Bensons approach to playing changes.

[Tag]

This was taught to me by Richie Hart, who was taught it directly from George Benson, who picked it up from hanging with Wes and Coltrane.

You need to know your harmonized major scale. In the key of C, this is I chord: C maj7. II chord: D-7. III chord: E-7. IV chord: Fmaj7, V chord:G7, VI chord: A-7. VII chord: B-7b5.
Now each of those chords has a function, meaning what it does to the melody being playd over it. It is either stable,(a resting place) (Tonic). Or is creating unstability, or wanting to move to a stable place. (Dominant) Dominant areas want to move to tonic areas. Think of when you sing AHHHH-mennnnn in church. You can hear the first part is dominant, then it moves to the resting area, or tonic.

Now you have the seven chords above. There are three tonic chords. The I (CMaj7) the III (E-7) and the VI chord (A-7). These chords act the same way. They are all resting places, they just create a kind of different color, but they all function the SAME. Now there are 4 chords left. These are all Dominant chords. This means they are looking to resolve, or move to a resting area. Theses chords are the II chord: Dmin7. IV chord:Fmaj7. V chord: G7. and VII chord B-7b5. Now you only have two groups of chords, and ecah chord in each group funtuions the SAME way. This is SOOOOOOOOOOO important!!!!!!
You do NOT have to learn 7 modes, one for each chord! If you do that, in a progression like a simple I-VI-II-V, you will be trying to play 4 modes to make the changes. Ionian on the I chord, Aolean on the VI chord, Dorian on the II chord, Mixolydian on the V chord, then back to Ionian on the one chord. UGGHH! Now if you look above at out groupings, you will see that the I and VI chord are in the same group, and are both tonic chords. YES! No need to make any changes there! Treat them both the exact same way. Play all your C maj lines, over BOTH chords. Of course A minor7 arpeggios will work, as will Emin arpeggios. All are tonic right? Now those two chords just became one. Now you have a D-7 and a G7 chord coming up. This is changing functions and is no longer a resting place. Although you are still in the key of C, if you accentuate C Maj, A min or E min, it will sound wrong. You will be playing the correct notes, but they will not be functioning the right way.

Guys, THIS is what sets apart the good players from the bad. The tasteful from the bland. Dare I say it? Most jazz players from most rock players. On the Dominant chords, you must accentuate the correct notes. This comes from outlining the dominant chords. They ALL work! Look at our grouping above. You have D-7, G7, F Maj7 and b-7 flat V. You can play as simple as just D dorian over both chords, or go wild and use all of those arpeggios. This will be accentuating the correct notes, and lead you nicely back into the tonic area. To make it as simple as possible....The I and VI chord play C maj, the II and V chord play D dorian. I will make up a progression here that is more advanced, using all VII diatonic chords. Say we have a progression like this. Bar 1: C maj7 for 4 beats. Bar2: E min7-A-7 for 2 beats each. Bar III: F maj7-D-7 for 2 beats a piece. BarIV: B-7b5-G7 for two beats a piece. Lets look at this and break it down by function. Bar I: C maj 7= Tonic. Play all your Cmaj stuff here. easy enough! Bar 2. Oh no, two chords!:mad: WAIT! They are also both tonic chords! That means...Play more Cmaj stuff here! :)

Bar III..DARN..two more chords..but wait..they are BOTH dominant chords! I can group them together as well! Make it easy, Ill play just D dorian over both. :dude Ok..bar IV..SOB, I KNEW it! That strange Bbmin7b5 chord. What the heck do I do know?? I have to think of that stupid B Locrean mode?? What does Tag say..hmmm.... AHHH!!!!!!!!! Its STILL a dominant area!! I dont have to cahnge at all!! Just keep playing D dorian! YEEEHAAA!!! This is not to bad!!! oh no, ANOTHER chord, just when I was really moving. I KNEW it wasnt this easy. That jerk Tag, I knew he was just a big mouth. Well, lets see..hmmm, no way....you have got to be kidding me?? Its dominant as well?? That means I can STILL just play D Dorian?? I DONT BELIEVE IT!!!!!!! (Repeat after me everyone)... TAG WAS RIGHT, TAG WAS RIGHT, TAG WAS RIGHT,!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!

Now this is breaking it down as easy as possible, but THIS is where you start. You need to learn bop lines, and pay STRICT attention to what they are being played over, and if it is a tonic or dominat area. You see, bop lines are not like rock licks. They accentuate the notes that spell out the background chords. I studied scale for YEARS, trying to learn jazz. I knew everyone inside and out, upside down, in thirds, 4ths, triplets, 16th notes, and I still could not play a thing over changes. I got a new teacher, forgot about all the scales, started learning bop lines and songs, and within a year I was playing pretty darn well.

As you advance, I can show you how easy it is to just apply the same thinking over almost any progression. Then as you get better, you can start adding little things like whole tone lines, and diminished lines (both of which fall into the same groupings above, I just did not go that far.) All the substitutions, Melodic and harmonic minor etc. It all fits together SOO easily. The hard part is trying to develope your own identity with it, but using this method, I think ANYONE can learn to be a very tasteful guitarist in a very short time. You HAVE to learn bop lines and standard songs. Start EASY. Polka dots and moonbeams. Stormy weather. JazzBlues tunes with changes. Keep it SIMPLE. If you start with Giat steps, Stella etc, you are in for frustration.

Start easy, get a grasp of one thing, then add another. But LEARN THOSE BOP LINES!!!!!!!!!

[felken]

What is a good source for cliche bop lines in tab or notation that includes the context of the harmony the line is playd over?

Kind of a condensed version for us working folks with way too little time to play.

[lhallam]

Just for clarity, not disputing Tag's lesson: A-a-a-a-a-men is a plagal cadence i.e. IV - I

[Tag]

Originally posted by felken
What is a good source for cliche bop lines in tab or notation that includes the context of the harmony the line is playd over?

Kind of a condensed version for us working folks with way too little time to play.

Two things. Pick up a Real book with the changes to many common standards. Then go here and buy this software.http://www.ronimusic.com/ Get the "amazing slowdowner" (Thanks Jackaroo!) Pick a standard you want to start with, and get several versions of different players playing that tune. (Dont make it a hard one!) Download the file on your computer and you can open it the amazing slowdowner. You can see the changes in the real book, and play along with the recordings until you know the song in your head real well. Learn the melody BY EAR. Then start picking out the slower, easier lines that you hear. You can slow them down with the software as much as you want, and it will stay in pitch. Learn the SIMPLE, lines you hear first. Learn the ones that catch your ear melodically, and see how they fit against the chords being played. Learn that line and practice it just like you did with rock licks. However, make sure you pay attention to the chords its going against. Record yourself playing the chord changes as simply as possible with any tape recorder. I use to use the little 29$ hand held cassette ones from radioshack. Then place that line EXACTLY in the same place as where you heard it in the tune. keep learning more and more lines. They will quickly become second nature, and you will begin to use them on your own, and add and subtract from them. You can also buy the Jamie Abersold play along CDs and books with the changes.

[Tag]

Originally posted by lhallam
Just for clarity, not disputing Tag's lesson: A-a-a-a-a-men is a plagal cadence i.e. IV - I

IV dominant- I tonic. Thats the way I hear it.

[Mark C]

Nice lesson, but I still think of ii and IV as subdominant. ;)

[dumb donnie]

Originally posted by Tag
As you advance, I can show you how easy it is to just apply the same thinking over almost any progression. Then as you get better, you can start adding little things like whole tone lines, and diminished lines (both of which fall into the same groupings above, I just did not go that far.) All the substitutions, Melodic and harmonic minor etc. It all fits together SOO easily.

First I want to say thanks for typing that up, it's a very interesting way to approach it. I would definately like some more advanced stuff in the future if you are up to it (the stuff you mention in the quote). Thanks again, i'm going to get to work on this stuff.

[RobertMiller]

Thanks, Tag, for bringing a little clarity to a very confusing subject. Progressing in any genre is challenging, but particularly in the jazz realm, where there is so much harmonic inertia at play.

OK, you were right, this time!:D

[lhallam]

Originally posted by Tag
IV dominant- I tonic. Thats the way I hear it.

I get it, just the way you worded it could be a little misleading.

One may think you were saying that a-a-a-a-men is V-I.

IV is called the subdominant
V is called dominant

Regardless, IV & V are in the family of chords requiring resolution which is your point.

[Tag]

Originally posted by lhallam
I get it, just the way you worded it could be a little misleading.

One may think you were saying that a-a-a-a-men is V-I.

IV is called the subdominant
V is called dominant

Regardless, IV & V are in the family of chords requiring resolution which is your point.

Exactly. Lance. In all honesty. Do you or do you not think this is a fantastic way to approach it? I know you are probably far past this, but it makes it so easy, and all you have to do is train your ear to hear two types of sounds. Rest and unrest. Once you can hear that clearly, you can play anything you can possibly imagine and resolve it perfectly. On my "oh yea" clip, I was intentionally trying to play bad notes, but my ear led me to a resolution everytime. Simple changes, but that does not matter. You can go out or in at will. A dominant area no longer becomes "Altered dom scale! Or Go up a flat 5 and play that melodic minor! It ALL works. Its just up to the color you want to create at that time. Thats why learning scales stagnates you. Its nice to learn them, get a grasp of what they are, and forget them. Other wise when you see a flat9 chord, you will automatically think DIMINISHED!, when that may be the last thing you are actually hearing. A whole tone will work perfectly over that with its natural 9th. The line is pulling you back to the one, just with a different color than the chord is. Heck, the chord is already implying the diminished color. Why do you want to play whats already there? Just like on a min7th chord, most guys will play min\maj7. over it. (melodic minor)

[lhallam]

Yes I do think it's a good methodology.

The simpler the better. A lot of very intelligent people break things down.

Joe Pass said he approached ii-V's as Dom7th chords and didn't worry about the chord quality too much.

BTW - I am never far past learning anything new.

Good explanation, thanks.

[JimmyD]

Originally posted by felken
What is a good source for cliche bop lines in tab or notation that includes the context of the harmony the line is playd over?

Kind of a condensed version for us working folks with way too little time to play.

There is a book called "The bebop bible" by Les Wise which is quite good.

Plenty of stuff on the net as well. Google "ii-V-I lines" as well.

Finding a pro level teacher would be appropriate as well.

There aren't many shortcuts however. I've looked for years. There are good explanations however that can take some of the pain away.

good luck,
Jim

[Tag]

Originally posted by lhallam
Yes I do think it's a good methodology.

The simpler the better. A lot of very intelligent people break things down.

Joe Pass said he approached ii-V's as Dom7th chords and didn't worry about the chord quality too much.

