trying to do it right

I teach some students from Leavitt. Overall, it's a very good method, with interesting music and a lot of duets, which are great for timing.

Things I don't like about it (bear in mind that I have an 'I don't like this' list for every method I've ever seen, and Leavitt's is one of two I use regularly - so this isn't meant to be a bad review by any means!)

1. I don't like the way Leavitt labels scale fingerings. "Type 1a" has little relationship to the guitar, and I feel there are better ways to categorize fingerings. When I use Leavitt, I write in my own labels... which aren't really mine, but ones I got from a teacher I had in the 70s, and he probably got them from someone else. I label each position with the finger number that plays the lowest root, and the string that root is on. So an F fingering in first position would be 1E; the F# in the same position would be 2E, the Ab would be 4E, Bb is 1A, and so on. That relates the scale to the guitar fretboard (I understand Leavitt's logic, and he relates it to the hand... I just think that in the big scheme of things, the hand is moveable; the fretboard is fixed. It makes more sense in my mind to hang your hat on something that doesn't change.)

2. I don't like the way Berklee describes inversions in general. The rest of the music world talks about first inversion, not a 'drop 2' voicing. Why clutter up your mind with an additional term, when all the theory and harmony you study after that won't use the same words? (Leavitt doesn't get into 'drop' voicings in book 1, though - my little quarrel applies to books 2 & 3.)

On the other hand, Leavitt's approach to the fretboard is a really good one. Book 1 deals with first position for the first 60 pages or so, then addresses position playing in easy keys - C, F, G, etc. in second and then fifth position. By the end of the book you're reading in up to five accidentals, all low on the neck. Book two takes a single key and walks it through the fretboard - you start with C, and work your way through positions 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, and 12; then you do the same thing with other keys. (My position numbers may not exactly match Leavitt's - I'm writing from memory, as I'm too lazy to see if he numbers scale fingering 1E as 9th position or 8th; I treat it as 9th with a stretch for the 5th string F and the two C notes)

Book 3 I don't use as much as books 1 & 2. By that point a student can read throughout the fretboard and sus out all key signatures, so I typically transition to charts of tunes they want or need to play.

Noteboat, I have to say I really appreciate your posts. I've been following the sight reading thread and your theory posts and they have been very helpful to me.

You said that you stop using Leavitt after book 2. At that point do you have your students just work through "random" charts to keep up their sight reading? Do you use any of the other Leavitt books (reading and rhythm studies)?

You have also said that you use the Mel Bay Modern Guitar books. Do you prefer one over the other? Is there any particular reason to use one or the other?

Thanks.

Hyperborea, with my more advanced students I just use charts. Maybe once a month or so I'll just open a fake book to a random page and we'll go through the tune to keep their reading chops up. But I figure at that point I've drilled into them enough the importance of regular reading... and in the method books I do use, I'll skip over a lot of tunes - maybe 2/3 of the songs are never covered in the lessons. That gives them 'new' things to work on, and as we progress I'll also encourage them to go back to earlier stuff and play it in different positions.

I use Mel Bay for about 80% of my students. The Mel Bay series goes at a slower pace; the students who already play an instrument are the ones I typically start on Berklee, because I won't need to go over what line is what, or what a quarter note is, etc.

Mel Bay has its own shortcomings. The set comes in two flavors, the standard edition, and the 'extended' edition. The standard books are each 48 pages, the extended ones 96. They (or at least my distributor) has discontinued the standard edition in book 4; the others are all available in both versions.

When they launched the extended edition some years ago, I was excited about it. One of the big shortcomings of Mel Bay is a lack of practice material for some topics - for example, when the 5th string is presented, NONE of the songs that follow include anything below C. But students had a harder time with the extended edition, because the type is smaller - when you're learning to read, big staffs help. So I've gone back to the original, and supplement it with things I write out.

The extended edition is superior to the standard where book 4 is concerned - the extended one gets into position playing in an organized manner, while the standard relies more on a teacher to help. But I don't like the sequence; it starts with the key of E (in 1st position), then moves to the key of E in 4th position. In book 4 I start students around page 40 or so, 5th position key of C. After that we do Am and F, then go back to the beginning of the book. I find it helps to have a basic view of the 'mid neck' notes before dealing with all the accidentals in the key signatures.

I'll typically give students using the Mel Bay series a choice when we get to the end of book 3 - I''ll show them book 4, and the second half of Berklee 1. About 2/3 of the students opt for Berklee at that point, mostly because the music isn't so cheezy.

Noteboat,

Thanks for the response and your thoughts on Leavitt. After reading your posts here, I am now leaning more towards the Mel Bay books and follow the path you mentioned from Mel Bay to Leavitt.

Out of curiosity, would it be good to supplement the Mel Bay books with other materials and if so, what would you recommend? Also is there a point in working through these that one is going to want to also study a more in depth theory text or will these cover those bases?

Thanks again!

Was looking through Mel Bay's website and ran across a series entitled Modern Guitar Method - Rock Studies. I am assuming that these are supplements to the Mel Bay MOdern Guitar Method. Can you tell me more about these?

Yes, it's probably best to supplement Bay. As I mentioned, Bay 1 is weak on the 5th string.

One other thing to be aware of about Bay... it's sequenced to teach reading, not technique. Some things are easy to read (they're in keys with few accidentals) but hard to play (because of string skips etc). The third chord presented in Bay is F major, which is a lot harder than, say a D7 - which comes 10 pages later. The hardest piece to play in book 1 is on page 26 (Shenandoah, because of the syncopation); the hardest piece in book 2 is on p. 9 (Barcelona, because of the reach required). So if you grasp the concept, but can't play the example yet, just move ahead and come back to the hard ones.

Bay publishes quite a bit of supplementary material, and I've used a few - but I've not seen the Rock Studies book, so I can't comment on it. Mostly I'll work with songs the student might be familiar with. Pretty much anything will do,as long as it has the notes/chords/rhythms/etc you're working with.

Noteboat,

Thanks again for your response. What would you suggest as a good supplement for Mel Bay?

I am wanting to make sure that whatever I choose will get me on the right track with reading, theory, etc. Unfortunately, self instruction is my lot at the moment so your advice has been very helpful in choosing a path to take.

Well, I decided onthe Mel Bay Method. Ordered Extended editions of the first two books. After gettting a chance to look them over, I really like the method and have started working through it. In fact, I also ordered the Guitar Studies supplement for Grade 1 for extra material to work through. Once I get through Grade 3 or so, I may look at Leavitt but, somewhat cheesy music notwithstanding, I may go ahead and work through all 7 grades of the method as well as some of the supplemental materials.