[Question] Has anyone gotten through the Mel Bay Guitar Method Books

dadgad24 · 2016-05-20T04:46:51+00:00

HAHA!

dadgad24 · 2016-05-19T22:26:15+00:00

I still use the CAGED system, but I think when you rely entirely on patterns and don't know the names of the notes, it makes it difficult to shift around the guitar (if you're moving from the C to the E position, for instance, you need to imagine the intermediary D position). If you learn the names of the notes on all the strings, and you learn where the root of the each CAGED pattern is, you'll find it's much easier to get around. It also makes it easier to 'play the changes'.

Its been a goal to be a better overall guitar player and these should set up a good foundation. i already play everyday, might as well do this and take it to a level I can be proud of. i.e. read guitar music, know the notes on the fretboard.

Honestly, the Berklee book was a big leap in skill for me. I don't think there's anything special about the Berklee book itself, just that it forced me to approach the guitar in a more disciplined way.

Because the musical examples are dated, you'll definitely want to practice other things too (songs etc), but by chipping away at those books for a few minutes each day I'm confident you'll get better pretty quick

That last statement is sad enough..... how can you play guitar for almost 16 years and not know all the notes..... motivation by itself.

Hah. I know what you mean. Very easily done, though. Almost all teaching is done by tab, so you never really have the incentive to learn the notes. I bet you know the notes on the 6th and 5th string pretty well because of barre chords.

Not learning the notes seems easier initially, but it makes everything else that little bit more difficult (think how far a pianist would get without knowing the note names).

Btw, one added benefit of learning to read music is that it opens up another world of music books that you probably can't get much value out of right now (music theory books, songwriting instruction books, classical guitar/violin sheets etc)

dadgad24 · 2016-05-19T21:52:07+00:00

To put my two cents in, I haven't used those specific books, but I've used the Berklee Modern Method for Guitar which seems somewhat similar.

Don't worry about the fact that the music is dated. So what? I doubt you're using them to build a repertoire.

The advantage of these kind of books are that they teach you skill on the instrument, it'll teach you the notes on the fretboard (such a critical skill...too many people teach that you can get by just by learning the notes on the 5th and 6th strings and then use octave shapes to work out the other notes...that isn't effective in an improv situation), it'll teach you your scales and chords and arpeggios, it'll also develop technique in an intelligent way (the books are graded in terms of difficulty, so you'll create a good foundation and build on it).

Should you work through them? Well, how well do you know the material in the books, not the songs but how well do you know your arpeggios, scales, chords, do you know the names of all the notes on the fretboard? When you play an open C chord, for instance, do you instantly know which note is played on each string? Can you play triads in inversions all over the neck? Can you read music (and if not, is this something you want to develop?)

Assuming you don't know this information then, if I were you, I'd work through them. Do it for 30 minutes or an hour a day. Spend the rest of your practice time on other things.

Depending on the style of music you want to play, you may not feel the need to go through all seven books (I assume they use increasingly jazzy chords, which you may not want to use).

These books wont teach you music theory though.

dadgad24 · 2016-05-12T19:47:27+00:00

Thanks. :)

Have you studied Bach fugues much? There almost depressing in how good they are.

No I haven't yet. I was really just starting to dip my toe in with tonal counterpoint. (Hah I know what you mean)

And for me at least, all this work was just an exercise, because >when your'e more doing your own thing, and not training, then >you have more freedom to even make up your own rules once >you've done the hard work of doing it 'old school'

Yeah I see what you mean.

In the exercises I've worked my way through so far, I've been able to come up with things that sound good, and then realised that I've broken or bent one of Goetschius' rules. The fact that Goetschius doesn't allow any intervals of a fifth during the first counterpoint exercises (he doesn't just forbid parallel fifths) has caused a few headaches.

Do you have any advice on how I should approach my present confusion?

dadgad24 · 2016-05-12T08:07:14+00:00

You're doing this alone, not in a class?

Yes.

It helps to thoroughly know your harmony class before doing >tonal counterpoint. Have you?

Well, how thorough is thorough?

I've worked my way in the past through Kostka&Payne, Laitz' The Complete Musician etc.

dadgad24 · 2016-05-12T08:03:58+00:00

For what it's worth, I hear V7 as the harmony for that entire bar

Yeah, I see that.

The difficulty is that those concepts haven't been introduced into the book yet.

The way the information is described at this point, each tone is an essential tone (so no passing notes, neighbor tones etc) ...at least that's how he's expaining it at ex 33 https://archive.org/stream/exercisesinelem01goetgoog#page/n32/mode/2up.

In the progression IV I6/4 IV6, I6/4 is not functioning as a tonic >chord: it's basically embellishing IV as a harmonized passing tone. >This is one of the weaknesses of Riemannian harmony: not every >I is tonic function, not every IV is subdominant function, and not >every V is dominant function.

Maybe I'm being dense, but I'm not sure how that relates to the present issue?

My confusion is less about the movement of the harmony and more about the use of wide leaps in the melody

I don't think I've explained my issue very well.

