Monophony and polyphony reading.

[Larry Deack]

In a recent thread about reading some folks suggested single line reading
like jazz players do. It seems to me that the big problem reading on
classical guitar is polyphony and not single line.

I was in an ensemble playing 1st guitar with another guy who had played
trumpet all through school. He could read single line stuff better than me
but he fell apart when it came to reading simple polyphony that I could
easily read.

Polyphony seems to be the one thing that makes classical guitar so hard to
play compared to other styles of guitar playing. As classical players we
must be able to read many different kinds of polyphonic textures including
12 tone pieces. There is a huge range of polyphonic styles to learn and the
patterns differ for each style.

Is there any books that specifically teach polyphonic reading on guitar and
what are the unique problems of polyphonic reading that such a book would
cover?

[e***@yahoo.com]

Larry,

Try this software.

http://www.francoisbrisson.com/fretboardwarrior/sightwarrior.html

Ed S.

[Larry Deack]

Post by e***@yahoo.com
Try this software.
http://www.francoisbrisson.com/fretboardwarrior/sightwarrior.html

I don't see anything about polyphony and I don't want to pay to find out
more.

I don't see software as being anywhere near as important as actually
reading polyphonic music, as a habit, for entertainment, like reading a
book.

[Matanya Ophee]

Post by Larry Deack
I don't see anything about polyphony and I don't want to pay to find out
more.
I don't see software as being anywhere near as important as actually
reading polyphonic music, as a habit, for entertainment, like reading a
book.

The Alfredo Sanchez transcription of several Preludes and Fugues from
the Bach WTC, was first conceived as a method for teaching polyphonic
reading. Leo Brouwer, in his introduction to our edition of this book,
so recognized it. How exactly to use this book as a teaching device,
is a matter that can only be decided by the individual teacher. See:

http://www.orphee.com/solos/bach.html



Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: [phone]
http://www.orphee.com
http://www.livejournal.com/users/matanya/

[Larry Deack]

"Matanya Ophee"

Post by Matanya Ophee
The Alfredo Sanchez transcription of several Preludes and Fugues from
the Bach WTC, was first conceived as a method for teaching polyphonic
reading. Leo Brouwer, in his introduction to our edition of this book,
so recognized it. How exactly to use this book as a teaching device,
http://www.orphee.com/solos/bach.html

Thank you very much, Matanya. Very interesting that others have tried to
address the issue of polyphonic reading. I can see I need to place another
music order, but then my wife seems to think taxes are more important this
time of year :-)

[Matanya Ophee]

Post by Larry Deack
"Matanya Ophee"

Post by Matanya Ophee
The Alfredo Sanchez transcription of several Preludes and Fugues from
the Bach WTC, was first conceived as a method for teaching polyphonic
reading. Leo Brouwer, in his introduction to our edition of this book,
so recognized it. How exactly to use this book as a teaching device,
http://www.orphee.com/solos/bach.html

Thank you very much, Matanya. Very interesting that others have tried to
address the issue of polyphonic reading. I can see I need to place another
music order, but then my wife seems to think taxes are more important this
time of year :-)

Yes, but since you are a working musician, sheet music should be
deductible as a business expense...



Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: [phone]
http://www.orphee.com
http://www.livejournal.com/users/matanya/

[Matanya Ophee]

Post by Larry Deack
Polyphony seems to be the one thing that makes classical guitar so hard to
play compared to other styles of guitar playing. As classical players we
must be able to read many different kinds of polyphonic textures including
12 tone pieces. There is a huge range of polyphonic styles to learn and the
patterns differ for each style.
Is there any books that specifically teach polyphonic reading on guitar and
what are the unique problems of polyphonic reading that such a book would
cover?

The main issue here is not polyphony, but harmony. Any Carcassi study
in the first position has a polyphonic structure. The problem of
reading chords at once, even if they are arranged in a strictly single
line motif, is finding, instantly, the correct fingering shape for the
particular chord, whether it is in open or closed voicing, and
regardless of the inversion. There is no magic here. With six strings
and 12 frets (up to the octave), all chords can be distilled to
simple formations that can be learned.

To do that effectively, one has to recognize a basic truth: the guitar
is NOT a positional instrument, but a chromatic one. The idea of
positions, originally imagined by some guitar tutors in the early 19th
century, was based on that of the violin. Thus, according to Carulli,
there are only five positions on the fingerboard, and they correspond
to the unaltered notes that are found on the first string, i.e., F =
1st, G=2nd, A=3rd etc. Carcassi, on the other hand, disagreed with him
and stated that there are 12 positions on the fingerboard, one for
each fret. Sor and Aguado, finally, did away with this concept
entirely and began treating the fingerboard as one linear unit.

Once you understand that concept, it is a simple matter to construct
drills which will force you to recognize the fingering patterns for al
possible chords formations. The simplest way to begin this is by
playing scales in triads. You have to know basic harmony first....

Then, you can take the C major Triad. C-E-G.
Divide the strings into groups of adjacent three, like (6)+(5)+(4),
and now find the C Major triad all along this group. Play them back
and forth until they became part of you. Now take the next group,
(5)+(4)+(3), and do the same. When done with all 4 possible string
groups, play the triad in all of them in one sequence. Now take the
next triad, diatonically or chromatically (D or C#) and repeat the
drill. Then try the same with seventh chords, ninth chords etc. By the
time you are done, you know that fingerboard.

You can also get a copy of Richard Pick's School of Guitar where all
of this is explained in more details. Alas, it is almost out of print.
(Only one volume available).


Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: [phone]
http://www.orphee.com
http://www.livejournal.com/users/matanya/

[T***@hotmail.com]

Post by Matanya Ophee
The main issue here is not polyphony, but harmony. Any Carcassi study
in the first position has a polyphonic structure. The problem of
reading chords at once, even if they are arranged in a strictly single
line motif, is finding, instantly, the correct fingering shape for the
particular chord, whether it is in open or closed voicing, and
regardless of the inversion. There is no magic here. With six strings
and 12 frets (up to the octave), all chords can be distilled to
simple formations that can be learned.
To do that effectively, one has to recognize a basic truth: the guitar
is NOT a positional instrument, but a chromatic one. The idea of
positions, originally imagined by some guitar tutors in the early 19th
century, was based on that of the violin. Thus, according to Carulli,
there are only five positions on the fingerboard, and they correspond
to the unaltered notes that are found on the first string, i.e., F =
1st, G=2nd, A=3rd etc. Carcassi, on the other hand, disagreed with him
and stated that there are 12 positions on the fingerboard, one for
each fret. Sor and Aguado, finally, did away with this concept
entirely and began treating the fingerboard as one linear unit.
Once you understand that concept, it is a simple matter to construct
drills which will force you to recognize the fingering patterns for al
possible chords formations. The simplest way to begin this is by
playing scales in triads. You have to know basic harmony first....
Then, you can take the C major Triad. C-E-G.
Divide the strings into groups of adjacent three, like (6)+(5)+(4),
and now find the C Major triad all along this group. Play them back
and forth until they became part of you. Now take the next group,
(5)+(4)+(3), and do the same. When done with all 4 possible string
groups, play the triad in all of them in one sequence. Now take the
next triad, diatonically or chromatically (D or C#) and repeat the
drill. Then try the same with seventh chords, ninth chords etc. By the
time you are done, you know that fingerboard.