BTW - I am never far past learning anything new.

Good explanation, thanks.

Cool. Here is a friend of mine Russ DeFilippis who is a great guitar player as well. He is also friends with my former teacher Richie Hart, and another one who teaches the "Tonic\Dom" approach. This guy is not a technique player, but one of the most musical guitarists I have ever heard. When he plays electric, he has the natural feel and style of Robben Ford. here is an interview with him. http://www.jazzguitarlife.com/Jazz-Guitar-Life-Interviews-Russ-DeFilippis.htm

[Tag]

Originally posted by JimmyD
There is a book called "The bebop bible" by Les Wise which is quite good.

Plenty of stuff on the net as well. Google "ii-V-I lines" as well.

Finding a pro level teacher would be appropriate as well.

There aren't many shortcuts however. I've looked for years. There are good explanations however that can take some of the pain away.

good luck,
Jim

There are no shortcuts, I agree! I dont think this appraoch is one at all. I just think it it is the simplest and most logical way to look at music, and most importantly gets you to hear music correctly. There are many approaches. This is just the one "I" find best, and trying to share with anyone looking for something besides memorizing tons of scales\modes which I do not think you have to know to play jazz at the highest level.

[JimmyD]

Originally posted by Tag
There are no shortcuts, I agree! I dont think this appraoch is one at all. I just think it it is the simplest and most logical way to look at music, and most importantly gets you to hear music correctly. There are many approaches. This is just the one "I" find best, and trying to share with anyone looking for something besides memorizing tons of scales\modes which I do not think you have to know to play jazz at the highest level.

Tag, I agree completely with what you wrote above and thank you for the effort extended originally in this thread. Your efforts are what I consider "a good explanation" or a good start for those (me included) looking to play more vertically over changes.

I really enjoy your playing and maybe one day I'll ask you for a lesson or two as I'm in Pennsylvania, plus I'd like to hear the Bruno's in person. I could bring some Jimi Hendrix stuff along as well. ;)

Regards,
Jim

[Ed DeGenaro]

Except you're simple explanation has nothing to do with tonic or dominant chord families. It's merely keycenter approach.
Which even though I break down stuff into 3 families is exactly the same here.
Funny how we have discussed the tonic/dominant vs. tonic/subdominant/dominant for ages and in the end we both look at things via key center. Which I have to thank Mock for.

[JimmyD]

Originally posted by Ed DeGenaro
and in the end we both look at things via key center. Which I have to thank Mock for.

Don Mock? That guy is scary good!

Jim

[Tag]

Originally posted by Ed DeGenaro
Except you're simple explanation has nothing to do with tonic or dominant chord families. It's merely keycenter approach.
Which even though I break down stuff into 3 families is exactly the same here.
Funny how we have discussed the tonic/dominant vs. tonic/subdominant/dominant for ages and in the end we both look at things via key center. Which I have to thank Mock for.

Huh??? It has EVERYTHING to do with Tonic\Dominant chord families. I spelled them out as well. Key center? If I were going to play in the key\tonal center, I would just play C maj\C blues licks over the entire thing and use my ear. If you think subdominant is a totally different family than Dominant, how to you explain playing a Fmaj7 Arp. over G7 resolving to C? Sub dominant...Sub for a Dominant.

[Ed DeGenaro]

Originally posted by Tag
Huh??? It has EVERYTHING to do with Tonic\Dominant chord families. I spelled them out as well. Key center? If I were going to play in the key\tonal center, I would just play C maj\C blues licks over the entire thing and use my ear. If you think subdominant is a totally different family than Dominant, how to you explain playing a Fmaj7 Arp. over G7 resolving to C? Sub dominant...Sub for a Dominant.
D Dorian (C major) over Dm7...that's key enter.

[Tag]

Originally posted by Ed DeGenaro
D Dorian (C major) over Dm7...that's key enter.

Key center, but NOT tonal center! THATS the problem with modes! You just hit the nail on the head! D dorian has NOTHING to do with C major! They have the same notes yes, but that means NOTHING. Accentuating the D minor is what makes that DOMINANT, and PULLS you to C Maj. Thats the entire thing that so many guys do not get. D dorian is DOMINANT. A TOTALLY different entity than C Maj. Now here is the ironic part. E phrygian IS the same as C Ionian! They are both tonic sounds in the key of C. And the other one...you got it! A aolean is the SAME as C maj as well. Tonic. G mixolidian, F Lydian, D Doriab and Bb Locrean have ZERO to do with C maj. Same notes yes, TOTALLY different function and sound. You HAVE to seperate them in order to sound tasteful, and you have to hear them as such in order to hear music correctly.

[lhallam]

I agree E phrygian loses a lot of it's character in key of C when we're talking about "straight-ahead" jazz but this doesn't necessarily apply to all styles.

In 18th century part writing, the mediant is NOT close to tonic and is considered a very weak chord. This tradition carried on into the romantic period.

Along those same lines, phrygian is unique in it's own right especially when playing something like Emin - F major or E major to F major or at times E min to A min.

[RichardB]

important point to remember in all music:

The melodic and harmonic material is one thing, but the DELIVERY and time aspects are really the core. You can have all the theory internalized, be master of any harmonic environment etc etc, but if your delivery and most importantly time sucks it means very little....

The best example is Benson himself. His style is actually pretty dated, atavistic...yet he still feels fresh....why? His delivery and time. I know of countless players in the flesh and on the 'net who have years and years of playing under the belt, have all the harmonic material mastered, yet sound painful to listen to because of time/delivery issues...It dont mean a thing if it aint got that "thing"...That thing is TIME...

[Ed DeGenaro]

Originally posted by Tag
Key center, but NOT tonal center! THATS the problem with modes! You just hit the nail on the head! D dorian has NOTHING to do with C major! They have the same notes yes, but that means NOTHING. Accentuating the D minor is what makes that DOMINANT, and PULLS you to C Maj. Thats the entire thing that so many guys do not get. D dorian is DOMINANT. A TOTALLY different entity than C Maj. Now here is the ironic part. E phrygian IS the same as C Ionian! They are both tonic sounds in the key of C. And the other one...you got it! A aolean is the SAME as C maj as well. Tonic. G mixolidian, F Lydian, D Doriab and Bb Locrean have ZERO to do with C maj. Same notes yes, TOTALLY different function and sound. You HAVE to seperate them in order to sound tasteful, and you have to hear them as such in order to hear music correctly.
i KNOW...THAT'S MY POINT. Damn caps lock, didn't mean to yell.

[Ed DeGenaro]

Originally posted by RichardB
important point to remember in all music:

The melodic and harmonic material is one thing, but the DELIVERY and time aspects are really the core. You can have all the theory internalized, be master of any harmonic environment etc etc, but if your delivery and most importantly time sucks it means very little....

The best example is Benson himself. His style is actually pretty dated, atavistic...yet he still feels fresh....why? His delivery and time. I know of countless players in the flesh and on the 'net who have years and years of playing under the belt, have all the harmonic material mastered, yet sound painful to listen to because of time/delivery issues...It dont mean a thing if it aint got that "thing"...That thing is TIME...
Tell me about it. I've been working hard on my crap time lately.

[Tag]

Originally posted by lhallam
I agree E phrygian loses a lot of it's character in key of C when we're talking about "straight-ahead" jazz but this doesn't necessarily apply to all styles.

In 18th century part writing, the mediant is NOT close to tonic and is considered a very weak chord. This tradition carried on into the romantic period.

Along those same lines, phrygian is unique in it's own right especially when playing something like Emin - F major or E major to F major or at times E min to A min.

Lance, you are taking things out of the chord progression! If someone says what can you play on an Amin7 chord, you really have to say,"where is it in the progression?" before you can answer that. If it is a II or III cord will totally change what can be played, and the way it is heard. thats my entire point actually. In different progressions, different things can be played, but it is STILL either tonic or dominant. Im keeping this real simple, but you can use it with any progression.

[rwe333]

Tag,
That is certainly a useful and proven strategy for playing over many standard changes - similar to the chord function theory presented in treatises like Jim Grantham's "The Jazzmaster Cookbook" (a common University/College text).
What is incorrectly stressed is your attitude on modes. Much of modal theory has been dumbed-down over the years. To really grasp the scope of the modal concept, one much return to the source: George Russell's master thesis (and subsequent life's work) "The Lydian-Chromatic Concept of Tonal Organization." This is what guys like Miles and 'Trane got into...
I toss this out as a clarification, not an argument. It is a unique and vailid system, as are others.

[Tag]

Originally posted by rwe333
Tag,
That is certainly a useful and proven strategy for playing over many standard changes - similar to the chord function theory presented in treatises like Jim Grantham's "The Jazzmaster Cookbook" (a common University/College text).
What is incorrectly stressed is your attitude on modes. Much of modal theory has been dumbed-down over the years. To really grasp the scope of the modal concept, one much return to the source: George Russell's master thesis (and subsequent life's work) "The Lydian-Chromatic Concept of Tonal Organization." This is what guys like Miles and 'Trane got into...
I toss this out as a clarification, not an argument. It is a unique and vailid system, as are others.

I am not familiar with that system, but Im sure it leads to the same point. Again I want to stress that I am only giving the absolute basics of this approach. However, no matter how far out a guy plays, or how advanced, it can be broken down into this, and that is the beauty of it. There are thousands of ways to get to the same final point. For me, this worked far better and easier than the scale\mode methods that I worked on for so long, and ended nowhere with. Joe pass did not even know what a mode was, and the guy could play anything. I do think having a basic understanding of what the modes are is important. But learn what they are basically,and forget them. The important ones are really Dorian, Ionian, and mixolidian. From there you can start to add the #11, but it will not be a true Lydian or flat 5 scale, because you will be using the natural 11th and perfect 5th mixed in with it. Thats why learning bop lines has to go along with this method. You learn melodic lines and how they relate to chords. NOT just limiting scales. Music is a mixture of scales, arpeggios and chromatics all at the same time. Bop lines combine all of these. Learn to play music, THEN start to break it down and divide it up. Once you are playing music, you will not really care to anyway. Lol! At that point, you can then learn to add bits and pieces of other scales and more mechanical devices to expand. Again, this is the way I was taught, and makes the most sense to ME. It is also the way Benson, Martino (Convert to minor) and so many others use.

[rh]

Originally posted by RichardB
important point to remember in all music:

The melodic and harmonic material is one thing, but the DELIVERY and time aspects are really the core. You can have all the theory internalized, be master of any harmonic environment etc etc, but if your delivery and most importantly time sucks it means very little....

