segovia scales

[MarioBaptista]

I got curious now. I'm just a beginner, so I would like to know where can I get those Segovia scales. Is there a link available?

Thanks,

Mário

[black_moonlight]

It's absolutely not for beginner. So you don't need to think about it right now . If you wanna practice scales, plz follow some intructions in above posts

[RJay]

I never crossed paths with the Segovia scales when I was learning what scales were and how to play them. I'd also recommend your just stick with the basic scales as they are introduced in any number of good beginning method books.

Just recently I was looking around at the music store and they had the Segovia scales so I bought it. Now, I've not been all the way through the book because, they are not an easy read and, once I understand what Segovia was trying to point out I then just start playing variations of it... then I usually have had enough of scales for the day.

Good book. Not for beginners though.

[MarioBaptista]

Ok, I didn't made myself clear in my post. What I want to mean when I say "I'm just a beginner" is that I'm just a beginner in this Forum, not as a guitar player. I play guitar (classic and electric) for over 25 years, so any improvement will always be very welcome.

So here I repeat my previous request about those Segovia scales.

Thanks.

Mário

[Chris Davis]

Ok, I didn't made myself clear in my post. What I want to mean when I say "I'm just a beginner" is that I'm just a beginner in this Forum, not as a guitar player. I play guitar (classic and electric) for over 25 years, so any improvement will always be very welcome.

So here I repeat my previous request about those Segovia scales.

Thanks.

Mário

You can get the book of segovias scale fingerings from any online music retailer. It's published by columbia publishing co. sheemusicplus, gsp, and guitar salon should all have it.

[black_moonlight]

We had the medicine and now we need to know how to drink it

http://www.schrammguitars.com/scales.html

[Chris Davis]

We had the medicine and now we need to know how to drink it

http://www.schrammguitars.com/scales.html

I kinda of disagree with that site. They have the idea that scales are somehow needed to play anything. Well yes...if we were violin players. And even then there's just not a lot of music that has extended scalar passages. There's a lot of stuff with adjacent nice motion, but nothing to amazingly scalar. How often does one see a two or three octave scale in a performance piece? And if it is in a piece there's effective ways to practice it outside of working on the scale. Breaking it down into open strings and working from there.

Scales are vehicles for practicing hand coordination, tone, volume, and anything else. Why play 8 different scales a day other than for review. To me it doesn't make sense to practice all those RH fingerings 8 times for each scale pattern. Then rest and free stroke?

That's 20 RH patters x 8 scales a day. 160 times running through scales, and if you want to practice both rest and free stroke: 320 scales played. What about practicing Forte and Piano? 640 times? I guess that's great, but I like to practice pieces in addition to scales. Sometimes.

[black_moonlight]

It's just for someone who take segovia scales

[charlesivey]

I've heard it now from more than one teacher of CG... if you only have a few minutes to practice -- play scales. And, play a few scales everyday, even if it is the same one -- vary speed, RH fingers, dotting of notes, doubles, triples, etc.

I don't think scales for 100 percent of your practice time each day is a great way to go, of course not. But playing scales does a lot of good things unrelated to knowing the notes in a scale sequence. I'll defend the Segovia scales a bit here (compared to the Carcassi Scales - which have as many open strings as possible opposed to fretted strings.)

There are elements in the simplist two octave Segovia C scale that show up in many pieces -- not necessarily the notes in C, but the positions and changes, even if on different strings. Planting, tonal control, LH precision, coordination and timing all are improved with good scale practice, and no one says play scales as fast and sloppily as possible -- play then for tone and control, even if you only do it for 5 or 10 percent of your practice time. Play them with your eyes closed, play them looking at LH, then RH. Just my opinion here, but I find scales very helpful. Don't give up on the value of playing scales. Yes, sometimes it is boring... but so is changing strings, and a lot of other things we do to get better -- scales are an investment in your skill bank.

[Trystramys]

I've heard it now from more than one teacher of CG... if you only have a few minutes to practice -- play scales. And, play a few scales everyday, even if it is the same one -- vary speed, RH fingers, dotting of notes, doubles, triples, etc.

i totally agree. when i first started out with the guitar, my teacher always made me do scales before we got to the lesson proper. it's had tremendous effect on my technique (not that its that good! ), and also on a friend who recently started this regime; he said everything improved even with only 15 minutes of scales everyday!

[Chris Davis]

I've heard it now from more than one teacher of CG... if you only have a few minutes to practice -- play scales. And, play a few scales everyday, even if it is the same one -- vary speed, RH fingers, dotting of notes, doubles, triples, etc.

I'm don't think scales for 100 percent of your practice time each day is a great way to go, of course not. But playing scales does a lot of good things unrelated to knowing the notes in a scale sequence. I'll defend the Segovia scales a bit here (compared to the Carcassi Scales - which have as many open strings as possible opposed to fretted strings.)

