View Full Version : Bensons approach to playing changes.
Tag - pretty uncool, dude. Nobody's getting personal here, just you. Kimock is a respected professional player. I think a little attitude adjustment is in order. He never attacked you, just your "logic".
KIMOCK SAID....
"It's exactly the kind of advice any mature, intuitive, experienced jazz guitarist might offer a beginning jazz guitarist with no formal training who was coming to jazz with a rock/blues/shred background.
It's exactly the kind of advice you get when your teacher sees you sliding up and down the neck with pentatonic boxes trying to negotiate chord symbols that refer to chromatic voice leading. . .
It's usefullness pretty much ends there.
There is no "musical method" here.
It's just another cliche in an endless stream of musical cliches. .
"It's all just tonic and dominant."
"You can play any note you want as long as the note before it and after it is right."
"It's all just lines and spaces."
etc.
I took that same advice as a wake up call to continue my education, as it was immediatly obvious to me, even at that tender age, that although it contained enough information to allow me to butcher a Billy Strayhorn tune, it didn't contain enough information to compose one.
At the level this cliche/concept is presented here it does have some merit,
as it is being communicated by a hobbyist as an introduction to a new style
for other beginners. Cool.
My own free advice here would be that followers of this naive belief system might do well to adopt some additional
truisms"
Sorry Ken. I take that as a bit more.
Tag - with all due respect - teachers often give out only as much information as they think their students can handle. Have you considered this is why Richie Hart gave you this 'everything is either tonic or dominant' angle? It is after all, only one step removed from key center playing - "everything is I" to "everything is V to I"
Not V-I. Tension or rest, Tonic or dominant. Ken, I studied with him on and off for 20 years. I have tapes and tapes and tapes of almost every lesson talking of this over and over and over. I know another great player who is friends with Benson as well. Teaches EXACTLY the same way. I honestly do not think you are understanding what I am saying.
KRosser
09-03-2007, 11:11 PM
What other sound is there besides one that is at rest, or one that wants to pull ypour ear somewhere else?
Oy....OK, well there's the problem....
[quote=Tag;2917969]
[QUOTE]Tag - dude - I am not trying to rip anything apart. I'm trying to explain why that method is not one I primarily employ. I don't want or need to rip it apart. You apparently are taking this very personally.
As you seem to be Ken. I have said form the beginning no one HAS to employ this. YOU keep trying to say it comes up short, and I am simply explaining how every thing you show is in the system. Its really as simple as that. If Kimok is going to come in here and start talking about being a "hobbiest", then I am going to point out that regardless of being a hobbiest or a pro, I dig many hobbiest playing a thousand times more than his pro playing.
Your lack of respect for everyone who dares expressing an opinion contrary to yours is duly noted
Why dont you start a thread explaing your system Ken. I would like to read about it in detail, like I am trying to explain about one I was taught here. Will you do that? I will come over and take a look at it and see what I think. I started this thread about a system that benson and some other of the most respected players in the history of jazz have used. Others came in and tried to show it has shortcomings. I am simply showing how these "shortcomings" do not exist.
Oy....OK, well there's the problem....
Example please? Key of C major in a I-VI-II-V. easy to say, give an example.
KRosser
09-03-2007, 11:17 PM
Not V-I. Tension or rest, Tonic or dominant. Ken, I studied with him on and off for 20 years. I have tapes and tapes and tapes of almost every lesson talking of this over and over and over. I know another great player who is friends with Benson as well. Teaches EXACTLY the same way. I honestly do not think you are understanding what I am saying.
No, I think I do.
In the key of C, you're saying if there's G7 - C, you can play a D minor triad, D-F-A, over the G since it's also a member of the dominant family.
I'm saying - I can make the melody D - F - A over the G7 recognizing they represent the 5th, 7th & 9th respectively of the chord.
Now here's the part that's apparently hard for you -
This is not the same method!
..even if it sometimes produces the same results...
Can you ruminate on this for a minute before you slander me back, my friend? Can you show me at least that little tiny bit of respect?
According to the OP, that would be a glimpse into the musical thinking of John Coltrane. . .
we're not worthy. . .:roll
Which it is. he uses Fmaj7 over G7 ALL of the time. Do you even know who Coltrane is? :eek:
KRosser
09-03-2007, 11:19 PM
Example please? Key of C major in a I-VI-II-V. easy to say, give an example.
C-E-B-D#-F#
Regardless of function.
KRosser
09-03-2007, 11:22 PM
As you seem to be Ken. I have said form the beginning no one HAS to employ this. YOU keep trying to say it comes up short, .
Tag - I have never said anything other than 'it comes up short FOR ME'.
No, I think I do.
In the key of C, you're saying if there's G7 - C, you can play a D minor over the G since it's also a member of the dominant family.
I'm saying - I can make the melody D - F - A over the G7 recognizing they represent the 5th, 7th & 9th respectively of the chord.
Now here's the part that's apparently hard for you -
This is not the same method!
..even if it sometimes produces the same results...
Can you ruminate on this for a minute before you slander me back, my friend? Can you show me at least that little tiny bit of respect?
I am not slandering you back. Can you play the notes of a G7 in any fasion over a G7, of course. What are you trying to show? Knowing your arpeggios and extensions inside and out are of the utmost importance in any method.
Tag - I have never said anything other than 'it comes up short FOR ME'.
And I have said it may not be your APPROACH, but it does NOT come up short. It cant, because every option is there. Dont like it? Cool. Seems to hard? OK. Comes up short. No.
KRosser
09-03-2007, 11:28 PM
I am not slandering you back. Can you play the notes of a G7 in any fasion over a G7, of course. What are you trying to show? Knowing your arpeggios and extensions inside and out are of the utmost importance in any method.
Please reread it, Tag. I can't explain it any simpler.
C-E-B-D#-F#
Regardless of function.
You are out of C maj already. D# could just be Gaug7 resolving to C lydian. (#11 of tonic) Keep it to the key, and show what you are playing over each chord. Seek and ye shall find, there are exceptions to everything.
Please reread it, Tag. I can't explain it any simpler.
Ken, knowing the notes are the 5th, 7th or 9th of the G7, or the extensions of any of the chords in the respective groups should be a given. We simply cant be talking about the same thing, because we are talking about the same thing and disagreeing. It makes no sense.
KRosser
09-03-2007, 11:42 PM
And I have said it may not be your APPROACH, but it does NOT come up short. It cant, because every option is there. Dont like it? Cool. Seems to hard? OK. Comes up short. No.
It comes up short FOR ME because it's not the easiest way to come up with sounds like (G7) G - A - Ab - F# (C) - Eb
Because when I play with guys like Ottmaro Ruiz that like these kinds of sounds they'll harmonize that Eb over C with a B/C polychord, or an Ab/C polychord. Then he smiles at me and we have acheived interplay. You know, jazz, dude....
I like it because it helps me think more freely with all 12 chromatic notes at any time
Even if I come up with a line exactly note for note what you would play, it's the fastest way there FOR ME.
I was thinking about the tune "Autumn Leaves", the first few bars or so...
Am7/D7/Gma7/Cma7/F#m7b5 ...
Tag, do I understand correctly that according to your system, the C major 7 chord above functions as dominant?
In my view, the hippest lines would stem from treating GMa 7 as dominant, with all the subs that apply - in effect, setting up resolution to C as a Tonic. This appears to me as something George Benson would do, even though the Gma7 is the tonic chord (and the key of the tune).
I would humbly postulate that in this particular case, just saying Cma7 = IV chord = Dominant would be missing the picture, do you agree? Or am I just totally missing your point?
Yea, but you are now changing the function of the Gmaj7 chord, which is FINE, and what I have said all along. You are simply making that a V-I now! (dominant-toninc.) Before you do that, you sure have to understand how that Gmaj7 is functioning to begin with though! In the original chords, the C maj7 is really no different than the next-7b5chord.
ken siad he was sick of hearing all of the his harmonic "tricks" that the kids play, but then he agrees with you here. Well, here is a simple harmonic "trick". Root motion up a 4th? Make it a V-I! Lol! Oldest "trick" in the book.
KRosser
09-03-2007, 11:49 PM
Ken, knowing the notes are the 5th, 7th or 9th of the G7, or the extensions of any of the chords in the respective groups should be a given. We simply cant be talking about the same thing, because we are talking about the same thing and disagreeing.
We ARE talking about the same notes in this example but two ways of getting them. There's more than one road to downtown. One is faster for me. One is faster for you.
It makes no sense.
To you - I know. That's why I find this frustrating.
hear and play
09-03-2007, 11:59 PM
It comes up short FOR ME because it's not the easiest way to come up with sounds like (G7) G - A - Ab - F# (C) - Eb
Because when I play with guys like Ottmaro Ruiz that like these kinds of sounds they'll harmonize that Eb over C with a B/C polychord, or an Ab/C polychord. Then he smiles at me and we have acheived interplay. You know, jazz, dude....
I like it because it helps me think more freely with all 12 chromatic notes at any time
Even if I come up with a line exactly note for note what you would play, it's the fastest way there FOR ME.
Ken, this is great. Here's the big question. Let's start with a huge assumption that might produce discomfort. Let's say that the same artistic self would have come out irrespective of method of study. If you had labored via tonic/dominant and hearing colors within tonic/dominant, do you speculate that you would have arrived where you are today more quickly or less quickly?
It comes up short FOR ME because it's not the easiest way to come up with sounds like (G7) G - A - Ab - F# (C) - Eb
Because when I play with guys like Ottmaro Ruiz that like these kinds of sounds they'll harmonize that Eb over C with a B/C polychord, or an Ab/C polychord. Then he smiles at me and we have acheived interplay. You know, jazz, dude....
I like it because it helps me think more freely with all 12 chromatic notes at any time
Even if I come up with a line exactly note for note what you would play, it's the fastest way there FOR ME.
If you are just stacking maj 7 chords a min 3rd apart, or adding a minor third to a maj 7 chord (which I THINK you are showing above) then usually breaking it down to triads or simply extensions is very simple, I agree. You should know that in any system. I showed how chords a minor third apart all relate, which is coverd as well in my above posts. Benson does it ALL the time. Also knowing how all the notes sound against a given chord should be known, but man, you learn that pretty quick with all your standard bop lines. You also just can say to someone you can play every not, now make music. there are ways to organisze those sounds to get them in your head, and thats what THIS or ANY system is about. The first line you showed is just a basic bop line over a 7 chord. And that will work over ALL of the relative chords in the group too! You have your system totally digested so no need to relearn, but look at it again...many ideas you would never have thought of, or EVER played before i would think. :AOK
We ARE talking about the same notes in this example but two ways of getting them. There's more than one road to downtown. One is faster for me. One is faster for you.
