Guitar Ego (warning -- complaint ahead)

I get one student every year who has picked up a few things on the internet before coming to me and has therefore decided he is a hotshot player who does not need to learn how to read the notes on the staff, or keep time with the rest of the class when playing ensemble pieces, or basically do anything I say.
But then, to make things worse, this guy (and it is always a guy, unfortunately) finds it necessary to play all his hot licks, out of tune, while the class is trying to tune, and try to teach his neighbor to do the cool things he can do, while supplying misinformation about said cool things.
My message to this guy is simply this: you can't get humble enough to learn how to play "Twinkle Twinkle" in G from standard notation. What really important and useful information are you excluding from your life, because you are too cool?
Ok, try it again. From the top. In tempo please.

Berlin and Metronomes, part II

Jeff Berlin is famous in the bass education circle for speaking out against the metronome. I, and many others, have found them useful. The debate has raged for months on end through regular myspace bulletins which always get a heap of responses.

I have posted here about this before, but the following is yet more of my own thoughts about the metronome as a tool for practicing an instrument.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I get the idea that if you don't know your instrument you will have bad time. I get that you will drag if you can't confidently put the next note where it needs to go and when, so that explains where DRAGGING comes from. I'm pretty satisfied with that.
But then I ask myself, what explains RUSHING? And this is where I get less satisfied with an explanation that excludes the metronome as a possible part of the remedy.
I suppose the anti-metronome stance would explain RUSHING as the player not being sufficiently aware of where his/her fellow musicians have negotiated the unspoken time agreement. The only remedy I can see for that is directing the rushing player to listen to many good examples of excellent time agreement in music and then try to emulate that kind of agreement.
But this isn't enough for me. I think it is good to have some kind of benchmark by which to honestly assess one's propensity for either rushing or dragging, and when one or the other is diagnosed, then seek the appropriate remedy.

If I turn on a metronome and play a few bars of music, and I hear that I can't keep up, then I have just gotten INSTANT FEEDBACK -- I have some deficiency, some lack of mastery of the passage at the metronome's tempo. I can set the metronome slower and determine exactly the tempo at which I can play the written passage perfectly in time. This establishes my starting point, the place where the work begins. I can then seek out and fix the specific problem (a fingering, a string-cross, whatever it is). If I can play the piece in time at a faster metronome marking than before, this tells me I have made some progress. For me, instant feedback is good. You could argue that this part isn't about music but psychology, but I contend that the practice of music necessarily introduces a psychological component. I am more motivated when I can measure my progress in an immediate, ongoing, incremental fashion. If this helps me keep the bass in my hands and keep working toward getting better, then seriously, HOW CAN THIS BE A BAD THING?

The metronome is not a replacement for an internal clock or a keen ear for locking in with other musicians. But it is an absolute against which I can evaluate my own tendencies as a player (do I tend to rush or drag?) and to check my progress on difficult technical passages (can I play this at a given BPM?).

While I will continue to disagree with Mr. Berlin by insisting that metronomes can be useful tools, I am starting to appreciate this ongoing discussion which, though I have found it tiresome at times, has forced me to think very deeply and carefully about what I practice and teach. And for that he has my thanks.

Jeff Berlin and Metronomes

As some of you may know, the monstrously talented and legendary electric bass player Jeff Berlin is very outspoken against the metronome as a learning tool.

Recently on myspace, he brought out his arguments against the metronome. Friend him on myspace if you want to read them for yourself.

In my opinion, he is extremely gifted and had never found a personal use for a metronome, so he therefore decided they are useless. Mere mortals like myself disagree. Below is my reply to Mr. Berlin.
___________________________________________________________________

Granted, there are many people all over the world who have developed great time and musical feeling without metronomes.
In the history of music and its practice, the metronome is a relatively new innovation.
These facts alone, while true and compelling for what they are, do not mean metronomes are useless or harmful.
I was fortunate enough as a child to have a piano teacher show me how to use a metronome as a constructive practice aid, NOT as a crutch to support bad time. She showed me how to use a metronome to pick apart and master technical passages, bridging from playing them out of time toward playing them in time, first slowly, then gradually up to performance tempo, with FEELING and CONFIDENCE and AUTHORITY every step of the way.

The metronome gives me a means to scrutinize my technical problems and turn those problems, ultimately, into the effortless coordinated action which results in music.
In other words, after playing arpeggios on the changes of Giant Steps out of time, I played them at 40 on the metronome. Then 42. Then 44. It helped me figure out exactly what was getting in my way at any particular moment so that I could stop and fix it.
I think this method of metronome practicing has also helped me with fluid, lyrical, out-of-time playing as well. This is because interpretive "pushing and pulling" of time can be done with more freedom from technical blocks. I am not tempted to "slow down for the hard parts" in a performance situation (like so many of my students do and have to be trained out of).

Further, I know of no instances where practicing with a metronome has harmed anyone's musical development.

Finally, for as many good musicians with great time and feel (like you, Mr. Berlin) who have not used or needed the aid of a metronome in their development, there are many more who resist the metronome and trot out all the arguments about how "it kills the feel" and is "too mechanical" and "has no soul" etc. when it is obvious to me that they are in denial about their own deficiencies and, rather than confront them, criticize and dismiss possibly helpful tools out of ignorance, fear and personal insecurity.

These same people often resist things like learning to read music, scales, and arpeggios. You may know someone like this. To put it bluntly, these people say "I play from the heart" so that they can continue to SUCK and not feel internally conflicted about it.

Come on. You know it's true.

I credit the metronome for valuable assistance in my technical development. Simply because you have never used or felt the need for one, Mr. Berlin, does not mean it did not help me. It did.