The best example is Benson himself. His style is actually pretty dated, atavistic...yet he still feels fresh....why? His delivery and time. I know of countless players in the flesh and on the 'net who have years and years of playing under the belt, have all the harmonic material mastered, yet sound painful to listen to because of time/delivery issues...It dont mean a thing if it aint got that "thing"...That thing is TIME...

I dunno. I can write a computer program that plays harmonically hip stuff in perfect time, but the result is far less than satisfying. Just crank up the Band-in-a-Box soloist to see what I mean.

I listen for "life" in somebody's playing first and foremost. By far. If it doesn't have that, then it really don't mean a thing -- no matter how harmonically hip or in time it is. Further, if it's got life in it, I can easily forgive a multitude of technical errors.

"Life" and "technical excellence" aren't mutually exclusive, of course. Isaac Stern, for example, was flawless up through perhaps the midpoint of his career, and his playing was also full of expressive life. While his technical skills faded some as his practice time shrank later in his career, Stern remained a joy to listen to because of his expressiveness. I frankly can't imagine finding Stern painful to listen to.

[Tag]

Originally posted by RichardB
important point to remember in all music:

The melodic and harmonic material is one thing, but the DELIVERY and time aspects are really the core. You can have all the theory internalized, be master of any harmonic environment etc etc, but if your delivery and most importantly time sucks it means very little....



Yep. Thats what makes the very best stand out. Tal Farlow as great as he is is hard for me to listen to even in his early years, as he came out of time so much. Django, Benson, Christian, Wes are the masters at it. R.Jones has it as well. He can falter at times,(I think mainy because his lines are SOO hard to play), but he still keeps it swinging. Mark Whitfield has it too. He is such a fluid player, like him or not. Not on the level of Benson or Wes, but who is?

[lhallam]

Originally posted by Tag
Lance, you are taking things out of the chord progression! If someone says what can you play on an Amin7 chord, you really have to say,"where is it in the progression?" before you can answer that. If it is a II or III cord will totally change what can be played, and the way it is heard. thats my entire point actually. In different progressions, different things can be played, but it is STILL either tonic or dominant. Im keeping this real simple, but you can use it with any progression.

No need to reiterate your strategy. Simply pointing out in your discussion with Ed on the characteristics of the mediant and its related mode (phyrgian) change depending upon the musical style.

In the rules of 18th Century Part Writing, the treatment of the mediant is special and is not synonomous with the tonic.

In my example the mode, I'm not taking it out of the chord progression, the chord progression is:

||: 4/4 E E E E | E E E E | Am Am Am Am | F F F F :||

The characteristics of phyrgian are totally different in this context than progression C Am F G.

For some jazz examples, Miles "Sketches of Spain" and Chick Corea's "My Spanish Heart" use phrygian in this context.

[Tag]

Originally posted by lhallam
No need to reiterate your strategy. Simply pointing out in your discussion with Ed on the characteristics of the mediant and its related mode (phyrgian) change depending upon the musical style.

In the rules of 18th Century Part Writing, the treatment of the mediant is special and is not synonomous with the tonic.

In my example the mode, I'm not taking it out of the chord progression, the chord progression is:

||: 4/4 E E E E | E E E E | Am Am Am Am | F F F F :||

The characteristics of phyrgian are totally different in this context than progression C Am F G.

For some jazz examples, Miles "Sketches of Spain" and Chick Corea's "My Spanish Heart" use phrygian in this context.

Lance,
I meant taking them out of the context of the progression I had given. In the progression you gave above, that E is a major chord. I would play the first bar as E maj. The second bar as E dom 7 (alt) leading to A min. Then the F I would treat as a tritone sub for B7 leading back to E maj. How would you get E phyrigian out of that? If that E is suppose to be a minor, I would do basically the same thing. The first measure I would play as E min maj7. The second measure I would make the E minor an E7#9 by adding the major3rd, thus really pulling to the A minor chord. Then the same with the F. Tritone for B7alt. First measure tonic. Second measure dominant leading to Amin tonic. Then the F is dominant again leading to E (Emin) tonic. Simple, beautiful colors available, and jazzy. :) Remember we are talking jazz here.

[lhallam]

Originally posted by Tag
Lance,
I meant taking them out of the context of the progression I had given. In the progression you gave above, that E is a major chord. I would play the first bar as E maj. The second bar as E dom 7 (alt) leading to A min. Then the F I would treat as a tritone sub for B7 leading back to E maj. How would you get E phyrigian out of that? If that E is suppose to be a minor, I would do basically the same thing. The first measure I would play as E min maj7. The second measure I would make the E minor an E7#9 by adding the major3rd, thus really pulling to the A minor chord. Then the same with the F. Tritone for B7alt. First measure tonic. Second measure dominant leading to Amin tonic. Then the F is dominant again leading to E (Emin) tonic. Simple, beautiful colors available, and jazzy. :) Remember we are talking jazz here.

Right, that's my whole point. You basically said the phyrgian loses it's character over the C Am Dm G progression into a tonic context and I'm not disputing that.

I'm talking bout two different things. One is that in early to mid classical music, the mediant does not substitue for the tonic.

Second is I'm providing a different example where the phrygian retains it's character.

I'm not necessarily talking jazz although, Miles and Chick were able to use phrygian in a jazzy style.

Play my example progression and improve phrygian and you'll hear it immediately. The context of the phyrgian changes dramatically than over the C Am Dm G.

You can substitute Em in my example progression. You can also keep the E major chord and flirt with G to G# in the scale. Fun stuff.

This will work in rock, jazz & classical.

[Ed DeGenaro]

Originally posted by lhallam
Right, that's my whole point. You basically said the phyrgian loses it's character over the C Am Dm G progression into a tonic context and I'm not disputing that.

I'm talking bout two different things. One is that in early to mid classical music, the mediant does not substitue for the tonic.

Second is I'm providing a different example where the phrygian retains it's character.

I'm not necessarily talking jazz although, Miles and Chick were able to use phrygian in a jazzy style.

Play my example progression and improve phrygian and you'll hear it immediately. The context of the phyrgian changes dramatically than over the C Am Dm G.

You can substitute Em in my example progression. You can also keep the E major chord and flirt with G to G# in the scale. Fun stuff.

This will work in rock, jazz & classical.
FWIW to me that progression is as garden variet minor as it comes. As in V-i-bVI(sub for iv) in minor.
E gets treated as a dominant. Screams for harmonic minor.

[cameron]

This is a very interesting discussion. But I have a question that goes back to the points raised in the first post to this thread.

It's relatively common, in a I - vi - ii - V type or progression, for the vi to be swapped for a VI7.

In the terms of this discussion what is the role of such a VI7 chord?

[dumb donnie]

You mentioned earlier that this stuff is just the very basic foundation for this view, where can I find some more advanced stuff? Any books or sites that go into more detail?

[Tag]

Originally posted by lhallam
Right, that's my whole point. You basically said the phyrgian loses it's character over the C Am Dm G progression into a tonic context and I'm not disputing that.

I'm talking bout two different things. One is that in early to mid classical music, the mediant does not substitue for the tonic.

Second is I'm providing a different example where the phrygian retains it's character.

I'm not necessarily talking jazz although, Miles and Chick were able to use phrygian in a jazzy style.

Play my example progression and improve phrygian and you'll hear it immediately. The context of the phyrgian changes dramatically than over the C Am Dm G.

You can substitute Em in my example progression. You can also keep the E major chord and flirt with G to G# in the scale. Fun stuff.

This will work in rock, jazz & classical.

The way you are looking at it, you are making the Emin the I chord. You are now in an E minor tonality, so naturally it is going to be different than when its a III chord. (C Maj tonality) It seems you are TRYING to get everything into one key, which is what I am trying to get away from! I would also play that E minor as dorian, and use A7, Gmaj7, and Db-7b5 over the Emin. (all related minor tonic sounds now!) Then when it went to A minor, the C# note moves down a 1\2 step to C, giving a nice resolution. I always try and set up as many 1\2 step resolutions as possible. I would hear this as playing A7 over the E minor, then just changing to A min7 on the A- chord.

[Ed DeGenaro]

Originally posted by cameron
This is a very interesting discussion. But I have a question that goes back to the points raised in the first post to this thread.

It's relatively common, in a I - vi - ii - V type or progression, for the vi to be swapped for a VI7.

In the terms of this discussion what is the role of such a VI7 chord?
It's called a secondary dominant. Meaning it's the V chord that leads to the ii.
Any chord can have a secondary dominant. And it functions like the V chord in its key.
In other words...I-VI-ii-V
say in C...Cmaj-A7-Dm-G.
You'd play A mixolydian (D major), A phrygian dominant (D harmonic minor), A Blues, etc... over it.

[Tag]

Originally posted by cameron
This is a very interesting discussion. But I have a question that goes back to the points raised in the first post to this thread.

It's relatively common, in a I - vi - ii - V type or progression, for the vi to be swapped for a VI7.

In the terms of this discussion what is the role of such a VI7 chord?

You can always do that when the root is moving down a fifth or down a 1\2 step. (other places too) You are just approaching the new chord from its dominant 5 chord. You can also make the II chord a 7, approaching the V from its dom V chord. You can then add as many 5 chords or tritone subs to any of these as you want.

[Tag]

Originally posted by Ed DeGenaro
It's called a secondary dominant. Meaning it's the V chord that leads to the ii.
Any chord can have a secondary dominant. And it functions like the V chord in its key.
In other words...I-VI-ii-V
say in C...Cmaj-A7-Dm-G.
You'd play A mixolydian (D major), A phrygian dominant (D harmonic minor), A Blues, etc... over it.

Ed, A Mixolidian has NOTHING to do with D major! If you play D maj lines over A mixolidian, you are going to sound awful. Better to say E dorian because that will work. A mixolidian, E dorian,C#-7b5 or Gmaj7 are all dominant sounds. (Remember the dominant groupings?) D maj is a tonic sound. You are going against this entire approach.:( Also, I would alter some of the notes over the A 7 if I was leaving the D as a minor chord.

[cameron]

Originally posted by Tag
You can always do that when the root is moving down a fifth or down a 1\2 step. (other places too) You are just approaching the new chord from its dominant 5 chord. You can also make the II chord a 7, approaching the V from its dom V chord. You can then add as many 5 chords or tritone subs to any of these as you want.

Yes I've seen other such substitutions. I just asked about the case of the VI because it's so common.

The main point, though, is that when such a substitution is made, it isn't just adding a little extra garlic to the harmony, it does distinctly change which notes should be emphasized when playing over the changes.