That is it in a nutshell, and reminds me of the mantra of my very first
classical guitar teacher, Michael Carenbauer, a jazz/classical
guitarist & former student of Pat Metheny. I took his guitar
sightreading class, and he had 3 pieces of advice for guitarists
wanting to learn to sightread better:

1. Learn your triads
2. Learn your triads
3. Learn your triads

tm

[Larry Deack]

Post by T***@hotmail.com
That is it in a nutshell, and reminds me of the mantra of my very first
classical guitar teacher, Michael Carenbauer, a jazz/classical
guitarist & former student of Pat Metheny. I took his guitar
sightreading class, and he had 3 pieces of advice for guitarists
1. Learn your triads
2. Learn your triads
3. Learn your triads

Do you consider youreself a good polyphonic reader and how does this help
reading 12 tone music?

[Matanya Ophee]

Post by Larry Deack

Post by T***@hotmail.com
That is it in a nutshell, and reminds me of the mantra of my very first
classical guitar teacher, Michael Carenbauer, a jazz/classical
guitarist & former student of Pat Metheny. I took his guitar
sightreading class, and he had 3 pieces of advice for guitarists
1. Learn your triads
2. Learn your triads
3. Learn your triads

Do you consider youreself a good polyphonic reader and how does this help
reading 12 tone music?

Once you begin to treat the fingerboard as a chromatic entity, it
really makes no difference if the basic style of the music is serial
or otherwise. We are still dealing with the same 12 tones in an
octave. Of course the reliance on triads and seventh chord implies a
traditional harmony, but if you know the fingerboard, you can easily
understand what alterations are needed when the music departs from
traditional harmony and goes elsewhere.



Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: [phone]
http://www.orphee.com
http://www.livejournal.com/users/matanya/

[T***@hotmail.com]

Post by Larry Deack
Do you consider youreself a good polyphonic reader and how does this help
reading 12 tone music?

Good question- It made me realize something I hadn't considered before:
I am a better sightreader at some styles of music than others.

For me, sightreading early 19th Cent. Classical/early Romantic period
music (ie. Sor, Giuliani, Mertz etc.) is easiest, because the harmony
is consistent and most predictable. It's not my favorite kind of music
to play or listen to, but for me, it is the easiest to read. For about
a week and a half, I spent close to 10 hours sightreading online
hundreds of pieces of early 19th Cent. music in the collection of the
Danish library in Copenhagen.

Baroque comes second, for the same reasons, but has the added
difficulty of counterpoint. The polyphony in Classical period music
usually doesn't involve extended passages of independent lines.

Serial/atonal music I read the least well, because functional harmony
plays no part. It is like reading random letters from the alphabet that
spell no recognizable words, except in a language spoken only by the
composer. I suppose if I was a big Boulez or Stockhausen fan, I would
become a better reader of those styles, but I'm not.

Probably the best thing I ever did for sightreading was playing a lot
of chamber music, arranging music, and teaching.

Tony

http://www.guitaralive.org

[Larry Deack]

Post by T***@hotmail.com
Good question- It made me realize something
I am a better sightreader at some styles of music than others.

So is everybody else I've met :-) Notice how MANY 'classical' styles there
are to learn.

Post by T***@hotmail.com
For about a week and a half, I spent close
to 10 hours sightreading online hundreds
of pieces of early 19th Cent. music in the
collection of the Danish library in Copenhagen.

That's what I recomended to one of my students recently. The best readers
I've met get into reading periods where they can't get enough reading and
read through everything they can get their hands on. One GFA winner read
through my small library of stuff he had not seen before on the day he was
going to play fo our local CG group. He played very well but it was his
reading that impressed me the most.

Post by T***@hotmail.com
Baroque comes second, for the same reasons, but has the added
difficulty of counterpoint. The polyphony in Classical period music
usually doesn't involve extended passages of independent lines.

There ya go! Playing more than one independent voice is what I think makes
classical guitar so difficult and why so many players fear memory lapses in
Bach. I believe that 2 voices are much more difficult to play than the sum
of the effort to read each. When you add the 3rd voice the inside voice is
even more difficult to add in much the same way as juggling and why I think
there is a parallel in thinking. I think much like juggling you must not
track any single voice but like juggling your focus must be on the pattern.
Read polyphony is not just reading 2 voices at the same time.

Post by T***@hotmail.com
Serial/atonal music I read the least well, because functional harmony
plays no part. It is like reading random letters from the alphabet that
spell no recognizable words, except in a language spoken only by the
composer. I suppose if I was a big Boulez or Stockhausen fan, I would
become a better reader of those styles, but I'm not.

Well, not sure it's a language only spoken by the composer. When I studied
my first real serial piece I played my teachers 3 movement piece "Facets". I
had the row and knew every bit of the structure of that piece and could hear
the rows. I'm sure it's just like other music where you must learn to hear
the patterns clearly. Certainly each composer creates a language but the
material must still be 12 notes to the octave unless you are learning
microtonal which presents other problems that 12 note systems do not.

Post by T***@hotmail.com
Probably the best thing I ever did for sightreading was playing a lot
of chamber music, arranging music, and teaching.

Gotta agree here too. I think doing arrangements is critical to any student
who wants to gain a deeper understanding of guitar. It can help a lot with
reading but ultimately I think you have to just read and analyze a LOT of
the music you want to play to be able to anticipate what's next and bring
out all the details.

[Kent Murdick]

Post by Matanya Ophee
The main issue here is not polyphony, but harmony. Any Carcassi study

in the first position has a polyphonic structure. The problem of
reading chords at once, even if they are arranged in a strictly single
line motif, is finding, instantly, the correct fingering shape for the
particular chord, whether it is in open or closed voicing, and >>

I think what Matanya is pointing out are things that will certainly
improve your sight reading ability but will by no means guarantee that
you will be a good sight reader. There are very few good sight readers
on the classical guitar due to its complexity. I have never really
cared how well I sight read on the guitar because I've been more
interested in planning for a musical performance which is almost
impossible to do while sight reading.

I would also say that single line reading, which I worked on quite a
bit, will help you with sight reading where it most counts - reading
ensemble parts. Also, reading single lines in all positions is a
critical first step for sight reading in general.

[Larry Deack]

"Kent Murdick"

Post by Kent Murdick
I think what Matanya is pointing
out are things that will certainly
improve your sight reading ability
but will by no means guarantee that
you will be a good sight reader.

The only good sight readers I've met are people who read music obsessively
and enjoy the reading a lot.

