You’re not getting the meaning of “chromatic”. Just another post which completely misses the point of Pat Martino’s ideas. Off-topic, way off in the weeds, another time waster.
Appreciate your obvious enthusiasm for the topic but this kind of response comes across as vaguely combative/dismissive and is against our guidelines (see Forum Guidelines – Cracking the Code):
There’s plenty Pat Martino fans in here (myself included) who would be happy to have a more constructive dialogue. So I suggest you drop the vague attacks to others in your posts and only focus on the subject matter.
I feel that vaguely combative/dismissive responses are unproductive in any discussion. Here are some examples which occurred in this discussion:
Dismissive:
“…typical misunderstanding…”
“…You might want to check your sources on the latter though; did you read what @ASTN explained above?..”
“…sorry, nope. I guess you just don’t understand the system well yet. Once you get it, everything becomes clear…”
“…Come on man! Buy yourself a good book on music theory…That’s not OK for a beginner to make such strong statements. If you dont understand something it doesn’t mean it’s wrong…”
Dismissing the ideas of Pat Martino: “…Is this more from Martino? Regardless, they’re mistaken. Sorry.”
This is only a smidgeon of the flak which has been thrown. I haven’t gone into the “vaguely combative” responses.
From my perspective, I see this as simply an endurance test on my part, with my expertise constantly questioned by self-appointed “experts” in music theory.
These ideas on “The Nature of the Guitar” come from Pat Martino, and so all this dismissal represents a refusal to see Martino’s perspective (which would be valuable for guitarists).
Who appointed you an expert? Are you not self-appointed? Why is your expertise above question?
I’m familiar with Pat Martino’s ideas. Most of what he said is interesting and much of it is useful, but some of it seems nonsensical to me. He draws conclusions from absurd coincidences, almost like numerology.
For whatever it’s worth, I don’t believe the guitar is strictly either a “C instrument” or a “chromatic instrument.”
I would say the guitar is a “CAGED” instrument and a chromatic instrument. There is a reason that folk and bluegrass players distinguish between “A” and “G with the capo on the 2nd fret.”
No horse in this race, but I hope you can read this with a neutral enoguh perspective to see how this could also arguably be interpreted as “dismissive” and “vaguely combative.”
At a minimum, it’s presenting a concept in such a way as it could be taken as. - fairly, I’d say - an attack on anyone who doesn’t alreadyshare your views on that concept, and that sort of framing almost never encourages people to approach a subject with an open mind. It’s counter-productive.
"…For whatever it’s worth, I don’t believe the guitar is strictly either a “C instrument” or a “chromatic instrument.”…I would say the guitar is a “CAGED” instrument and a chromatic instrument. ”
It’s easier to see the guitar as a chromatic instrument if you can see the piano as a diatonic instrument. This means seeing the correspondences with the piano keyboard and with the diatonic staff system, as well as note names, and the entire notation and key-signature system.
I’ve got the “CAGED” books and have studied them (Fretboard Logic vols. 1-3).
I collect various guitar method books and enjoy comparing the different approaches. “Fretboard Logic” is one of the few methods which questions the “normal” diatonic attempts to teach guitar, and treats the guitar as unique.
I’ll turn your poison into nectar by pointing out that I see similarities in Pat Martino’s method with the Fretboard Logic/CAGED method, because both recognize that the guitar is best learned with a pattern-based method.
This is why Pat Martino’s method is not based on scales per se, but is based on sound correspondences (playing by ear) and areas of activity, which he has conceived as “conversion to minor.”
These “areas of activity” are not thought of as “scales” but as visual patterns which have harmonic connections to chords. Also, it is worth noting that when Martino says “convert to minor” he means dorian minor, not aeolian (natural) minor, because dorian minor is a direct, unchanged mode of the familiar major scale.
One book has already made this mistake (“Linear Expressions,” credited to Pat Martino but actually done in collaboration with Tony Baruso). If you analyze the examples, which are transcriptions of recorded Martino solos, you will find that they are all in dorian minor, with chromatic additions, of course.
“There is a reason that folk and bluegrass players distinguish between “A” and “G with the capo on the 2nd fret.”
This illustrates exactly what Martino is talking about. Bluegrass music is fast, and must be played efficiently, with the best left-hand fingering. Martino’s “areas of activity” do just this. His riffs and ideas are all based on very efficient visual patterns which are designed for the guitar, for maximum efficiency and speed.
