Finger Picking Guitar Scales

[JanVigne]

"I don't think of scales as being a fundamental aspect of finger-style playing. I play nothing but finger-style and, other than snazzy little Gary Davis runs, I can't remember the last time a played a scale in a tune."




I would say you are missing the function of scales and certainly of learning scales. Of course you play scales when you play fingerstyle arrangements. You couldn't possibly play a chord without playing a scale. You couldn't intuitively move to another position to reach a new chord form if you didn't play scales. You would be lost in adding harmonized embellishments to your playing if you didn't play scales. What you've posted in a bit like saying, "I cook all the time but I can't remember the last time I used heat in my cooking."

Most of us don't "play scales" if we want to sound interesting. All of us use scales in our playing.

[theaxeman]

Originally Posted by JanVigne

The question: How should I learn?

The ideology: A certain political party in Texas had a plank in their 2012 platform which stated their opposition to supporting any form of education which encouraged "critical thinking".

The result: Texas is at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to high school graduation rates.


*****


Not making light of the op's question, but when I see such questions asking for the "right way" to do something on guitar I tend to think in terms of potential situations.



If someone asked on a car forum whether teaching their teenager to drive by taking them out to a tack would be helpful, I think; well, they'll only be making left hand turns, they won't have any stop signs to follow or any cross traffic. What good would the track have done once they get out on the road with me?


I have the same (Noad) book as Jon and a few others which have pages and pages of scale exercises. I have yet to see the instruction in any book or any DVD or any on line video which tells the student to simply "think".

If you follow the logic of not supporting critical thinking, you will teach to the book's answers and to a single correct answer on the test. No other answers, no other questions, no other way to go but to have "faith" in your one answer and to not question any authority which says "this" is the only answer you'll ever need. And you'll turn out students who, when they get out onto a real world highway, can't turn right.

In the real world players must accomplish what is required by the music in as rapid and "correct" manner as possible. Music is, therefore, situational, not didactic.



IMO the answer to the op's question is; think. Think for yourself. Think about what you might be required to do in music. Think about what might most benefit you as a player. Think even about what you might never actually use in playing music but which will make an even better player than would be required. Do not learn to the test, learn beyond the test. Like the archer, you can never have too many arrows in your quiver.

Think about how other players might approach six strings and five digits. Guitarists tend to think their instrument is all that matters and they ignore the obvious techniques they can use from other instruments. Think of this; Early (slide) guitarists often tried to follow the sound of the human voice as it hits notes which exist between the frets of a guitar or the keys of a piano. The Delta blues players of the 30's moved into a style of play which sought to emulate the left hand/right hand techniques of a ragtime pianist. BB King claims the saxophone single line playing was a major influence on his sound. Think, there are many ways to approach playing music and many ways to play any single instrument.


Steal your workouts from other instruments. There is absolutely no need to think there is only one way to do something on a guitar. There are innumerable ways to do things on the guitar. Take for example, a lap style dobro player will move their entire hand to use their thumb and two fingers on any string set. That might mean the thumb is striking either a top or bottom set of strings while the two fingers are playing on the top or bottom strings. At times the thumb will play higher notes than the index finger. The thumb and another finger might alternate plucking a string or the two fingers might. In other words, the thumb might be playing a higher note at this point while a finger might be playing a lower note at another. Flexibility is the goal, not rigid recipes. If you think there might be a situation where you would be required to play alternating notes with your thumb and pinky, why not play that way as an exercise? What damage would be done to your technique if you practiced unconventional fingerings?

Learning to separate your finger's movement is not the same as learning the sound of a scale. Learning the sound of a scale is not the same as learning the positions on the neck where a note falls.

You are restricting yourself when you do not think critically to what might best suit your playing. The answer is not to find the "right" way to play a note. The best way is to find how many ways and how well you might play that note.


Think - then do. Always ask the question which says "what next?"

And that is precisely what I am trying to do.

Find a starting place using other's techniques who have gone before, and take it from there to build my own.

[Monk of Funk]

Originally Posted by JanVigne

"I don't think of scales as being a fundamental aspect of finger-style playing. I play nothing but finger-style and, other than snazzy little Gary Davis runs, I can't remember the last time a played a scale in a tune."




I would say you are missing the function of scales and certainly of learning scales. Of course you play scales when you play fingerstyle arrangements. You couldn't possibly play a chord without playing a scale. You couldn't intuitively move to another position to reach a new chord form if you didn't play scales. You would be lost in adding harmonized embellishments to your playing if you didn't play scales. What you've posted in a bit like saying, "I cook all the time but I can't remember the last time I used heat in my cooking."