Post by Kent Murdick
There are very few good sight readers
on the classical guitar due to its complexity.

I agree and I think my point was that polyphony is what makes it harder to
read than chord melody style.

Post by Kent Murdick
I have never really cared how well I sight read
on the guitar because I've been more interested
in planning for a musical performance which is
almost impossible to do while sight reading.

I found that good reading allows you to explore a lot of music in depth.
It's not about sight reading for performance as much as it is how lots of
reading affects your playing.

Post by Kent Murdick
I would also say that single line reading,
which I worked on quite a bit, will help you
with sight reading where it most counts - reading
ensemble parts.

I agree. I encourage my student to play in ensembles where they have to read
single line music a lot.

Post by Kent Murdick
Also, reading single lines in all positions is a
critical first step for sight reading in general.

Not sure I agree here. I am not so sure that it's critical but I think it's
helpful and why I encourage it with students.

[Larry Deack]

"Matanya Ophee"

Post by Matanya Ophee
The main issue here is not polyphony, but harmony.

I think you have part of the answer here but I think there is more to it.
Do you consider yourself a good sight reader? Can you read 12 tone music as
well as tonal music?


The position information is interesting. Thanks. I think most people go
from position thinking to linear thinking as they get better.

I like to show my students patterns that are linear like parallel
3rds,6ths,10ths. The opening of RDLA is often a revelation for students who
don't know the harmony. I find too many students who simply do not know what
they are playing. Jazz players tend to know more about the harmony of what
they play. I studied jazz before classical and my chord knowledge seemed to
help me read classical better than some of my fellow students who did not
have that background. Still, I had problems with reading polyphony until I
had read lots of it.

[Matanya Ophee]

Post by Larry Deack
"Matanya Ophee"

Post by Matanya Ophee
The main issue here is not polyphony, but harmony.

I think you have part of the answer here but I think there is more to it.
Do you consider yourself a good sight reader? Can you read 12 tone music as
well as tonal music?

Hard to tell. I do not get a chance to read all that much 12 tone
music any more. In my professional life, I read only those
compositions that I am interested in publishing, regardless of the
charcter of the music and its style. Since, much to my regret, I do
not do any chamber music, all that I require from sight reading is the
ability to tell if I like it or not. As you know, I have published a
great deal of music that, if not exactly 12 tone, still departs
considerably from traditional harmony.


In my private playing, I do sight read quite well, on both the
standard guitar, as well as on the Russian seven string, but 12 tone
music does not seem to be a part of my interests.


Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: [phone]
http://www.orphee.com
http://www.livejournal.com/users/matanya/

[Matanya Ophee]

Post by Matanya Ophee
all that I require from sight reading is the
ability to tell if I like it or not.

And I need to emphasize that much of that reading is done without the
guitar in hand.


Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: [phone]
http://www.orphee.com
http://www.livejournal.com/users/matanya/

[Peter Inglis - TWG]

Matanya Ophee wrote:
<snip>

Post by Matanya Ophee
To do that effectively, one has to recognize a basic truth: the guitar
is NOT a positional instrument, but a chromatic one. The idea of
positions, originally imagined by some guitar tutors in the early 19th
century, was based on that of the violin. Thus, according to Carulli,
there are only five positions on the fingerboard, and they correspond
to the unaltered notes that are found on the first string, i.e., F =
1st, G=2nd, A=3rd etc. Carcassi, on the other hand, disagreed with him

<snip> description of learning inversions of triads


? How does learning diatonic triads, and let's not forget then learning
your diatonic 7ths major and minor, then all the turnarounds, and
substitutions..., II-V-I, iim7b5-V7alt-im...... the list goes on and
on... and on !

How does this not make the guitar a positional instrument?
All those chord shapes are indeed derived from the 5 basic major shapes
as shown here in C : http://www.thewholeguitarist.com/theory/5pos1.htm

[Scott Daughtrey]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:05:41 +1000, Peter Inglis - TWG

Post by Peter Inglis - TWG
<snip>

Post by Matanya Ophee
To do that effectively, one has to recognize a basic truth: the guitar
is NOT a positional instrument, but a chromatic one. The idea of
positions, originally imagined by some guitar tutors in the early 19th
century, was based on that of the violin. Thus, according to Carulli,
there are only five positions on the fingerboard, and they correspond
to the unaltered notes that are found on the first string, i.e., F =
1st, G=2nd, A=3rd etc. Carcassi, on the other hand, disagreed with him

<snip> description of learning inversions of triads
? How does learning diatonic triads, and let's not forget then learning
your diatonic 7ths major and minor, then all the turnarounds, and
substitutions..., II-V-I, iim7b5-V7alt-im...... the list goes on and
on... and on !
How does this not make the guitar a positional instrument?
All those chord shapes are indeed derived from the 5 basic major shapes

Beg to differ, Peter. The chords are derived from standard formula; the fact
they fit inside a position is incidental so to speak.

Scott

[Larry Deack]

"Scott Daughtrey"

Post by Scott Daughtrey
Beg to differ, Peter. The chords are derived from
standard formula; the fact they fit inside a position
is incidental so to speak.

Yeah, I teach CAGED but I worry about position lock thinking. My jazz
teacher taught 7th chord strings set patterns that moved linearly through
the chords of major scale. We started with the 6 432 patterns and 5 321
patterns. I like this method. I like the 4 note 7th chords more than just
triads. I try to present both position and linear patterns but many students
prefer the simplicity of the CAGED system and won't work on linear stuff
without me asking them to do the work. The position stuff seems to dominate
most of the material on the web and the primary reason I teach it. I like to
go over the stuff they find in music stores and help them make sense of it.

[Scott Daughtrey]

Post by Larry Deack
"Scott Daughtrey"

Post by Scott Daughtrey
Beg to differ, Peter. The chords are derived from
standard formula; the fact they fit inside a position
is incidental so to speak.

Yeah, I teach CAGED but I worry about position lock thinking. My jazz
teacher taught 7th chord strings set patterns that moved linearly through
the chords of major scale. We started with the 6 432 patterns and 5 321
patterns. I like this method. I like the 4 note 7th chords more than just
triads. I try to present both position and linear patterns but many students
prefer the simplicity of the CAGED system and won't work on linear stuff
without me asking them to do the work. The position stuff seems to dominate
most of the material on the web and the primary reason I teach it. I like to
go over the stuff they find in music stores and help them make sense of it.

I have no problem with positions, they can be very useful. But to imply that
chords are derived from a position? Man, that's bass ackwards!

Scott

[Larry Deack]

"Scott Daughtrey"

Post by Scott Daughtrey
I have no problem with positions,
they can be very useful. But to imply that
chords are derived from a position?
Man, that's bass ackwards!

I didn't read Peter that way. I presumed he was talking about how one can
think of all the chords as related to CAGED... on guitar... nothing to do
with theory others could relate to. I'm sure he knows the theory of how
chords are derived as other musicians know it.