So, it seems we do agree, and your examples are spot-on.
“…No horse in this race, but…”
Usually when people say “I’m not saying that…” it means they ARE saying it.
"I hope you can read this with a neutral enoguh perspective to see how this could also arguably be interpreted as “dismissive” and “vaguely combative.”
I don’t see that. I think what you are seeing as “dismissive” and “vaguely combative” is the result of ingrained diatonic assumptions, which all music students learn as the language of music and notation, which are challenged by “outside the box” thinking for the guitar. I’m a guitar advocate, and I see no need for “combat,” just a need for more guitar-friendly methods like “Fretboard Logic” and Pat Martino’s methods.
“… At a minimum, it’s presenting a concept in such a way as it could be taken as. - fairly, I’d say - an attack on anyone who doesn’t already share your views on that concept, and that sort of framing almost never encourages people to approach a subject with an open mind. It’s counter-productive.”
To be clear, I’m not “the enemy” nor do I see a need to “attack” the Western diatonic system, but I AM a guitar player, and I want guitar players to try thinking outside the diatonic box, and to realize its limitations and biases.
This discussion’s “productivity” is under attack by those who cling desperately to traditional non-guitaristic ideas, and those who are simply seeking conflict.
Well, at least I tried.
I’m trying to very nicely tell you that it’s coming across like you’re coming out swinging, and being very dismissive of anyone who doesn’t already agree with you. Do what you will with that information, but I’d say I’mm pretty clearly not alone in thinking that.
Yes, you gave it an awesome shot, I was impressed by your efforts.
You’re pushing really hard to get people to believe the perception that I am being dismissive. You don’t seem interested in this topic idea at all.
You also are trying to make me feel like an “outsider” by saying “I’mm pretty clearly not alone in thinking that.”
I thought we were all guitarists here, trying to increase our knowledge as guitarists, and not acting like we are in high school, trying to be “in” with the “popular” kids.
“Dog-pile on the rabbit”
I know the ‘outsider’ feeling. One way for it to happen is for the group you’re interacting with to be extremely exclusive.
Another way to feel like an outsider is to be condescending and snide to people for the crime of checks disagreeing with you.
You’re doing the latter.
The Cracking The Code system itself is “outside the box” of orthodox music pedagogy.
It’s for electric and plectrum style guitar players, who have historically been “outside the box” of classical music theory and diatonic notation. Institutional jazz pedagogy has lended the electric guitarist some credibility, but now we are dealing with rock guitarists and “fusion” players like Eric Johnson. We are way outside the box.
I suppose dressing the guitar up in diatonic clothing is supposed to lend it some credibility, which jazz has largely accomplished. Don’t forget that true improvisational jazz is a music of the ear, not notation. Big Band afficionados take note.
Are you sure?
Institutional jazz pedagogy has given the electric guitarist some credibility, as far as the electric guitar even being recognized as existing. Before that, it was classical guitar or nothing. What’s your point, just to disagree with everything I say?
hmmm not sure what results we’re looking for in this thread. Kind of a “I hate notation vs I don’t hate notation” type situation… or… maybe it’s simply a collection of opposing viewpoints? hah 2 steps away from a flame war I’d say! lol
My opinion (not that it matters! lol) Personally, notation works for me as a guitarist, violinist, bassist, drummer, and vocalist. I can see however, how it might not work for everyone - and that’s great! Don’t use it! No need to make people change, no need to argue either way just simply do what you want to do and if you can find like minds along the way, those are the folks you need to talk to - I know I certainly won’t change my mind, I have invested way too much time in becoming familiar with the language to abandon it! (EDIT - Of course, I am open to a new trick and am always happy to read about someone else’s insights!) In other news I also hate tablature and diagrams for reasons I won’t get into - but I most certainly acknowledge how both make learning guitar music and scales and chords and stuff much easier for many!
When I was playing Chapman Stick, Greg Howard and Emmett Chapman both had their own way of notation (Stafftab and Free hands) because using standard notation seemed clunky to them. I personally hated it, and never really used either even though I understand them both. But again, to each their own - notation is so that you can jot down your ideas, and communicate them with other musicians.
So if y’all have a system that works better for you and your pals, I’d say just use it and not worry so much about a buy-in from your peers/frenemies!