Most of us don't "play scales" if we want to sound interesting. All of us use scales in our playing.

I actually find "the pattern" Most useful, not for soloing notes, though it is useful for that, but I think the main power comes from seeing a chord sequence, and how it relates to the key.

I understand though, you can learn just the chords of songs, and just play arpeggios, without paying any attention to the key. That will work fine. But when you pay attention to the key, it kind of makes every song, the same song, and that's powerful. It makes learning a song much more valuable.

[AX17609]

Originally Posted by JanVigne

"I don't think of scales as being a fundamental aspect of finger-style playing. I play nothing but finger-style and, other than snazzy little Gary Davis runs, I can't remember the last time a played a scale in a tune."




I would say you are missing the function of scales and certainly of learning scales. Of course you play scales when you play fingerstyle arrangements. You couldn't possibly play a chord without playing a scale. You couldn't intuitively move to another position to reach a new chord form if you didn't play scales. You would be lost in adding harmonized embellishments to your playing if you didn't play scales. What you've posted in a bit like saying, "I cook all the time but I can't remember the last time I used heat in my cooking."

Most of us don't "play scales" if we want to sound interesting. All of us use scales in our playing.

Scales are notes in linear sequence, not just notes. Finger-style relates more to structured arpeggios than to scales. In fact, it's frequently referred to as an arpeggiated style.

The point I'm trying to make is that practicing scales, which I do every morning, hasn't helped my finger-style one bit. I do it simply to limber up my aging left hand.

[JanVigne]

OK, let's play that game. How do you arpeggiate a chord without using scale notes?

Practicing scales "runs" would be playing in a "linear" fashion - of sorts - if you are playing one diatonic or chromatic interval after the other along the length of one string only. If you skip strings, play fourths or sixths, play forward and backward scales, etc, you're still playing scales, are you not?

I don't understand how you are trying to remove scales from playing music. If you play fingerstyle in, say, the key of C Major, are you not playing notes which exist within the C Major scale or one of its modes?

[Wuchak]

Originally Posted by JanVigne

The question: How should I learn?

The ideology: A certain political party in Texas had a plank in their 2012 platform which stated their opposition to supporting any form of education which encouraged "critical thinking".

The result: Texas is at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to high school graduation rates. ....."

I am thinking critically about your claim that there is a causal relationship between these two things and it is not passing my smell test. I am not clear at all how a 2012 political party position could have had an immediate effect on the graduation rates in the state. Could you please explain it?

In the 2010 - 2011 school year Texas was 9th in the nation in their high school graduation rate and only 2% behind the number one state. http://www.governing.com/gov-data/hi...-by-state.html.The facts don't fit with your ill disguised political hit statement. Might want to try some of that critical thinking you recommend yourself before making a statement that is so obviously factually incorrect and before bringing politics into a discussion about fingerpicking.

[JanVigne]

Let's begin with this, from the Houston Chronicle; "Texas ranking in national list of graduation rates is highly dubious

Federal statistics run counter to other measures of performance"

http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook...on-4168311.php


You can sort this out for yourself. I see no reason for the Houston Chronicle to not tout Texas as being at the top of anything good.


How about this? "Why Does Texas Rank Last in High School Diplomas?"; http://www.texastribune.org/texas-ed...hool-diplomas/


My statement probably doesn't pass your smell test because your smell tester is faulty. Were you educated here in Texas?

First, what party am I thinly disguising my "political hit" upon? I never mentioned which party placed that idea in their platform. Yet you seem to assume I was disparaging a specific party. That would lead me to think you have an idea which party is the most likely to say they do not support critical thinking. If you automatically assume a specific party is likely to do something, wouldn't it stand to reason they are likely to do something because their past actions have proven they actually do such things? So, which party do you assume I am referring to? You're the one who made this a political "hit", not me. I was particularly non-partisan in my remarks.


Second, in no way did I say a 2012 platform was the only cause of the low graduation rates. Education in Texas has many, many problems; not the least of which would be many of the positions which deal with education have become partisan appointments. I don't even think I said a platform statement was "responsible" for anything.

To be clear though, we can look at what the Texas School Board has approved for textbooks and see a pattern of manipulating educational material over the last few decades; "Texas school board approves controversial textbook changes" ; http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know...k-changes/954/

The board is comprised of members who overwhelmingly register as belonging to one specific political party. For example, positions on the science board have members with no background in science. I didn't do that, these are political appointments. There's no disguising what party controls Texas. Decisions have consequences. If the school books in Texas do not mention, say, Thomas Jefferson, how much time is a Texas school teacher to spend discussing Thomas Jefferson? Is the student expected to simply research Thomas Jefferson on their own - despite the lack of Thomas Jefferson being mention to the student - while they are also preparing for a test? How do you research something or someone you've never heard of? If Thomas Jefferson has been replaced by Tom Delay (highly likely) or Ann Richards (very unlikely), who is the student to assume is the more important person in Texas History? Who would they know more about at the end of the school year?