I have no problem with that, and never did. It was the coming up short that was the problem, as that simply does not exist. I have always agreed there are many roads to the same end. I am presenting one that many great jazz players used. There are many others as well.
russ6100
09-04-2007, 12:12 AM
I'm not feeling very articulate at present but here goes anyway:
Why does this whole "tonic /dominant" thing have to be a "system" (i.e. a method to improv to employ at the exclusion of all else)??? It's just another approach.
There's nothing wrong with grouping a bunch of changes into "tonic /dominant", especially when you have an extremely uptempo tune that's kicking your ass, I do it all the time BUT -
maybe for just a chorus or even for a few bars . I might use that approach for a whole chorus of a blues and then nail every chord in the turnaround - or vice versa. If you analyse most good solos you'll find that the soloist's approach to the changes would vary, sometimes several times within 1 chorus. And that goes for Benson, Wes, Coltrane et al. A Rhythm Changes bridge at 70 bpm and I might add changes.
I don't know George Benson and have never spoken with him. But if you think about how he came up - those were the days of learning by listening to records and by getting your ass kicked nightly on the bandstand! Not a whole lotta time for thinking! There was a lot of listening and immitating, learning the language - the idiom! And GB's playing and approach is saturated with idiomatic jazz vocabulary.
It's easy to analyse a solo after the fact, especially one over diatonic or non-modal music as being either "tonic or dominant" sounds but to say all great soloist are thinking or approaching tunes that simplistically is not right.
Nobody is thinking "tonic /dominant" all the time, including you Tag.
A good friend of mine (a great player) will still insist to this day when asked his approach to playing over a static Dm7, "It's just C Major man...." and he's not lying at all - even though there's much more going on that C Major, that's his explanation.
Anyway, I don't see what the fuss is about here. The "tonic /dominant" approach - it's used all the time by probably everybody here but it's not the only approach by a long shot.
What Kimock said about it being offered as a method to jazz students is correct. I think educators may at times say things like, "Hey man, it's just 'tonic /dominant', 'tension and release' " to calm down students who may be looking at a string of changes like the proverbial deer in the headlights and such an approach may serve to sort of "un-freak" them out a bit!
hear and play
09-04-2007, 12:14 AM
If you are just stacking maj 7 chords a min 3rd apart, or adding a minor third to a maj 7 chord (which I THINK you are showing above) then usually breaking it down to triads or simply extensions is very simple, I agree. You should know that in any system. I showed how chords a minor third apart all relate, which is coverd as well in my above posts. Benson does it ALL the time. Also knowing how all the notes sound against a given chord should be known, but man, you learn that pretty quick with all your standard bop lines. You also just can say to someone you can play every not, now make music. there are ways to organisze those sounds to get them in your head, and thats what THIS or ANY system is about. The first line you showed is just a basic bop line over a 7 chord. And that will work over ALL of the relative chords in the group too! You have your system totally digested so no need to relearn, but look at it again...many ideas you would never have thought of, or EVER played before i would think. :AOK
This seems to relate to my question to Ken. Your last sentence suggests that the approach will lead to lines that otherwise wouldn't be played. That could be a positive or a negative; it depends on the value of the lines. In contrast, hearing things more accurately and quicker can only be a plus. Is it your contention, or Richie's contention, that this system will help a beginner-intermediate student hear more quickly and/or more accurately than alternative approaches? It's my impression that you've not taught, or not taught extensively, so I appreciate that I'm asking you to speculate.
KRosser
09-04-2007, 12:19 AM
Ken, this is great. Here's the big question. Let's start with a huge assumption that might produce discomfort.
No problem, no discomfort. It's all good.
Let's say that the same artistic self would have come out irrespective of method of study.
Sure, as I said to Tag - there's many roads downtown.
If you had labored via tonic/dominant and hearing colors within tonic/dominant, do you speculate that you would have arrived where you are today more quickly or less quickly?
It's hard for me to speculate, because I only know the time travelled on the road I took.
When I came up, the tonic/dominant thing was basically considered a bebop formula and bebop was not the language of jazz present when I first started playing with people in the mid 70's - Richie Beirach type polychordal tunes, Steve Swallow, Abercrombie, Liebman tunes, etc. or else stuff like the Art Ensemble Of Chicago. If you played bebop licks over that stuff people chewed you out. I didn't really learn how to play bebop until I started playing with much, much older guys and they never talked formulas like tonic/dominant etc. at all. Never said 'tritone sub' or altered dominant. It was all chord interval sounds to them, which is the same way I realized I was approaching these highly chromatic Liebman tunes, albeit with different sounds as the result.
When I was exposed to tonic/dominant thinking I checked it out but I already had a way of looking at things in place that I was happy with.
If anything ever slowed my progress to being a great jazz player, it was a musical curiosity too large to be contained by jazz.
KRosser
09-04-2007, 12:30 AM
This seems to relate to my question to Ken. Your last sentence suggests that the approach will lead to lines that otherwise wouldn't be played.
For me, yes. It lead me to things that 'altered', sub-this or that, diminished, etc didn't. Although - I worked with all that stuff for years, and many times still do.
That could be a positive or a negative; it depends on the value of the lines.
Musical intention is more important than 'lines' either way.
In contrast, hearing things more accurately and quicker can only be a plus.
Sure.
Is it your contention, or Richie's contention, that this system will help a beginner-intermediate student hear more quickly and/or more accurately than alternative approaches?
Whatever Tag or Richie say - I suggest students check out every approach possible, as long as 'searching for approaches' doesn't supercede actually making music.
I do teach chord function, all the time. It's very important. I just don't say 'reduce everything to tonic or dominant' in order to work with it.
KRosser
09-04-2007, 12:43 AM
Yea, but you are now changing the function of the Gmaj7 chord, which is FINE, and what I have said all along. You are simply making that a V-I now! (dominant-toninc.) Before you do that, you sure have to understand how that Gmaj7 is functioning to begin with though! In the original chords, the C maj7 is really no different than the next-7b5chord.
ken siad he was sick of hearing all of the his harmonic "tricks" that the kids play, but then he agrees with you here. Well, here is a simple harmonic "trick". Root motion up a 4th? Make it a V-I! Lol! Oldest "trick" in the book.
I agreed that the Cmaj7 is indeed a IV that does not function as a dominant. There's no contradiction there.
I don't care if you use tricks or not, actually, just make me feel something.
russ6100
09-04-2007, 12:44 AM
Ken,
When hear and play wrote:
It's my impression that you've not taught, or not taught extensively, so I appreciate that I'm asking you to speculate.
he was addressing Tag.
KRosser
09-04-2007, 12:47 AM
Ken,
When hear and play wrote:
he was addressing Tag.
oops....I think you're right.
I'll edit my reply.
Thanks
hear and play
09-04-2007, 12:55 AM
Ken,
When hear and play wrote:
he was addressing Tag.
Thanks, Russ, and thanks Ken.
heretic
09-04-2007, 01:14 AM
Yea, but you are now changing the function of the Gmaj7 chord, which is FINE, and what I have said all along. You are simply making that a V-I now! (dominant-toninc.) Before you do that, you sure have to understand how that Gmaj7 is functioning to begin with though! In the original chords, the C maj7 is really no different than the next-7b5chord.
ken siad he was sick of hearing all of the his harmonic "tricks" that the kids play, but then he agrees with you here. Well, here is a simple harmonic "trick". Root motion up a 4th? Make it a V-I! Lol! Oldest "trick" in the book.
Ok, so I think I got it - the Cmaj7, the F#-7b5, they can all be treated like the D7, they all function the same; I can dig it, but this is the fork in the road for me, because I don't want to hear the same color going from Cmaj7 to F#-7b5, and I can't recall a time where I would go for that. But that's me, and like you said, it's all good.
I'm sure I haven't listened to nearly as much Benson as you have, but from my experience and transcriptions of his lines, I'd still think he'd "go to town" on the Gmaj7, using the "oldest trick" and many more tricks that you describe in this thread, and then play Cmaj7 more like a tonic (Ionian or maybe lydian, or maybe even bluesy) kind of sound...but if you can point me to any improvisations that would contradict me, I'd gladly take that back and be grateful for the info!
KRosser
09-04-2007, 01:31 AM
Ok, so I think I got it - the Cmaj7, the F#-7b5, they can all be treated like the D7, they all function the same; I can dig it, but this is the fork in the road for me, because I don't want to hear the same color going from Cmaj7 to F#-7b5, and I can't recall a time where I would go for that. But that's me, and like you said, it's all good.
Whereas if I were to play a D chord over that Cmaj7, it would not be out of a sense of any dominant substitution, it would be because I heard a IV Lydian sound, separate to my ear from either tonic or dominant. Then maybe I'd drop all the voices a parallel M2 and play a C major over the following F#m7b5 - or is that not allowed, using a tonic sound over a dominant function chord?
Again, I just don't see taking the 'extra step' to make that distinction, especially since I rarely look at a solo as a series of tensions and resolutions, but rather as a long arc that might or might not resolve at all
I'm sure I haven't listened to nearly as much Benson as you have, but from my experience and transcriptions of his lines, I'd still think he'd "go to town" on the Gmaj7,
Sure, Benson 'goes to town' on everything. I'll betcha he really does think through things my way, since (as Tag pointed out) all the points in his system are included in mine ;)
KRosser
09-04-2007, 02:05 AM
You are out of C maj already. D# could just be Gaug7 resolving to C lydian. (#11 of tonic) Keep it to the key, and show what you are playing over each chord. Seek and ye shall find, there are exceptions to everything.
That was one chord, spelled lowest to highest
KRosser
09-04-2007, 02:13 AM
I'm not feeling very articulate at present but here goes anyway:
Why does this whole "tonic /dominant" thing have to be a "system" (i.e. a method to improv to employ at the exclusion of all else)??? It's just another approach.
I agree. Tag seems to want to imbue it with a more lofty status. I don't know why
There's nothing wrong with grouping a bunch of changes into "tonic /dominant", especially when you have an extremely uptempo tune that's kicking your ass, I do it all the time
Sure, me too. Any port in a storm....
If you analyse most good solos you'll find that the soloist's approach to the changes would vary, sometimes several times within 1 chorus. And that goes for Benson, Wes, Coltrane et al.
I know that goes for Wes & Trane. I never transcribed Benson, but I suspect it goes for him too.
It's easy to analyse a solo after the fact, especially one over diatonic or non-modal music as being either "tonic or dominant" sounds but to say all great soloist are thinking or approaching tunes that simplistically is not right.
+1. Even if it could be analyzed that way, who's to say it was produced that way? And producing something is what we're talking about, not post-analysis.