[Scott Daughtrey]

Post by Larry Deack
"Scott Daughtrey"

Post by Scott Daughtrey
I have no problem with positions,
they can be very useful. But to imply that
chords are derived from a position?
Man, that's bass ackwards!

I didn't read Peter that way. I presumed he was talking about how one can
think of all the chords as related to CAGED... on guitar... nothing to do
with theory others could relate to. I'm sure he knows the theory of how
chords are derived as other musicians know it.
How does this not make the guitar a positional instrument?
All those chord shapes are indeed derived from the 5 basic major shapes

Peter was attempting to provide evidence that the guitar is a positional
instrument based on the fact chord shapes can be derived from a position. This
is false. Period.

Scott

[Larry Deack]

"Scott Daughtrey"

Post by Scott Daughtrey
Peter was attempting to provide evidence that the guitar is a positional
instrument based on the fact chord shapes can be derived from a position. This
is false. Period.

Hmmm. Guitar is positional and linear. The positional idea is supported by
how one can derive the other chords from positional thinking. I don't see
what the problem is. Now if you mean Peter is saying it's NOT linear or more
positional than linear then I agree he is wrong. I'll wait for Peter since
neither of us are mind readers and parsing words always leads to the same
stupid impasse.

[Peter Inglis - TWG]

Post by Larry Deack
Hmmm. Guitar is positional and linear. The positional idea is supported by
how one can derive the other chords from positional thinking. I don't see
what the problem is. Now if you mean Peter is saying it's NOT linear or more
positional than linear then I agree he is wrong. I'll wait for Peter since
neither of us are mind readers and parsing words always leads to the same
stupid impasse.

Yep, I'll try and say it more clearly.

Simple example, C major, 1st position

We all know the basic chord formulas :
http://www.thewholeguitarist.com/theory/chordform.htm

Take 1st position - C major, then F major
chords (harmony) and scales (melody) interlocking :
http://www.thewholeguitarist.com/book1/Cmajor.htm

and

we can all visualise the physical pattern:
http://www.thewholeguitarist.com/theory/5pos1.htm


...we also know we can modulate through --all-- the keys in
that 1st postion.

And we can see the notes change one by one as we modulate.
That forms the basic pattern I spell out fully with major and minor
keys, in my first book, and then in the second book I added
dominant, subdominant and other diatonic 7ths in minor.

So it's a positional instrument.

You can stay in 1st position forever and treat guitar as a
2 1/2 octave instrument! Which is actually quite adequate.

So that's all in 1st position.

Repeat the same process at 3rd, 5th, 7th or 8th, and 10th position and
you see the whole "12 fret" pattern.... BUT.... that's farther than most
people ever get on their fretboard mapping.


Now as Scott say, the guitar is also a "linear" instrument.
You can play up and down -on one string- and make lots of music.
Yes! And that's why I do each key on 1 string as well. Very important to
expressive playing, and gives you good ways to link destinations on the
neck.

But.... playing 'complete' guitar - melody and harmony, and you are back
to the "positional" concept. You always end up back at a recognisable
chord shape.

I'm talking diatonic music here - but even less tonal material still has
a key centre, or several points of gravity, and you construct intervals
away from those points, across and up the neck.

If I think in "C altered".... or do a "in the style of Benjamin Britten"
intro to a tune... I still look for those red tones in this map as the
navigation points http://www.thewholeguitarist.com/theory/5pos1.htm.

So, still positional.

[Peter Inglis - TWG]

Post by Larry Deack
Yeah, I teach CAGED but I worry about position lock thinking.

I used to worry about it... but not anymore! It's the primary map of the
guitar.

"Most" people get by with 3 shapes. 5 covers the neck, then you see the
12 fret pattern for each key after a few years.

Post by Larry Deack
My jazz
teacher taught 7th chord strings set patterns that moved linearly through
the chords of major scale. We started with the 6 432 patterns and 5 321
patterns. I like this method. I like the 4 note 7th chords more than just
triads. I try to present both position and linear patterns but many students
prefer the simplicity of the CAGED system and won't work on linear stuff
without me asking them to do the work. The position stuff seems to dominate
most of the material on the web and the primary reason I teach it. I like to
go over the stuff they find in music stores and help them make sense of it.

[Peter Inglis - TWG]

Post by Scott Daughtrey
Beg to differ, Peter. The chords are derived from standard formula; the fact
they fit inside a position is incidental so to speak.

Of course the chords are standard formulas, we all know that ; < )
On the piano keyboard there is only one "shape".
Learn C - E - G once and you have them all down.

As you know, on the guitar there are 5 + shapes to learn for C - E - G.

[Scott Daughtrey]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 04:48:34 +1000, Peter Inglis - TWG

Post by Peter Inglis - TWG

Post by Scott Daughtrey
Beg to differ, Peter. The chords are derived from standard formula; the fact
they fit inside a position is incidental so to speak.

Of course the chords are standard formulas, we all know that ; < )
On the piano keyboard there is only one "shape".
Learn C - E - G once and you have them all down.
As you know, on the guitar there are 5 + shapes to learn for C - E - G.

OK, I see where you're trying to come from. But...what???

If we use a root position triad, C - E - G, we have only 4 shapes, not 5+. The
shape of the triad with the 6th string root is identical to the 5th string
root. Then we have 4th string root and 3rd string root.

If you mean to imply arpeggios as well, you should likely be more specific and
say so as they are not the same as chords and this changes the whole ballgame.

If you are also including inversions, then you should say so, in which case
again we have more than one possible shape on the piano, we have three if it
is a strict triad with no repetition of notes (no octaves).

If you also mean to include open-voiced triads, then again you should also say
so, at which point the piano variations become quite impressive, far exceeding
one for sure.

Regardless, it kinda pokes big holes in that analogy, not that this was my
intention, Peter; just trying to understand you better in this thread.

Isn't considering the guitar a "positional" instrument a rather narrow
perspective? For example, it's a heck of a lot more efficient to voice a
harmonized scale linearly along the fretboard than to attempt it in position.
As a matter of fact, playing a simple garden variety harmonized scale in a
single position is -impossible- without it being arpeggiated (a useful tool in
jazz but likely not in classical guitar), further adding to the fact that the
guitar is not simply a positional instrument. Being that positional playing
literally excludes an othwise simple task, postional is hardly appropriate for
the instruments description. Playing linearly, of course, we have one shape
for each triad type although I wouldn't label a guitar a "linear instrument"
either. Exactly what benefit does calling a guitar "positional" perform, or
for that matter, what benefit does labelling the guitar anything but a
"guitar" or "instrument" serve? (Aside from the obvious cases where musical
authors seek to use "specialized" language in an attempt to sell the same old
stuff to the public as if it were a revolutionary perspective)

Have you read "The Advancing Guitarist" by Mick Goodrick? In it, he points out
that single string playing (up and down single strings) is possibly the most
neglected aspect of some approaches. I would tend to agree, and we have no
shortage of good positional material for guitarists (excepting maybe some
"position polyphonic courses to satisfy a few who feel this is important).

