-position approach has it's good and bad points I
think, having spent the bulk of my life ascribing to it. I would
encourage one to nail the fingering-friendly big 5 and use the others
as adjuncts to these. Also this 12-position simply won't work for all
keys in all positions for chords, or arpeggios. In the abstract,
perhaps, but in practical usage no.
Don't see that as discouragement, I think it's a worthwhile and keeps
your fingers and brain humming.
Rick Ross
"Chief Squawtendrawpet" <c...@edu.edu> wrote in message
news:3D7FE1B1...@edu.edu...
Steve Carter
wrote:
>learn tunes instead...
Or learn tunes also.
I debated the 12 fingerings pretty extensively with Bill Leavitt when
I was teaching at Berklee. Since I didn't go to Berklee, when I
applied to teach there, in '72, Bill required me to "master" all his
books. We went through them page by page -- even the lesser-known
ones like "Guitar Duets". So if you have questions, ask away.
Steve
Steve Carter
Solo Jazz Guitarist
www.frogstoryrecords.com
Joey Goldstein
detailed in his books:
A Modern Method For Guitar - Vols. 1, 2 & 3 (Berklee Press).
I've got all the fingerings available, for free, in my own book, Joe's
Guitar Method:
http://www.joeygoldstein.com
Follow the links.
They're in Chapter IX - Position Playing.
--
Joey Goldstein
Guitarist/Jazz Recording Artist/Teacher
Home Page: http://www.joeygoldstein.com
Email: <joegold AT sympatico DOT ca>
Nazodesu
<sca...@frogstoryrecords.com> wrote:
> I debated the 12 fingerings pretty extensively with Bill Leavitt when
> I was teaching at Berklee. Since I didn't go to Berklee, when I
> applied to teach there, in '72, Bill required me to "master" all his
> books. We went through them page by page -- even the lesser-known
> ones like "Guitar Duets". So if you have questions, ask away.
Okay; what was your conclusion on the rule of 12?
And, do you think there is any value in Guitar Duets?
Billg...@attbi.com
MM marking before "moving on" in his method books?
TIA
Bill Godwin
"Steve Carter" <sca...@frogstoryrecords.com> wrote in message
news:3d7fedb0....@netnews.attbi.com...
Jurupari
>books or other resources that organize the presentation of scale
>patterns in this manner -- that is, 12 patterns, one for each
>position.
If you're aware of that, you don't need the book. Chances are you'll probably
wind up using fewer than twelve, though. The formula's easy enough. Two frets
for first and fourth finger, one for two and three, and play where you can
reach.
For the major scale I probably use about 9 of the twelve, but I don't ever
execute say a two octave scale in improvising, so it's probably. Which one in
positions where there are more than one depends on the direction I take a line.
For melodic minors, the scale postitions tend to be a fret off since the
movement of a seventh chord is harmonized by a scale half step up if it's not
at 2 or 4 as a general rule. So there are some 'in between' positions that work
there too. I think I favor about 9 of those.
Fortunately harmonic minors tend to fall on the same frets as the diatonic
scale they're overlaying, e.g. playing a 1 harmonic minor to outline note
choices for a 5 chord with some altered upper structure, so there's less need
for 'in between' fingerings. I think I only use 6 or 7 tops.
The trick is covering the fretboard with symmetric scales, i.e. diminished,
whole tone and augmented. They tend to lay best on the bias, and that can make
for some orientation problems, or it does for me, anyway.
Your work should yield the expected results of knowing your axe really well,
especialy if you know all the four note expansion chords in each positon while
you learn the scales and arps.
The controversial Barney Kessell stated that to him practicing scales was like
a rancher driving around surveying his spread. I like the analogy - the scales
as the ranch and not the ranchin'.
Clif Kuplen
Joey Goldstein
Billg...@attbi.com wrote:
>
> ok....did Leavitt recommend getting those arpeggio studies up to a certain
> MM marking before "moving on" in his method books?
Moving on to what?
--
Billg...@attbi.com
what i mean is like going to the next page in the book !
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:3D808E76...@nowhere.net...
Joey Goldstein
Billg...@attbi.com wrote:
>
> Good question...
>
> what i mean is like going to the next page in the book !
I'm still not sure I understand the question.