What Kimock said about it being offered as a method to jazz students is correct. I think educators may at times say things like, "Hey man, it's just 'tonic /dominant', 'tension and release' " to calm down students who may be looking at a string of changes like the proverbial deer in the headlights and such an approach may serve to sort of "un-freak" them out a bit!
And I think that was an astute observation on Steve's part
[QUOTE]
Why does this whole "tonic /dominant" thing have to be a "system" (i.e. a method to improv to employ at the exclusion of all else)??? It's just another approach.
Agree. Its great to look at different approaches while you are learning this but "I" think this a great one. Again, it both simplifys difficult changes, and expands simplistic ones at the same time.
There's nothing wrong with grouping a bunch of changes into "tonic /dominant", especially when you have an extremely uptempo tune that's kicking your ass, I do it all the time BUT -
maybe for just a chorus or even for a few bars . I might use that approach for a whole chorus of a blues and then nail every chord in the turnaround - or vice versa. If you analyse most good solos you'll find that the soloist's approach to the changes would vary, sometimes several times within 1 chorus. And that goes for Benson, Wes, Coltrane et al. A Rhythm Changes bridge at 70 bpm and I might add changes.
Agree 100%. Those guys also play blues for entire measures against the changes many times.
I don't know George Benson and have never spoken with him. But if you think about how he came up - those were the days of learning by listening to records and by getting your ass kicked nightly on the bandstand! Not a whole lotta time for thinking! There was a lot of listening and immitating, learning the language - the idiom! And GB's playing and approach is saturated with idiomatic jazz vocabulary.
Agree again. Bensons #1 criteria is to transcribe,transcribe,transcribe. This just gives you a way to organize what you are learning into a very simple "formula".
It's easy to analyse a solo after the fact, especially one over diatonic or non-modal music as being either "tonic or dominant" sounds but to say all great soloist are thinking or approaching tunes that simplistically is not right.
I have never said everyone "approaches"it that way, but the end result is the same. Modal music as well. Again, the best modal players IMO are the guys who break out of the mode at will, like all the players i am talking about for starters! Listen to So what. Think they are all playing dorian the entire time? :)
Nobody is thinking "tonic /dominant" all the time, including you Tag.
You get it digested to where you are only playing what you hear. But it all breaks down to that. And.... when I am learning or playing a tune I am not real familiar with, it gives me options and REALLY help open things up and make it easier to play.
A good friend of mine (a great player) will still insist to this day when asked his approach to playing over a static Dm7, "It's just C Major man...." and he's not lying at all - even though there's much more going on that C Major, that's his explanation.
Hes wrong. He can say its just the "notes" of C maj, but that is about all D dorian has in common with C maj.
Anyway, I don't see what the fuss is about here. The "tonic /dominant" approach - it's used all the time by probably everybody here but it's not the only approach by a long shot.
Not sure. It seems many are not even aware of it.
What Kimock said about it being offered as a method to jazz students is correct. I think educators may at times say things like, "Hey man, it's just 'tonic /dominant', 'tension and release' " to calm down students who may be looking at a string of changes like the proverbial deer in the headlights and such an approach may serve to sort of "un-freak" them out a bit!
I had taken from many jazz players, and never was taught this approach before. It was all modes scales arpeggios. It was taking me forever to get it down. This method combined and reduced many elements which were being taught as seperate entities, and entire studies into what they really are. The same thing. Why take the time to learn 2-3-4 different things only to find out you already knew them all by learning only one? Not only that, but they actually make more SENSE when looking at them as one!!
[QUOTE]This seems to relate to my question to Ken. Your last sentence suggests that the approach will lead to lines that otherwise wouldn't be played. That could be a positive or a negative;
How could it possibly be a negative? You have to PRACTICE this inside and out so you are playing what you hear. It shows you places to play things where you would not have thought of. When you learn a real nice melody or line or lick over say D minor, and to then know it works over all the related chords is a HUGE tool to have! You will no longer look at that as just a D minor melody, but as a G7, B-7b5 and F maj7 melody INSTANTLY. In the beginning, you go though a tune and play that same line over all of thos chords just to hear it. before long, you start to hear how they are all one and the same, and its just a slightly different background color that you are playing against.
it depends on the value of the lines. In contrast, hearing things more accurately and quicker can only be a plus. Is it your contention, or Richie's contention, that this system will help a beginner-intermediate student hear more quickly and/or more accurately than alternative approaches?
Yes. And it gives advanced players many other alternatives as well. Its really endless.
It's my impression that you've not taught, or not taught extensively, so I appreciate that I'm asking you to speculate
Taught very very little. Richie has taught almost his entire life I believe, and still teaches jazz guitar at Berklee. Russ Defilippis is another excellent player who teches this way. Also taught at Berklee for a while.
[QUOTE]
It's hard for me to speculate, because I only know the time travelled on the road I took.
When I came up, the tonic/dominant thing was basically considered a bebop formula and bebop was not the language of jazz present when I first started playing with people in the mid 70's - Richie Beirach type polychordal tunes, Steve Swallow, Abercrombie, Liebman tunes, etc. or else stuff like the Art Ensemble Of Chicago. If you played bebop licks over that stuff people chewed you out. I didn't really learn how to play bebop until I started playing with much, much older guys and they never talked formulas like tonic/dominant etc. at all. Never said 'tritone sub' or altered dominant. It was all chord interval sounds to them, which is the same way I realized I was approaching these highly chromatic Liebman tunes, albeit with different sounds as the result.
When I was exposed to tonic/dominant thinking I checked it out but I already had a way of looking at things in place that I was happy with.
The method really has little to do with any "style" of music though. It relates to pretty much anything. If you do not want bebop lines, dont learn or play them.
If anything ever slowed my progress to being a great jazz player, it was a musical curiosity too large to be contained by jazz
AHHHHH!! We finally agree!! My exact problem as well, and EXACTLY why I almost always hear fusion playes as inferior jazz players to the real jazz guys. Jack of all trades, master of none really applies to most musical forms. Sure there are exceptions, but very very rare. I love so many styles of music, its hard to concentrate on only one. Jazz is so demanding, that unless you are at it full time, its almost impossible to be a complete master. Benson has said so himself. Again, in an interview I heard with him, he said when he was making tenderly, he actually felt embarrassed playing with McCoy and some of those cats who were playing jazz everyday. he said he had let his jazz chops down by playing the fusion/pop/funk thing for a while, and made a promise to himself at that point to get them back, and never let them go again.
[QUOTE]
Ok, so I think I got it - the Cmaj7, the F#-7b5, they can all be treated like the D7, they all function the same; I can dig it, but this is the fork in the road for me, because I don't want to hear the same color going from Cmaj7 to F#-7b5, and I can't recall a time where I would go for that. But that's me, and like you said, it's all good.
I'm sure I haven't listened to nearly as much Benson as you have, but from my experience and transcriptions of his lines, I'd still think he'd "go to town" on the Gmaj7, using the "oldest trick" and many more tricks that you describe in this thread, and then play Cmaj7 more like a tonic (Ionian or maybe lydian, or maybe even bluesy)
At times, but treating that C chord as Lydian is making it a dom sound to E minor or G maj, correct? reall the same thing as A dorian. look at that progression. You can actually just play Amin7/D7/Gmaj7 over and over. Its just a maj II-V-I (Amin7-D7-Gmaj7) to its relative minor II-V-I (F#-7b5-B7-Emin7). In a basic form, that Cmaj7 can be heard as just an added color to that F#-7b5. Again, this is looking at it very basically. You can start to change the function and add dom areas all over the place leading into tonic areas. How many times are II-Vs added to that progression to make more dom-tonic areas???All the time! listen to Miles/cannonball version, or james moodys. very common to do so.
kind of sound...but if you can point me to any improvisations that would contradict me, I'd gladly take that back and be grateful for the info
I dont have benson playing Autumn leaves, but he treats it all the different ways, and rarely sticks to one. Many guys play that straight up. listen to Scott lerners version for instance. I think he the Gmaj7 straight up. Its been a while since I heard it, but its done all the time. hey, thats the basic chord to the tune!
[QUOTE][QUOTE]Whereas if I were to play a D chord over that Cmaj7, it would not be out of a sense of any dominant substitution, it would be because I heard a IV Lydian sound, separate to my ear from either tonic or dominant.
Perfect. I just look at those sounds as one and the same. Always an option to play either.
Then maybe I'd drop all the voices a parallel M2 and play a C major over the following F#m7b5 - or is that not allowed, using a tonic sound over a dominant function chord?
Ken. That is the most basic grouping at the beginning of this thread.. Just when I thought you had it, I see you have no idea what I am talking about. F#min7b5/ Cmaj7#11/ D7/ A-7 are all the same sound. See!! You are doing it and not even realizing it, just as I said!! :p
Again, I just don't see taking the 'extra step' to make that distinction, especially since I rarely look at a solo as a series of tensions and resolutions, but rather as a long arc that might or might not resolve at all
One LESS step! Not an extra one! And while you view A-7 and all 12 "tensions", for color.... for the SAME chord, this system gives you A-7 and its 12 "tensions" Cmaj7 and its 12 "tensions", F#-7b5 and its 12 "tensions" and D7 and its 12 "tensions" just for starters! See how much music you have been missing??? :eek::p Get practicing! ;)
lalaland
09-04-2007, 09:09 AM
Sorry, I was away for the weekend, but Im back now kids! :AOK
WOW! Just read through some of this stuff and cant believe how personal some guys seem to be taking this. OK, Ill take that attitude now as well.
Kimock: Wrong as usual. Its pretty much exactly as Richard B states below. Go back to your "free jam" style noodling now. :messedup
I just lost a huge amount of respect for you right there.
Second of all, he's right.
This is overly simplistic to the level of
'A chord is either major or minor'
or
'There's only three kinds of chords'.
The point is not wheter or not you can find a way to fit every example into this incredibly broad and essentially useless piece of music 'method' or 'theory' or whatever, its whether it has any use in the field.
I can make another vague genrelization about jazz music, but that still doesn't make it a useful thing to learn. I'm in total agreement with KRosser here. If you're gonna make it basic, why not take it down to the most basic of all?
Jamie
lalaland
09-04-2007, 09:17 AM
Jim, you are kidding right? Read their posts, they are trying to rip this apart. Especially Kimmocks, whos playing I really have no respect for anyway. Look at his last post here. Its funny! Then go listen to him play. Funny as well to my ear. He wants to play that way, so will I.
Don't like his playing? Don't pay to see him.
I am not going to pull a fanboy here and defend Kimock's playing for you, but I will say this...
His last post here sums up MY experience with learning jazz through a high school setting.
Dude, he hasn't said one negative thing about you, or you're playing. So why don't you chill out. Regardless of the fact that two or three of these guys talking with you right now could play circles around you, on a DISCUSSION board, it doesn't matter. Its about experience, and what you can offer...