There are elements in the simplist two octave Segovia C scale that show up in many pieces -- not necessarily the notes in C, but the positions and changes, even if on different strings. Planting, tonal control, LH precision, coordination and timing all are improved with good scale practice, and no one says play scales as fast and sloppily as possible -- play then for tone and control, even if you only do it for 5 or 10 percent of your practice time. Play them with your eyes closed, play them looking at LH, then RH. Just my opinion here, but I find scales very helpful. Don't give up on the value of playing scales. Yes, sometimes it is boring... but so is changing strings, and a lot of other things we do to get better -- scales are an investment in your skill bank.

I wasn't saying abandon scales altogether, but that's a lot of scales to play in one day. I spend about a 1/2 hour on scales a day (or try to), focusing on the things you mentioned.

[rdc1991]

Segovia's fingering of the scales seems to teach your left hand not to take anything for granted. I play them alot and they help tremendously in theat as well as playing in high positions.

[charlesivey]

Hi Chris,

I wasn't suggesting you did not play scales, only that the Segovia Scales have many valuable aspects. And, that playing only scales was not a good idea as well. Hope that was what came through.

I tend to get hung up on traditional guitar time scales and at the same time, ultra modern or unique teaching approaches.

For example... beginners = equal first decade of practice, transitional players = second decade of practice, Intermediates = third decade of practice, regressing intermediates = fourth decade of practice, and beginners = fifth decade of practice (they've forgotten all they learned earlier in life...) Ha, Ha, Ha. I've played so long I can relearn some old etudes and they seem like new material, except for my dern fingers sometimes remember where to go while I am trying to read the score. Actually I am only kidding a little about that. Anyway, little bits of scale practice from 40+ years ago can sometimes jump right into a warm-up -- scales I have not practiced in 40 years -- one of those 1028 variations you mention.

Innovation... now that is another entire topic. I believe one should have beginners do all the traditional buildup of technique, grind through those months and years of practice, learn the fretboard, etc., but I also believe they should play some serious music along the way. It is motivating and inspiring to work on something at the forefront of high musical achievement, even when it might be years before really getting there. An example is the BWV 996 Bouree someone mentioned -- it is not hard to play. Many teachers will say, "never, never... not for beginners." I would say, why not. The piece would not be the center point of learning, but rather a taste of things to come allowing the student to dream of why they need to play scales, practice for hours on end, etc. It should not be two years before great music is played. Hav thinks the scales should start at the VII position - I agree. but we digress.

Trying to keep this shorter... but must point out some proof. In physics at the university level, I selected National Merit and Commended Student types and placed these first year types into modern physics and we covered quantum mechanics and relativity first, then as we encountered the need for the classical physics of Newton, Maxwell, Hertz, etc., we would backtrack and learn those things. In other words rather than burn out and lose otherwise bright students with two years of incline planes, magnets, and the physics of the 1700 and 1800's (which turns off most physics students before they have a chance to know the beauty of the field,) we first learned about the exciting world of the new magical physics of today -- elementary particles, grand theories, high level research. At the time this was a huge departure from accepted thought -- late 1960's. Students who went through this had higher retention and completion of degrees, became accomplished physicists, and yes, made significant contributions to the field, and continue to do so. It also made the incline plane more interesting when they finally got to that part. Electricity and Magnetism, Optics, and Field Theories were a piece of cake after first learning the grand scheme of things.

Proof of this concept was easy to measure: lauded, refereed, and funded research results and successful careers in the field.

So, no I don't think beginners should play all advanced pieces and not learn the basics -- never! But I do think you build a bridge starting at both ends and meet in the middle (and everyone's middle is going to be off to one side or the other.)

BTW: that's why your guitar teacher should be a competent player of high skill... to help provide and teach that view of the more sublime goal of learning to play. Some one who only knows the first position and "Row, Row, Row your Boat" cannot provide the glimpse of what is behind the curtain.

[Chris Davis]

Charles, well said!

I agree with you on the learning to play real music as well as technical stuff. I'll share a personal anecdote to that effect:

I started as a rock n' roll player, learning with this amazing folk guitar guy who was a great beginning teacher. I started learning basic open chords, you know the usual. Well after a while he asked me what sort of music I liked. I said, "metallica." So I come back the next week and he has a tab of "enter sandman." That was the first song I learned, A few weeks later he brought in "the four horsemen" (which is really hard).

Technical exercises and scales are great, but without making real music it's easy to loose focus on the goal. Every pro guitarist today has almost flawless technique and execution, but the good ones have a unique tone quality, sound, or interpretaion--those things are what makes a virtuoso, not the perfect technique.

On the scales note: I just got "classical guitar 2000: technique for the serious contemporary player" by Charles duncan. Has A LOT of scales. diatonic 1, 2, and(where possible) 3 octave scales--all presented within the context of 5 basic patterns. Movable chromatic, wholetone, and diminished scales. A lot of chord stuff including cadences and common voicings and the like. It's a really cool book, maybe not for daily practice, but a wonderful reference.

[charlesivey]

Now I have book envy.