I can't wait until I get to the point where

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Cecil6243

I'm enjoying the process but the scales do get a little tedious at times as I have a bad habit of not taking breaks and going on and on and on for a considerable amount of time.

Well, there you go! Just stop as soon as it gets tedious. You learn nothing of any use beyond that point.
Of course, your fingers are still getting exercise, but they get the same exercise (and better) by playing melodies.

In fact - if you're not already using them - check out melodic patterns, which are a much more interesting, musical and challenging way to practise scales. https://www.justinguitar.com/guitar-...atterns-im-136

Originally Posted by Cecil6243

I guess my point is I want to get to the point where I know my way around the fretboard fairly easily.

Of course!
But combine scales with chord shapes. Chord shapes are easier to memorize than scale patterns, and musically more useful. Learn the notes in each chord, and find as many shapes as you can for that chord, everywhere on the neck. Practice arpeggios.

[Cecil6243]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

OMG YES IT WILL! There is NOTHING that frees up the entire guitar more than fretboard knowledge and knowing how to make chords up and down the neck. It's positively liberating!

Great!

[Robin, Wales]

I enjoy these discussions because they highlight different perspectives of playing guitar. There is more than one camp, and what one person sees as "essential" may not even be on another's radar.

I couldn't tell you what notes I'm playing on the guitar without sitting down and working it out. I couldn't tell you what key I'm in much of the time without sitting down and working it out. I can't read TAB. I can't read SMN for guitar. I don't know my scales.

But you play a lead lick and I'll copy it. You play a song and I'll play along. You sing a phrase and I'll sing the harmony. You play a complex rhythm or phrasing, and I'm straight in there.

I wonder if there is an approach that's not "learning" the fretboard (in terms of codified knowledge) but "listening" to the fretboard? Because I think that is what I do?

[Cecil6243]

Originally Posted by Robin, Wales

I enjoy these discussions because they highlight different perspectives of playing guitar. There is more than one camp, and what one person sees as "essential" may not even be on another's radar.

I couldn't tell you what notes I'm playing on the guitar without sitting down and working it out. I couldn't tell you what key I'm in much of the time without sitting down and working it out. I can't read TAB. I can't read SMN for guitar. I don't know my scales.

But you play a lead lick and I'll copy it. You play a song and I'll play along. You sing a phrase and I'll sing the harmony. You play a complex rhythm or phrasing, and I'm straight in there.

I wonder if there is an approach that's not "learning" the fretboard (in terms of codified knowledge) but "listening" to the fretboard? Because I think that is what I do?

Fascinating! Thanks for sharing.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Robin, Wales

I enjoy these discussions because they highlight different perspectives of playing guitar. There is more than one camp, and what one person sees as "essential" may not even be on another's radar.

I couldn't tell you what notes I'm playing on the guitar without sitting down and working it out. I couldn't tell you what key I'm in much of the time without sitting down and working it out. I can't read TAB. I can't read SMN for guitar. I don't know my scales.

But you play a lead lick and I'll copy it. You play a song and I'll play along. You sing a phrase and I'll sing the harmony. You play a complex rhythm or phrasing, and I'm straight in there.

I wonder if there is an approach that's not "learning" the fretboard (in terms of codified knowledge) but "listening" to the fretboard? Because I think that is what I do?

I'm sure I've said this before, but it's similar to being able to speak fluently without being able to read or write.

Musical "literacy" - being able to read and write notation, and (therefore) understand theory to some extent - is useful for expanding one's learning, of course, and often for talking with other musicians, but it has little bearing on how we hear and play.

With guitar, in fact with any musical instrument, the goal is an immediate mental connection between fingers and sound. We might use theory in the sense of note names or notation in the process of developing that connection, but ultimately we wean ourselves off that.
We see a chord symbol and our fingers are forming that shape even before they get to the fretboard - and we learn other shapes and positions for that chord just as subconsciously. And we know the sound we are going to get - although that does take a little longer IME. To spell out the notes in the chord - if anyone asks us - might well take a few seconds of conscious thought.