OK I'm done now.

BTW I saw you give a clinic in about 1990 when you were endorsing the Peavey Pallaedium bass. Watching you up close showed me that I had to use my RH thumb as a floating mute to keep the open strings under control. Thank you very much -- that realization alone made a huge improvement in my playing. I got to talk to you a bit and you were very cool. I appreciate it to this day.

Guess how I practiced that technique and got it completely internalized?

WITH A METRONOME!

So I will continue to disagree with you on this point.

OK now I'm really done.

You play an electric bass!

So touch the strings lightly, turn your amp up, and let the power company in your area do the work.

Gary Willis talks about this a lot and even uses a thing called a ramp to keep from digging in too hard.

That's all for now.

Love,
Andy

Modes of the major scale and minor scale types explained

>Hi andy, my name is J., i'm from --------... i took one lesson from you over
>a year ago but unfortunately could not continue due to financial reasons...
>hopefully there will be more in the future... anyway.. i was just wondering
>if you could help clear something up for me.. it pertains to modes...and i
>know how much you love them...lol
>
>what is the difference between major and minor modes?
>
>arent all modes (ionian, dorian, phryigian, aeolian, lydian, etc) just
>variations of the major scale, making them MAJOR MODES. If i begin with
>ionian on C and proceed to play dorian on D, phyrigian on E, and so forth...
>i will have played thru all the notes in the key of C major...correct??
>
>however, would the "key of A minor" be the key of "C major" simply because
>they are relative?
>
>or are there an entirely different set of modes for playing in a minor
>key...?
>
>and where do harmonic and melodic minor scales come into play? would these
>be considered modes of the minor scale... or major.... and can you replace
>the 6th degree mode (aeolian) with a harmonic minor scale... or would this
>not fit as affectively as the natural minor
>

Hi J.,
Your thinking is on the right track. The major scale is also the Ionian mode,
and its relative minor is the Aeolian mode (starting on the sixth degree of its
relative major). A major and its relative minor share the same key signature so
yes, C major and A minor share a key signature, like F major and D minor, Bb
major and G minor, etc.
Harmonic minor is an alteration of the natural minor (Aeolian mode) which raises
the 7th degree to create a leading tone one half step below tonic (root). This
alteration make the V chord a dominant chord (major triad + minor seventh)
instead of a minor seventh chord. It's a stronger chord and makes for stronger
harmonic motion. It's all over 18th century writing (J. S. Bach, etc.) and is
still maybe more common than natural minor. Melodic minor, with its raised 6th
and 7th when ascending, takes this idea a little further. The alterations show
up in written music as accidentals (sharps or naturals not indicated in the key
signature).
Hope this helps,
Andy

http://www.andrewpfaff.com
http://www.myspace.com/andrewpfaffmusic

Onboard Active Equalization

>Hi Andrew .Im a newbie with a spector legend6 Its got
>a tone pump jr 2band active eq with 2 pots .i really
>dont now how to work it i just fiddle with it till it
>sounds good .How do it really work ? D.

Hi D.,
I'm not familiar with your bass so I don't know if the two pots are bass and treble (more common) or level and curve controls (if it's a parametric eq).
If it's the former, then you use it just like any other bass and treble controls. In my experience active tone controls are pretty radical. On my basses with active eq I tend to leave them flat(no gain or cut).
If it's the latter, then you use one control to determine the center point of your eq curve and the other control to cut or boost around that frequency. I think it's unlikely this is what you have though.
Hope this helps,
Andy

http://www.andrewpfaff.com
http://www.myspace.com/andrewpfaffmusic
http://www.andrewpfaff.com/BCTHSmusic

Octave Equivalence

>Andrew,
>
> I have a question for you regarding scales and patterns.
>can you explain to me how you would transition from one pattern to the
>next. I have been playing rock guitar by ear for years and recently
>have gone to the bass but I cant figure out the transition of the
>patterns. The tabs themselves are easy to figure out but like in Hal
>Leonard's Bass method he shows you the patterns (i.e. pattern 1 pattern 2 and
>pattern 3 etc etc) of the same note and scale and they are always not in order
>from the fret on. I am wondering (feel stupid because I years ago took
>theory and harmony and have played for years) if each pattern is actually the
>next step in key structure IE the circle of fifths.
>
>In other words, take a c major Ionian pattern three. The root is at
>the nut, or E then the scale progresses to f, g a b(root) c, etc etc, However
>pattern 1 starts at the c on the 8th fret. Now I understand that this
>is also a c major scale but what I am looking for is what the relationship from
>one pattern to the next is and why would the not be nut pattern as number 1 then
>progressively up from there?
>
>I hope this questions isn't to moronic for you as I really want to learn
>this and get very good at base. I would like to actually learn musically
>so I can join in on anything group playing rather than the head banging noise
>that I have done for years. So any help you have would be great on this
>subject.
>
>Thank you
>
>D. P.

Hi D,
Without actually seeing the book, it sounds like each pattern is a rotation of
the major scale in question (in the case of your example, C major).
The rotation, or pattern, of the scale starting at the nut on E, seems like it
should start on the 12th fret of the E string or the 7th fret of the A string,
because you are starting from the third step of the scale.
While that is logical, the point to remember is that there are only seven letters
in the musical alphabet (ABCDEFG) and they keep repeating octave after octave.
The E at the nut is equivalent to the E at the 12th fret E string or 7th fret A
string (or 2nd fret D string), but sounds one octave lower.
So your book is dropping the register by one octave to make it more convenient to
learn and play.
Hope this helps,
Andy