[Ed DeGenaro]

Originally posted by Tag
Ed, A Mixolidian has NOTHING to do with D major! If you play D maj lines over A mixolidian, you are going to sound awful. Better to say E dorian because that will work. A mixolidian, E dorian,C#-7b5 or Gmaj7 are all dominant sounds. (Remember the dominant groupings?) D maj is a tonic sound. You are going against this entire approach.:( Also, I would alter some of the notes over the A 7 if I was leaving the D as a minor chord.
Last I checked A mixo was mode V of D maj. And E dorian being mode 2 of D major. Same notes. It's assumed that you know that you hit the strong notes for the right chords.
The A7 is a dominant. Resolving to a minor.
No idea why you would even consider treating any V chord that is functioning and not a static vamp as tonic.

[lhallam]

Originally posted by Tag
The way you are looking at it, you are making the Emin the I chord. You are now in an E minor tonality, so naturally it is going to be different than when its a III chord. (C Maj tonality) It seems you are TRYING to get everything into one key, which is what I am trying to get away from! I would also play that E minor as dorian, and use A7, Gmaj7, and Db-7b5 over the Emin. (all related minor tonic sounds now!) Then when it went to A minor, the C# note moves down a 1\2 step to C, giving a nice resolution. I always try and set up as many 1\2 step resolutions as possible. I would hear this as playing A7 over the E minor, then just changing to A min7 on the A- chord.

Correct, I digress for sure and not arguing one bit. Like I said, I'm just showing an example where phrygian retains it's character. Not necessarily in a jazz context and not in a C Am Dm G progression.

Yes, I'm keeping it in one mode for this example. You can do as Ed suggests and/or what you suggest as well but you dilute the phrygian & you're taking the uniqueness out of it. It's a little less scooby-doo and more ethnic. Miles & Chick did it and it sounds great.

Do me a favor, play phrygian over my example progression. You can even mix other modes/substitutions in as you guys suggest but first establish the phrygian character.

BTW - You also use E phrygian over "Stairway To Heaven", "Gimme Shelter" and "All Along The Watchtower":

Am-G-F

It takes some thought but it can be done.

[rh]

Originally posted by Tag
Tal Farlow as great as he is is hard for me to listen to even in his early years, as he came out of time so much.

As if.

[Ed DeGenaro]

Originally posted by rhuddleston
As if.
Huh?

[rh]

Originally posted by Ed DeGenaro
Huh?

Nothing I'd say in public.

But you have mail...

[Tag]

Originally posted by rhuddleston
Nothing I'd say in public.

But you have mail...


:rolleyes:

[rh]

Originally posted by Tag
:rolleyes:

Yeah, that was the gist of it. :D

[markp]

I am trying to follow what everyone is saying,
But I am not shure what a tri-tone is ?

[lhallam]

Originally posted by markp
I am trying to follow what everyone is saying,
But I am not shure what a tri-tone is ?

Ah, one of my favorite topics.

The augemented 4th, diminished 5th, tritone and Diabolus in Musica are all the same name for the same interval.

That is, six half steps:

C to F# (augmented fourth)
C to Gb (diminished fifth)

It's called a tritone because it's 3 whole steps. It divides the octave exactly in half.

Don't follow what I'm saying, it's really off topic and will only confuse.

[markp]

I gotcha,just one of those things I dont hear much and never asked.

[Tag]

Originally posted by rhuddleston
Yeah, that was the gist of it. :D

I know. Its like you are not allowed to criticize another player around here unless you are better than they are. Well, judging by some of those Tal Farlow improvisations, by time may actually be ok. :p

[rh]

Originally posted by Tag
I know. Its like you are not allowed to criticize another player around here unless you are better than they are. Well, judging by some of those Tal Farlow improvisations, by time may actually be ok. :p

You got a gig?

[Tag]

Originally posted by lhallam
Correct, I digress for sure and not arguing one bit. Like I said, I'm just showing an example where phrygian retains it's character. Not necessarily in a jazz context and not in a C Am Dm G progression.

Yes, I'm keeping it in one mode for this example. You can do as Ed suggests and/or what you suggest as well but you dilute the phrygian & you're taking the uniqueness out of it. It's a little less scooby-doo and more ethnic. Miles & Chick did it and it sounds great.

Do me a favor, play phrygian over my example progression. You can even mix other modes/substitutions in as you guys suggest but first establish the phrygian character.

BTW - You also use E phrygian over "Stairway To Heaven", "Gimme Shelter" and "All Along The Watchtower":

Am-G-F

It takes some thought but it can be done.

Lance. You can always just play in the key you are in. In Autumn leaves you can just play in G min the entire time.

[Tag]

Originally posted by rhuddleston
You got a gig?


Does that ligitimze my playing, timing, or this approach to playing? To be honest, I have had two calls in the last 10 days from a keyboard player I know. If I take the gig, are you going to agree with everything I say? :D

[Ed DeGenaro]

Originally posted by Tag
Does that ligitimze my playing, timing, or this approach to playing? To be honest, I have had two calls in the last 10 days from a keyboard player I know. If I take the gig, are you going to agree with everything I say? :D
Will you pay me to agree with you?:D

Seriously though Tag, just as you put more weight into players opinion you know can play...

Chances are if you be constantly working you wouldn't feel as rusty as you said you do. Your words not mine...

[Tag]

Originally posted by Ed DeGenaro
Will you pay me to agree with you?:D

Seriously though Tag, just as you put more weight into players opinion you know can play...

Chances are if you be constantly working you wouldn't feel as rusty as you said you do. Your words not mine...

Oh man, I agree 100%. If I just had more time to PRACTICE I would be 10 times more in shape. :mad:

[Ed DeGenaro]

Originally posted by Tag
Oh man, I agree 100%. If I just had more time to PRACTICE I would be 10 times more in shape. :mad:
If you would gig that would take care of a lot of it as well.

[rh]

Originally posted by Tag
Does that ligitimze my playing, timing, or this approach to playing?

Regular gigs playing your stuff with the big dogs would be a better test for your legitimacy than all this pontification. IMHO.

Don't ya think?

[Tag]

Originally posted by rhuddleston
Regular gigs playing your stuff with the big dogs would be a better test for your legitimacy than all this pontification. IMHO.

Don't ya think?

Not really. I have never claimed to be anything other than an intermediate player. Thats all I am. There are tons and tons of pros who are not even that. There are tons of of home hacks who are world class players. Gigging to me makes you a better gig player, thats all. I did it for over 15 years. If you are not playing with guys better than yourself, you are not going to improve. You are better off practicing at home and shedding to get better. I will improve far, far more, sitting at home transcribing from great players an hour a night, than I will playing with players my own level 3-4 hours a night. Of course it would be great to do both, but I cant.

[lhallam]

Tag, I've never thought Tal Farlow unlistenable at any part of his career even the Red Norvo stuff. I was fortunate enough to see and to talk to Tal at Ruby Tuesday in NYC in the '80s. The guy is a total monster.

[RichardB]

Originally posted by Tag
Not really. I have never claimed to be anything other than an intermediate player. Thats all I am. There are tons and tons of pros who are not even that. There are tons of of home hacks who are world class players. Gigging to me makes you a better gig player, thats all. I did it for over 15 years. If you are not playing with guys better than yourself, you are not going to improve. You are better off practicing at home and shedding to get better. I will improve far, far more, sitting at home transcribing from great players an hour a night, than I will playing with players my own level 3-4 hours a night. Of course it would be great to do both, but I cant.

100% agreed.

The real heavy lifting is done alone. The real advancement in CONCEPT comes alone. Gigging streamlines and "fires" the concepts. Guys who spend more time gigging than "shedding" may be slick, but their concept advancement is often "stalled"

[rwe333]

Originally posted by RichardB
100% agreed.

The real heavy lifting is done alone. The real advancement in CONCEPT comes alone. Gigging streamlines and "fires" the concepts. Guys who spend more time gigging than "shedding" may be slick, but their concept advancement is often "stalled"

Many would disagree w/ you.
To paraphrase from a Dave Holland master class:
"Certainly you have to practice and woodshed, but you learn more on a gig than anywhere else. If you sit at home practicing thinking, 'I'm not ready yet', you never will be."

[Tag]

Originally posted by rwe333
Many would disagree w/ you.



but you learn more on a gig than anywhere else.

I totally disagree with Dave Holland on this.


If you sit at home practicing thinking, 'I'm not ready yet', you never will be.

I totally agree with him here.

[rwe333]

Originally posted by Tag
Not really. I have never claimed to be anything other than an intermediate player. Thats all I am. There are tons and tons of pros who are not even that. There are tons of of home hacks who are world class players. Gigging to me makes you a better gig player, thats all. I did it for over 15 years. If you are not playing with guys better than yourself, you are not going to improve. You are better off practicing at home and shedding to get better. I will improve far, far more, sitting at home transcribing from great players an hour a night, than I will playing with players my own level 3-4 hours a night. Of course it would be great to do both, but I cant.

Ya know, you hear this kind of thing all the time:
"I know amateurs that smoke most pros, and pros that suck."
While this may be true to a degree, it's not the overwhelming reality, i.e., it's the exception that proves the rule.
Fact is most pro players are more experienced and better players than most amateurs.
For example: Just cause someone can run the changes over band-in-a-box doesn't mean they can hang w/ the heavies...
The other reality is that the folks you idolize and/or have studied w/ are pros...

[rwe333]

Originally posted by Tag
I totally disagree with Dave Holland on this.

Of course you would because you aren't gigging regularly.
It's hard to justify disagreeing w/ something you haven't truly experienced... Right? Get a consistent gig improvising for a length of time - will certainly focus/define any practice/study done at home...

[rh]

Originally posted by Tag
Not really. I have never claimed to be anything other than an intermediate player. Thats all I am. There are tons and tons of pros who are not even that. There are tons of of home hacks who are world class players. Gigging to me makes you a better gig player, thats all. I did it for over 15 years. If you are not playing with guys better than yourself, you are not going to improve. You are better off practicing at home and shedding to get better. I will improve far, far more, sitting at home transcribing from great players an hour a night, than I will playing with players my own level 3-4 hours a night. Of course it would be great to do both, but I cant.

Note I said "gigging with the BIG DOGS" not "gigging with players at your level."

Put your average home-hack-world-class-player in a playing situation with good players, and what you're going to hear out of him is a bunch of excuses and apologies.

[Tag]

Originally posted by rwe333
Ya know, you hear this kind of thing all the time:
"I know amateurs that smoke most pros, and pros that suck."
While this may be true to a degree, it's not the overwhelming reality, i.e., it's the exception that proves the rule.
Fact is most pro players are more experienced and better players than most amateurs.
For example: Just cause someone can run the changes over band-in-a-box doesn't mean they can hang w/ the heavies...
The other reality is that the folks you idolize and/or have studied w/ are pros...