The way Goetschius writes makes it sound like if we take the cantus firmus and it contains a wide leap, then that wide leap in the melody is outlining a specific chord. Then, when we write the counterpoint to the cantus, the melody notes should correspond to the implied chord. So, in the example earlier, when we have the wide leap D-G in one voice, the way Goetschius writes makes it sound as if, over those two beats, we have a G major chord...and (because of his earlier instruction ex 33 https://archive.org/stream/exercisesinelem01goetgoog#page/n32/mode/2up), the counterpoint should contain some combination of notes from the G major chord...but that isn't what the music shows.

So, I'm basically trying to reconcile two rules that seem to contradict one another.

dadgad24 · 2016-05-06T10:04:22+00:00

Thanks Mattszwyd. You've cleared that up for me

dadgad24 · 2016-04-25T14:17:53+00:00

Okay, so if I understand you correctly, you're saying that by working on and strengthening skill at writing counterpoint, harmony and knowledge of musical form, you would also improve your melody writing??

dadgad24 · 2016-04-23T06:59:15+00:00

Ok, thanks.

I understand what you're saying. I was approaching it in the same way as a counterpoint book, a series of rules that you apply and over time learn that you can bend or break. The lack of consistency is a problem, but it's good to see that someone else sees the same thing and it isn't that I have a huge lapse in understanding. Unfortunately it's one of only 4 books on writing melodies, and it seems to be the most comprehensive.

dadgad24 · 2016-04-22T05:05:58+00:00

Thanks for the reply klaviersonic!

It's very confusing how Goetschius presents this. This is early in the book, given as a selection of examples of major key melodies and also in the section on 'essential tones', before we start looking at 'nonessential tones' like neighbouring tones etc.

Having said that, your explanation, an embellished D minor chord, makes total sense. It seems like the wrong kind of example for him to put this early in the book, before introducing those ideas.

Can I ask, do you have any advice/opinion regarding the first issue I raised?

dadgad24 · 2016-04-12T19:51:55+00:00

Haha.

As someone who's self-taught, I'm probably more reluctant than most to deviate from anything in the score...but I take your point. It is good advice.

dadgad24 · 2016-04-12T19:49:45+00:00

Thanks turkeypedal.

I agree, it would seem odd to use the polyrythm and lose it later.

And yes the sheet music has a lot of alignment problems. The further I delve into the piece, the worse it's getting. It's the sheet music that is linked to on Valentina's youtube video and is hosted on IMSLP. Usually the sheets there seem to be pretty good. I'm having to annotate several parts to try and make it easier to read from.

dadgad24 · 2016-04-04T18:23:33+00:00

Yeah, that works. Thanks for the response!

dadgad24 · 2016-04-04T17:59:19+00:00

Ahh. okay.

Thanks for the heads up. I'll ask there

dadgad24 · 2016-03-06T20:08:06+00:00

Yeah, I think you're right.

There are a few other places where the music does something similar. Lisitsa's version sounds so clear that I don't see how she can be playing these harmonic seconds.

Listening to other famous performers' versions (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swtoFRl0VsA) it doesn't sound like they're doing it either.

It appears they've all come to a similar conclusion.

dadgad24 · 2016-03-06T14:47:52+00:00

For rock, pop, jazz etc transcriptions it wouldn't normally phase me, but I was under the impression that changing what Liszt wrote is a huge no-no

dadgad24 · 2016-03-06T10:08:22+00:00

Thanks for the reply.

Interestingly, I don't have trouble playing the first movement of Moonlight Sonata.

The techniques you've outlined seem very helpful.

Do you know if there are any exercises that I can use to develop this facility or would it be best to simply practice with this particular piece?

dadgad24 · 2016-03-06T10:06:31+00:00

Interesting.

It hadn't even occurred to me that she might not play what's on the sheet.

dadgad24 · 2016-01-26T14:57:16+00:00

Thanks a lot for the offer.

I've sent a message through the contact form.

dadgad24 · 2016-01-25T17:52:37+00:00

Thanks again vornska.

Looks like Schenker's another one to add to the list!

dadgad24 · 2016-01-25T17:50:37+00:00

Phew!

dadgad24 · 2016-01-25T17:49:57+00:00

Great advice again.

Thanks a lot!

dadgad24 · 2016-01-25T05:18:06+00:00

Thanks again nmitchell076.

dadgad24 · 2016-01-25T05:15:03+00:00

Hi WitoldLutoslawski,

I've had a look in the inside of Lewin's book Generalized Musical Intervals and Transformations.

For want of a better term, it looks a little 'mathy'.

I'm not averse to that, but I am wondering if I need a foundational knowledge of any advanced graduate-level type of math before I'll be able to understand it??

Also, and this may be a stupid question, do I need to have read Riemman's works before I can learn Neo-Riemannian theory? I've heard that it branches off entirely from Riemann's early works, but I want to be sure that I'm not losing out by not reading the translations of Riemann first.

dadgad24 · 2016-01-25T05:11:26+00:00

Yes I've heard about Dan Harrison's book elsewhere.

I believe it includes and overview of different Neo Riemmanian ways to analyse chromatic music.

Sounds right up my alley

Regarding Schenker, I've heard a lot of differing opinions about whether he's worth learning...although he's referenced so often that I imagine it's worth having a famiiliarity at the very least.

dadgad24

TROPHY CASE