Jamie
PS.
any mature, intuitive, experienced jazz guitarist
THAT's the INSULT that you're complaining about. Weird. I'd love to have someone insult me like that...
KRosser
09-04-2007, 10:14 AM
Ken. That is the most basic grouping at the beginning of this thread.. Just when I thought you had it, I see you have no idea what I am talking about. F#min7b5/ Cmaj7#11/ D7/ A-7 are all the same sound. See!! You are doing it and not even realizing it, just as I said!! :p
No, I'll say it one more time:
Just because my approach produces many of the same sounds and notes as yours in analysis does not mean I'm using yours to produce the notes.
My way of arriving at a C triad over F#m7b5 was not produced using your method. It was arrived at by building a diatonic triad off one of the chord tones. I might also build a non-diatonic triad off one of the chord tones if I want something dissonant (i.e., Cm in this case, or Cm7b5, or even bigger chords)
This particular thing and much more was laid out to me by the great tenor player Bennie Wallace, via the appendix to the Karg-Elert Flute Caprices, a pretty mind-blowing harmonic goldmine for me at the time....I'd love to get the time to work back through it again.
If I take the Harbor Freeway and you take the Santa Monica Freeway and we both arrive downtown, are you gonna say, "See? Since you're downtown you must have taken the Santa Monica Freeway and not realized it!"
Ummmm...no.
One LESS step! Not an extra one! And while you view A-7 and all 12 "tensions", for color.... for the SAME chord, this system gives you A-7 and its 12 "tensions" Cmaj7 and its 12 "tensions", F#-7b5 and its 12 "tensions" and D7 and its 12 "tensions" just for starters! See how much music you have been missing??? :eek::p Get practicing! ;)
I understand this system and the network of chord substitutes, very well. As I said, in very fast tempos on tunes with standard-type chord functions, I use some of that in conjunction with some of the other stuff. No method is off the table for me. I just don't prefer it most of the time.
I'm sure I do more practicing than you think I do.
KRosser
09-04-2007, 10:18 AM
Listen to So what. Think they are all playing dorian the entire time? :)
On "Kind of Blue"? Miles plays entirely in Dorian.
gennation
09-04-2007, 10:43 AM
On "Kind of Blue"? Miles plays entirely in Dorian.
Except for those Db/C# notes over the Dm7 chord. As well as a G#/Ab passing notes. There's similar out of Key notes over the Ebm7 too.
I always thought of So What as more of a great Minor tune than stickly a Dorian tune...since that's not the complete picture of how those guys are handling the tune...and, since too many guitar players will think "Dorian Patterns" over the song instead of the whole Minor feel. A "scale name" is more often a crutch to most players than a spark of inspriation.
KRosser
09-04-2007, 10:48 AM
AHHHHH!! We finally agree!! My exact problem as well,
Who said it was a problem?
I agree with Kenny Werner - the last thing this planet needs is another master jazz virtuoso. The supply already greatly exceeds the demand.
and EXACTLY why I almost always hear fusion playes as inferior jazz players to the real jazz guys.
Man, I think you're onto something....maybe that explains why 'real jazz guys' are inferior fusion players...or why jazz guys are inferior classical players...or why jazz guys are inferior at improvising in carnatic ragas...or why jazz guys are inferior astronauts....or why astronauts make inferior donuts....
Sure there are exceptions, but very very rare. I love so many styles of music, its hard to concentrate on only one. Jazz is so demanding, that unless you are at it full time, its almost impossible to be a complete master.
Personally, I find classical music to be much more difficult to do after being away from it, much moreso than jazz.
Maybe your experience has been different.
Benson has said so himself. Again, in an interview I heard with him, he said when he was making tenderly, he actually felt embarrassed playing with McCoy and some of those cats who were playing jazz everyday. he said he had let his jazz chops down by playing the fusion/pop/funk thing for a while, and made a promise to himself at that point to get them back, and never let them go again.
You'll never hear me say that. I can't live in a musical world that tiny. Most of the musicians I admire don't, and I think you'd hardly call Brian Blade or Evelyn Glennie a 'jack of all trades and master of none'.
Besides, I've had my own cathartic experience with McCoy and lived to tell about it.....
KRosser
09-04-2007, 10:53 AM
Except for those Db/C# notes over the Dm7 chord. As well as a G#/Ab passing notes. There's similar out of Key notes over the Ebm7 too.
I always thought of So What as more of a great Minor tune than stickly a Dorian tune...since that's not the complete picture of how those guys are handling the tune...and, since too many guitar players will think "Dorian Patterns" over the song instead of the whole Minor feel. A "scale name" is more often a crutch to most players than a spark of inspriation.
There's a couple chromatic passing notes, which doesn't mean he leaves Dorian. The other stuff is him anticipating the change. Sometimes over the Eb Dorian section he starts the D Dorian a couple beats early, and vice-versa.
All still Dorian.
lalaland
09-04-2007, 10:57 AM
On 'So What' off "Kind of Blue" - which incidentally, I listened to all the way through last night, this morning, and am beginning again right now (the album, not the song) - the only thing that comes remotly close to this is basically the anticipated minor half step jumps from Dm to Ebm, and less so the other way around. Now, you could call Ebm the dominant (for 8 bars!) but, the fact is that it wouldn't make any sense to view that long of a chord change as wholly dominant.
Realistically, this approach will probably lead you to sound like crap over pretty much every song in "Kind of Blue".
Listen to So what. Think they are all playing dorian the entire time? :)
Doesn't really matter if they're played 'Dorian' or not, since we're talking about a method of approaching chords that doesn't really come close to applying to this album. Tag, there were a million examples that you could have picked to back up your point, and you picked probably the worst one...
Jamie
EDIT:
There's a couple chromatic passing notes, which doesn't mean he leaves Dorian. The other stuff is him anticipating the change. Sometimes over the Eb Dorian section he starts the D Dorian a couple beats early, and vice-versa.
All still Dorian.
Thought I'd quote this, because its exactly what I was saying in my first paragraph.
Tag, mabye you should:
Go analyze some greatful dead music. :rotflmao
lalaland
09-04-2007, 11:18 AM
Man, I think you're onto something....maybe that explains why 'real jazz guys' are inferior fusion players...or why jazz guys are inferior classical players...or why jazz guys are inferior at improvising in carnatic ragas...or why jazz guys are inferior astronauts....or why astronauts make inferior donuts....
Seriously....
Personally, I find classical music to be much more difficult to do after being away from it, much moreso than jazz.
And North Indian Classical moreso than Western...
Still doesn't make one better than the other, you know?
KRosser's got it under control here. :AOK
Jamie
KRosser
09-04-2007, 11:24 AM
And North Indian Classical moreso than Western...
I'd like to know more about that someday...right now, for me, that's some pretty tall cotton to get into
KRosser's got it under control here. :AOK
Thanks! I'll think I'll:
Go analyze some greatful dead music. :rotflmao
lalaland
09-04-2007, 11:33 AM
I'd like to know more about that someday...right now, for me, that's some pretty tall cotton to get into
Ditto. I'm seriously considering - after this year in college - moving to California to study Indian Classical with Ali Akbar Khan at his college. Still, not sure how well a single semester would help me. We'll see.
I promised myself that at the age of 65 I will give up the guitar and pursue the Sarod. I truely hope that I will be able to keep that promise to myself.
Thanks! I'll think I'll:
Quote:
Go analyze some greatful dead music. :rotflmao
We could analyze a uber-sick Dark Star and find out that Jerry is actually treating the tonic as a dominant chord...
;)
Jamie
Aj_rocker
09-04-2007, 11:34 AM
krosser, would you like to start a tread explaining how you play over changes?? i would be really really intrested as many would be.
Aj
hear and play
09-04-2007, 11:35 AM
How could it possibly be a negative? You have to PRACTICE this inside and out so you are playing what you hear. It shows you places to play things where you would not have thought of. When you learn a real nice melody or line or lick over say D minor, and to then know it works over all the related chords is a HUGE tool to have! You will no longer look at that as just a D minor melody, but as a G7, B-7b5 and F maj7 melody INSTANTLY. In the beginning, you go though a tune and play that same line over all of thos chords just to hear it. before long, you start to hear how they are all one and the same, and its just a slightly different background color that you are playing against.
It would be negative if it encouraged a formulaic approach rather than an artistic expression. In other words, if it resulted in playing things that you didn't hear or hearing things in a limiting way. That's what I meant when I wrote "it depends on the value of the lines."
KRosser
09-04-2007, 11:42 AM
krosser, would you like to start a tread explaining how you play over changes?? i would be really really intrested as many would be.
Aj
I appreciate that...
With all due respect, I've handed out lots of little tidbits here and there over the years here, but -
I do teach for a living, and the thought of putting a book out addressing this and lots of other things has been on the back burner or a while....
So, I don't really feel like 'giving away the store' right now for any kind of macro-approach, but I will continue to give assistance with specific situations or questions, if you have them, as my time allows...
I hope that's cool...?
Again, I appreciate the gesture.
Aj_rocker
09-04-2007, 11:50 AM
sure, i understand. If your ever in the Uk it would nice to meet you. a book?? that would be soo kool. You know Ken i have alot of respect for you and what you have to say.
Aj
hear and play
09-04-2007, 11:59 AM
Ok, first off Tag, thats a total dick move, and I just lost a huge amount of respect for you right there.
I feel strongly about who got personal first, but I'm standing down to preclude the possibility of the thread being deleted or frozen. I hope all involved will act similarly for the same reason.
KRosser
09-04-2007, 12:42 PM
I feel strongly about who got personal first, but I'm standing down to preclude the possibility of the thread being deleted or frozen. I hope all involved will act similarly for the same reason.
Agreed.
KRosser
09-04-2007, 12:47 PM
sure, i understand. If your ever in the Uk it would nice to meet you. a book?? that would be soo kool. You know Ken i have alot of respect for you and what you have to say.
Aj
Thanks so much. The book will be written eventually. I've been collecting and testing ideas on it for a couple years now, and someday I will sit down and compile all of it. I think next year is a distinct possibility.
Like I said, if you have any specific questions I will try to help with my own take...
I've played a few places in the UK and would absolutely love to come back someday...
lalaland
09-04-2007, 12:50 PM
I feel strongly about who got personal first, but I'm standing down to preclude the possibility of the thread being deleted or frozen. I hope all involved will act similarly for the same reason.
Point taken.
sure, i understand. If your ever in the Uk it would nice to meet you. a book?? that would be soo kool. You know Ken i have alot of respect for you and what you have to say.