I really disagree with you here as well. I know far more excellent guitarists that are not pros. I know many who play for a living, and many get trapped into playing and learning songs that do NOTHING for your ability as a musician. For improvisation, take two guitarists and have them play over a backing track. The guy who plays better over that track is going to play better in a live situation 9 out of 10 times imo. Some guys interact better than others, but all the interaction in the world is not going to make you a great soloist. You have to be great to begin with. Mark Whitfield said that most of the phenominal players he knew at Berklee went on to do other things and put music second.

[Tag]

Originally posted by rwe333
Of course you would because you aren't gigging regularly.
It's hard to justify disagreeing w/ something you haven't truly experienced... Right? Get a consistent gig improvising for a length of time - will certainly focus/define any practice/study done at home...

Did you miss the part where I said I did it for 15 years??

[rwe333]

Originally posted by Tag
Did you miss the part where I said I did it for 15 years??

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe much of your gigging days were in rock bands where you had to ape solos. No?
This thread relates to improvisational concepts - jazz. To the best of my knowledge you have not actively been doing jazz dates, right? Most of your jazz time has been w/ Mr. Hart (cool!) and at home, correct?
This was the impression I was under, hence my post...

[rwe333]

Originally posted by Tag
I really disagree with you here as well. I know far more excellent guitarists that are not pros. I know many who play for a living, and many get trapped into playing and learning songs that do NOTHING for your ability as a musician. For improvisation, take two guitarists and have them play over a backing track. The guy who plays better over that track is going to play better in a live situation 9 out of 10 times imo. Some guys interact better than others, but all the interaction in the world is not going to make you a great soloist. You have to be great to begin with. Mark Whitfield said that most of the phenominal players he knew at Berklee went on to do other things and put music second.

Guess we have a different circle of friends. ;)
I'm fortunate enough to know a great many heavy pro guys...

[rh]

Originally posted by Tag
Did you miss the part where I said I did it for 15 years??

It doesn't have a long shelf life.

[Tag]

Originally posted by rwe333
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe much of your gigging days were in rock bands where you had to ape solos. No?
This thread relates to improvisational concepts - jazz. To the best of my knowledge you have not actively been doing jazz dates, right? Most of your jazz time has been w/ Mr. Hart (cool!) and at home, correct?
This was the impression I was under, hence my post...

In the early years of course I learned solos note for note. I was playing out doing cover tunes 6 months after I picked up the guitar for the first time. After the first few years, I improvised everything. I would throw jazz lines and changes in all over, and got thrown out of one band for it. I played all kinds of music, but not really straight ahead jazz. No market for it. You hit it right when you said you have to learn at home, then you can hone it on stage, but you are not going to be learning totally new concepts on stage. You learn here and there, but its really applying what you already have digested live. If you are woodshedding live, I dont want to be in the audience listening to it, thats for sure.

[Tag]

Originally posted by rwe333
Guess we have a different circle of friends. ;)
I'm fortunate enough to know a great many heavy pro guys...
And I bet I know some home guys who can play every bit as well, or better. :)

[rh]

Originally posted by Tag
And I bet I know some home guys who can play every bit as well, or better. :)

Depends on how you define "play."

[Tag]

Originally posted by rhuddleston
Talk is cheap.

Give me a call when you are in the area. Ill bring you around to see some players and back it up. Then you can play my Bruno, try to steal it, and get bit by my dog all at the same time. :D

[RichardB]

Originally posted by Tag
[B You hit it right when you said you have to learn at home, then you can hone it on stage, but you are not going to be learning totally new concepts on stage. You learn here and there, but its really applying what you already have digested live. If you are woodshedding live, I dont want to be in the audience listening to it, thats for sure. [/B]

My feelings exactly...True advancements in a musicians concept are made alone. Ask Bill Evans when he was alive...his whole life is an example of this...

Re the point about 2 guys playing over a backing and the guy who sounds better over the trk will sound better live:

True up to a point imv. The gig-hardened player normally is more used to "delivering" the goods while under the more pressured environment of live playing. The living-room player will often sound alarmingly below the level they managed to project on the backing, cuz they arent used to being out of the living room comfort zone ...Loud drummers, unfavorable acoustics etc etc etc can freeze the livingroom player...

[Ed DeGenaro]

Originally posted by Tag
And I bet I know some home guys who can play every bit as well, or better. :)

I'd like to meet some of them...

[Ed DeGenaro]

I am very aware of the pitfalls of gigging. Everytime I end up doing a consitent 2+ gigs a week I get lazy when it comes to woodshedding. And vice versa.

Last I checked music was mostly a communal thing. So, as nice as honing anything is for the chops deprtment...whatcha gonna do with that ability? Lock yourself in a room and tell yourselff that you're the greatest unknown discovery.

Really this "I know players that can smoke pros..."
I have a wife that can cut the ends of my hair but it doesn't make her Vidal Sassoon.
Always excuses from the guys that do it as a hobby.
YOU ARE WHAT YOU DO!

All this crap notwithstanding how did we end up arguing about this i nstead discussing the thread at hand?

[rh]

"You gotta practice to get better."

Well, if that isn't stating the obvious as if it were profound.

[rh]

Originally posted by Tag
I totally disagree with Dave Holland on this.

Dave Holland's forgotten more about music than you're ever gonna know, and you're going to disagree with him based on...what, again?

I know a major waste of time when it hits me in the butt. That's it for me on this one.

"It's all talk. Elephant talk!" -- Adrian Belew

[Tag]

Originally posted by rhuddleston
Dave Holland's forgotten more about music than you're ever gonna know,


That depends on how hard I am going to apply myself in the future. IMO, I have plenty of ability to reach any stage I want. :cool:

On Dave Holland... If he says his playing advanced more from playing live than from the hours he spent practicing alone, my choice is I simply do not believe him. :eek: It takes hours and hours of listening, transcribing, rewinding, playing, getting it wrong, going back trying again, relearning..etc etc to get and digest new concepts. That is simply impossible for ANYONE to learn just from playing live imo.

[rwe333]

Originally posted by Tag
That depends on how hard I am going to apply myself in the future. IMO, I have plenty of ability to reach any stage I want. :cool:

On Dave Holland... If he says his playing advanced more from playing live than from the hours he spent practicing alone, my choice is I simply do not believe him. :eek: It takes hours and hours of listening, transcribing, rewinding, playing, getting it wrong, going back trying again, relearning..etc etc to get and digest new concepts. That is simply impossible for ANYONE to learn just from playing live imo.

Geez Tag, I guess you didn't read (or re-read) my original post...
Obviously gigging is in addition to woodshedding.
Where the hell was it written anywhere that you only need to gig?

The point is (I think) that one must practice, study, etc. But in order to realize/define the concepts, define a voice, and learn how to interact/improvise/comp in real world situation, gigging will bring this into focus quicker than anything (if you've done your homework).

[Tag]

Originally posted by RichardB
My feelings exactly...True advancements in a musicians concept are made alone. Ask Bill Evans when he was alive...his whole life is an example of this...

Re the point about 2 guys playing over a backing and the guy who sounds better over the trk will sound better live:

True up to a point imv. The gig-hardened player normally is more used to "delivering" the goods while under the more pressured environment of live playing. The living-room player will often sound alarmingly below the level they managed to project on the backing, cuz they arent used to being out of the living room comfort zone ...Loud drummers, unfavorable acoustics etc etc etc can freeze the livingroom player...

I totally agree. Thats just a case of nerves, and disapperas after the first few gigs. Of course a goold old Xanax will take care of it as well. :D

[Tag]

Originally posted by rwe333
Geez Tag, I guess you didn't read (or re-read) my original post...
Obviously gigging is in addition to woodshedding.
Where the hell was it written anywhere that you only need to gig?

The point is (I think) that one must practice, study, etc. But in order to realize/define the concepts, define a voice, and learn how to interact/improvise/comp in real world situation, gigging will bring this into focus quicker than anything (if you've done your homework).
Ok, then after all this disagreeing, it looks like we agree. :)

[dumb donnie]

While that was fun to read I am a little sad this thread got so derailed. Now that we are back on topic, can anyone answer my question? Originally posted by dumb donnie
You mentioned earlier that this stuff is just the very basic foundation for this view, where can I find some more advanced stuff? Any books or sites that go into more detail?

[rwe333]

Originally posted by dumb donnie
While that was fun to read I am a little sad this thread got so derailed. Now that we are back on topic, can anyone answer my question?

I mentioned Jim Grantham's "The Jazzmaster Cookbook"

Mark Levine "The Jazz Theory Book"

Older things like Coker's "Improvising Jazz"

others will chime in, I'm sure...

[Tag]

Originally posted by dumb donnie
While that was fun to read I am a little sad this thread got so derailed. Now that we are back on topic, can anyone answer my question?

I honestly do not know of any books that use this exact system. Richie Hart is a Jazz instructer at Berklee in boston, and I know he teaches it. Another forum member just started studying with him privately. He lives in Conn. Maybe I should write a book on it. Hmmmm.

[Pete2]

Originally posted by Tag
I honestly do not know of any books that use this exact system. Richie Hart is a Jazz instructer at Berklee in boston, and I know he teaches it. Another forum member just started studying with him privately. He lives in Conn. Maybe I should write a book on it. Hmmmm.


I am the aforementioned forum member! Thanks again Tag for the referral to Richie. I had my first lesson with him last Saturday, and have been shedding every day since. Next lesson is next Saturday, and I'm really looking forward to it.

It's more than a little premature for me to talk authoritatively on any of this, but I can give you my viewpoint for what it's worth...

The thing about what Tag's talking about is that it requires a lot of ear training. This particular teacher does not use any written materials, and I'm not even sure how you could write it into a book. In fact, in my lesson, I didn't write one thing down-- he recorded the entire lesson on CD, and then handed me the CD when I left. The purpose of this is that the only way for me to absorb the material now is by listening to the lesson over and over, not reading from notes. My first assignment is to transcribe the first couple choruses of a Wes Montgomery solo. The mantra in my lesson was "Bring your ears and leave your brain at the door."!!!!

I'm pretty turned off by mumbo jumbo jazz conversations that sound like Greek to most people including me. Wes Montgomery never knew how to read music, and barely even knew the names of the notes on the fretboard. Wes learned by ear and then from playing with other players. So did most of the great jazz musicians. All the analysis and nerdy theory came afterwards. So my goal is to be able to take the music in my head, and play it out through my guitar, without a theoretical translation going on. If I can express myself with theory some day down the line, that's fine, but it's not an end in itself.