Hmmm...at appears I should have read your further responses before bringing up
the linear bit :-) Glad to see you may understand the importance and potential
of linear playing and why "positional instrument" alone is simply not a
realistically encompassing description of the guitar.

Scott

[Scott Daughtrey]

Post by Scott Daughtrey
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 04:48:34 +1000, Peter Inglis - TWG

Post by Peter Inglis - TWG

Post by Scott Daughtrey
Beg to differ, Peter. The chords are derived from standard formula; the fact
they fit inside a position is incidental so to speak.

Of course the chords are standard formulas, we all know that ; < )
On the piano keyboard there is only one "shape".
Learn C - E - G once and you have them all down.
As you know, on the guitar there are 5 + shapes to learn for C - E - G.

OK, I see where you're trying to come from. But...what???
If we use a root position triad, C - E - G, we have only 4 shapes, not 5+. The
shape of the triad with the 6th string root is identical to the 5th string
root. Then we have 4th string root and 3rd string root.
If you mean to imply arpeggios as well, you should likely be more specific and
say so as they are not the same as chords and this changes the whole ballgame.
If you are also including inversions, then you should say so, in which case
again we have more than one possible shape on the piano, we have three if it
is a strict triad with no repetition of notes (no octaves).
If you also mean to include open-voiced triads, then again you should also say
so, at which point the piano variations become quite impressive, far exceeding
one for sure.
Regardless, it kinda pokes big holes in that analogy, not that this was my
intention, Peter; just trying to understand you better in this thread.
Isn't considering the guitar a "positional" instrument a rather narrow
perspective? For example, it's a heck of a lot more efficient to voice a
harmonized scale linearly along the fretboard than to attempt it in position.
As a matter of fact, playing a simple garden variety harmonized scale in a
single position is -impossible- without it being arpeggiated (a useful tool in
jazz but likely not in classical guitar), further adding to the fact that the
guitar is not simply a positional instrument. Being that positional playing
literally excludes an othwise simple task, postional is hardly appropriate for
the instruments description. Playing linearly, of course, we have one shape
for each triad type although I wouldn't label a guitar a "linear instrument"
either. Exactly what benefit does calling a guitar "positional" perform, or
for that matter, what benefit does labelling the guitar anything but a
"guitar" or "instrument" serve? (Aside from the obvious cases where musical
authors seek to use "specialized" language in an attempt to sell the same old
stuff to the public as if it were a revolutionary perspective)
Have you read "The Advancing Guitarist" by Mick Goodrick? In it, he points out
that single string playing (up and down single strings) is possibly the most
neglected aspect of some approaches. I would tend to agree, and we have no
shortage of good positional material for guitarists (excepting maybe some
"position polyphonic courses to satisfy a few who feel this is important).
Hmmm...at appears I should have read your further responses before bringing up
the linear bit :-) Glad to see you may understand the importance and potential
of linear playing and why "positional instrument" alone is simply not a
realistically encompassing description of the guitar.
Scott

Great response..

Scott

[Peter Inglis - TWG]

Post by Scott Daughtrey
Great response..
Scott

Who are you talking to/responding to Scott?

[Scott Daughtrey]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 14:03:26 +1000, Peter Inglis - TWG

Post by Peter Inglis - TWG

Post by Scott Daughtrey
Great response..
Scott

Who are you talking to/responding to Scott?

Great question, Peter!

Regards,
Scott

[Peter Inglis - TWG]

Post by Scott Daughtrey
Great question, Peter!
Regards,
Scott

?? If you wanted any further clarifications from me you only had to ask.
Your previous post indicated you were going to see what I had to say
about 1 string playing, I thought anyway.

Here:

Scales on 1 string
http://www.thewholeguitarist.com/book1/1str_1a.htm

[Scott Daughtrey]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:56:50 +1000, Peter Inglis - TWG

Post by Peter Inglis - TWG
If you wanted any further clarifications from me you only had to ask.
Your previous post indicated you were going to see what I had to say
about 1 string playing, I thought anyway.

No, that's not really what I wrote. You never noticed all the comments about
triads and shapes?

I thought you might be interested in clarifying your own comments concerning
chords on the guitar versus piano as they seem misleading and inaccurate, as I
pointed out, specifically the "5+ shapes on guitar" versus "only one shape"
for piano, or in the least, correct me and help me understand what I missed.

Regards,
Scott

[Peter Inglis - TWG]

Post by Scott Daughtrey
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:56:50 +1000, Peter Inglis - TWG
No, that's not really what I wrote. You never noticed all the comments about
triads and shapes?
I thought you might be interested in clarifying your own comments concerning
chords on the guitar versus piano as they seem misleading and inaccurate, as I
pointed out, specifically the "5+ shapes on guitar" versus "only one shape"
for piano, or in the least, correct me and help me understand what I missed.

Sure I noticed. I was referring to the 5 guitar basic guitar
voicings for major chords as shown here -
http://www.thewholeguitarist.com/theory/5pos1.htm

I'm sure you know these shapes.

What I said was :

"Of course the chords are standard formulas, we all know that ; < )
On the piano keyboard there is only one "shape".
Learn C - E - G once and you have them all down. (in every octave)

As you know, on the guitar there are 5 + shapes to learn for C - E - G."


So... to try and clarify.... I'm saying that to know the entire 12 fret
pattern which is the guitar neck, there are 5 shapes to learn for each
and every chord.

[Scott Daughtrey]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 03:52:35 +1000, Peter Inglis - TWG

Post by Peter Inglis - TWG

Post by Scott Daughtrey
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:56:50 +1000, Peter Inglis - TWG
No, that's not really what I wrote. You never noticed all the comments about
triads and shapes?
I thought you might be interested in clarifying your own comments concerning
chords on the guitar versus piano as they seem misleading and inaccurate, as I
pointed out, specifically the "5+ shapes on guitar" versus "only one shape"
for piano, or in the least, correct me and help me understand what I missed.

Sure I noticed. I was referring to the 5 guitar basic guitar
voicings for major chords as shown here -
http://www.thewholeguitarist.com/theory/5pos1.htm
I'm sure you know these shapes.
"Of course the chords are standard formulas, we all know that ; < )
On the piano keyboard there is only one "shape".
Learn C - E - G once and you have them all down. (in every octave)
As you know, on the guitar there are 5 + shapes to learn for C - E - G."
So... to try and clarify.... I'm saying that to know the entire 12 fret
pattern which is the guitar neck, there are 5 shapes to learn for each
and every chord.

As I have already indicated, your shapes show chords that are not simply
C - E - G. In fact, some or all contain octaves or the notes and they are
different voicings; for example, C - G - C - E - G, while another "shape" is
C - E - G - C - E.