There's a great Miles Davis quote (from a different context) which sums it up: "I'll play it first and tell you what is later."
I.e., we play using our knowledge of sounds and fingerings. But to "tell what it is" is applying theoretical knowledge - note names, chord names, etc - which is a concious activity drawing on knowledge outside of the sounds themselves. We only need that if someone else wants to know what we did. Or - of course - if we want someone else to tell us what they just did (if we can't tell by ear).

[Cecil6243]

Well my guitar instructor is now getting me to combine all the positions as in moving up and down the fretboard instead of just one position at a time. It's getting very interesting and challenging! I have some knowledge of the CAGED system with chords, and we will go in-depth in that soon too. Thank you for all your kind comments and personal perspectives!

I'm also working on imaging everything even without getting the guitar out. (I keep it in a case with a humidifier this time of year.)

[Cecil6243]

Originally Posted by JonPR

I'm sure I've said this before, but it's similar to being able to speak fluently without being able to read or write.

Musical "literacy" - being able to read and write notation, and (therefore) understand theory to some extent - is useful for expanding one's learning, of course, and often for talking with other musicians, but it has little bearing on how we hear and play.

With guitar, in fact with any musical instrument, the goal is an immediate mental connection between fingers and sound. We might use theory in the sense of note names or notation in the process of developing that connection, but ultimately we wean ourselves off that.
We see a chord symbol and our fingers are forming that shape even before they get to the fretboard - and we learn other shapes and positions for that chord just as subconsciously. And we know the sound we are going to get - although that does take a little longer IME. To spell out the notes in the chord - if anyone asks us - might well take a few seconds of conscious thought.

There's a great Miles Davis quote (from a different context) which sums it up: "I'll play it first and tell you what is later."
I.e., we play using our knowledge of sounds and fingerings. But to "tell what it is" is applying theoretical knowledge - note names, chord names, etc - which is a concious activity drawing on knowledge outside of the sounds themselves. We only need that if someone else wants to know what we did. Or - of course - if we want someone else to tell us what they just did (if we can't tell by ear).

Makes sense. OTOH I have seen guys that play by ear, and shun any form of reading music as if they are superior to that. I am not referring to anyone here though. I think they may be losing out on another way to become a better guitarist. For me I do read music and tab albeit not as fast as I'd like, but I want to be able to do it all. One of the reasons I started taking lessons again. I am playing around with writing my own music down in notation and tab.

I retired from another art form after 38 years and ran into others that had the attitude "I don't need to learn that" or "that's good enough." They never reached their full potential. Some refused to take constructive criticism.

[Charlie Bernstein]

Sure, it'll work, and it's worth it. I've never tried, but my strength is in song writing, not playing.

Lots of jazz students put five hours a day into scales. It's like learning touch typing: You eventually can hit notes via muscle memory, without having to think about where they are.

[Charlie Bernstein]

Originally Posted by Cecil6243

. . . I have some knowledge of the CAGED system with chords, and we will go in-depth in that soon too. . . .

Guitar players often gravitate to CAGED because it covers most songs most guitarists play.

But a lot of more theory-oriented players prefer what they call the CAGFD system. They like it because, unlike CAGED, it includes all eleven notes. If your goal is total fretboard knowledge, they say it'll take you there.

[Robin, Wales]

Originally Posted by Cecil6243

Makes sense. OTOH I have seen guys that play by ear, and shun any form of reading music as if they are superior to that. I am not referring to anyone here though. I think they may be losing out on another way to become a better guitarist. For me I do read music and tab albeit not as fast as I'd like, but I want to be able to do it all. One of the reasons I started taking lessons again. I am playing around with writing my own music down in notation and tab.

I retired from another art form after 38 years and ran into others that had the attitude "I don't need to learn that" or "that's good enough." They never reached their full potential. Some refused to take constructive criticism.