Agreed 100%
Jamie
KRosser
09-04-2007, 01:00 PM
Ditto. I'm seriously considering - after this year in college - moving to California to study Indian Classical with Ali Akbar Khan at his college. Still, not sure how well a single semester would help me. We'll see.
Well, that seems to be the place to do it. Best of luck on that.
We could analyze a uber-sick Dark Star and find out that Jerry is actually treating the tonic as a dominant chord...
;)
OK, major tangent time:
While I can't say I knew Jerry anywhere near as well as Kimock - I wish I could - I did have one really amazing experience with him. He did a show at a club called Wolfgang's that used to be on Columbus in North Beach on your way up to the wharf and I was part of a duo that opened for him. It was with a singer/songwriter that did sort of a "Joni Mitchell abstraction with Chrissie Hynde attitude" - this would have been around '85, I think? We both played acoustic, she covered the basic chords and I did 'color commentary' but not really anything in the way of overt soloing. It was a very fun project for me.
Jerry was playing duo with John Kahn on bass. Going into it I didn't know much Dead stuff, but that which I'd heard sounded good. He and John did a long set of old-timey folk songs and blues tunes and I was really impressed with how well he did that stuff - authentically, with a real insider's knowledge of it, it felt like, a real genuine passion for that stuff.
Also - he was an incredibly sweet guy. I can't fathom for the life of me why anyone would have a bad word about him, based on my own brief encounter.
He died the day my wife and I got married - 8/9/95. Actually, we eloped - just went to the county courthouse, picked up a bottle of champagne and some Chinese food on the way home then called the families. I heard the news on that car radio on the way home. I told my wife Dianna my story about opening for him and we raised a glass in his honor.
I respected Jerry very deeply.
[quote]Ok, first off Tag, thats a total dick move, and I just lost a huge amount of respect for you right there.
Please stop the name calling or I will report you.
Second of all, he's right.
Kimock? No, he does not even know what we are talking about. Total dick move? (DELETED BY TAG) So who is the dick? Me? You mean for saying on here exactly what I always say and not stabbing guys behind their back? Right. Go back to lala land from which you came.
This is overly simplistic to the level of
'A chord is either major or minor'
or
'There's only three kinds of chords'.
I see you have no concept of what is going on either.
I'm in total agreement with KRosser here. If you're gonna make it basic, why not take it down to the most basic of all?
OK, we will make it as simple as possible. There are 12 notes. Go make music. Simple enough for you?
[quote]
Don't like his playing? Don't pay to see him.
I am not going to pull a fanboy here and defend Kimock's playing for you, but I will say this...
His last post here sums up MY experience with learning jazz through a high school setting.
Cool. And his playing sums up my experience with him. Im sure he hates mine as well, so all is equal! I post my music. Like it, hate it, say what you want, as long as its honest. I know what I can and cant do as a player.
Regardless of the fact that two or three of these guys talking with you right now could play circles around you,
OK, by your own rules then, Benson can play circles around anyone here. case closed.
Good lord, I can't believe you're lowering yourself to a middle school level here.
Jamie
LOL!! You come on here and bash me personally, and then say I am the one acting middle school level? I said I did not like Kimoks playing, and I dont. Sorry. Good thinking smart guy.
KRosser
09-04-2007, 01:16 PM
OK, we will make it as simple as possible. There are 12 notes. Go make music.
I like it!
It would be negative if it encouraged a formulaic approach rather than an artistic expression. In other words, if it resulted in playing things that you didn't hear or hearing things in a limiting way. That's what I meant when I wrote "it depends on the value of the lines."
I agree. thats the same with any method, and depends on your practice habits
I like it!
I KNEW you would! :)
I appreciate that...
With all due respect, I've handed out lots of little tidbits here and there over the years here, but -
I do teach for a living, and the thought of putting a book out addressing this and lots of other things has been on the back burner or a while....
So, I don't really feel like 'giving away the store' right now for any kind of macro-approach, but I will continue to give assistance with specific situations or questions, if you have them, as my time allows...
I hope that's cool...?
Again, I appreciate the gesture.
But you have plenty of time to come in and question mine approach over and over? Come on ken, thats a cop out and you know it.
On "Kind of Blue"? Miles plays entirely in Dorian.
Keep going Ken...there are other soloists on that as well. ;)
Who said it was a problem?
[QUOTE]I agree with Kenny Werner - the last thing this planet needs is another master jazz virtuoso. The supply already greatly exceeds the demand.
Van Ruler is lurking out there....thats at least one.
Man, I think you're onto something....maybe that explains why 'real jazz guys' are inferior fusion players...or why jazz guys are inferior classical players...or why jazz guys are inferior at improvising in carnatic ragas...or why jazz guys are inferior astronauts....or why astronauts make inferior donuts....
I agree. Please step in and post that the next time a fusion vs. jazz thread comes up and guys say metheny and Abercrombie are the best jazz players around.
Personally, I find classical music to be much more difficult to do after being away from it, much moreso than jazz.
Very different set of skills for sure. Wynton says jazz. After winning a grammy in both, Wyntons says jazz. Hmmmm......:p
You'll never hear me say that. I can't live in a musical world that tiny. Most of the musicians I admire don't, and I think you'd hardly call Brian Blade or Evelyn Glennie a 'jack of all trades and master of none'.
There are always exceptions I agree. However, when I really want to hear a great jazz player, only a great jazz player will do for "me".
Besides, I've had my own cathartic experience with McCoy and lived to tell about it
Must have been incredible! :BEER
I feel strongly about who got personal first,
Thank you for seeing it how it is. Much appreciated.
KRosser
09-04-2007, 01:36 PM
But you have plenty of time to come in and question mine approach over and over?
You're a big boy, you can take it. Just like you've been questioning me and my methods. It's all good.
Now it's all up here for anyone to pick bits and pieces of anything you or I or Kimock or anyone has said and use as they see fit.
That's what debate is about, right?
Come on ken, thats a cop out and you know it.
It's not a cop out, it's exactly the truth.
KRosser
09-04-2007, 01:37 PM
Keep going Ken...there are other soloists on that as well. ;)
Just answering the exact question you posed.
You're a big boy, you can take it. Just like you've been questioning me and my methods. It's all good.
Now it's all up here for anyone to pick bits and pieces of anything you or I or Kimock or anyone has said and use as they see fit.
That's what debate is about, right?
Agreed.
It's not a cop out, it's exactly the truth.
OK no problem here then. I understand its your profession. I totally respect that. :AOK
huh.
is all that really true, tag?
if so..... it'd make me feel kinda sad,
and def disappointed, somehow.....
dt / spltrcl
Hey Dave. can you do me a favor and delete this post. I am going to delete my Kimok post. It was said in private, and should stay that way. I lost my temper for being called the dick, so i stated what had happened. If you leave this, there is no reason for me to delete mine, as it will still show here. you can email me at tag303@optonline.net if you have any questions. Thanks.
lalaland
09-04-2007, 04:03 PM
Well, that seems to be the place to do it. Best of luck on that.
Thanks!
OK, major tangent time:
While I can't say I knew Jerry anywhere near as well as Kimock - I wish I could - I did have one really amazing experience with him. He did a show at a club called Wolfgang's that used to be on Columbus in North Beach on your way up to the wharf and I was part of a duo that opened for him. It was with a singer/songwriter that did sort of a "Joni Mitchell abstraction with Chrissie Hynde attitude" - this would have been around '85, I think? We both played acoustic, she covered the basic chords and I did 'color commentary' but not really anything in the way of overt soloing. It was a very fun project for me.
Jerry was playing duo with John Kahn on bass. Going into it I didn't know much Dead stuff, but that which I'd heard sounded good. He and John did a long set of old-timey folk songs and blues tunes and I was really impressed with how well he did that stuff - authentically, with a real insider's knowledge of it, it felt like, a real genuine passion for that stuff.
Also - he was an incredibly sweet guy. I can't fathom for the life of me why anyone would have a bad word about him, based on my own brief encounter.
Great story. Jerry seemed like a wonderful guy, and his playing, approach, philosophy and attitude have had a huge affect on the way I play music, interact with people, and live my life.
A true master - in every sense of the word - on his intsrument.
Please stop the name calling or I will report you.
I apologize.
Kimock? No, he does not even know what we are talking about. Total dick move? (DELETED BY TAG) So who is the dick? Me? You mean for saying on here exactly what I always say and not stabbing guys behind their back? Right.
You were the guy who brought in personal playing into this...
Kimock's posts here have been astute and well-put. Again, not going to be a fanboy here, but he knows whats going on...
Go back to lala land from which you came.
Nice. Why don't you go back to playing tag?
:jo
I see you have no concept of what is going on either.
Ok dude...
Its just as everyone has pointed out. To assume that everyone "Just doesn't get it" when they don't agree with you is unfortunate.
OK, we will make it as simple as possible. There are 12 notes. Go make music. Simple enough for you?
Nope, cause its still wrong.
Cool. And his playing sums up my experience with him. Im sure he hates mine as well, so all is equal! I post my music. Like it, hate it, say what you want, as long as its honest. I know what I can and cant do as a player.
Actually, I quite enjoy your playing just about as much as I can enjoy playing over backing tracks. :AOK
OK, by your own rules then, Benson can play circles around anyone here. case closed.
No, man, now you're missing my point, which is that on a DISCUSSION board, it doesn't matter how well you play...
LOL!! You come on here and bash me personally, and then say I am the one acting middle school level? I said I did not like Kimoks playing, and I dont. Sorry. Good thinking smart guy.
Man, like I said, don't pay to see him then.
I'm sorry to respond as I did (again, middle schoolish) - but as I said, you started it (even more middle schoolish on my part). I'm sorry, I got carried away.
Jamie
lalaland
09-04-2007, 04:06 PM
Hey Dave. can you do me a favor and delete this post. I am going to delete my Kimok post. It was said in private, and should stay that way. I lost my temper for being called the dick, so i stated what had happened. If you leave this, there is no reason for me to delete mine, as it will still show here. you can email me at tag303@optonline.net if you have any questions. Thanks.
I'm sorry I missed it. :mad:
Jamie
rockinrob
09-04-2007, 04:11 PM
Wow, this thread's been fun... :messedup
Tag, I never meant you any disrepect. As I said from the start I think this method has it's merits, I just don't think it's a be-all-end-all kind of method. One of the reasons people react to you the way they do is you show a fair amount of disrespect in your posts- intentionally misspelling folks names, dismissing certaint players, etc. I don't really care, I try and treat everybody on here the same regardless of who they are or might be, just pointing that out. Maybe you don't even realize it...
It shows you places to play things where you would not have thought of. When you learn a real nice melody or line or lick over say D minor, and to then know it works over all the related chords is a HUGE tool to have! You will no longer look at that as just a D minor melody, but as a G7, B-7b5 and F maj7 melody INSTANTLY.