By this token it is simply not reasonable to make a statement like "On the
piano keyboard there is only one shape". In fact, if one was to notate each of
your shown "5 shapes" and hand them to a piano player, are you not insinuating
that the pianist could use the same "one shape" to perform them all? This is
surely not the case. There may be only one "shape" for each each specific
combination of notes that form any verion of a C chord on piano, which remains
the same if moved octaves, and there may be only one way in which the patterns
of notes are laid out for every octave of the piano, but this is certainly not
making your comparion of a guitar to a piano via chord shapes seem any more
functional or realistic.

It sounds like you're trying to use the common "there are 5 positions and 5
corresponding chord shapes" logic as an example of the guitar being a
positional instrument versus the piano being linear. Is this what you are
actually trying to say? If not, then what is the point of this comparison to
the piano?

No offense, but so far your responses so far all seem to be little more than
simple method approach to the guitar fingerboard which do not apply to my
questions to you, and I would hope for a little more reasonable response here.
Given that I am a fellow teacher, Peter, I would appreciate you addressing
this as you would a student who is genuinely concerned with the apparant
illogic, or someone who might be looking to purchase instructional material
from you.

Regards,
Scott

[Scott Daughtrey]

Post by Larry Deack
In a recent thread about reading some folks suggested single line reading
like jazz players do. It seems to me that the big problem reading on
classical guitar is polyphony and not single line.

The poster was quite clear that he wishes to read in upper positions better,
he did not specify plyphony therefore it makes sense that wasn't addressed as
a specific (although I did bring it up). Single note lines are a good place to
start.

Post by Larry Deack
I was in an ensemble playing 1st guitar with another guy who had played
trumpet all through school. He could read single line stuff better than me
but he fell apart when it came to reading simple polyphony that I could
easily read.

My experience with students has shown that if they can read single notes
faster in position then they can also read polyphony in position faster;
comparing -yourself- to -another person- will tell very little.

Post by Larry Deack
Polyphony seems to be the one thing that makes classical guitar so hard to
play compared to other styles of guitar playing.

I don't see classical as any harder to play or read than other styles. I'm not
sure there is any reason to believe this is the case, either.

Scott

[Larry Deack]

"Scott Daughtrey"

Post by Scott Daughtrey
I don't see classical as any harder
to play or read than other styles. I'm not
sure there is any reason to believe this
is the case, either.

Do you think polyphony is as easy to read as homophony?

[Scott Daughtrey]

Post by Larry Deack
"Scott Daughtrey"

Post by Scott Daughtrey
I don't see classical as any harder
to play or read than other styles. I'm not
sure there is any reason to believe this
is the case, either.

Do you think polyphony is as easy to read as homophony?

Depends. Of course reading any two notes simultaneously initially takes more
processing than reading a single note; things differ when one develops the
ability to 'see' a group of notes as a single entity (for example, many of us
can see an open position C major chord and know it's a C major chord without
having to read the individual notes - we see the 'shape'). But that addresses
nothing.

If the polyphony is a simple second position version of Mary Had A Little Lamb
and the homophony is a single part of a Bach Invention, then the matter is
different.

I don't think polyphony is any more difficult to read than dense harmony.

Scott

[e***@yahoo.com]

Is it possible that if we can hear separate lines or voices we can
sight read several lines of music?

Ed S.

[Scott Daughtrey]

Post by e***@yahoo.com
Is it possible that if we can hear separate lines or voices we can
sight read several lines of music?
Ed S.

Dunno, Ed, but to some extent probably yes. Maybe we should be asking some
classical pianists :-)

I think it would depend on how we define "read" as well as the type of
polyphonic material. If it were just playing the notes, possibly. But
"polyphony", as I understand it, differs from reading harmony in that we are
reading more than one melodic line simultaneously. I think it would be a vey
unique and hard earned skill to literally -sight read- polyphonic material and
be able to process it at the level of attention it deserves, to actually
mentally realize both parts as independant and to give them individual weight.
Granted, there are multiple voices in much harmony reading, but they often go
by different rules (for example, the resolution of individual voices) and
there may not be the same level of interpretive skill involved.

The other important question to ask is if there is adequate payback for the
effort extended - how much of this material do you realistically encounter and
where or what are the demands on you to sight read this material on the spot?
Is sight reading polyphonic material a neccessary tool and how much time does
it warrant you spending to becoming a proficient sight reader? No single
answer for everyone here, this is a decision we all have to make depending on
our individual needs and or goals.

Scott

[Olof Johansson]

Post by Scott Daughtrey

Post by e***@yahoo.com
Is it possible that if we can hear separate lines or voices we can
sight read several lines of music?
Ed S.

Dunno, Ed, but to some extent probably yes. Maybe we should be asking some
classical pianists :-)
I think it would depend on how we define "read" as well as the type of
polyphonic material. If it were just playing the notes, possibly. But
"polyphony", as I understand it, differs from reading harmony in that we are
reading more than one melodic line simultaneously. I think it would be a vey
unique and hard earned skill to literally -sight read- polyphonic material and
be able to process it at the level of attention it deserves, to actually
mentally realize both parts as independant and to give them individual weight.
Granted, there are multiple voices in much harmony reading, but they often go
by different rules (for example, the resolution of individual voices) and
there may not be the same level of interpretive skill involved.

Got me thinking of Brian Wilson here, he can hear 6 parts at once, a
very unique gift. Unfortunately it gave him trouble sleeping when the
voices didn't stop, he just kept composing. Beach Boys music is not
Bach-polyphonical but certainly polysongical, still I'm sure its a
chordal choire. I recall Paul McCartney saying he envied Wilson's
treatment of parts, it was something about the bass line which was
always the third or something.
I suspect mental relaxation can be a way to hear the music as
polyphonically as possible, like when taking foreign language hearing
tests in school, don't concentrate too hard or one might get caught,
instead keep the attention span wide? Or simply practice until the music
sticks. Myself I fear I'm stuck with hearing one part at a time and
shifting attention between parts.

Post by Scott Daughtrey
The other important question to ask is if there is adequate payback for the
effort extended - how much of this material do you realistically encounter and
where or what are the demands on you to sight read this material on the spot?
Is sight reading polyphonic material a neccessary tool and how much time does
it warrant you spending to becoming a proficient sight reader? No single
answer for everyone here, this is a decision we all have to make depending on
our individual needs and or goals.
Scott

[Larry Deack]

Post by e***@yahoo.com
Is it possible that if we can hear separate
lines or voices we can sight read several
lines of music?

I think that is the beginning point. You must hear what you play BEFORE
you play it no matter what style you are playing.

"The only texture in music that poses any real listening problems is the
third kind - polyphonic texture."
Aaron Copland - "What to Listen for in Music" - from the "Musial Texture"
section.

[Larry Deack]

"Scott Daughtrey"

Post by Scott Daughtrey
I don't think polyphony is any more
difficult to read than dense harmony.