It's too bad you made this into a political discussion. My intent was to simply show the illogic of learning without thinking - of learning only one way to think. I made no comments regarding any political party by name. Your response seems to be just another of those knee jerk reactions which, IMO, are common to one side of the political debate. You're on your own to decide which party I feel is most culpable of that fault.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by AX17609

Scales are notes in linear sequence, not just notes. Finger-style relates more to structured arpeggios than to scales. In fact, it's frequently referred to as an arpeggiated style.

Hi AX...

I'm a fairly proficient fingerstyle player (and teacher) and you seem to presume all fingerstyle play is the same. I've never heard fingerstyle described as an arpeggiated style.

Fingerstyle is a technique of using fingers as opposed to picks and is not limited to structured arpeggios, or scales.

Proficient fingerstyle combines many other techniques including picking, plucking, strumming, chording, splitting fingers, runs, arpeggios, leaps,[/I] of which arpeggio or linear scale-style playing are merely two of the-many available. In my experience fingerstyle does not refer more to arpeggios than runs.

Fingerstyle techniques encompass methods ranging from Thumb-n-one-finger to Thumb-n-four-fingers and are frequently used for folk accompaniment, chord melody, jazz comping, and even bluegrass leads.

So to reduce it to calling it mostly linear or arpeggio in an over-all fashion would do disservice. The ratio of techniques would vary from player-to-player or even song-to-song with the same player as styles of music/songs are changed.

Perhaps in your experience it's reduced to more arpeggio than linear playing. In my experience that is not what has proved to be.

Certainly in regards to the original poster learning scales using several fingerstyle techniques would be a good thing, and could apply to many real-world uses down the road.

[jasperguitar]

Interesting .. I recently purchased another book .. my guitar library, for another day ..

The book recommended using alternating fingers [tips] on the same string. I was doing the assignment method aka .. 1st string, a .. 2nd string middle .. 3rd string index

Now, I'm doing a bit of each ...

It does take concentration to use different finger tips on the same string.. not sure why ..

[jasperguitar]

"OK, let's play that game. How do you arpeggiate a chord without using scale notes? "

easy .. you play arpeggiate notes .. har har har har har har har ..

[jasperguitar]

Jan Vigne ... not sure about most stuff.. but I do know this

You can hear the Grand Ol' Opry in Nashville Tennessee
It's the home of country music,on that we all agree
But when you cross that ol' Red River hoss that just don't mean a thing
Cause' once you're down in Texas,Bob Wills is still the king
Well if you ain't never been there then i guess you ain't been told
That you just can't live in Texas unless you got a lot of soul
It's the home of Willie Nelson,the home of western swing
He'll be the first to tell you,Bob Wills is still the king

[Monk of Funk]

Originally Posted by JanVigne

OK, let's play that game. How do you arpeggiate a chord without using scale notes?

Practicing scales "runs" would be playing in a "linear" fashion - of sorts - if you are playing one diatonic or chromatic interval after the other along the length of one string only. If you skip strings, play fourths or sixths, play forward and backward scales, etc, you're still playing scales, are you not?

I don't understand how you are trying to remove scales from playing music. If you play fingerstyle in, say, the key of C Major, are you not playing notes which exist within the C Major scale or one of its modes?

A chord is a chord. An arpeggio is an arpeggio. A scale is a scale. If you learn only chords, and no scales, and do only arpeggios, then you're fine, you can do that. Some people want to do that, some people like that, and that's fine.

But none of that is scales. Ya, the key is important, and ya, those arpeggios for most music, will be within the key. But that doesn't mean it is necessarily important for someone to learn them, if they don't want they can get from it.

I'm personally much more like you though.

To me, there is one piece of theory. The pattern. All chords are just groups of notes from that. For how I play, that's useful. But I could understand how scales might not be useful for some, how they play.

I do though, think that understanding the location and role chords play within the key they are in, will help any sort of player, because it will help them learn songs much faster, and change key much easier, even if don't care about any of the other advantages.