That's the crux of my arguement. D minor is not the same sound as G7. A line that you would play over G7 will not have the same effect when played over Dmin. Will it "work"? Maybe... the notes might fit OK, but they're different sounds. It's the exact same thing as telling a guy to play blues box licks a minor 3rd down from a major chord- Amin7 and C are equivilents in your system, they're both in the tonic family. This is the advice you are giving...
Quote:
It reminds me of the advice I often see online recommending just playing your blues box licks a minor 3rd down for a major chord- you may technically be hitting OK notes, but they aren't going to sound the same.
Not really the same, but I know what you are saying.
Exactly the same!! This is the advice you are giving! Get it now?
Beyond that, to me a Dmin in a ii-V does not automatically pull you to C. It's all about what you play, what the group is playing, and what you played before you got there. Sure, you know that C is coming because you know the tune, and maybe even most of the audience knows it. But it's still something you can play around with. Even over G7- you can make that sound like the tonic if you're skilled enough- you can play a line and resolve to G7 and let it hang, and let the C chord the pianist hits be another color over the line you just hung on G7.
As far as Benson, that's something I don't hear in his playing. Benson's a kitchen sink kind of player, as in everything but, and I see that this approach reflects that. I've always prefered cats that are more subtle. Tonic/dominant is easy- I've always been more into what's inbetween. Take Coltrane- that's where he went in the late '50s- everything but the kitchen sink (and some of it is great). In the early '60s he realized he was on the wrong path and started to get back to playing within the tune, rather than over it.
The whole point here is if we're getting to basics, get down to the chord tones. By saying you can interchange this chord for that you're implying things that aren't there. Often they work, often they don't. Rather than saying the tonic/dominant method contains the chord tone approach and several others I would say the opposite- the chord tone appoach allows for the tonic/dominant approach and any others. Dig it?
AHHHHH!! We finally agree!! My exact problem as well, and EXACTLY why I almost always hear fusion playes as inferior jazz players to the real jazz guys. Jack of all trades, master of none really applies to most musical forms. Sure there are exceptions, but very very rare. I love so many styles of music, its hard to concentrate on only one. Jazz is so demanding, that unless you are at it full time, its almost impossible to be a complete master. Benson has said so himself. Again, in an interview I heard with him, he said when he was making tenderly, he actually felt embarrassed playing with McCoy and some of those cats who were playing jazz everyday. he said he had let his jazz chops down by playing the fusion/pop/funk thing for a while, and made a promise to himself at that point to get them back, and never let them go again.
But aren't you the cat that said a "true" jazz player can play anything? That's been your contention in many other threads....
It would be negative if it encouraged a formulaic approach rather than an artistic expression. In other words, if it resulted in playing things that you didn't hear or hearing things in a limiting way. That's what I meant when I wrote "it depends on the value of the lines."
:BEER
That's my whole point. If you're thinking of G7 lines over Dmin7 you're ignoring the sound of Dmin7. It's it's OWN SOUND. Don't get me wrong, that can be great in it's self and there's some usefullness there, but I think as a learning method it's a big mistake. Learn to focus on the chord tones, get them into your head, and you can draw your own conclusions as far as tensions and resolutions. Can you come to the same conclusions with the tonic/dominant approach? Like Ken said, sure! It's just in my eyes, that approach leads to more BS- playing without listening- a "formulaic approach rather than an artistic expression". Of course you can get past that, but I think making connections to relationships that don't always exist as a fundamental belief is the first step on that path to the dark side...
lalaland
09-04-2007, 04:18 PM
Tag, again, sorry for getting out of hand here.
That's my whole point. If you're thinking of G7 lines over Dmin7 you're ignoring the sound of Dmin7. It's it's OWN SOUND.
Exactly!
As I am so apt to saying:
"Harmonic function depends on the root."
Jamie
Bryan T
09-04-2007, 04:29 PM
As I am so apt to saying:
"Harmonic function depends on the root."
Jamie
Out of curiosity, does that mean that you approach playing over inversions of chords in different ways? I haven't read much about developing that approach very far, though it seems like a reasonable thing to do.
Bryan
lalaland
09-04-2007, 04:37 PM
Out of curiosity, does that mean that you approach playing over inversions of chords in different ways? I haven't read much about developing that approach very far, though it seems like a reasonable thing to do.
Bryan
Of course. I'm not sure if this thread is the place to discuss it... but if you want?
FWIW, I'm a not so good jazz player for the fact that the music I am currently interested in doesn't not make much use of swing rhythms or two-five-one turnarounds, or many of the jazz idioms or whatever you want to call them. Doesn't mean we can't discuss, but I'll be embarrassing myself if asked to post a clip of me playing straight jazz. :crazy
Jamie
Bryan T
09-04-2007, 04:51 PM
Of course. I'm not sure if this thread is the place to discuss it... but if you want?
I'll start a new thread.
Bryan
done.
dt / spltrcl
Thanks again Dave.
Wow, this thread's been fun... :messedup
Tag, I never meant you any disrepect. As I said from the start I think this method has it's merits, I just don't think it's a be-all-end-all kind of method. One of the reasons people react to you the way they do is you show a fair amount of disrespect in your posts- intentionally misspelling folks names, dismissing certaint players, etc. I don't really care, I try and treat everybody on here the same regardless of who they are or might be, just pointing that out. Maybe you don't even realize it...
I never miss spell anyones name on purpose. :o
That's the crux of my arguement. D minor is not the same sound as G7. A line that you would play over G7 will not have the same effect when played over Dmin. Will it "work"? Maybe.
No, it will work. Im sure you can play something intentionally that may not work, but thats up to taste to choose what and what not to play. Your mistake is that you keep thinking you HAVE to play something different, which is simply not the case. All of the base chords are there, and where you are grouping from. You want the sound of the base chord only? USE IT! You have to play these over and over to get them all in your head, and then you just hear them without a thought. You keep playing over the base chord if you want, but that bores me, and gets redundent real quick. That is more a rock players approach. Hey...you can make every change just by treating EVERY chord is a tonic chord! Gmaj7 chord? Gmaj Scale! VI E minor chord? Enatural minor scale!. II Amin chord? A dorian mode! V D7 chord? D Mixolydian scale! BORING!!!! That is the LAST choice most great jazz players will use, as its already being played!
.. the notes might fit OK, but they're different sounds.
No. Same sound, different color, which is what you want, right? As many colors as possible to choose from!
It's the exact same thing as telling a guy to play blues box licks a minor 3rd down from a major chord- Amin7 and C are equivilents in your system, they're both in the tonic family. This is the advice you are giving.
No its not. That is lick based, and does not accentuate the proper notes in the chord. That is playing OVER a chord and not IN or THROUGH the chord. That is not playing the function. When many fusion players do that, it sounds just like what it is. Moving a pattern up or down a given interval. TOTALLY different. this is why the function and melodic lines are so important. they outline the important notes in the chords that creat the FUNCTION of the chord.
[QUOTE]Exactly the same!! This is the advice you are giving! Get it now?
Nope. See above.
Beyond that, to me a Dmin in a ii-V does not automatically pull you to C.
Of course not. It could be a I minor, it could be a II minor, it could be a VI minor, it could be a III minor............
It's all about what you play, what the group is playing, and what you played before you got there.
Agree 100%
Sure, you know that C is coming because you know the tune, and maybe even most of the audience knows it. But it's still something you can play around with. Even over G7- you can make that sound like the tonic if you're skilled enough- you can play a line and resolve to G7 and let it hang, and let the C chord the pianist hits be another color over the line you just hung on G7.
Of course. What does that have to do with this system?? NOTHING!!
As far as Benson, that's something I don't hear in his playing. Benson's a kitchen sink kind of player, as in everything but, and I see that this approach reflects that. I've always prefered cats that are more subtle.
You have not heard enough Benson. He does it all, when ever he chooses.
Tonic/dominant is easy-
yep....thats why its great.
I've always been more into what's inbetween.
All the mild dominants are included. Lol! all of what you call "inbetween" are there. Its up to YOU to choose what you like and dont like.
Take Coltrane- that's where he went in the late '50s- everything but the kitchen sink (and some of it is great). In the early '60s he realized he was on the wrong path and started to get back to playing within the tune, rather than over it.
Coltrane used this system. :BEER
The whole point here is if we're getting to basics, get down to the chord tones.
They are always there for you in this system, and the first choice. YOU can choose them at any time.
By saying you can interchange this chord for that you're implying things that aren't there.
EXACTLY!!! When you want to do that!!
Often they work, often they don't.
Man, I ahve to TRY and not make them workj, and even then they usually do! thats another great point, and why this is so useful for beginners. It cuts out SOOO many mistakes! At first you are almost FORCED to play the right things! As you get better and your ear developes, then everything starts opening up to you. It seems you are stuck on that beginning point of playing mostly chord tones.
Rather than saying the tonic/dominant method contains the chord tone approach and several others I would say the opposite- the chord tone appoach allows for the tonic/dominant approach and any others. Dig it?
The difference being the tonic dominant approach simplifies when you want it and need it at the beginning, but you still understand the relationship and cut out SO many things that are actually the same. Then when you are advanced, you just start adding more and more of the things you already know.
But aren't you the cat that said a "true" jazz player can play anything? That's been your contention in many other threads....
No, I never said that.
That's my whole point. If you're thinking of G7 lines over Dmin7 you're ignoring the sound of Dmin7.
And if you are only thinking Dmin7, you are missing the sounds of all the other chords in that group that do EXACTLY the same thing. You just cut 20 options down to one.
It's it's OWN SOUND.
And its there for you to use.
Don't get me wrong, that can be great in it's self and there's some usefullness there, but I think as a learning method it's a big mistake. Learn to focus on the chord tones, get them into your head, and you can draw your own conclusions as far as tensions and resolutions. Can you come to the same conclusions with the tonic/dominant approach? Like Ken said, sure! It's just in my eyes, that approach leads to more BS- playing without listening-
You totally lost me. This system teaches you exactly how each chord sounds, and how they relate to one another. I bet even the most advanced players here are looking at this and learning things. It TOTALLY opens everything up.
a "formulaic approach rather than an artistic expression".
Yep, if thats how you practice it, just like ANY system. Let go your route and practice just the chord tones. Great! Now we run arpeggioas all day! OK, add the tnsions! Now we run extended arps all day! that is ALL in this system, but gives you every other option.
Tag, again, sorry for getting out of hand here.
Exactly!
As I am so apt to saying:
"Harmonic function depends on the root."
Jamie
No it does not at ALL. You play a different inversion of a Gmaj triad and it changes its function?? News to me! You need to learn this system!