Really? Quite amazing! Hard to imagine how that can be true for you but I'll
take your word for it.

Keeping track of multiple voices seems much more difficult to me. Playing 3
lines well seems to be beyond what even Aryeh was able to handle well when
the inside voice was the main voice.

One reason for this post is the fact that such a good player as Aryeh had
such a hard time that he even asked for help from this group about how to
make that inside voice heard clearly. Clearly for me and Aryeh polyphony has
unique challenges that make it very difficult for us to play well and not
easy to read, obviously.

[Scott Daughtrey]

Post by Larry Deack
"Scott Daughtrey"

Post by Scott Daughtrey
I don't think polyphony is any more
difficult to read than dense harmony.

Really? Quite amazing! Hard to imagine how that can be true for you but I'll
take your word for it.
Keeping track of multiple voices seems much more difficult to me. Playing 3
lines well seems to be beyond what even Aryeh was able to handle well when
the inside voice was the main voice.
One reason for this post is the fact that such a good player as Aryeh had
such a hard time that he even asked for help from this group about how to
make that inside voice heard clearly. Clearly for me and Aryeh polyphony has
unique challenges that make it very difficult for us to play well and not
easy to read, obviously.

Why are you attributing difficulty of making an inside voice sound clearly to
reading ability? Lost me there.

Scott

[Larry Deack]

"Scott Daughtrey"

Post by Scott Daughtrey
Why are you attributing difficulty
of making an inside voice sound clearly to
reading ability? Lost me there.

You must play ALL voices clearly in polyphony. I can easily play polyphony
if I simply ignore how the fact that the main voice keeps dropping out while
the top voice continues to sing clearly. I do not consider that reading the
music but maybe you do.

[Scott Daughtrey]

Post by Larry Deack
"Scott Daughtrey"

Post by Scott Daughtrey
Why are you attributing difficulty
of making an inside voice sound clearly to
reading ability? Lost me there.

You must play ALL voices clearly in polyphony.

Which is not the same as 'reading' said notes.

Post by Larry Deack
I can easily play polyphony
if I simply ignore how the fact that the main voice keeps dropping out while
the top voice continues to sing clearly.

Which does not relate to 'reading'.

Post by Larry Deack
I do not consider that reading the
music but maybe you do.

Then clearly this was an issue of mental processing and or physical technique,
not a 'reading' issue. If one knows what notes they are to play but has
trouble playing them 'correctly', then their reading is just fine and they are
having a different difficulty.

Scott

[Larry Deack]

"Scott Daughtrey"

Post by Scott Daughtrey
If one knows what notes they are to play
but has trouble playing them 'correctly',
then their reading is just fine and they are
having a different difficulty.

Your fingering matters. Your ability to hear matters. The sound you
produce matters. It's all part of reading music ON GUITAR.

I can read most things fairly well without any instrument but it sure as
hell doesn't mean I can read on any instrument. I'm sure Will Clinger can
sight read much better than me but I'm also sure I can read better than he
can when it comes to polyphonic guitar music. They are not the same thing
and why this thread was started.

[William D Clinger]

Post by Larry Deack

Post by Scott Daughtrey
If one knows what notes they are to play
but has trouble playing them 'correctly',
then their reading is just fine and they are
having a different difficulty.

Your fingering matters. Your ability to hear matters. The sound you
produce matters. It's all part of reading music ON GUITAR.

You referred to the difficulty of bringing out the melody on the
inside voice in the middle section of Gilardino's Annunciazione
in support of your claim that polyphonic music is especially hard
to read. As Scott pointed out, this is illogical. The difficulty
of playing polyphony is not necessarily related to the difficulty
of reading polyphony.

Aryeh's playing shows this. He was not having any trouble with
reading the middle section. Indeed, he may well have memorized
the middle section by then. He was having trouble bringing out
the melody, which is a matter of playing, not reading.

Will

[Larry Deack]

"William D Clinger"

Post by William D Clinger
Aryeh's playing shows this. He was not having any trouble with
reading the middle section. Indeed, he may well have memorized
the middle section by then. He was having trouble bringing out
the melody, which is a matter of playing, not reading.

I don't agree. I think it was much more than that. Aryeh stresses the top
line over all the others. He also did not bring out the bass line in the
first part as Richard pointed out. Aryeh is not anywhere near the polyphonic
reader that Mark Deprioria is but he has a very nice sensuous sound that
carries his interpretations for those who tend to focus on the top line more
than the others. Mark is a true polyphonic player (one of very few
guitarists) who would not play the middle voice as Aryeh did nor would he
fail to bring out the bass line as Richard noted. If anything that middle
line should be clear if it's a technical choice. Aryeh choose to play the
top line beautifully but not the inside voice. That is the crux of polyphony
playing, which voice gets the primary focus.

Reading and playing are not separate things as I pointed out. Polyphonic
music presents the player with problems that monophonic and homophonic music
does not present. Clearly playing the music so it can be heard is part of
reading music on any instrument.

[richard c spross]

Uh Larry,

I don't know if this will be of help, not even sure it is still in print.

"The Polyphonic Playing on the Guitar" Op. 965.
by, Jan Anton van Hoek.
Published by: Harmonia-UITGAVE, Hilversum
Copyright 1967

In two volumes.
A complete course in reading Polyphony on guitar.
Regards,
Richard Spross

Post by Larry Deack
"William D Clinger"

Post by William D Clinger
Aryeh's playing shows this. He was not having any trouble with
reading the middle section. Indeed, he may well have memorized
the middle section by then. He was having trouble bringing out
the melody, which is a matter of playing, not reading.

I don't agree. I think it was much more than that. Aryeh stresses the top
line over all the others. He also did not bring out the bass line in the
first part as Richard pointed out. Aryeh is not anywhere near the polyphonic
reader that Mark Deprioria is but he has a very nice sensuous sound that
carries his interpretations for those who tend to focus on the top line more
than the others. Mark is a true polyphonic player (one of very few
guitarists) who would not play the middle voice as Aryeh did nor would he
fail to bring out the bass line as Richard noted. If anything that middle
line should be clear if it's a technical choice. Aryeh choose to play the
top line beautifully but not the inside voice. That is the crux of polyphony
playing, which voice gets the primary focus.
Reading and playing are not separate things as I pointed out. Polyphonic
music presents the player with problems that monophonic and homophonic music
does not present. Clearly playing the music so it can be heard is part of
reading music on any instrument.

[Edward Bridge]

"Larry Deack" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:Nda7e.5819$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
As classical players we

Post by Larry Deack
must be able to read many different kinds of polyphonic textures including
12 tone pieces. There is a huge range of polyphonic styles to learn and the
patterns differ for each style.

I'm sorry , I have to ask , what 12 tones pieces?