[Wuchak]

If you learn your chords and major scale patterns and how those patters can also be used for the relative minor you have whole universe. Especially when you start to see how those scale patters overlay the chord forms. At first just knowing what is one scale to e up and down from each note in the chord. It gives you a place to slide up and down to or hammer on and pull off from that will be in the right key. Lets you add some tasty fills and create riffs around the chord. From there you can use the scale patterns to move from one chord to the next up and down the fretboard.

On of my favorite exercises and things to just noodle and enjoy playing to see where it goes is to use the three bass strings as drone notes handled by the thumb and fingerpick scales in different keys up and down the three high strings. A minor is an especially fun key for this since you get the A for the root bass and the E for 5th as the bass. Drop D is also great for this. Once you get going with it hours can slip by while you are having fun playing. It's amazing how just a drone note with a steady thumb beat played on it can lay such a great foundation to play over.

Talked myself right into going and picking up a guitar. : )

[JanVigne]

"A chord is a chord. An arpeggio is an arpeggio. A scale is a scale. If you learn only chords, and no scales, and do only arpeggios, then you're fine, you can do that. Some people want to do that, some people like that, and that's fine.

But none of that is scales."



Is this a semantics issue? Or, an issue of real disagreement? I vote for the former.

Certainly, you can play chords - even play whole songs - and not have a clue you are playing by way of scale notes. You can breathe in and out for your entire life and not realize you are inhaling oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide. People did so for thousands of years.

However, playing chords without knowing they are constructed from a scale doesn't mean you aren't using scales any more than not knowing anything about oxygen would make it non-existent.

[Monk of Funk]

Originally Posted by JanVigne

"A chord is a chord. An arpeggio is an arpeggio. A scale is a scale. If you learn only chords, and no scales, and do only arpeggios, then you're fine, you can do that. Some people want to do that, some people like that, and that's fine.

But none of that is scales."



Is this a semantics issue? Or, an issue of real disagreement? I vote for the former.

Certainly, you can play chords - even play whole songs - and not have a clue you are playing by way of scale notes. You can breathe in and out for your entire life and not realize you are inhaling oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide. People did so for thousands of years.

However, playing chords without knowing they are constructed from a scale doesn't mean you aren't using scales any more than not knowing anything about oxygen would make it non-existent.

By that rationale, people were using scales before even scales were ever invented. Music came first scales came after.

I think it might be somewhat semantics. To me using a scale is having learned scales, and applying that knowledge to your instrument.

If you learn a bunch of diatonic songs, and pay no attention to the key they are in, or are oblivious to the existence of scales, then you might be playing diatonic chords, but you are making no use of the knowledge that scales bring. You are just not using them.

When I breathe, I am using air, whether I realise it or not.

When I play a chord progression, I am playing a chord progression. If that chord progression is diatonic, that doesn't mean I am using a scale. I am not. I am just playing chords.

If I do a run, and it is a scale, and I don't know that it is a scale or what it is called, then I'll agree, that's using a scale. But in the context of chords, to me, using the scale, would be the mental realization that you are playing diatonically, or realizing where the chords sit in the key. That is using the scale.

If you make no realization of that, and you just play the diatonic chords, without taking notice of what key they are in, where they sit relative to the key, then sure, you might be playing diatonically, you might be only playing chords within the key, but you are not using scales, because the use is the knowledge.

The use of breathing is getting oxygen to your muscles. You don't need to realize that is happening in order to use oxygen. In order to use scales, you must either be playing scales, or realize that they exist, and how your chords fit into that. If you don't use those things, and you just play chords, then you are not using scales, but maybe the person who wrote the song did, and maybe not.

I wrote songs without ever knowing about key. Sometimes they may have been completely diatonic, and sometimes not. I couldn't differentiate between when I played a major chord that was the V or the I, it was just a major chord. I would learn one song and then another, and they were just sets of chords to me. For all I knew they were in the same key and one was diatonic and the other wasn't. I didn't even know diatonic was a thing.

I made no use of scales back then. They may have existed. The key is very important, and it is a thing. It exists whether you know it or not. But that is not using it.

Theory is a mental thing, it is an analytical thing. Music is not. You can make use of theory when you play or learn music, or you can not.

If you play nothing but chords and learn nothing but songs with chords, you are not using the knowledge of scales, of music theory.

If you pay attention to the key, then you are, and you have greatly increased the utility of learning those songs.

If you choose to say that playing any music is "using" scales, then you have no words left to describe what you're doing when you are actually using them.

There is no difference with what I am doing when i breathe, whether I am aware of what I'm doing or not. Breathing is breathing. Playing music when you're oblivious to scales, is not the same thing as playing music when you are paying attention to them. That's why we study music and create music theory.