Who cares how fast you can run a finger pattern up and down the neck
anyways? Get the basic patterns down at a reasonable tempo and then
start looking for ways to make music with your new understanding of the fretboard.
These scale fingerings are presented over a gradual graded process in
Leavitt's books. They are presented rather abruptly in my own book. Go
to the next page whenever you feel ready. Then go back and review.
Jeff Seigle
> (say, 5 to 7) covering the range of a full octave. . . .
> My question, then, is whether any of you can direct my attention to
> books or other resources that organize the presentation of scale
> patterns in this manner -- that is, 12 patterns, one for each
> position. Thanks in advance for any suggestions.
I have a book that presents scales as climbing the neck instead of
staying in one position. I will check on the author & title of this
book, but you don't really need the book to use this approach. The
approach to start on the 6th string and play three notes (not
necessarily starting on the tonic of the scale), then play the next
three notes on the 5th string, and so on, playing three notes on each
string. I don't remember how many starting positions that book uses
but you could certainly go up to 12. This is a good exercise to add
to a bag of tricks, but I wouldn't use it exclusively. It also can be
used as a picking exercise since playing an odd number notes on each
string can either accommodate a sweep-picking style or be a challenge
to strict alternate picking.
I like this approach because using 5 or 7 or even 12 blocks tends to
make my thinking block oriented instead of seeing the entire neck as a
continuum of notes.
Jeff
Billg...@attbi.com
I just wondered if there was a yardstick MM that leavitt thought a guitar
student should be able to execute those arpeggios at when they first
encountered them for example.
Myself, I want them to be faster!
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:3D80A4A4...@nowhere.net...
Joey Goldstein
Billg...@attbi.com wrote:
>
> I'm in the go back and review mode now.
>
> I just wondered if there was a yardstick MM that leavitt thought a guitar
> student should be able to execute those arpeggios at when they first
> encountered them for example.
>
> Myself, I want them to be faster!
Play then clean at whatever tempo you can. Then speed them up, if you
feel the need.
Why not learn melodies, like bop heads, and try to play them clean and
fast?
Learning all those scales and arpeggios is supposed to help you be able
to play music better not to be able to play better scales and arpeggios.
Learn at a good melody and observe how the scales and arps fit into
actual music making better.
Chief Squawtendrawpet
> This is essentially William G. Leavitt's concept of position playing as
> detailed in his books:
> A Modern Method For Guitar - Vols. 1, 2 & 3 (Berklee Press).
>
> I've got all the fingerings available, for free, in my own book, Joe's
> Guitar Method: http://www.joeygoldstein.com
Thanks a lot. I'll take a look.
Chief S.
.
jaz...@webtv.net
Chief S,
Seems like you are on a search. Be careful. Whatever you choose test it
against the reading of sheet music. This is where I find you can edit
out extraneous position patterns.
When you play jazz music, if that is your intent, someone is going to
put music in front of you. Being up on 12 patterns may just get you
thinking too much and you can't afford to miss taking the shortest
distance between two points if you are being pressed for time. It
becomes a matter of what is practical for you to read, understand, then
perform. Good Luck.
Ron
Steve Carter
12 fingerings for scales and 4-part arpeggios. I don't -- at least
consciously -- use them much when I play. But the mind-finger exercise
is great.
As for Guitar Duets, I think it is well worth practicing -- but only
if you like the way it sounds. Some of it I like, some I don't. I
don't practice that anymore, but I'm glad I mastered it. I mean, I had
to play those duets with Bill! Good thing I was youndandfoolish enough
to not know how scary that was! :-)
Steve
On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 02:29:50 GMT, Nazodesu <mus...@adelphia.net>
wrote:
Steve Carter
Solo Jazz Guitarist
www.frogstoryrecords.com
Steve Carter
before moving on -- as long as it was a steady tempo. That was sort of
a general principle with him. The other thing he stressed was to play
them legato.
Steve
Steve Carter
I agree generally with your comments. I think Bill was trying to make
the same point you are making: don't worry about the tempop; learn
these as part of learning where things *are* on the instrument. As he
said, "These won't make music for you."
I found myself that I often had to encourage students not to get too
hung up on how fast they could play scales and arpeggios. It can
become and excuse for not playing melodies, etc.