Ok, a slight misunderstanding of my post; but it is difficult to type on my phone!

I think that it is a question of need - and that is very specific to each musician.

I can read music, just not for guitar. I can read 4-part choir scores. And I can read fiddle tunes. But that's because I need to be able to read piano and choir scores to sing in our local Welsh MVC. And I need to be able to read fiddle tunes to play traditional mountain dulcimer. I also need to understand modes in relation to that instrument.

But I have no need to read music or TAB for guitar, or know modal scales or the names of notes on the fretboard. And this is down to the style of music I play on guitar.

If I played classical guitar then I would learn the fretboard and read guitar music. If I played jazz then I would follow the needs of playing in that style.

It is not a matter of me playing by ear and so not needing to learn the fretboard, scales, TAB, guitar SMN etc. It is that the style of music I play on guitar works very well by ear. In fact, having a good "ear" is an essential skill. So I have had a lot of practice at it.

So, I think that I pick up tools depending entirely on need. It's not dogmatic, it's pragmatic.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Cecil6243

Makes sense. OTOH I have seen guys that play by ear, and shun any form of reading music as if they are superior to that. I am not referring to anyone here though. I think they may be losing out on another way to become a better guitarist.

Well, they're losing out on ways to expand their musical knowledge. I.e., to broaden their influences. But maybe they're prefer to get really good at what they do know, rather than learn other stuff?
Personally, I could read notation before I ever picked up a guitar, and found it invaluable for teaching myself. Without it, I'd have progressed much, much slower, if at all. (I suffered school music lessons, but would never have wanted guitar lessons.)

Originally Posted by Cecil6243

For me I do read music and tab albeit not as fast as I'd like, but I want to be able to do it all. One of the reasons I started taking lessons again. I am playing around with writing my own music down in notation and tab.

Right, all good! I'm only really playing devil's advocate here.

Originally Posted by Cecil6243

I retired from another art form after 38 years and ran into others that had the attitude "I don't need to learn that" or "that's good enough." They never reached their full potential.

Again, that's a personal choice for them. If they're happy where they are, that's fine.

Originally Posted by Cecil6243

Some refused to take constructive criticism.

Ah, well that's a different issue! What is "constructive criticism" to you can feel like patronising insults to others! It depends whether or not they were asking for your honest opinion at the time.

I'm on your side, obviously. I don't understand why anyone who loves music, and wants to play - especially if they also want to composer and/or improvise - isn't curious about all aspects of musical knowledge.
I know a lot of guitarists find notation baffling, and simply choose to do without it - not caring about the limitations that imposes on them (because they work around it, developing other skills). So sometimes that "I don't need that" attitude is embarrassed defensiveness, but sometimes it's a perfect honest and valid attitude, because notation is only one string to your bow. Just one assistant to learning.
Paul McCartney can't read music. Would you say he was missing out on important stuff?

[Brent Hutto]

From very early in life I was singing in choir, taking piano lessons, playing in the middle/high school bands and then later as an adult I dabbled with various instruments (fiddle, viola, guitar, mandolin and now electric guitar). In every case, my preferred way of accessing the music I wanted to play was to get acquire sheet music or to transcribe tunes by ear and write them out on sheet music myself. Not tablature, conventional notation.

As I moved beyond wanting to just learn tunes to play, and started studying chords, progressions and harmony my usual way of studying was to write out to-do lists and/or "cheat sheets" of the things I wanted to learn and then learn them by reference to my written guides. For guitar that sometimes even includes a little tablature for tricky chord shapes.

After all those years of on-again, off-again musical learning adventures, this time around I'm trying to force myself to move beyond everything being mediated by written-out sheet music. The past year or two I've started "transcribing" tunes directly into my memory rather than ever writing them out on staff paper. And when my teacher and I discuss a set of chords to harmonize a scale, I practice them from memory and by what sounds right rather than creating cheat sheets to play from.