That is this teacher's approach which has a huge appeal to me, as someone who learned to play guitar by ear. But it is achievable by anyone who takes the time to learn tunes and transcribe great solos.

Back to practicing!

Pete

[Tag]

Its funny. I first took lessons from Richie when he was teaching night courses at a local collage. At that time, he taught every scale, mode, arpeggio, substitution etc etc. that there is, wrote them on the board, and we all sat there and copied them note for note. I was just starting, so I must have been around 20. That puts Richie around 26-27 I believe. It was not until several years later that I started studying with him privately. His entire teaching method changed, and all the scales and that type of thing was gone. We started taping lessons, and I still have almost every single one on cassette. I bet I have over 100 of them. Many I would just tape over as I went along. (I could not afford new cassettes every week). Some I still do have, and I want to see if I can post a little of them. Richie came around to believing the best way to learn is to listen and transcribe, with enough theory along the way to keep you informed of what was going on. It totally changed my playing, and the way I hear music. I am forever grateful. :)

[jzucker]

Originally posted by Pete2
I'm pretty turned off by mumbo jumbo jazz conversations that sound like Greek to most people including me.

I agree with about 99% of what you said. Wes Montgomery, Benson and countless others didn't know scales and complex theories of music.

However, there are also countless other great players such as Brecker, Metheny, Liebman, Bierach, Abercrombie, etc., who do know the theoretical mumbo-jumbo.

The most dangerous thing you can do is close your mind and make a decision regarding the viability of a particular methodology, particularly at an early point in your development.

The dichotomy in your statements is that - on the one hand - you cite cats like Wes and - on the other hand - You're studying with a guitar teacher. Benson and Wes were self taught. If you are truly adverse to academics, why not just skip the teacher and just learn everything from records?

I'm not trying to be an ass but I am trying to point out that what you are really seeking is knowledge. You are going to Ritchie in the hopes that he will help you gain that knowledge more quickly.

That's great and he's a phenominal player and teacher. Just remember that theoretical mumbo-jumbo is also simply knowledge. Once you know it, you can forget it and just play.

Jaz

[lhallam]

Originally posted by dumb donnie
While that was fun to read I am a little sad this thread got so derailed. Now that we are back on topic, can anyone answer my question?

Jack Zucker had a great thread a few months ago asking about and there were a ton of books listed on it. Another member went through the trouble of assembling them in one post. I asked the admins to archive it but can't find it so I don't know if it fell off the map or not.

[Tag]

Originally posted by jzucker
I agree with about 99% of what you said. Wes Montgomery, Benson and countless others didn't know scales and complex theories of music.

However, there are also countless other great players such as Brecker, Metheny, Liebman, Bierach, Abercrombie, etc., who do know the theoretical mumbo-jumbo.

The most dangerous thing you can do is close your mind and make a decision regarding the viability of a particular methodology, particularly at an early point in your development.

The dichotomy in your statements is that - on the one hand - you cite cats like Wes and - on the other hand - You're studying with a guitar teacher. Benson and Wes were self taught. If you are truly adverse to academics, why not just skip the teacher and just learn everything from records?

I'm not trying to be an ass but I am trying to point out that what you are really seeking is knowledge. You are going to Ritchie in the hopes that he will help you gain that knowledge more quickly.

That's great and he's a phenominal player and teacher. Just remember that theoretical mumbo-jumbo is also simply knowledge. Once you know it, you can forget it and just play.

Jaz

Great post Jack, and I agree with it 100%. As far as Benson being self taught, I think he was really taught by McDuff, Red Holloway, and all the great players he was touring with at the time. You can hear HUGE improvements in his playing in those early years. i think wes was pretty much totally slf taught, although his brothjers played too, so Im sure he learned a lot from them. Im just saying that they had guys to answer their questions as they went along. I think Russell Malone is totally self taught as well, and I know some disagree, but I think he is KILLER player. (I could be wrong, but I think I remember Russel saying that).. Also, while Riche does teach by ear, theory goes along with it, and he answers all questions, and always gives you things to think about as well. I have all these on tape, and believe me, I was always the student he said had more questions than anyone. :( I always over analyzed everything, thought about scales and modes, (from my former teachers), and it was Richie who was able to break me out of that and learn to play first, think second. It took 10 years for this to happen. My ears did not really open to jazz at all until I was in my mid 30s. This is due to the fact that I constantly turned back to scales\modes, and refused to 100% believe Richie. I always sounded like a rock fusion player trying to play jazz. Jack, this is no knock on your book, because it is a work of art. I just think it is much more geared to someone who is already a "player", than someone who is starting out trying to play jazz. It is loaded from front to back with interesting ideas, and different ways to look at what you already know, and that is always a great thing! Also, it is excellent for a beginner imo, as long as they are working with a teacher to learn songs along the way. I believe you have stated this yourself many times.

[jzucker]

I agree Tag.

I think it's important to understand the theory AND be able to play by ear.

When you can play by ear and understand the theory behind it you have the best of both worlds.

[Pete2]

Originally posted by jzucker
I agree with about 99% of what you said. Wes Montgomery, Benson and countless others didn't know scales and complex theories of music.

However, there are also countless other great players such as Brecker, Metheny, Liebman, Bierach, Abercrombie, etc., who do know the theoretical mumbo-jumbo.

The most dangerous thing you can do is close your mind and make a decision regarding the viability of a particular methodology, particularly at an early point in your development.

The dichotomy in your statements is that - on the one hand - you cite cats like Wes and - on the other hand - You're studying with a guitar teacher. Benson and Wes were self taught. If you are truly adverse to academics, why not just skip the teacher and just learn everything from records?

I'm not trying to be an ass but I am trying to point out that what you are really seeking is knowledge. You are going to Ritchie in the hopes that he will help you gain that knowledge more quickly.

That's great and he's a phenominal player and teacher. Just remember that theoretical mumbo-jumbo is also simply knowledge. Once you know it, you can forget it and just play.

Jaz

Jack, I don't disagree with this. In my post, I did say that perhaps one day I'll be able to express myself in theoretical terms. I expect that I will over time. It's just that I'm going to let my ears lead my learning, not the theory. Your "Chords as Colors" post, while you may not realize it, is almost completely useless to a jazz beginner like me. It made no sense to me. You probably take for granted what you know, not on purpose, but just because it's so natural to you.

Although I'm just getting going, I can already see that the thing for a beginner in jazz to do is not get intimidated by all the theory that sounds like mumbo jumbo at first... just start by learning things by ear. The analogy that Richie gave me is that you first learn how to speak as a child by listening and imitating adults. Only years later after you already knew how to communicate verbally did you then go back and analyze it, learn grammer, learn how to read, etc. Where would I be today without all the schooling I've had in language, literature, writing, etc.? It was all valuable. But as a jazz guitar player, I'm at the imitation stage, and that is where I'm focusing most of my energy, with the help of a good teacher.

Pete

[jzucker]

Originally posted by Pete2
It made no sense to me. You probably take for granted what you know, not on purpose, but just because it's so natural to you.


I realize it may not make sense to a beginner but I was hoping to fuel a deeper debate with shades of gray instead of the old playing by ear vs. theory debates.

What people often forget or don't realize is that it takes incredible hard work and dedication to master the instrument. If it was easy, everyone would be a great musician.

Don't confuse the fact that something might seem incredibly difficult. Often times, it's worth struggling through the difficulty. You are doing that with your studies and I admire that.

I just call for more tolerance on the other side of things.

It reminds me of the useability software debates. Folks often criticize Finale for being hard to use. Adobe's Photoshop is 10x harder to use and yet it's the defacto standard for artists all over the world. It turns out that the Adobe design goal wasn't to make the software easy for a beginner to learn. Instead, the goal was to make it easy to use once you know it. Other software such as the Microsoft suites is easy to learn but is crap once you know it!

The fact is that being easy to learn is not the final test for a methodology's usefulness. The final output is.

Clearly you can be great without knowing theory. However, I just ask that you not discount it just because it's hard or difficult or obtuse.

Jaz

[Tag]

Originally posted by jzucker
I realize it may not make sense to a beginner but I was hoping to fuel a deeper debate with shades of gray instead of the old playing by ear vs. theory debates.

What people often forget or don't realize is that it takes incredible hard work and dedication to master the instrument. If it was easy, everyone would be a great musician.

Don't confuse the fact that something might seem incredibly difficult. Often times, it's worth struggling through the difficulty. You are doing that with your studies and I admire that.

I just call for more tolerance on the other side of things.

It reminds me of the useability software debates. Folks often criticize Finale for being hard to use. Adobe's Photoshop is 10x harder to use and yet it's the defacto standard for artists all over the world. It turns out that the Adobe design goal wasn't to make the software easy for a beginner to learn. Instead, the goal was to make it easy to use once you know it. Other software such as the Microsoft suites is easy to learn but is crap once you know it!

The fact is that being easy to learn is not the final test for a methodology's usefulness. The final output is.

Clearly you can be great without knowing theory. However, I just ask that you not discount it just because it's hard or difficult or obtuse.

Jaz

Jack,
The biggest problem that I had, and I think many still have, is extended chords. What took me so long to realize is that it is actually EASIER to play on extended chords, because more of the notes in the scale are being heard. The other thing is altered chords. Once you realize when you see a flat9, you dont have to play a flat 9, things get SO much easier. Instead of learning an altered scale on its own, which just sounds wrong, you learn some altered LINES. Then you see how the altered notes are really leading tones, and are heard MOVING from one place to another. I remember learning scales, and trying to play an altered scale against a stagnate altered Dom chord. It just sounds like $hit! Even an altered scale run straight up or down against an altered dom chord in context sounds pretty strange. Once you learn a few easy altered lines, you HEAR how it works.
Take a sharp 5 note. The first note of Stormy weather. DONT know why, theres no sun up......... If you are in G Maj, the "Dont" note is the #5 of D7. Everyone knows that sound. If you are taught a song where each altered note (a song with a flat5, b9, #9 etc) is in a melody that people are familiar with, then altered notes make sense to the ear. (plenty of Beatles songs do this) I think then it is easy to see how altered chords are just those pretty tones put together, and when you play certain ones together, they can form other chords that are all related to that basic chord. Then it starts to show guys how to play "out".