Steve
Steve Carter
One thing I want to mention in defense of Bill's approach: one reason
he wrote all that stuff out in different positions was to get students
to *read* the notes of the scales, arpeggios, etc. I remember Bill
saying, "If you want to learn to read, look at the notes of the scales
when you play them."
One of the things that made me sad about the Berklee guitar department
as years passed, after Bill's passing, was the diminishing emphasis
on reading.
Steve
Steve Carter
Solo Jazz Guitarist
www.frogstoryrecords.com
Steve Carter
Your caution is in order. However, maybe overstated.
When I applied to teach at Berklee, I was mostly self-taught and could
read very little. Bill hired me anyway. :-) With his help, and using
his books and books he suggested, I quickly became an exceptionally
good sight-reader. The 12 fingerings didn't hurt.
Steve
Steve Carter
Solo Jazz Guitarist
www.frogstoryrecords.com
Joey Goldstein
something like Beyond Position Playing And Alternate Picking but I guess
he never did (did he?).
In the 3 volumes of AMMFG he never addressed things like:
• complex lines, like bebop lines, that require lots of position shifts
for the best phrasing
• 3 octave scales and arpeggios (I remember some xeroxed sheets that
were going around the college with some fingerings for these though)
• the principles behind effective position shifts
• scales or melodic patterns utilizing hammer-ons and pull-offs
• when to break the "rules" and use two fingers in the same fret
• etc.
• economy picking (he sort of touches on this in his own way with some
of the arpeggio exercises though)
• reverse alternate picking
I sort of think of my own book as a continuation of WGL's stuff. Have
you seen any of my book yet? I'd be interested in your opinions and suggestions.
His take on position playing is pretty unique in the guitar literature,
isn't it? Segovia, Aaron Shearer, Mel Bay, et al just used position
numbers to mark as a general freboard area. Leavitt's "rules" seem
uniquely his own invention to me. Is that your take as well?
http://www.joeygoldstein.com
Joe's Guitar Method
I had private lesson with Leavitt my last year for the course called
Literature Of Guitar or something like that but my private teachers
there were, let's see now: Tom Szymchak (we REALLY didn't hit it off my
1st year), Larry Senibaldi (I think I had Larry....short-ish, bald?),
Jon Damian (for a guitar ensemble), David Spadazzi (he was my fav of the
staff guys) and of course I was one of the handfull that got to study
with Metheny when he was there. I was also studying with Mick Goodrick
privately at his apartment.
The good old days. They just keep getting further and further back in
time don't they? Geez that's a long time ago. 30 years almost I guess.
--
Steve Carter
<nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>I've always thought that he should have written a Vol. 4 called
>something like Beyond Position Playing And Alternate Picking but I guess
>he never did (did he?).
>
No, Joey, you are right, he never got beyond the position playing. It
was his "thing".
>In the 3 volumes of AMMFG he never addressed things like:
>• complex lines, like bebop lines, that require lots of position shifts
>for the best phrasing
No, he never did that. Now, I know that you are not suggesting that
studying his method *prohibits* that, but I do object to people who
suggest that. We all have to remember that there are plenty of fine
players out there -- yourself included -- who studied his method, to
one extent or another, and are not "locked into position playing".
>• 3 octave scales and arpeggios (I remember some xeroxed sheets that
>were going around the college with some fingerings for these though)
>• the principles behind effective position shifts
>• scales or melodic patterns utilizing hammer-ons and pull-offs
>• when to break the "rules" and use two fingers in the same fret
>• etc.
Yeah, he had sheets on 3-octave scales and arpgeggios as far back as
'72. Yes, the principles of effective positions shifts were important
to him. He had, as I recall (I could look it up) some pages of that in
Volume 3.
>• economy picking (he sort of touches on this in his own way with some
>of the arpeggio exercises though)
I don't want to be too snooty :-), but Volume one, page (as I recall,
62).
>• reverse alternate picking
>
We discussed that. He said it was perfect for bebop lines because it
gives, as he put it "the strongest pickstroke on the off-beats, which
is where you want the accents for bebop lines."
>I sort of think of my own book as a continuation of WGL's stuff. Have
>you seen any of my book yet? I'd be interested in your opinions and suggestions.
I haven't, but I certainly will look at your book. And you know I'm
not hesitant to express my opinion. :-)
>
>His take on position playing is pretty unique in the guitar literature,
>isn't it? Segovia, Aaron Shearer, Mel Bay, et al just used position
>numbers to mark as a general freboard area. Leavitt's "rules" seem
>uniquely his own invention to me. Is that your take as well?