Of course. I'm not sure if this thread is the place to discuss it... but if you want?
FWIW, I'm a not so good jazz player for the fact that the music I am currently interested in doesn't not make much use of swing rhythms or two-five-one turnarounds, or many of the jazz idioms or whatever you want to call them. Doesn't mean we can't discuss, but I'll be embarrassing myself if asked to post a clip of me playing straight jazz. :crazy
Jamie
:jo But you will sit here and argue with me over chord function, and agree with Ken. (Not that Ken is wrong)
lalaland
09-04-2007, 05:36 PM
No it does not at ALL. You play a different inversion of a Gmaj triad and it changes its function?? News to me! You need to learn this system!
Root means implied tonic pitch, not the lowest note in a chord. There's another thread on this now, but I stand by my point.
Harmonic function depends on the root.
Or - would it be better if I said:
Harmonic function depends on the tonic.
?
Jamie
PS - Tag I emailed you. :D
lalaland
09-04-2007, 05:38 PM
:jo But you will sit here and argue with me over chord function, and agree with Ken. (Not that Ken is wrong)
I understand jazz, and as I stated, the music I am CURRENTLY into has taken me a little bit away from it. (Wow, that sounds like Benson!).
The 'embarrasement' part comes mostly from not being much of an 8th note swinger...
Jamie
KRosser
09-04-2007, 06:06 PM
Yep, if thats how you practice it, just like ANY system. Let go your route and practice just the chord tones. Great! Now we run arpeggioas all day! OK, add the tnsions! Now we run extended arps all day! that is ALL in this system, but gives you every other option.
Just for clarification, to me 'making melodies out of chord tones' and 'running arpeggios' can and should be two different things, though of course there's a learning curve involved.
Ultimately I prefer to think of the chord tones as potential arrival or departure points along the way, stepping stones across a garden, if you will....if you look to the other end of the garden and see the stepping stones, it doesn't matter how off the stepping stones you go, or whether you only walk on them, in between them, hit every third one, what have you...you can still get there as long as you see that path of stones.
You do stone paths, right? Or are they not cool?
RichardB
09-04-2007, 06:43 PM
Just for clarification, to me 'making melodies out of chord tones' and 'running arpeggios' can and should be two different things, though of course there's a learning curve involved.
Ultimately I prefer to think of the chord tones as potential arrival or departure points along the way, stepping stones across a garden, if you will....if you look to the other end of the garden and see the stepping stones, it doesn't matter how off the stepping stones you go, or whether you only walk on them, in between them, hit every third one, what have you...you can still get there as long as you see that path of stones.
You do stone paths, right? Or are they not cool?
Thats the way I hear/think about it too, Ken. Nothing worse to me (at this point in MY journey) than painfully spelling everything out: ie change running, however abstract (substituted) it may be...I cultivate the idea/melody that takes me away from the changes on its own logic
JimmyD
09-04-2007, 07:16 PM
Hey Tag, this has largely been an enjoyable thread for me which I've followed on and off for almost three years.
Do you think its time for part two? Maybe the next installment of how this approach works... Just sayin ya know.
thx,
Jim
rockinrob
09-04-2007, 07:28 PM
I never miss spell anyones name on purpose. :o
Ok, my bad.
Your mistake is that you keep thinking you HAVE to play something different, which is simply not the case. All of the base chords are there, and where you are grouping from. You want the sound of the base chord only? USE IT!
No, I understand that.
You keep playing over the base chord if you want, but that bores me, and gets redundent real quick.
That's on you. Any line can interest me- whether it's completely diatonic or completely out. It's more about the idea, I don't really care how "hip" the harmonic side is.
That is more a rock players approach. Hey...you can make every change just by treating EVERY chord is a tonic chord! Gmaj7 chord? Gmaj Scale! VI E minor chord? Enatural minor scale!. II Amin chord? A dorian mode! V D7 chord? D Mixolydian scale! BORING!!!! That is the LAST choice most great jazz players will use, as its already being played!
Actually your approach is more a rock players approach- treat a bunch of chords the same. Blues scale over everything= tonic/dominant over everything. BORING!
No its not. That is lick based, and does not accentuate the proper notes in the chord. That is playing OVER a chord and not IN or THROUGH the chord. That is not playing the function. When many fusion players do that, it sounds just like what it is. Moving a pattern up or down a given interval. TOTALLY different. this is why the function and melodic lines are so important. they outline the important notes in the chords that creat the FUNCTION of the chord.
This is what you JUST SAID...
It shows you places to play things where you would not have thought of. When you learn a real nice melody or line or lick over say D minor, and to then know it works over all the related chords is a HUGE tool to have! You will no longer look at that as just a D minor melody, but as a G7, B-7b5 and F maj7 melody INSTANTLY.
If you have a melody over Dmin you can use that same melody over G7- that's what you said. That' my whole point above- YOU CAN'T!!! It's the same as using Amin blues box licks over C major, which is in your system. "That is lick based, and does not accentuate the proper notes in the chord. That is playing OVER a chord and not IN or THROUGH the chord." -your words, not mine.
Of course. What does that have to do with this system?? NOTHING!!
It has everything to do with this system. It's showing you that you can't base tonic/dominant relationships simply from the name of a chord. In fact, you can't even do it based on the context of that chord in a set of changes.
You have not heard enough Benson. He does it all, when ever he chooses.
Yeah, that must be it.
Coltrane used this system. :BEER
Did you even read what I wrote?
They are always there for you in this system, and the first choice. YOU can choose them at any time.
Understood.
Man, I ahve to TRY and not make them workj, and even then they usually do! thats another great point, and why this is so useful for beginners. It cuts out SOOO many mistakes! At first you are almost FORCED to play the right things! As you get better and your ear developes, then everything starts opening up to you.
Do I have to repeate this- That is lick based, and does not accentuate the proper notes in the chord. That is playing OVER a chord and not IN or THROUGH the chord. If a note "works" is relative- just because they aren't wrong notes doesn't mean they're right ones.
It seems you are stuck on that beginning point of playing mostly chord tones.
Why does it seem that way? Did I ever once say that you can only play the chord tones? My point is they're the only information you need, they're the bare bones, all or nothing, it is what it is. It's up to you to play with them, against them, or anywhere in between. This includes your approach and any other.
The difference being the tonic dominant approach simplifies when you want it and need it at the beginning, but you still understand the relationship and cut out SO many things that are actually the same. Then when you are advanced, you just start adding more and more of the things you already know.
I agree that it could, but it also implies things that aren't there. IMO, it's harder to unlearn something than it is to learn something. You tell this approach to a younger player and what do you think they're going to do, play all the inside sounds? No, they're going to go straight for the more outside sounds. And they're going to play them irregardless of how they actually sound, because they believe they "work", not because they hear them or feel them. This leads to the quote in my signature. If you are thinking only of the chord tones, only what's there, you need to build these relationships on your own through your vocabulary. You need to hear stuff to be able to play it.
No, I never said that.
:rolleyes:
And if you are only thinking Dmin7, you are missing the sounds of all the other chords in that group that do EXACTLY the same thing. You just cut 20 options down to one.
Dmin7 is what's there, you can play with it, against it or anywhere in between. You have an infinite number of options.
You totally lost me. This system teaches you exactly how each chord sounds, and how they relate to one another.
No, it doesn't. By your definition it teaches you to think of one sound in place of another. Need I quote you again-
"It shows you places to play things where you would not have thought of. When you learn a real nice melody or line or lick over say D minor, and to then know it works over all the related chords is a HUGE tool to have! You will no longer look at that as just a D minor melody, but as a G7, B-7b5 and F maj7 melody INSTANTLY. "
Can you treat Dmin7 as Dmin7 in your system? Sure. But the whole point of the system is to be able to treat Dmin7 as something else. IMO, this is what leads to BS. Make sense?
Yep, if thats how you practice it, just like ANY system.
I agree.
Let go your route and practice just the chord tones. Great! Now we run arpeggioas all day! OK, add the tnsions! Now we run extended arps all day! that is ALL in this system, but gives you every other option.
See post below....
Just for clarification, to me 'making melodies out of chord tones' and 'running arpeggios' can and should be two different things, though of course there's a learning curve involved.
Ultimately I prefer to think of the chord tones as potential arrival or departure points along the way, stepping stones across a garden, if you will....if you look to the other end of the garden and see the stepping stones, it doesn't matter how off the stepping stones you go, or whether you only walk on them, in between them, hit every third one, what have you...you can still get there as long as you see that path of stones.
You do stone paths, right? Or are they not cool?
Exactly. And if you're thinking G7 on a Dmin7 set of stones you're aiming at the wrong stones.
gennation
09-04-2007, 07:50 PM
On a lighter note...since we're not really talking "theory" anymore...
I found out at my 25 year class reunion (which was a couple of years ago) that I went to a Dead concert in the late 70's...
that was the first I knew about it!
I don't remember one little thing about it. But, three people collaborated a few stories from the concert that involved me...I still have NO recollection of it...
must've been a GREAT Dead concert ;)
Just for clarification, to me 'making melodies out of chord tones' and 'running arpeggios' can and should be two different things, though of course there's a learning curve involved.
Exactly as in this system. As is any, its only as good as you apply it.
Ultimately I prefer to think of the chord tones as potential arrival or departure points along the way,
:jo Yep, tonic points to land on. But in your system, you only have the basic chord to work with, and cut out all the others in the group, which give so much heavenly glory! :)
stepping stones across a garden, if you will....if you look to the other end of the garden and see the stepping stones, it doesn't matter how off the stepping stones you go, or whether you only walk on them, in between them, hit every third one, what have you...you can still get there as long as you see that path of stones.
AHHH those stepping stones! Points of resolution between the dominant areas! My system gives you endless guidelines to work from IF YOU CHOOSE TO USE THEM. Yours.....well, good luck! ;)
You do stone paths, right? Or are they not cool?
VERY cool. Working on one today. :AOK
jimfog
09-04-2007, 08:28 PM
lol......Ken and Tag, ya'll oughta take this show on the road.
"My Dinner with Tag, The Musical".
As an aside, consider this a public apology to Tag........he may be a BIG PITA :p, but basically a good dude.
(He knows what this is about.........older post deleted)
cheers, fellas..........this is a blast,
Jim
lalaland
09-04-2007, 08:34 PM
But the whole point of the system is to be able to treat Dmin7 as something else.
Exactly. And if you're thinking G7 on a Dmin7 set of stones you're aiming at the wrong stones.
Awsome!
Like I said:
"Harmonic function depends on the root."
;)
Jamie
.
That's on you. Any line can interest me- whether it's completely diatonic or completely out. It's more about the idea, I don't really care how "hip" the harmonic side is.
Cool. Personal taste. I just get bored with mostly diatonic ideas now.