[jzucker]

Originally posted by Tag
Jack,
The biggest problem that I had, and I think many still have, is extended chords. What took me so long to realize is that it is actually EASIER to play on extended chords, because more of the notes in the scale are being heard. The other thing is altered chords. Once you realize when you see a flat9, you dont have to play a flat 9, things get SO much easier. Instead of learning an altered scale on its own, which just sounds wrong, you learn some altered LINES. Then you see how the altered notes are really leading tones, and are heard MOVING from one place to another. I remember learning scales, and trying to play an altered scale against a stagnate altered Dom chord. It just sounds like $hit! Even an altered scale run straight up or down against an altered dom chord in context sounds pretty strange. Once you learn a few easy altered lines, you HEAR how it works.
Take a sharp 5 note. The first note of Stormy weather. DONT know why, theres no sun up......... If you are in G Maj, the "Dont" note is the #5 of D7. Everyone knows that sound. If you are taught a song where each altered note (a song with a flat5, b9, #9 etc) is in a melody that people are familiar with, then altered notes make sense to the ear. (plenty of Beatles songs do this) I think then it is easy to see how altered chords are just those pretty tones put together, and when you play certain ones together, they can form other chords that are all related to that basic chord. Then it starts to show guys how to play "out".

I agree with you re: Scales but I look at it differently. A scale is like a set of colors an artist has on the palette. The art is not in the colors on the palette (the scale). The art is in taking those colors and turning them into a painting (the lines)

Jaz

[Tag]

Originally posted by jzucker
I agree with you re: Scales but I look at it differently. A scale is like a set of colors an artist has on the palette. The art is not in the colors on the palette (the scale). The art is in taking those colors and turning them into a painting (the lines)

Jaz

Agreed. The problem arises when someone starts to hear this color goes with this, and that color goes with that. Thats when I find scales to be limiting. To play and mix all the different colors (scales) together is when things really start getting beautiful, and how jazz is played.

[jzucker]

Originally posted by Tag
Agreed. The problem arises when someone starts to hear this color goes with this, and that color goes with that. Thats when I find scales to be limiting. To play and mix all the different colors (scales) together is when things really start getting beautiful, and how jazz is played.

Again, the scales are the limiting factor. The player is. I have taught my son the chord scales and "rules" of what to play over the changes. However, he does not base his improvisations on the scales. I have taught him that scales are arpeggios. (1,3,5,7,9,11 & 13 sorted = 1,2,3,4,5,6,7) If he knows the scale, he knows the arpeggio for a particular chord. He knows he can alter the arpeggio to include the b9, #9, #11 or whatever. By playing the "arpeggio" he hears the outline of the chord and can construct his own line which can weave in and out of the arpeggio as he hears it.

Of course, I'm a huge believer in transcriptions and he's also copying coltrane, wes,benson, martino, bird, etc.

He is beginning to understand and appreciates the differences between someone like George Benson and someone like John Abercrombie.

I just don't agree that theory and its discussions are mumbo-jumbo.

I've heard the same things said about reading music. Benson, Wes, Stevie and Jimi didn't read so why should I?!?

[TonyV]

Originally posted by jzucker
I agree with you re: Scales but I look at it differently. A scale is like a set of colors an artist has on the palette. The art is not in the colors on the palette (the scale). The art is in taking those colors and turning them into a painting (the lines)

Jaz

I completely disagree they are not colors but more like spices a chef has on a spice rack. The chord progression is the recipe with the melody being the meat. What scales you use, say the dorian, commonly known as the saffron mode, flavors the improvisation.

Transforming a standard tune into a bebop tune is just as simple as adding oregano to a bland meatloaf.

Now take the tune "My Heart Will Go On, that's a pimento loaf, there is just no saving that one.

;)

[jzucker]

Originally posted by TonyV
I completely disagree they are not colors but more like spices a chef has on a spice rack. The chord progression is the recipe with the melody being the meat. What scales you use, say the dorian, commonly known as the saffron mode, flavors the improvisation.

Transforming a standard tune into a bebop tune is just as simple as adding oregano to a bland meatloaf.

Now take the tune "My Heart Will Go On, that's a pimento loaf, there is just no saving that one.

;)

You just gave me heartburn! :D

[dkaplowitz]

Great thread! I copied this one to text for posterity. Tag, are you still thinking along these lines? Any new insights to the approach?

Either way, thanks for the great thread!

Dave

[gainiac]

I really love it when you guys have a thread like this. So thanks.

Now, I'm a rock player, I don't have the discipline to become a competent jazz player, as much as I enjoy listening to jazz I know in my heart that it is not the genre I favor with which to express myself.

BUT, I really enjoy the color of jazz and how much more of an exotic and sophisticated sound palette jazz is derived from.

Recently you guys had a similiar discussion along these lines and I think it was Tag who said rock is all "tonic" and it just hit me like a lightening bolt.

I've been floundering because so much of what is written, and what I write doesn't seem to really go anywhere with the same tension/ release authority that dominates classical and jazz. Rock is primitive.

So as a rock player what I've been desperately seeking to understand is how to take the "tonic" riff/hook ideas that so many rock tunes are made from and imply a more sophisticated sense of harmonic movement over/under it with which to dynamically expand the music I enjoy.

I know quite a few things all ready, my major scales, my pentatonics, 7 chords with various common extensions etc.

To me though all my knowledge is containerized in very discrete relationships not necessarily tied together by a bigger picture. I know their is a bigger perspective on these things but I've caught only half understood glimpses of it. I'm certainly not a dummy either. I know I can understand this stuff.

It's like I'm in 2D space versus 3D.

What are some of the things a player in my position can do in order to maximize the use of what I've learned already?

I feel It's a matter of intergrating my existing knowledge understanding all its application with what I know already before I can move on.

[beePee]

Tag ,

Very informative(even though I haven't read the WHOLE thread yet) and a great example how the ear is the real instrument.Joe Pass had a huge influence on me by boiling it down to the basics without muddying the issue.Th proliferation of books DVD's and tutotrials on modes,arpeggios etc.. and what to play over what chords has side tracked many a player.

Luckily in the day those guys just had to use their ear because nothing else was readliy available.They learned to communicate/assimilate the theory of what they heard after they understood it.Now a days it's the opposite and sadly it shows with what sounds mostly more like scale and arppeggio excercises than music.

It always amazes me (though it shouldn't)when I discover something how basic it is.The most usefull thing about knowing theory to me is being able to quickly and efficently grasp the why but it's almost always after the fact instead of a book learnin thang.

BP

[StevenA]

Conceptual music theory is a fascinating subject. Slomninsky, Russell, Leibman, Goodrick, Martino; I have tried to understand them all , except that I had to bail shortly after Martino's space warp metaphysical theory before I killed someone. I think it was Howard Roberts, (emphasize think), who championed the idea that musicians should direct their energy towards playing first, and then will they have a stronger idea what practicing direction they need to follow. For example, early on when playing jazz blues I could swing clearly over the first eight measures and then would freeze at the turn around. Aha! Someone needs to spend a bit more time listening, transcribing, and writing to develop those last four measures. Currently, I can play intelligently over three choruses of Giant Steps, and then have a breakdown. Someone needs more vocabulary! The point is that playing is where I want to be, not practicing. However, I will gladly zero in on my disabilities when my playing is suffering. But then its quickly back to playing again. I'm currently studying photography. Don't know very much, but that hasn't stopped me from taking thousands of pictures.. When those photos are displayed for analysis, I will clearly know where to direct my study, (depth of field, focus, exposure, etc). There are tens of thousands of guitarists who don't know 1/10 of what I know, and I couldn't carry their guitar cases. The only thing that matters is hearing it in your head and playing it on your instrument. Do that, and you will have succeeded where 99% of others have failed.

Steven

[willhutch]

I just picked up on this thread today. I read Tag's initial post thru to where the nit-picking started and then skipped ahead. Can I pick this up again in the hopes of getting some growth out of this?

Tag, please elaborate on your approach in light of my analysis:

You divide the diatonic chord scale into two groups, the tonic and the dominant. In key of C:
Tonic chords (I'll use triads) are C, Em, Am.
Dominant Chords: Dm, F, G, Bm7b5.

Now, lets look at the collection of NOTES in these two groups and compare them:

Tonic group contains C,D,E,G,A,B (only F is absent)
Dominant group contains C,D,E,F,G,A,B (all 7 notes occur)
*these collections are valid whether we use triads or seveth chords.

The only difference between the two note collections is the absence of F in the tonic group. The similarity of the two groups, with the single exception of F, draw me to two conclusions:

1) Because the two groups share all but one note, I think you need more specificity in note choices in order to follow chords thru changes. I was hoping that there would be more exclusivity between the note collections, so that there would be more notes to "accentuate", as you said, when you go from a tonic to a dominant chord. But as it turns out, the note collections are identical but for one note. I conclude - and I believe you wouldn't disagree - that you need to be more specific with note choices to outline the feeling of moving between dominan and tonic sounds. Example, playing actual chord tones of , say the ii the V and I as you move thru a tune. Tag mentioned accentuating the sound of D dorian over the dominant chords. I'd like to hear more.

2) Now, F is the sole note that doesn't belong to the tonic group. Further, I observed that F is a chord tone in ALL FOUR of the dominant chords: Dm, F,G7,Bm7b5. This is obviously the crucial note in Tag's paradigm, the single note that seems to allow for a dominant quality in diatonic music (?). What're the practical implications here? Be sure to play an F over a member of the dominant family? Certainly avoid F of over tonic chords (the IV is sometimes called an "avoid note"). ?????interesting.

Fun stuff. I haven't put my fingers to the strings yet to play with this...I think I may just do so now..........thanks for the ideas.....hmmmmm.....

[KRosser]

IV dominant- I tonic. Thats the way I hear it.

In a strictly 'common practice' plagal cadence the IV is not dominant. That would be a chromatic alteration. IV is still the subdominant.

[KRosser]

Last I checked A mixo was mode V of D maj. And E dorian being mode 2 of D major. Same notes. It's assumed that you know that you hit the strong notes for the right chords.
The A7 is a dominant. Resolving to a minor.
No idea why you would even consider treating any V chord that is functioning and not a static vamp as tonic.

I'm with Ed on this....

[KRosser]

However, there are also countless other great players such as Brecker, Metheny, Liebman, Bierach, Abercrombie, etc., who do know the theoretical mumbo-jumbo.


I took a couple of lessons w/Abercrombie, and while he certainly knows lots of theoretical mumbo-jumbo, it was, and continues to be, his loose and intuitive feel for organizing that information that floors me as a player and listener.

The most dangerous thing you can do is close your mind and make a decision regarding the viability of a particular methodology, particularly at an early point in your development.



I completely agree, and I also find I'm not particularly attracted to methodology-based artists, really.

[KRosser]

My feelings exactly...True advancements in a musicians concept are made alone. Ask Bill Evans when he was alive....