>
Well, he actually got the initial ideas, as legend has it, from Jack
Peterson and --- aahhh, my memory fails me -- a great guitarist who
was already a legend around Boston when I was a kid ---- I'll think of
his name...It's been a long time...I remember seeing this guy when I
was first teaching at Berklee. I was about 26, he was about 70. We
went to see him at a club --- what was his name? damn! --- anyway, he
sat with us, me and a couple of other teachers,...this guy had given
Bill some lessons. We talked about Bill. This guy literally jumped up
on the stage to play the last set of the night, such was his
enthusiasm.
Joey Goldstein
Steve Carter wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 20:33:19 -0400, Joey Goldstein
> <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> >I've always thought that he should have written a Vol. 4 called
> >something like Beyond Position Playing And Alternate Picking but I guess
> >he never did (did he?).
> >
> No, Joey, you are right, he never got beyond the position playing. It
> was his "thing".
> >In the 3 volumes of AMMFG he never addressed things like:
> >• complex lines, like bebop lines, that require lots of position shifts
> >for the best phrasing
> No, he never did that. Now, I know that you are not suggesting that
> studying his method *prohibits* that, but I do object to people who
> suggest that. We all have to remember that there are plenty of fine
> players out there -- yourself included -- who studied his method, to
> one extent or another, and are not "locked into position playing".
I know what you are saying. But it's hard to get young guys not to look
at the position playing concept from that all imporatant kind of angle.
When you're first starting out you're looking for ANYTHING that will
give you some sort of a logical approach to fingering. Pos Playing
offers you that but you have to look past it. It's just a concept. It's
not THE concept. Anybody who plays well has got their own set of
fingering do's and dont's.
> >• 3 octave scales and arpeggios (I remember some xeroxed sheets that
> >were going around the college with some fingerings for these though)
> >• the principles behind effective position shifts
> >• scales or melodic patterns utilizing hammer-ons and pull-offs
> >• when to break the "rules" and use two fingers in the same fret
> >• etc.
> Yeah, he had sheets on 3-octave scales and arpgeggios as far back as
> '72. Yes, the principles of effective positions shifts were important
> to him. He had, as I recall (I could look it up) some pages of that in
> Volume 3.
> >• economy picking (he sort of touches on this in his own way with some
> >of the arpeggio exercises though)
> I don't want to be too snooty :-), but Volume one, page (as I recall,
> 62).
> >• reverse alternate picking
Hah. I know page 60 well! I'll have to look for the reverse alternate
picking reference on the other side of the page the next time I have one
of my student's books handy. Still, you'll agree, he doesn't go into it
in very much depth.
> We discussed that. He said it was perfect for bebop lines because it
> gives, as he put it "the strongest pickstroke on the off-beats, which
> is where you want the accents for bebop lines."
Well that's true, or can be, but that's not the reason I practice rev
alt picking or tell my students to. I do it just for the co-ordintation.
If you can handle all the string skips inherent with normal alternate
picking, by reversing the pick direction you're not really making things
that much harder on yourself and may gain some more facility or see a
line here and there in a different light. If you can make your upstrokes
sound just like your dowstrokes the whole thing evens out.
> >I sort of think of my own book as a continuation of WGL's stuff. Have
> >you seen any of my book yet? I'd be interested in your opinions and suggestions.
> I haven't, but I certainly will look at your book. And you know I'm
> not hesitant to express my opinion. :-)
Be gentle. I just remeber you as being in the Leavitt inner circle and
since lots of my stuff is a condensed version of his it would be nice to
bounce it off of you.
PS I hope you've said hello to Farquharson for me. Tell him to call me
the next time he's in Toronto.
PPS What ever happened to David Spadazzi?
Doc
possibility of playing them 14 ways. 4 notes on one string and 3 on the
other, or 3 notes on one string and 4 on the other starting from each note
in the scale. Some of the positions are a little impractical but they are
possible.
--
Doc
http://www.trimcrafters.com/drg.htm
"Chief Squawtendrawpet" <c...@edu.edu> wrote in message
news:3D7FE1B1...@edu.edu...
Billg...@attbi.com
Thanks for your help! this morning I worked on Ornithology. much more fun
than arpeggios...
