Interesting how Pat places his fingers behind the nut when a chord/scale/lick shape includes open strings. Rather than considering open strings, he just treats them like a fret 0.
It was weird at first but i can see why he included it as an advice. Pat tried to see the fretboard as a whole and separating open/non-open positions is non-contributory to that concept.
Great to see Pat on here. However, having paid for his series of lessons which are valuable resources, how come when I go to my library at the DC Music School site the video quality is appalling ...jittery and stop/start except on the lowest ie crappiest setting. Can you fix this please. It was not like this when I purchased the lessons....,and it is fine here on Facebook. [And yes we have fast broadband speeds.]
he treats them just like everything else. He converts them to minor enharmonic equivalents. We weren't taught this at university. I studied Pat's method ( on my own) while at university, but found some of it clashed with my jazz studies. We were taught/drilled/brain washed/tortured with modes and altered modes. We were taught how to take cues from the melody typically being sung in jazz standards. From those melodies we can contrast how the notes relate to the chords underneath and ultimately consider what mode or altered mode would best outline the chord changes and still keep the character of the song simultaneously. These cues tell us how the chord is functioning in harmony. Is it diatonic or non diatonic. If it is non diatonic ( what key is being suggested) and where is the harmony headed? to a new key? Pat doesn't really explain this concept. He puts it in his playing, but he doesn't delve into it very much in his teaching. I found Pat's method forces you to look at the harmony in a given standard with a bit of a side eye, instead of looking directly and exactly how the harmony is functioning as it's written. No conversion is necessary. I suppose if you didn't know standard jazz theory, it wouldn't be an issue. Pat's method isn't as complicated and as exhaustive as standard jazz theory taught at American universities. Especially at the advanced levels. But, some of the best jazz guitarists in history didn't know much about any of this.
Interesting how Pat places his fingers behind the nut when a chord/scale/lick shape includes open strings. Rather than considering open strings, he just treats them like a fret 0.
Agreed. Continuity and a self damper
I know. I stole that from him. Great idea.
It was weird at first but i can see why he included it as an advice. Pat tried to see the fretboard as a whole and separating open/non-open positions is non-contributory to that concept.
Thank You so Much
Great to see Pat on here. However, having paid for his series of lessons which are valuable resources, how come when I go to my library at the DC Music School site the video quality is appalling ...jittery and stop/start except on the lowest ie crappiest setting. Can you fix this please. It was not like this when I purchased the lessons....,and it is fine here on Facebook. [And yes we have fast broadband speeds.]
RIP SIR
National Treasure.........
How does he treat the Dominant 7ths? Thank you
Nelson Riveros If you have a D7 you think A minor dorian!
Armin SB Yes , but
I meant to get an outside sound with tensions
Nelson Riveros Then he would think minor dorian/melodic half step up or down! So D7=D# minor or Db minor
Group 2 variation- m7b5 arpeggio
he treats them just like everything else. He converts them to minor enharmonic equivalents. We weren't taught this at university. I studied Pat's method ( on my own) while at university, but found some of it clashed with my jazz studies. We were taught/drilled/brain washed/tortured with modes and altered modes. We were taught how to take cues from the melody typically being sung in jazz standards. From those melodies we can contrast how the notes relate to the chords underneath and ultimately consider what mode or altered mode would best outline the chord changes and still keep the character of the song simultaneously. These cues tell us how the chord is functioning in harmony. Is it diatonic or non diatonic. If it is non diatonic ( what key is being suggested) and where is the harmony headed? to a new key? Pat doesn't really explain this concept. He puts it in his playing, but he doesn't delve into it very much in his teaching. I found Pat's method forces you to look at the harmony in a given standard with a bit of a side eye, instead of looking directly and exactly how the harmony is functioning as it's written. No conversion is necessary.
I suppose if you didn't know standard jazz theory, it wouldn't be an issue. Pat's method isn't as complicated and as exhaustive as standard jazz theory taught at American universities. Especially at the advanced levels. But, some of the best jazz guitarists in history didn't know much about any of this.