I don't have to. I heard him on a radio show and the interviewer asked him, "You're known for having these incredibly empathetic bands, how often do you rehearse", and he said, "Never - we practice on the bandstand". Marc Johnson said that when BE hired him, he was flown out expecting a rehearsal, but Evans gave him the book and told him what time the gig was. Or how about Wayne Shorter's first gig with the Miles Quintet, at the Hollywood Bowl, where Miles flew him out with no rehearsal, and Wayne told Miles backstage not to worry, that he knew all of Miles' music anyway, and Miles replied "Uh-oh"?

[KRosser]

What people often forget or don't realize is that it takes incredible hard work and dedication to master the instrument.

I don't get the impression that 'mastering the instrument' was of much importance to Miles, or Wayne Shorter, or Joe Henderson, or Sonny Rollins, Horace Silver, Bud Powell, Mingus, Jim Hall, Wes, Django, or even Coltrane for that matter. The big game on their hunt was a voice of their own and a music that meant something deep to them. Their work on the instrument was about getting the instrument 'out of the way' of that process.


The fact is that being easy to learn is not the final test for a methodology's usefulness. The final output is.


Nothing could be more obvious.

[RichardB]

I don't have to. I heard him on a radio show and the interviewer asked him, "You're known for having these incredibly empathetic bands, how often do you rehearse", and he said, "Never - we practice on the bandstand". Marc Johnson said that when BE hired him, he was flown out expecting a rehearsal, but Evans gave him the book and told him what time the gig was. Or how about Wayne Shorter's first gig with the Miles Quintet, at the Hollywood Bowl, where Miles flew him out with no rehearsal, and Wayne told Miles backstage not to worry, that he knew all of Miles' music anyway, and Miles replied "Uh-oh"?

Ken,
Not sure if you are refuting my original post or not, but to discuss further:

I said a musicians "concept" and style is essentially formed alone, and I stand by that. BE formed his style by his endless private practicing. Have you ever heard those tapes his son made of Bill practicing at home...and the same goes for any great musician...

[Washburnmemphis]

willhutch,

You should re-read the fourth paragraph of Tag's first post. I think the point that Tag is making is that the notes that you would use to outline a I7, iiim7, or vim7 can be interchanged, similarly the notes that you play to outline iim7, IV7, V7 or vii7 also can be substituted for each other.

In other words, in the key of C, if you like the sound of a Dmin7 arpeggio over a Dmin7 chord then those same notes will also work over Fmaj7, G7 or Bmin7b5.

[KRosser]

Ken,
Not sure if you are refuting my original post or not, but to discuss further:

I said a musicians "concept" and style is essentially formed alone, and I stand by that. BE formed his style by his endless private practicing. Have you ever heard those tapes his son made of Bill practicing at home...and the same goes for any great musician...

Not refuting; just saying, I don't think it's that 'simple' or that 'universal'. I could name dozens and dozens of musicians whose 'styles' were a direct result of challenges they met on the bandstand.

And I still stand by my observation, that it's impossible to develop a mature voice on an instrument in the practice room alone.

[willhutch]

willhutch,

You should re-read the fourth paragraph of Tag's first post. I think the point that Tag is making is that the notes that you would use to outline a I7, iiim7, or vim7 can be interchanged, similarly the notes that you play to outline iim7, IV7, V7 or vii7 also can be substituted for each other.

In other words, in the key of C, if you like the sound of a Dmin7 arpeggio over a Dmin7 chord then those same notes will also work over Fmaj7, G7 or Bmin7b5.

Thanks Washburn Memphis for jumping in! I get the idea of being able to interchange notes from any tonic chord over any tonic chord, as you point out. My point is that the notes from the tonic family are identical to the notes from the dominant family, with the exception of the IV degree (F, in the examples). The implication is that, with the exeption of F, there are no notes that inherently belong to the tonic or dominat family. More targeted note choices would be need to evoke the feeling of harmonic movement thru a progression.

The second point was that the IV (F) is the only note that differentiates the note collections. Since it doesn't exist in the tonic group, it must someheow be pivotal in Tag's paradigm.

I still haven't toyed with this. But it seems like it could be a useful framework - after all GB uses it! I'd like to hear more. Tag, you got your ears on?

[DrSax]

I think maybe i employ what Tag described, maybe?:

lets say over a fast tune using rhythm changes in Bflat, i usually start off playing lines thinking in terms of Bflat major, but when we get to the ii chord I switch my thinking to highlight that dominant "leading back to the I" change. Which could be as simple as playing the V arppeggio, or playing a dominant scale/arp in B (if you use B lydian dominant, it gets all the altered tones). You can add as many hip ideas to that turnaround as you want. More often than not, though, i'm thinking of little phrases based on chord tones leading somewhere rather than scales.

[hangten]

bill evans may have done endless private practicing, but he also played gig after gig after gig after....

what do you think playing a couple sets each night 5 days a week at the same place does for you? stagnates your playing? maybe so, if you are not interested in improving what you do. or maybe it takes it to a new level because you are listening to what you do and thinking about how it could be truer. practicing and gigging are essential for developing an individual voice. there is no getting around it. you also have to THINK and be honest with yourself about what you are doing.

to say that "True advancements in a musicians concept are made alone." is
true ONLY on the sense that you are the only person in YOUR mind...but there is no way you can look at Bill Evans and say that his individual voice and musical concept came solely from within his mind and was utterly unaffected by the gigs he played and by the musicians he interacted with.

[cg]

Tag - I'm going to give this a shot. I may ping you with questions.

[gennation]

I thought this was a cool read. Tag's original approach does have merit, based on him stating it's a good way of getting started.

While I think we all know it's obviously not the ONLY way to do things.

But, it's a nice way of organizing some sounds and what's appropriate.

IOW, it's a better approach that guitarists confusingly changing to a new scale for every chord in a Diatonic progression. And, then if a song has more than one Key, they get even more confused. Regardless it's sounds like a robot playing "this scale for this chord, etc..."

It kind of has the same approach but Tags comments kind of trims that stuff down. So, while there may still be some confused guitarists out there, it's a little less confusing, and more tightly structured than the "a new scale for every chord" approach.

Playing "this scale for these sets of chords, and this scale for these sets of chords" is a little less meticulous. It'll help all of people play a little "free'er" if you will.

But, all in all, EVERY approach is right, and when used together you have a better chance of playing music as opposed a one directional sound.

The best thing you can do in playing is keep an open mind, an open ear, and an open eye. And keep going through those musical changes trying every concept/idea new and preconcieved...none of it will hurt you as a musicians.

That's my thoughts.

[gennation]

Resurrecting a great thread started by Tag last year ...

Actually it was started about 3 years ago. It has the perpetual bump factor :)

[Mike T]

I just read all 121 posts here. (I know...get a life!) Really though, I am very intersted in harmonic appraoch, technique development, and the line of communication between our ears and our instrument. I believe it starts in the ears. Some players need no more than their ears, their technique, and their intellect, like Wes. But the vast majorty of us mortals need to study and organize thoughts and concepts and need ways of immediatly accessing this knowledge. The method of organization is secondary to the accessability the player has to it, if he wants to be a player. In the case of Wes it was probably just instinct... As he developed his technique, which I am sure involved studying masters like Charlie Christian and Bird he probably was just instinctively able to apply his inborn ability to hear the harmony. The rest of us have to study concepts and disciplines, train our ears to hear them, and apply all this to our private practice to be able to incorporate them instinctively into our personal arsonal of improvisation. We can argue about them, Tag can call the II chord Dominant while I call it Sub-Dominant. But in the end, who cares (although it is very interesting to narrow the whole diatonic concept down to Dominant and Tonic). I am still searching for and probably always will search for the holy grail of harmony. I have been playing professionally for 40 years, went through 7 semsters of Theory and Harmony at Berklee, read George Russels Lydian Chromatic Concept a few times, had 5 or 6 private lessons with John Abercrombie, my most recent find is the series by Jerry Bergonzi, and I still have and I suspect always will have a big void in my mind where harmonic concept and interpretation is concerned. Of course my day job as a computer tech gives me a whole nother (is that a word?) set of issues to deal with. That's just to say I don't do music for a living (although I'll have had 15 gigs this month by the time it is through). The point is I can afford to be philisophical about it. If you know either instinctively or through conscious study, basic diatonic harmony, pentatonic scales and theory, melodic and harmonic minor, maybe diminished and whole tone, you'll find your own path from there. And that path, I believe, has to be equal private practice/study and live performance. Not neccessarrily tit for tat, like practice 8 hours a week and gig 8 hours a week. That is impracticle in my life. With me it works more like practice for six months or a year then steadily gig for six months or a year. Granted, the majority of my live performance these days is playing Led Zepplin and AC/DC, but whatever concept you are burning into your system a live performance with competent musicians, muscians that listen first and understand time, dynamics, and silence, in almost any idiom that allows improvisation is a vehicle for you to grow.

[shigihara]

I just read all 121 posts here. (I know...get a life!)


you might as well watch the benson art of jazz guitar dvd...
which makes us mere mortals painfully aware that he's in a
different universe altogether...
some of his comments and 'playing around' are hilarious !!!

[gennation]

you might as well watch the benson art of jazz guitar dvd...
which makes us mere mortals painfully aware that he's in a
different universe altogether...
some of his comments and 'playing around' are hilarious !!!

Yeah, when he blows threw the different things he stole from different artist, that's great. I think he just doing a ii-V-I or something and naming out out all these names as he plays the variations...

He's almost in Little Richard mode :)

[dkaplowitz]

Where can I get "The Lydian-Chromatic Concept of Tonal Organization". I am really interested in reading it...

Jamie
http://www.lydianchromaticconcept.com/

http://www.georgerussell.com/lc.html

[Mike T]

Where can I get "The Lydian-Chromatic Concept of Tonal Organization". I am really interested in reading it...

Jamie

http://www.lydianchromaticconcept.com/

oops....didn't see it was already up here...

[shigihara]

He's almost in Little Richard mode :)


yeah... quote: 'it's fun...you can do it too...you should try that sometime'

haha...sure.... :D

[Mike T]

you might as well watch the benson art of jazz guitar dvd...
which makes us mere mortals painfully aware that he's in a
different universe altogether...
some of his comments and 'playing around' are hilarious !!!

Cool...yea I saw him at the Jazz Workshop in '74 playing jazz around the time of "White Rabbit". Boy, was I mortal that night!

[azgolfer]

Tag, it seems you are talking more about lines than scales. So if you have a line that works over one chord in the "dominant" family, it should work over all. And you relate those lines to the dorian mode - so you see the line in relation to that mode ? Then you would have another set of lines for the the "tonic" family, and you would remember those based on where they sit in the Ionian mode. Then you just learn those two modes in all the positions and you can move your lines around freely. Is that the gist ?

[Lucidology]

Have a mu