I still have this compulsive sense to go back and review Leavitts method
though.
Also I'm trying to get my one student to wade thru book 2 . So the
metronome marking question was from 2 perspectives. for me and for my
student.
I'm amazed how inspiring it is to teach this kid. He's 15 and can play and
read FAR better than I could when I started Berklee (which isn't saying
much) so that's pretty exciting I started with him when he was nine...
pretty cool for me..
thanks again for all your help
Bill Godwin
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:3D80B7E6...@nowhere.net...
jaz...@webtv.net
Steve,
I'm just saying it's my personal choice to practice reading with music
that was composed rather than reading scale exercises or position
exercises. I've made a value judgement about this. They don't sound good
compared to music.
Ron
Steve Carter
are saying. But it's hard to get young guys not to look
>at the position playing concept from that all imporatant kind of angle.
>When you're first starting out you're looking for ANYTHING that will
>give you some sort of a logical approach to fingering. Pos Playing
>offers you that but you have to look past it. It's just a concept. It's
>not THE concept. Anybody who plays well has got their own set of
>fingering do's and dont's.
>
>> >• 3 octave scales and arpeggios (I remember some xeroxed sheets that
>> >were going around the college with some fingerings for these though)
>> >• the principles behind effective position shifts
>> >• scales or melodic patterns utilizing hammer-ons and pull-offs
>> >• when to break the "rules" and use two fingers in the same fret
>> >• etc.
>> Yeah, he had sheets on 3-octave scales and arpgeggios as far back as
>> '72. Yes, the principles of effective positions shifts were important
>> to him. He had, as I recall (I could look it up) some pages of that in
>> Volume 3.
>> >• economy picking (he sort of touches on this in his own way with some
>> >of the arpeggio exercises though)
>> I don't want to be too snooty :-), but Volume one, page (as I recall,
>> 62).
>> >• reverse alternate picking
>
>Hah. I know page 60 well! I'll have to look for the reverse alternate
>picking reference on the other side of the page the next time I have one
>of my student's books handy. Still, you'll agree, he doesn't go into it
>in very much depth.
>
over-emphasize strict alternate.
>> We discussed that. He said it was perfect for bebop lines because it
>> gives, as he put it "the strongest pickstroke on the off-beats, which
>> is where you want the accents for bebop lines."
>
>Well that's true, or can be, but that's not the reason I practice rev
>alt picking or tell my students to. I do it just for the co-ordintation.
>If you can handle all the string skips inherent with normal alternate
>picking, by reversing the pick direction you're not really making things
>that much harder on yourself and may gain some more facility or see a
>line here and there in a different light. If you can make your upstrokes
>sound just like your dowstrokes the whole thing evens out.
>
I agree. (Am I being boring? :) )
You've stated this very well.
>> >I sort of think of my own book as a continuation of WGL's stuff. Have
>> >you seen any of my book yet? I'd be interested in your opinions and suggestions.
>> I haven't, but I certainly will look at your book. And you know I'm
>> not hesitant to express my opinion. :-)
>
>Be gentle. I just remeber you as being in the Leavitt inner circle and
>since lots of my stuff is a condensed version of his it would be nice to
>bounce it off of you.
>
Ok, I'll be gentle. :) But it will be a while before I can look at
your book, and I'll take some time to think before responding, so be
patient. Having said, that -- from reading your posts, I'm sure I'll
like what's in your book.
>PS I hope you've said hello to Farquharson for me. Tell him to call me
>the next time he's in Toronto.
I will. About the only time I see Michael is when we do a trio gig
with Mike Scott, which is about once or twice a year. But my daughter
is working in the Berklee Faculty Union office now with Mike Scott and
Michael Farquharson, so maybe I'll pass a "hello" through her.
>
>PPS What ever happened to David Spadazzi?
>
Last I heard, a few years ago, he was running a small recording
studio, playing piano, writing and recording demos for singers.
I liked David a lot and learned a lot from him. He used to come over
to my house to jam, as did Mike Grady, John Damian, Jim Frejek and
many other faculty and students. It was a fun time for me, and I'm
grateful for everything I learned from all of them.
Steve Carter
Fair enough!