I'm so boring , I can't think of one 12 tone piece in my very little "file
cabinet" library --
Peace,
Ed Bridge
Brooklyn N.Y.
http://www.bridgeclassicalguitars.com/

[virtual]

Post by Larry Deack
In a recent thread about reading some folks suggested single line reading
like jazz players do. It seems to me that the big problem reading on
classical guitar is polyphony and not single line.
I was in an ensemble playing 1st guitar with another guy who had played
trumpet all through school. He could read single line stuff better than me
but he fell apart when it came to reading simple polyphony that I could
easily read.
Polyphony seems to be the one thing that makes classical guitar so hard to
play compared to other styles of guitar playing. As classical players we
must be able to read many different kinds of polyphonic textures including
12 tone pieces. There is a huge range of polyphonic styles to learn and the
patterns differ for each style.
Is there any books that specifically teach polyphonic reading on guitar and
what are the unique problems of polyphonic reading that such a book would
cover?

Hi,

I would respectfully suggest that the problem is not reading.

A thorough knowledge of theory, analysis, and music history, allows the
musician to anticipate which way the music is going to evolve, and thus
allows her/him to read faster and better.

I will agree with you that good reading is important! As a matter of
fact, I think that a musician should read at least two bars ahead of
what he plays.

Yet, knowing that the music is 19th century, four bar phrases, in the
sonata form, modulated to the relative minor, soon to come back to the
home key, helps to know what to expect.

How does an amateur musician get all that information? Keep an open
mind. Read about music history. Read about theory. Ask a lot of
questions.

Now, this is the hard part.... give it a lot of time!

Enjoy the voyage, don't be too keen to have reached your destination.
The minute you are where you wanted to be, there is a new marvelous
destination where you have to go! That is the beauty of it!

Enjoy

[ktaylor]

Post by Larry Deack
In a recent thread about reading some folks suggested single line reading
like jazz players do. It seems to me that the big problem reading on
classical guitar is polyphony and not single line.
I was in an ensemble playing 1st guitar with another guy who had played
trumpet all through school. He could read single line stuff better than me
but he fell apart when it came to reading simple polyphony that I could
easily read.
Polyphony seems to be the one thing that makes classical guitar so hard to
play compared to other styles of guitar playing. As classical players we
must be able to read many different kinds of polyphonic textures including
12 tone pieces. There is a huge range of polyphonic styles to learn and the
patterns differ for each style.
Is there any books that specifically teach polyphonic reading on guitar and
what are the unique problems of polyphonic reading that such a book would
cover?

One of the issues not discussed here in multivoiced reading (and
listening) is rhythmic identity of voice. No doubt reading notes
becomes easier with knowledge of the fingerboard. As our cognition
grows we move from single seriation to multi-seriation. We grow (or not
- depending on our listening choices) the ability to cognate polyphany.
It is very possible to read the notes of various multi-voiced textures
correctly, yet not play them as discreet voices. The fact that we read
on one staff tends to muddy the separation of voices in certain
textures. Thus one good exercise I've found is simply playing two or
more lines of different rhythms on one staff (we have a book devoted
entirely to that). Many drum books have these sorts of exercises.
Spending some time doing this is a very expanding, and I think
valuable, yoga for guitarists.

Kevin Taylor
www.childbloom.com

[Larry Deack]

"ktaylor"

Post by ktaylor
One of the issues not discussed here in multivoiced reading (and
listening) is rhythmic identity of voice. No doubt reading notes
becomes easier with knowledge of the fingerboard. As our cognition
grows we move from single seriation to multi-seriation. We grow (or not
- depending on our listening choices) the ability to cognate polyphany.
It is very possible to read the notes of various multi-voiced textures
correctly, yet not play them as discreet voices. The fact that we read
on one staff tends to muddy the separation of voices in certain
textures. Thus one good exercise I've found is simply playing two or
more lines of different rhythms on one staff (we have a book devoted
entirely to that). Many drum books have these sorts of exercises.
Spending some time doing this is a very expanding, and I think
valuable, yoga for guitarists.

I think you are correct that the notes can be played yet the separation is
bad. I like the idea of different rhythms. I believe Hindemith made his
student do polyrhythms where each hand and foot tapped different rhythms. My
theory teacher gave us copies from 2 pages of a book of his with lots of
this in it. Not sure if it's in print any more.

I do wonder about folks "growing in their ability to cognate polyphony".
This seems to be something many classical guitar students do not even know
they need to learn. In his book Aaron Copland spends quite a bit of time on
polyphony because he thinks it takes much more work to hear. He also makes
the point that harmony was a late intellectual development in music long
after the other 3 he defines - rhythm, melody an tone color and polyphony
was developed from simple offset harmonies. I'm convinced it is similar and
parallel to the development of 3D perspective drawing and both were the
result of the same kind of thinking.

[e***@yahoo.com]

Post by Larry Deack

Post by Larry Deack
In a recent thread about reading some folks suggested single

line reading

Post by Larry Deack
like jazz players do. It seems to me that the big problem reading

on

Post by Larry Deack
classical guitar is polyphony and not single line.
I was in an ensemble playing 1st guitar with another guy who

had

Post by Larry Deack
played

Post by Larry Deack
trumpet all through school. He could read single line stuff

better

Post by Larry Deack
than me

Post by Larry Deack
but he fell apart when it came to reading simple polyphony that I

could

Post by Larry Deack
easily read.
Polyphony seems to be the one thing that makes classical guitar

so hard to

Post by Larry Deack
play compared to other styles of guitar playing. As classical

players we

Post by Larry Deack
must be able to read many different kinds of polyphonic textures

including

Post by Larry Deack
12 tone pieces. There is a huge range of polyphonic styles to

learn

Post by Larry Deack
and the

Post by Larry Deack
patterns differ for each style.
Is there any books that specifically teach polyphonic reading on

guitar and

Post by Larry Deack
what are the unique problems of polyphonic reading that such a

book

Post by Larry Deack
would

Post by Larry Deack
cover?

One of the issues not discussed here in multivoiced reading (and
listening) is rhythmic identity of voice. No doubt reading notes
becomes easier with knowledge of the fingerboard. As our cognition
grows we move from single seriation to multi-seriation. We grow (or not
- depending on our listening choices) the ability to cognate

polyphany.

Post by Larry Deack
It is very possible to read the notes of various multi-voiced

textures

Post by Larry Deack
correctly, yet not play them as discreet voices. The fact that we read
on one staff tends to muddy the separation of voices in certain
textures. Thus one good exercise I've found is simply playing two or
more lines of different rhythms on one staff (we have a book devoted
entirely to that). Many drum books have these sorts of exercises.
Spending some time doing this is a very expanding, and I think
valuable, yoga for guitarists.
Kevin Taylor
www.childbloom.com

Kevin,

What is the title, can it be purchased by non-childbloom people?

Ed S.

[ktaylor]

Post by e***@yahoo.com
Kevin,
What is the title, can it be purchased by non-childbloom people?
Ed S.

"Manual of Rhythmic Literacy"

If you wish to purchase it, send me a private email.

Kevin Taylor