Actually your approach is more a rock players approach- treat a bunch of chords the same. Blues scale over everything= tonic/dominant over everything. BORING!
Nope. thats playing in the key and ignoring FUNCTION, which this has nothing to do with.
If you have a melody over Dmin you can use that same melody over G7- that's what you said. That' my whole point above- YOU CAN'T!!!
You cant be serious, it is done ALL the time. Joe pass preached it himself. Sure there are exceptions, but jazz players do it ALL the time. I do it ALL the time. One of the first and most basic "rules" you learn from ANYONE is to go up a 5th and play that melodic minor scale. (Dmin over G7)
It's the same as using Amin blues box licks over C major, which is in your system. "That is lick based, and does not accentuate the proper notes in the chord. That is playing OVER a chord and not IN or THROUGH the chord." -your words, not mine.
:jo For "blues licks", of course. they are after all "Blues licks". That is very different than melodic lines.
It has everything to do with this system. It's showing you that you can't base tonic/dominant relationships simply from the name of a chord.
Agree 100%. I NEVER said you could. ANY chord can act as a tonic if its so arranged. Example.....Vamp on a diminished chord....Its tonic!
In fact, you can't even do it based on the context of that chord in a set of changes.
Yes you can. You need to know the melody and baseline of course, because thats where the chords are coming from.
Do I have to repeate this- That is lick based, and does not accentuate the proper notes in the chord. That is playing OVER a chord and not IN or THROUGH the chord.
See above.
[QUOTE]If a note "works" is relative- just because they aren't wrong notes doesn't mean they're right ones.
Disagree. If its the line you are hearing, all note are correct ones.
Why does it seem that way? Did I ever once say that you can only play the chord tones?
because I was giving you a taste of your own medicine. You seem to insist my method makes you play things YOU would not want to, when in fact, they are all there for you to choose from.
My point is they're the only information you need, they're the bare bones, all or nothing, it is what it is. It's up to you to play with them, against them, or anywhere in between. This includes your approach and any other.
Right, and my approach gives you many many avenuse to explore with guidelines IF you want to use them, or not if you do not. Yours....You are on your own babe!
I agree that it could, but it also implies things that aren't there.
YES!! It gives you the option to imply a Bminor over a Gmaj7!! It gives you the option of playing an E minor (natural, melodic, dorian....) over a G maj 7 WITHOUT spelling the basic chord out at the same time!! VERY GOOD VERY GOOD!!!
IMO, it's harder to unlearn something than it is to learn something.
Which is why you want to organize the functions sound as soon as possible!
You tell this approach to a younger player and what do you think they're going to do, play all the inside sounds? No, they're going to go straight for the more outside sounds.
Maybe thats whats in their head?? It always up to the person to find the sounds that please hius ear. he should be using this system while TRANSCRIBING as much as possible, and this will show him where the in, AND out sounds are coming from.
And they're going to play them irregardless of how they actually sound, because they believe they "work", not because they hear them or feel them.
They do work. is it better to have no guidelines except for the basic chord? (Which is in this system as a choice anyway?) What is the student going to do in your system when he hears Grant Green run a Cmaj7#11 arp over a D7 chord going to think? In my system...AHHH same sound! Its leading back to the I chord! VERY VERY GOOD!!!
This leads to the quote in my signature. If you are thinking only of the chord tones, only what's there, you need to build these relationships on your own through your vocabulary. You need to hear stuff to be able to play it.
And unless you were born with an ear better than anyone who has ever lived, you need something to help GUIDE your ear. Even the very best players do at times, or no mistake would ever be made.
Dmin7 is what's there, you can play with it, against it or anywhere in between. You have an infinite number of options.
As shown in my system. Yours shows you nothing other than Dmin7.
No, it doesn't. By your definition it teaches you to think of one sound in place of another.
NO!!!!! It shows that you can paint with different colors FREELY in a given area!! You have it WRONG!!
Can you treat Dmin7 as Dmin7 in your system? Sure. But the whole point of the system is to be able to treat Dmin7 as something else. IMO, this is what leads to BS. Make sense?
No. "My" first choice would be to play something OTHER than a D min7. The friggin keyboard player or other guitar player is already playing that, why do I want to double him?? You are welcome to play that D min7, and I do sometimes as well.
Exactly. And if you're thinking G7 on a Dmin7 set of stones you're aiming at the wrong stones.
Not at all. I am aiming at OTHER stones to add color to the ones that are already there.
lalaland
09-04-2007, 09:28 PM
Cool. Personal taste. I just get bored with mostly diatonic ideas now.
Weird. I usually can't make genralizations like that, but I tend to not like to be an absolutist about such things. There's not a 1:1 corrispondance between diatonic/chromatic/modal/etc make-up and the intrest that it inspires in me.
Nope. thats playing in the key and ignoring FUNCTION, which this has nothing to do with.
It could be said that your method is ignoring the chord COLORS...
You cant be serious, it is done ALL the time. Joe pass preached it himself. Sure there are exceptions, but jazz players do it ALL the time. I do it ALL the time. One of the first and most basic "rules" you learn from ANYONE is to go up a 5th and play that melodic minor scale. (Dmin over G7)
Joe Pass was also the one who said "There are only three kinds of chords".
Thats beginner advice as well...
Nothing against Joe Pass.
ANY chord can act as a tonic if its so arranged. Example.....Vamp on a diminished chord....Its tonic!
I personally don't think any chord with no fifth can be a tonic. In ET, the root, or 'tonic', is equa-distant from the root in either direction. This obscures the sound of the root. In Indian Classical music, the only drone that can't be used is a Root and a flat five. Augmented fourth is fine, as long as there's still a fifth.
Disagree. If its the line you are hearing, all note are correct ones.
Which makes all this pointless...
And unless you were born with an ear better than anyone who has ever lived, you need something to help GUIDE your ear. Even the very best players do at times, or no mistake would ever be made.
I think this is more from a need to subscribe to a jazz idiom of speed, licks, etc. But I understand what you're saying.
No. "My" first choice would be to play something OTHER than a D min7. The friggin keyboard player or other guitar player is already playing that, why do I want to double him?? You are welcome to play that D min7, and I do sometimes as well.
Just because it's being played doesn't mean that its uncool to play it as well. Why would you want to play something different? See what I mean?
Jamie
Clifford-D
09-04-2007, 10:29 PM
You dont even know what I am talking about. Go analyze some greatful dead music. :rotflmao
You just exposed the real Tag, Tag.
100% agreement with Ken.
I'm so not into that kind of behavior.
You could have asked for clarification from Steve.
This whole thread has been a king of the hill contest and you're on top.
That's all I'm saying. Bye
Leucadian
09-04-2007, 10:35 PM
...check this master's approach to playing changes!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f97g-1MMjqo&mode=related&search=
DrSax
09-04-2007, 10:44 PM
Ultimately I prefer to think of the chord tones as potential arrival or departure points along the way, stepping stones across a garden, if you will....if you look to the other end of the garden and see the stepping stones, it doesn't matter how off the stepping stones you go, or whether you only walk on them, in between them, hit every third one, what have you...you can still get there as long as you see that path of stones.
Hah! Great metaphor (or whatever it is)! This is how I hear Wes, and why I'm always so amazed at him. I hear all these beautiful melodies and ideas first, I don't necessarily hear him "making the change", and yet when i transcribe it and analyze the notes...yep, he made the change! But it's like he's skipping across the changes so freely.
My ear isn't as advanced as some of y'alls, but that's how it seems to me....
zoooombiex
09-04-2007, 10:59 PM
Wow - 23 pages. Would it be appropriate to sum up as follows?
For a given song, you can (if you want) treat the I, III, and VI chords ("tonic") as the same and play in any of the corresponding scales for any of those chords.
For the same song, you can (if you want) treat the II, IV, V, and VII chords ("dominant") as the same and play in any of those corresponding scales for any of those chords.
You can still choose to play the scale directly corresponding to each chord, but if you want more options you can play the scale corresponding to any other tonic/dominant chord. Each option from among the group of tonic/dominant chords will give different "colors" in relation to the underlying chord, but they will all maintain the same "sound" of being at rest or seeking resolution.
If I've misstated this lemme know. But if that's all this is, it seems pretty reasonable. Play in the chord, or here are some alternatives for different scales that will maintain the general tonic/dominant feel but add different colors.
On the other hand, this seems to have little to do with whether I'll actually enjoy the music I or someone else is making or that this approach will somehow lead to making "better" music... I'll take a moving, diatonic vamp over a soulless, harmonically advanced noodle any day.
Also, this is getting a bit off the subject, but harmony is not the only way to build and release tension. But since this approach is oriented towards harmonic tension, that's best left to another thread.
100% agreement with Ken.
100% agreement with Coltrane! :AOK
Weird. I usually can't make genralizations like that,
I can.
It could be said that your method is ignoring the chord COLORS.
Nope. every color of the rainbow is in there at all times. Your choice.
Joe Pass was also the one who said "There are only three kinds of chords".
Thats beginner advice as well...
Nothing against Joe Pass.
Of course not. He could play circles around most guitar players that ever lived.
I personally don't think any chord with no fifth can be a tonic. In ET, the root, or 'tonic', is equa-distant from the root in either direction. This obscures the sound of the root. In Indian Classical music, the only drone that can't be used is a Root and a flat five. Augmented fourth is fine, as long as there's still a fifth.
Really? Whats the tonic in a diminished one chord vamp?
I think this is more from a need to subscribe to a jazz idiom of speed, licks, etc. But I understand what you're saying.
Wrong again. This method has nothing to do with how fast, slow or what licks you play. That is totally YOUR choice as an artist.
Just because it's being played doesn't mean that its uncool to play it as well.
No. Play it all day if you like. My ear will be bored and i will leave however. The gretaest jazz players I have heard are almost ALWAYS playing other sounds against the basic chords. MUCH more interesting to my ear. Like the basic chord sound? Go pop on some country and western tunes. :D
Why would you want to play something different?
For the contrast and different "color". See what I mean?
Jamie[/quote]
Wow - 23 pages. Would it be appropriate to sum up as follows?
For a given song, you can (if you want) treat the I, III, and VI chords ("tonic") as the same and play in any of the corresponding scales for any of those chords.
For the same song, you can (if you want) treat the II, IV, V, and VII chords ("dominant") as the same and play in any of those corresponding scales for any of those chords.
You can still choose to play the scale directly corresponding to each chord, but if you want more options you can play the scale corresponding to any other tonic/dominant chord. Each option from among the group of tonic/dominant chords will give different "colors" in relation to the underlying chord, but they will all maintain the same "sound" of being at rest or seeking resolution.
If I've misstated this lemme know. But if that'