To clarify my position, I think that the majority of "reading time"
should be spent reading *real music*. The higher the quality of the
composer, the better. So I had students who were at the early stages
reading simple Mozart, Beethoven, Bartok, etc., piano and violin
pieces (some of these I'll post on my site -- they are public domain,
so it's OK), and simple tunes like "Blue Trane".
But I also found that, as I was learning to read (I started reading
late -- age 20 or so -- aside from some clarinet lessons in grammar
school) I was so frustrated with my reading that I *had* to go back to
read scale and arpeggio exercises so that I knew my ax -- in terms of
its relation to notation -- better. So, for me, and many of my
students, it was a mixture. I think you'll see some evidence of that
in the reading list I've posted on my site (under Guitar Lessons).
Once again, whatever works *for you* is right.
Steve
P.S. Wanna come by my house and read some duets? <joking>
Joey Goldstein
two notes or more in the same fret on different strings while staying
within a single position?
I remember my teachers there trying to get me to "roll" the finger tip
from string to string which involves always keeping the finger's last
joint bent rather than flattened. But I could never get a truly legato
phrasing by doing this. There was always a gap of silence when switching
from one note to the next because you have to lift your finger tip off
of one string before you place it on the next. I'm pretty sure my
teachers there used to discourage the thing I'm going to advocate below.
What I do now is to flatten my finger (sort of a partial barre) when
there are two consecutive strings involved (sometimes three). I only
"roll" if I have to skip up or down several strings (eg. 5th fret/5th
string D to 5th fret/1st string A) but more often than not for the
large string skips like this I will simply use another available finger
which actually means I've shifted position usually just temporarily.
There are too many different ways that these same fret/different string
problems arise for me to detail each one of them but for me the solution
has more often than not turned out to be this partial barring technique.
How 'bout you? Do you tell your students to roll or to flatten? Did Bill
Leavitt have really strong opinions about this?
Rick DelSavio
When he was studying
music (in Romania) Alex Adrian went, when he encountered this dilemna, to
the string players for advice. They told him as I recall that they would use
a separate finger. No rolls, barres. Anyone else here, violinists etc.. do
the same? It works for me. Thanks, Rick
Joey Goldstein wrote:
--
Jazz Guitarist/Educator
Check out lessons and original music @
http://www.rickdelsavio.com
Steve Carter
See my repsonse to Rick, later in this thread.
Steve
Steve Carter
Solo Jazz Guitarist
www.frogstoryrecords.com
Steve Carter
I think that Alex Adrian was my old friend Alex Radulescu. He was from
Rumania. I heard that he had changed his last name. It's a bit
confusing, because there's a piano player around Boston named Alex
Adrian.
Alex R. and I used to have interesting debates about this. Bill
Leavitt referred to "rolling", but his advice was closer to the
"partial barring" that Joey describes. You really have to flatten the
last (nearest the end) joint of the finger to do this. Alex was
opposed to this, and used the "classical" approach: separate finger
for each note, even when they were in the same fret on adjacent
strings.
I use one or the other as the need arises. Granted, I can not get a
*true* legato with flattening, but I get what I need. When I can not,
I use "Alex's" technique.
I used to be much more cut-and-dried about this, arguing against Alex.
But I've mellowed with age. :)
Steve
Steve Carter
Solo Jazz Guitarist
www.frogstoryrecords.com
Rick DelSavio
knew him in Queens NY, and if he calls people "baby" a lot then it's gotta be
the same cat! Rick
Joey Goldstein
Steve Carter wrote:
>
> Rick,
> I think that Alex Adrian was my old friend Alex Radulescu. He was from
> Rumania. I heard that he had changed his last name. It's a bit
> confusing, because there's a piano player around Boston named Alex
> Adrian.
> Alex R. and I used to have interesting debates about this.
> Bill
> Leavitt referred to "rolling", but his advice was closer to the
> "partial barring" that Joey describes.
> You really have to flatten the
> last (nearest the end) joint of the finger to do this.
Hmmm. I thought I remembered one or more of my Berklee staff teachers
telling me that "rolling" involved keeping the joint bent rather than
flattened. No wonder I couldn't do it!!! <g>
> Alex was
> opposed to this, and used the "classical" approach: separate finger
> for each note, even when they were in the same fret on adjacent
> strings.
>
> I use one or the other as the need arises.
That seems to me to be a good way to put it.
--
Joey Goldstein
http://www.joeygoldstein.com