Oh my goodness it's frustrating. A lifetime of experiencing music as something you acquire by reading notes on a staff, then practice until it's memorized, this thing of hearing a tune in my head and having to directly recall how to place my fingers on the fretboard is SLOOOOOOW going. But I really don't think I'd ever fully experience guitar playing without at some point learning to play, improvise and (most importantly) harmonize by ear. So I'm sticking with it. My patience is being tested, though, and I am not by nature a patient person.

[ChrisE]

That’s awesome that you have those musical skills.

I pretty much only play from memory (except at church, where we had chord charts). Playing only easy songs helps a lot, ha ha.

When people ask me if I’m a musician, I always say, “I’m not a musician; I’ve just memorized a bunch of songs.”

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by ChrisE

When people ask me if I’m a musician, I always say, “I’m not a musician; I’ve just memorized a bunch of songs.”

Me too. (I mean, if people asked me that, I'd say something very like that.)

I.e., even though I've even playing (and composing) music since I was 16 (58 years ago), it's always been amateur. (In comparison with Brent, btw, I had none of his childhood advantages. I started from absolute scratch at 16, just with a little notation knowledge in my pocket.)

I have earned a little on the side, of course - being paid for gigs (and more recently for transcripton) - but my "day job" was always something else (something more boring but a lot more reliable ).

When I finally took a teaching course, got a qualification and started getting employment as a guitar teacher, then I felt I could say I was a "teacher" - by profession. I was still freelance, part-time, but I was being employed to teach in schools and colleges. So it was a "real job".

But although my qualification was in "teaching music" (not just "teaching"), it still feels a little presumptuous to call myself a "musician" - even though most of my meagre earnings (aside from my pension...) now come from some kind of musical activity: teaching, gigging, transcribing. (What I earn from all three combined is nowhere enough to live on.)

This is because of all the fully "professional musicians" I have met in my amateur career, who live solely on (and for) music, and have been way more accomplished than I am (more skilled, better ears). Those guys take it way more seriously than I ever felt able to.
"Musician" is something they are. "Music" is just something I "do". When I feel like it, or when someone asks.

Despite what I earn from music, I still can't think of it as a "job" - because of how much I enjoy it! I would do it - at least the gigging and transcribing - for pure pleasure. When I get paid, it's like a nice surprise! Hey, there's money too! (Of course, I'd resent not being paid if everyone else in the band was getting paid, but that's a different issue.)

[Cecil6243]

Originally Posted by JonPR

Well, they're losing out on ways to expand their musical knowledge. I.e., to broaden their influences. But maybe they're prefer to get really good at what they do know, rather than learn other stuff?
Personally, I could read notation before I ever picked up a guitar, and found it invaluable for teaching myself. Without it, I'd have progressed much, much slower, if at all. (I suffered school music lessons, but would never have wanted guitar lessons.)
Right, all good! I'm only really playing devil's advocate here.
Again, that's a personal choice for them. If they're happy where they are, that's fine.
Ah, well that's a different issue! What is "constructive criticism" to you can feel like patronising insults to others! It depends whether or not they were asking for your honest opinion at the time.

I'm on your side, obviously. I don't understand why anyone who loves music, and wants to play - especially if they also want to composer and/or improvise - isn't curious about all aspects of musical knowledge.
I know a lot of guitarists find notation baffling, and simply choose to do without it - not caring about the limitations that imposes on them (because they work around it, developing other skills). So sometimes that "I don't need that" attitude is embarrassed defensiveness, but sometimes it's a perfect honest and valid attitude, because notation is only one string to your bow. Just one assistant to learning.
Paul McCartney can't read music. Would you say he was missing out on important stuff?

I hear everything you say and of course it's a personal choice for someone to assume "that's good enough," or refuse to take constructive criticism, but when I see people with that kind of attitude it saddens me. I guess that's just me. I never wanted to just do something. I want to do it well.